The Constitution of the USA demands that money must be printed and issued by the government, debt and interest free.

The first American colonists had practised this system and made it legal. They had no tax collecting machinery; they merely printed paper money to pay for public works. They established a government that rejected direct taxation and financed the building and maintenance of schools, hospitals, roads and ports, as well as other government expenditure, with freshly printed paper money. By experience they found that it was not possible to issue unlimited quantities of paper money; that the purchasing power of this money depended on supply and demand. To maintain stable prices and full employment, and create prosperity for all who performed some useful work, they had to ensure that the paper money in circulation did not exceed in value the goods and services offered for sale. They found that too much paper money caused prices to rise, which caused inflation. In this case the further printing of money must be suspended. On the other hand prices fell when too little paper money was put into circulation, so more money must be issued to avoid deflation. All American colonies which observed this simple rule became prosperous in a very short time, enjoyed stable prices for their products and had no unemployment problems.

However, this honest, straightforward monetary system was not to the liking of some European financiers who were determined to impose the dishonest system that had already prevailed all over Europe for the previous 200 years. Let’s see where this goes...

Where do world governments get the enormous amounts of money they need? Most of course comes from taxation; but governments often spend more than they are willing to tax from their citizens and so are forced to borrow. Our National Debt is now a staggering £800 billion – every penny of it borrowed at interest from somewhere.

The public is lead to believe that our government borrows from “the people” through savings bonds. Actually, only the smallest percentage of the National Debt is held by individuals in this form. Most government bonds, except those held by the government itself through its trust funds, are held by vast banking firms known as international banks.  In describing the characteristics of these international bankers, we see that they remained different from other bankers in several different ways: They were incredibly cosmopolitan and truly international; they were close to many governments and were particularly concerned with government debts, including foreign government debts; they were incredibly ruthless in their dealings; calling themselves international bankers, they were soon to become the world’s - Super-bankers.

For centuries there has been big money to be made by international bankers in the funding of governments and kings. Such operators are faced, however, with certain thorny problems. We know that smaller banking operations protect themselves by taking collateral, but what kind of collateral can you get from a government or a king? What if the banker comes to collect and the king says “off with his head”? The process through which one collects a debt from a government or monarch is not a subject readily taught in business schools or universities and most of us, never having been in the business of financing kings, have given the problem much thought. But there is a king financing business and to those who can ensure collection, it is a very lucrative business indeed.

There are only two means to collateralise loans to governments and kings. Whenever a business firm borrows big money its creditor usually obtains a voice in management through a seat on its board to protect its investment. Like a business, no government can borrow big money unless willing to surrender to the lender a degree of its sovereignty as collateral. Certainly international bankers who have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to governments around the world command considerable influence in the policies of such governments. (See Political Failings).

But the ultimate advantage (and perhaps the most sinister) the creditor has over the king or president is that if the ruler steps out of line the financier can finance his enemy or rival. Therefore, if you want to stay in the lucrative king financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or rival waiting in the wings to unseat every king or president to whom you lend. If the king has no enemies, you must create one.

Pre-eminent in playing this game was the famous House of Rothschild. Its founder, Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1742-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany, kept one of his five sons at home to run the Frankfurt bank and sent the others to London, Paris, Vienna and Naples. The Rothschilds became incredibly wealthy during the nineteenth century simply by financing governments to fight each other. If you look back at every war in Europe during the nineteenth century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power’. With every re-shuffling there also came a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of hand a war would break out and the war would always be decided by which way the financing went. Simply researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was going to be punished.

Very little is known of how some unidentified financiers, nearly 350 years ago, succeeded in persuading the rulers of Europe to hand over to them their prerogative of issuing money; it has been kept secret. All we do know is that Holland was in fact the first country on the European continent to be tricked into accepting the bankers' chains; that is why the system of making debts and paying interest is often called "Dutch Finance". We also know that the present American money system is an exact copy of the European system; it is therefore reasonable to presume that the two systems should be the same.

No disrespect to the Americans here, in fact, the only reason I use them for cases of example is that America, in terms of history, is a relative newcomer to the world stage and as such, their history is much better documented and therefore better for use of illustration.

Anyway, it was in 1688, that certain financiers, after securing the right to issue money in Holland, offered the throne of England to the then Prince of Orange if he would surrender to them the royal prerogative of issuing money in England. To silence his misgivings they promised that no harm would come to his father in law, James II, that they would lend him unlimited sums of money at 8% interest, and that every banknote they printed and issued would carry an undertaking that it would be exchanged for gold on demand at their bank: "The Bank of England".

The Prince, unacquainted with the role of paper money in our economic life, agreed. Within a short time James was driven out of his kingdom but was also allowed to escape to the court of Louis XIV, and William III and Mary ascended the English throne. Six years later, the Bank of England was founded.

By misnaming their private bank "The Bank of England" these financiers created the impression that it was a government institution and the money they printed was government property. This was the reason why so few citizens came to the bank to exchange their paper banknotes for gold. From day one, everyone had full confidence in the "Bank of England" and believed that it always would, without fail, exchange all paper banknotes for gold and so these financiers were able to print and issue millions of paper banknotes without any gold cover which they lent out at interest like they would do with real money.

The undertaking that every banknote issued would be covered by gold was broken almost immediately. It is now known that whilst these bankers printed, issued and lent out at interest say £100,000 in banknotes, they had contracted to keep £100,000 in gold coins in their bank vaults. In reality they held only £2,000 in gold coins; the remaining £98,000 were fictitious, had no gold cover, were only paper and could not have been exchanged for gold if the owners had demanded it. They represented an additional profit these financiers made with a capitol of only £2,000. Thus in the course of only one year, assuming that they lent out the £100,000 at 8%, the bankers' £2,000 worth of gold coins realised a profit of £108,000, that is a gain of over 5000%! It is by this method that these financiers acquired the money to literally rule the world.

Just for a minute, think of this. As time goes by, more and more money circulates the world's pockets. That's easy enough to stomache isn't it? Now even today, our banks should still in theory, be able to exchange all of that paper money and indeed the money that floats around in numbers on computer screens, into solid gold for us. But can they honestly do that? There simply isn't that amount of gold, silver, or any other precious metal on the planet to do that. Once again, the issuing of banknotes without the reserve funds available to back them (the contracted gold cover) should have resulted in the permission to issue said banknotes null and void and the financiers would be nothing more than counterfeiters, be they incredibly wealthy ones at that.

In his book, "Which Way the Western World", William Gayley Simpson quoted Christopher Hollis' "The Breakdown of Money" as follows: "In 1694 the government of William III (who had come in from Holland) was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Patterson (or was he merely their front?) offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8% on the condition that 'the governor and company of the Bank of England' as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capitol. That is to say, the bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and turn it into £2,400,000 (double it), lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver, to the government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves. Two years later, by 1696, we find the financiers circulating £1,750,000 worth of banknotes against a gold cash reserve of only £36,000. That was with a backing of only 2% of what they had issued and drawn interest on".

These financiers certainly knew how to drive a hard bargain. William gave them a bond recognising that they lent him £1,200,000 at 8% and by allowing them to print and circulate an equivalent sum in banknotes; he forced his subjects to supply these financiers with goods and services to the tune of £1,200,000! Has money ever been borrowed on more onerous terms? Was this the price he had to pay for them helping him to become King of England? These financiers took no chances; the same day they lent him the money, they paid themselves back in full by printing and issuing the banknotes and received in addition a bond for £1,200,000 at 8% as a present! Was this not a super quick way to make money? If the king himself had printed and issued the money, there would have been no debt and no interest to pay.

By handing over the prerogative of issuing money to international financiers, our Kings, Emperors and democratic governments created a special class of all-powerful Superbankers who are forever battening on war. T. K. Derry, C. H. C. Blount and T. L. Jarman in their "Great Britain" wrote: "In 1649 the government needed to borrow an exceptionally large amount of money to pay for the war against Louis XIV". William III borrowed the then exceptionally large sum of £1,200,000 not for riotous living but to make war. Our governments at the time had balanced budgets where receipts covered expenses; in peace time they had no need to borrow. But when they engaged in war, kings and emperors had to go hat in hand to borrow from these Superbankers who were quite delighted to oblige, making the money required out of paper and receiving bonds in exchange. To instigate wherever and whenever possible and to prolong them as much as possible became for the Superbankers, a most profitable business. Localised wars meant millions of profit, world wars billions.  

As an example, to finance World War I, the British government required about £6,000 million. It borrowed this from these Superbankers who made the amount from printing paper banknotes and granting cheque book credit. In other words; for inducing the British to take part in WWI, these bankers rewarded themselves with a tax free £6,000,000,000! With the help of this dishonest monetary system these Superbankers enriched themselves beyond the dreams of Croesus. That war was 1914 - 1919, WWII ended in 1949, we have only just finished paying for them in the 1990's.

Again W. G. Simpson writes: "There is more to be noted about this 'national' Bank of England. To begin with, its name itself was a deliberate misnomer. That is to say, it was a hoax. Designed to create in people a confidence in it, which from the very start it was the banker's intention to betray. This so called Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and all others modelled on the English original are and always have been private institutions run for the private profit of individuals and their stockholders. The respective governments of the nations in which these 'national banks' have operated have virtually no control over them. The policy of each one has always been determined by what amounts to the absolute dictatorship of its own governor and board, it makes no public report of its profits, and the list of its stockholders is not open to inspection by any outsider, not even by any representative of the national government ..."

We have been persuaded to believe that in the west we are "Free", that the Americans have a government "of the people, for the people, by the people", but Americans, even senators, congressmen or even Presidents of the USA, are not permitted to know the names of the stockholders of their bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, and make them public, or enquire why they pay no income tax on the billions realised with the making of money out of paper. Their names are only known to a few, fearing exposure and retribution, they prefer anonymity.

W. G. Simpson then goes on by quoting A. N. Field in "All Things" as follows: "Thirty three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from the Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived. The pawnshop was then opened ... The history of the second Jewish settlement in Britain is one long trail of parchment bonds shackling the nation in debt. Every step in the ascent of the Jew in the nation’s affairs has been marked by the increase and multiplication of debt. The culmination of which was reached when under the Asquith and Lloyd George ministries, surrounded by the Marconi Scandal Jews, the European war was financed by the fictitious lending of £6,000,000,000 of completely non-existent money. The bare faced fraud of these proceedings was capped after the war by an audacious contraction of the means of payment, and subsequent wholesale wreckage of British industries and reduction of millions of people to wholesale destitution ...”

It has to be pointed out that A. N. Field forgets that millions of Jews had nothing to do with our crooked monetary system and that these bankers with their immense money power helped free us from the chains of our aristocracy and clergy; but the cure was worse than the disease.

It’s more than likely that the stockholders of the Bank of England are also part owners of the Federal Reserve, Banque de France, Bundesbank, Banca d'Italia and other national banks and permit no interference by our governments. In this way they have established a financial world government that dictates our levels of debt and the policies of war and peace that our governments have to adopt because the hand that lends money is always stronger than the hand that borrows.

By handing over the prerogative of issuing money to the stockholders of our national banks, democratic as well as socialist governments became nothing more than the employees of the Superbankers, their well paid clerks, and kings still holding onto their thrones, became rubber stamp monarchs, useful only on ceremonial occasions.

Benjamin Disraeli once told us that the world is secretly ruled by 200 men who know each other personally. Count Walter Rathenau, a prominent member of the banking dynasties, declared before WWI that the brood had increased to 300. Perhaps by now it might be nearer 500. But even so, how is it possible that a brotherhood of just 500 power mad financiers could fool the honest, trusting Simple Simons of the world for 350 years without being exposed?

From time to time there have been people who investigated our present money system and had the courage to expose the knavery. Exposure had no real effect though because our governments, which had the power to stop things and bring about change, simply did nothing, choosing instead to ignore what was being said, or supported by the world press, ridiculed and defamed potential liberators or destroyed them.

Louis T. McFadden, for 12 years chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives, after thoroughly investigating the American money system, on 13th January, addressed Congress in the following fashion: "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank... Some people think they are United States government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers, foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders... On account of the Federal Reserve's operations we are ourselves in the midst of the greatest depression we have ever known. From the Atlantic to the Pacific our country has been ravaged and laid waste by the evil practices of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve banks. At no time in our history has the general welfare of the people of the United States been of a lower level or the minds of the people been so filled with despair. Recently in one of our states, 60,000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer in a single day... 71,000 houses and farms in Oakland County, Michigan have been sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed... Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve board to conceal its powers but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the government of the United States. It controls everything here and it controls our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will... The member banks of the Federal Reserve were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid our hospitality by undermining our American institutions...”

With this speech McFadden established himself as a potential liberator from the banker's chains. He clearly realised: That the terrible recession and thus depression had been created artificially by the Federal Reserve and it's member banks; That it was a gigantic attempt to destroy the middle class society, not only in the USA but worldwide, by deflation; That the depression could be cured overnight by doing away with the Federal Reserve and its 12 member banks, which had created the depression by withdrawing $8,000,000,000 from circulation; That all members of the American government were nothing but loyal, well paid clerks of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.

If in 1932 the Americans had done away with the Federal Reserve and put back the eight billion dollars into circulation, the great depression would have vanished like magic and WWII would never have taken place. So what happened next?

On two occasions gunmen made attempts on McFadden's life. He was preparing to break the full story when he collapsed and died at a banquet. There was no doubt he was poisoned... Men who oppose the Superbankers are not blessed with a long life; their presence in paradise is usually urgently required.

Let's assume for a minute that you were in the Mafia. You works for your boss pays your dues and all is well. For as long as you play by the rules, you live long and prosper. But the minute you get greedy, step out of line, or start working for your own personal goals you get whacked. Touching briefly on this subject, there now follows a brief history of two individuals who wouldn’t play ball:

In 1933, Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany. Almost immediately he inherited the effects of the great depression, massive depreciation of his country's currency and huge reparation payments for WWI. He knew he needed a quick fix if he was to rebuild his country. He printed his own money, interest free, and we know what happened to him.

Similarly, President John F. Kennedy had the cold war to finance. The race into space and the Cuban missile crisis were all costing more than he could afford. He too looked into printing his own money. We know what happened to him too.

Is it just coincidence? Or is there some real significance to this? You decide.