Dear KMAG: 20250219 BRITISH TRADE & DAILY THREAD

When I wrote about Mercantilism last week I mentioned merchant princes and bankers. I neglected to mention transport. You can not have trade without transporting trade goods from one place to another. If you look at American Indians, they had trade routes and used humans, canoes, dogs & camelids for transport. In Eurasia they were lucky enough to have donkeys, camels, horses, oxen and even elephants as beasts of burden. On top of that was the use of the wheel. However the favorite method was by water, to the point rivers were modified and canals were built. Even today water is a preferred method of transporting large amount of goods. And the corollary is you need SAFE trade routes.

Going back in time, to the Khazars and before, you have the Silk Road–a network of trade routes.

THE SILK ROAD

The History of the Silk Road Trade and Cultural Exchange:

BY Umair Waseem [He seems to have other interesting articles.]

The Silk Road was a network of trade routes that connected the East and the West. It spanned across Asia, reaching parts of Europe and Africa. Over the centuries, it played a vital role in the exchange of goods, ideas, and culture. This historic route was not just about commerce; it was also about bridging distant cultures.

Origins of the Silk Road:

The history of the Silk Road traces back to the Han Dynasty of China around 130 BCE. The route started as an overland and maritime network. It connected the great cities of China to Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The earliest motivation was the need for silk.

The term “Silk Road” was coined by the German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen in the 19th century. The term actually refers to the trade of silk, which was one of the most valuable goods traded along the route. However, many other products, such as spices, precious metals, and textiles, were also exchanged.

Key Trade Routes and Expansion:

The Silk Road was not a single road but a network of routes that connected regions….

The Role of Empires in the Silk Road:

There were a number of great powers that helped in the establishment and defense of the Silk Road. The first of these was the Han Dynasty of China, which established strong trade ties with Central Asia. This enabled the empire to dominate the eastern part of the Silk Road and ensure safe passage for goods and people.

The Roman Empire also played a crucial role in the trade along the Silk Road. Even though the Romans never managed to dominate the entire route, their demand for luxury goods such as silk helped propel the trade. The Persian Empire served as an intermediary between East and West, facilitating trade and communication.

The Mongol Empire, under Genghis Khan and his successors, revived the Silk Road. They provided protection and stabilization along the routes, which became a hotbed for merchants to once again trade as they wanted….

Decline of the Silk Road:

…the Silk Road began its decline by the 15th century. The reasons why this occurred were several: the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century… Ottomans controlled much of the Silk Road in key parts that made it arduous for Europeans to access Asian markets.

….the discovery of the maritime trade route made it the efficient way to go. Maritime explorers began to explore sea routes to Asia bypassing the Silk Road totally as it had become an overland road. This led to a decline in trade patterned along the Silk Road accompanied by political instability and attacks….

So the Silk Road trade routes were very important to various empires in the Old World and ESPECIALLY to the people who made money off of trade, that is the bankers and the Merchant Princes. I am going to leave the British East India Company and its tie-ins to another article.

The Brits, as a naval power, were very, very interested in the Middle East. They were also interested in an overland route thru the Middle East.

Treaty of Çanak, (Jan. 5, 1809), pact signed between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain at Çanak (now Çanakkale, Turkey)

…the Treaty of Çanak offered security to the British against the entry of the Russian fleet from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. It also reaffirmed in full Great Britain’s capitulary rights (trading and consular privileges) in the Ottoman Empire, while its secret provisions provided that the British assist the Ottomans in the event of a French declaration of war against them.

(PDF) the 1838 Anglo/Ottoman Commercial Treaty

This agreement expanding British trade rights in Ottoman Empire.

ENTER THE FRENCH

The British and the Ottoman Middle East, 1798-c.1850

In 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt. This was intended to be a blow against the fast-expanding British Empire in India and a major extension into Asia of the war for global dominance between the British and French. Napoleon’s move highlighted to the British the importance of the region between the Mediterranean and India and particularly the large part of it ruled by the Ottoman Empire. In the next fifty years the British became preoccupied with strengthening their position in these lands by using their sea power in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to frustrate their French and also increasingly their Russian rivals. This Special Subject [Course] tells the story of British activities in, attitudes to, and experiences of the Ottoman Middle East in this period, particularly in relation to Egypt, Syria, Arabia and Baghdad. The British could not seize these territories because their international strategy depended on trying to keep the Ottoman Empire alive, but most observers believed that it would shortly collapse and that it was essential to ensure political, economic and moral influence in advance of that point. The course’s ultimate objective is to trace the connections between political, cultural and religious activities in these territories: territories which were not just of strategic, diplomatic and naval significance but also of enormous interest to travellers seeking an understanding of classical and biblical history – and indeed adventure and exotic ‘Oriental’ experiences….

…a great discussion about British political and economic interests, leading among other things to the 1838 Anglo-Ottoman trade treaty (week 5); the invasion of Syria and Palestine in 1840-1 by British troops and agents, resulting in the protection of designated religious minorities…

OK, I want to stop here and look at what the Rothschilds were doing in the 1800s during this time period since they funded most of the European countries and their wars.

Do not forget one of the Rothschilds was a French Banker. The Bank of France was established in 1800. However Napoleon never trusted the Bank of France and he believed that France had to break free of debt. “..The Bank of England was quick to oppose him. By financing every nation in his path, they reaped enormous profits from the war. (Warning bells should be sounding for those of you drawing correlations between that and the international actions of the U.S. since World War II). Profit From War. Prussia, Austria and Russia all fell heavily into debt in their attempts to stop Napoleon….”

Nathan Rothschild funded the Napoleonic Wars.

…Nathan knew Napoleon had lost the Battle of Waterloo before the English monarchy. With this information in hand, Nathan spread the rumor that Napoleon had won and that everyone on the English Stock Market should start selling their useless English money. Rothchilds’ agents were then able to purchase nearly the entire English Stock Market at incredibly low prices, thus controlling the entire English market before everyone found out that England, in reality, had beaten Napoleon.
As of 2015, the English government is still paying back money owed to the Rothschild family from this Napoleonic fraud…

That article has since been re-written and updated as of Aug, 1 2024. All mention of the English government owing the Rothschilds money is gone. The current author is Jennifer L. Cook who got her start in editorial work in London as a researcher for three industrial relations journals. Her Education: University of California at Santa Cruz.

A QUICK TIMELINE

Also see: Timeline – European 19th – Early 20th Century Middle East Intervention and Middle East Uprisings

1858 — The Suez Canal was an immensely profitable investment by the Rothschild family. The family basically owned the British banking system and had funded all the British war efforts throughout the 19th century. Because the Suez Canal was built with slave labor, the Brits did not want their name associated with the building of it. Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, (Jewish BTW) had N M Rothschild & Sons act for the British Government instead. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild. LINK

1881 – Assassination of Tsar Alexander II in retaliation for his help during the US Civil War. It was also the start of the Jewish Pogram in Russia in retaliation for the Jewish Socialists murdering the Tsar.

1882 -1918 — The Rothschilds began to buy land in Palestine. The Rothschilds had international power as they lent money to all governments. By 1918, one-twentieth of Palestine’s fertile lands belonged to the Rothschilds. — Who sold Palestine?

Remember these Jews were refugees because Jewish Socialists, financed by the Rothschilds, had assassinated the Tzar and Russians took out their anger on the entire Jewish community. Also, exactly WHO owns Israel NOW if the Rothschilds bought the land?

1895 — London School of Economics was founded by Sidney Webb. Among its major contributors: the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and Mrs. Ernest Elmhirst, the widow of J. P. Morgan partner Willard Straight, who founded the socialist magazine New Republic. — The Fabians, the Round Table, and the Rhodes Scholars

The Fabian co-founders, the Webbs, founded the London School of economics with a bit of financial help from Nathan Rothschild. [ALL references are now gone…]

More recently Evelyn de Rothschild was a governor of LSU.

The Rothschild Family: An Evil Dynasty Poised to Rule the World, Or Just Simply a Banking Powerhouse?

Although the following article is an ‘approved’ viewpoint, it has a few very interesting bits. Today I am looking at the Middle East connections.

Their Influence on European Industrialisation

Given their geographical banking control and massive wealth throughout the 19th century, the Rothschild family pioneered international high finance during the industrialisation of Europe and were instrumental in supporting railway systems across the world and in complex government financing for projects such as the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was another immensely profitable investment by the Rothschild family…

British recognized the canal as an important trade route, they objected to the use of forced Egyptian labour to build it, and perceived the French project as a threat to their geopolitical and financial interests.

So, over a span of eleven years, starting on December 15th, 1858 the Suez canal was built. The Rothschild’s basically owned the British banking system at the time since they funded all prior British war efforts throughout the 19th century. Thus, In 1875, the London banking house of N M Rothschild & Sons advanced the Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. They effectively acted for the British Government, and paid a sum of £4,000,000 to purchase Suez Canal shares. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild, and according to legend, this was transacted on a gentleman’s agreement, with no documentation, a technically unsecured loan for a sum of over £550 million today.

Basically, England recognized the huge economical gain of purchasing shares in this trans-continental shipping route, but they did not want to be recognized for supporting the forced labour (slavery) that was implemented in order to build the canal….

Napoleon invades Egypt

The Suez Canal was primarily built by France, with Ferdinand de Lesseps, a French diplomat, playing a key role in obtaining the political and financial support. Construction began on April 25, 1859, and the canal was completed and officially opened on November 17, 1869. With the US cotton coming back on the market after the Civil War, the price of Egyptian cotton fell allowing the Rothschilds to move in and take the Egyptian shares. (I lost that link)

The map below illustrates just how critical control of the Suez Canal is. As I go deeper into this please keep that map in the back of your mind.

The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 & The Rise of the US

In 1956, the president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal, which had mostly been owned by British and French investors. This canal was a major part of ocean-going shipping and allowed ships to pass into the Mediterranean from the Red Sea, effectively linking Europe to the Indian Ocean and trade from Asia. Swiftly, Israel, Britain, and France moved to intervene and invaded Egypt. Against the background of the Cold War and the anti-colonialism movement, the aggressive actions by Israel, Britain, and France heightened tensions with the Soviet-backed Arab states in the Middle East….

In 1798, a French general named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, with some 30,000 troops. Napoleon’s successful invasion and seizure of Cairo, the capital city, was quickly noticed by the British. With Napoleon’s massive army helpless on land, the British destroyed the French fleet in the Mediterranean. Moving by land, France faced another crippling blow when the British allied with the Ottomans to thwart Napoleon’s plans to take Syria. After just over a year in Egypt, Napoleon returned home to France, where he began seizing power as a dictator.

British interest in Egypt began in the 1860s due to two events: the US Civil War (1861-65) reducing the amount of cotton exported to Britain from the American South, and the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869. Swiftly, Egypt moved to increase cotton production, which would be bound for the textile mills of England.

The Suez Canal also benefited the British, as ships could now pass through the Mediterranean to reach India. At this time, India was Britain’s most valuable colony. This began a political tug-of-war between Britain and France regarding which European power would “control” Egypt…..

Between the 1880s and World War I, Britain came to dominate more and more of Egypt’s affairs. Officially, Egypt was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and the outbreak of hostilities between the Allied Powers (which included Britain) and the Central Powers (which included the Ottoman Empire) allowed Britain to seize control of Egypt. This year, 1914, saw Britain seize the Suez Canal and declare Egypt a protectorate. After World War I, Egyptians began fighting for independence, which was granted in 1922. However, British troops remained in Egypt until 1929, when they withdrew. The Suez Canal zone, similar to the Panama Canal zone in Central America, remained under British military control….

July 1956: Egypt Nationalizes the Suez Canal

In July 1952, a coup overthrew king Faruk I of Egypt, and one of the main plotters was a young man named Gamal Abdel Nasser. Three years later, Nasser was Egypt’s undisputed leader and positioned his country as one of the leading nonaligned states, meaning it was neither a formal ally of the United States nor the Soviet Union. However, Nasser was not a true Marxist and focused more on Arab nationalism and decolonization than socialism. On July 26, 1956, he announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal. This violated a 1954 agreement that said the Suez Canal Company would not be transferred to Egyptian control before 1968.

On October 29, 1956, Israel began its invasion of Egypt on the Sinai Peninsula and defeated opposing Egyptian forces. The Israelis advanced toward the Suez Canal from the west using ground forces. This conflict between Israel and Egypt was not shocking, as Egypt had been one of the several Arab states to fight against Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. The United Nation’s creation of a new Jewish territory in November 1947, using the land of British Palestine, was seen as an encroachment on Arab sovereignty. In May 1948, just as the new nation of Israel declared its independence, war broke out between it and neighboring Arab states.

Israel won its war for independence, but intense hostility lingered. Egypt prevented Israel from using the Suez Canal, motivating Israel to wrest the canal from Egyptian control. As Israeli forces pushed toward the canal in autumn of 1956, a trap was sprung by Britain and France against the Egyptians. Having plotted ahead of time with the Israelis, Britain and France called for a cease-fire by both sides in the growing war. When Nasser rejected this cease-fire, as was anticipated, Britain and France had an excuse to engage militarily….

Remember the Brits had ALSO promised the SAME LAND to the Arabs as to the Jews in return for revolting against the Ottoman Empire.

THE BRITISH PROMISED THE ARABS THIS

THE REAL BRITISH PLANS

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

Back in 1915, the British needed the help of the Arabs in defeating the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In a set of letters called the ‘McMahon–Hussein Correspondence,’ they promised the Arabs that if they rebelled against The Ottoman Empire (which had sided with Germany in the war), that they would get their own independent state (as depicted in the first map above). However, at the very same time the British made this promise, there was clandestine agreement in the works with France and Russia to carve up the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves. This was known as the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement.’ Suffice it to say, the territory promised to the Arabs was not a part of their bargain. Then to make matters even more confusing, there was a third – and completely separate agreement with the Zionist community called the ‘Balfour Declaration’, promising the Jews their own ethno-state within the borders of Palestine.

So with these three contradictory agreements all made at the same time, it was clear that somebody was going to get deceived. In the end, the British promises to the Arabs were a fraud.

The Arabs fought and died for the British, thinking that they would gain their independence as a reward for their sacrifice. Yet what ended up happening instead, is that the British and French marched into their territory and claimed the remains of empire for themselves.

And we wonder why there is a festering hatred for non-Muslims in the Middle East?

Also of interest is Arthur Balfour of the Balfour-Declaration that promised a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.

[Balfour]…..who was president of the Society for Psychical Research [Linked to the Fabians.– GC] (AC Doyle, William Gladstone) from 1893 and PM of the UK from 1902 to 1905. He was a nephew of Robert Cecil. He was educated at Eton College (under William Johnson, accused of pedophilia) and Trinity College Cambridge like Cecil agent Aleister Crowley… He was a member of the Royal Society and Eugenics Education Society with Oddfellow Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger, Cyril Burt, Hans Eynsenck (student of Burt), Madison Grant, John Harvey Kellogg, Roger Pearson (Order of Malta), John Maynard Keynes, Frederick Osborn (APS, Pioneer Fund), William Beveride (British Welfare State of the Fabians), Havelock Ellis and Julian Huxley (founder of WWF) as president.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think at this point you can see why the Brits had a vested interest in trade routes through the middle east. AND that they were willing to fight to get control of those routes. Given India has played a central role in this drama, I am going to use an article by Frontier India News Network

All you should know about the Israeli Ben Gurion Canal project

The Israelis are promoting a Red Sea-Mediterranean Sea waterway, the Ben Gurion Canal, as a rival to the Suez Canal. As per the Israelis, the distance between Eilat, a southern Israeli port and resort town on the Red Sea near Jordan, and the Mediterranean is not long and is in fact similar to the distance of the Suez connection between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

Although it poses a direct threat to Egypt’s Suez Canal but Suez Canal is shorter than the Israeli route and the Suez Canal rarely reaches 100 meters in height making it a better option. At the same time, Israel says this route is good for the ships which are unable to transit the Suez Canal due to restrictions on the size of the ship.

History of Canal proposals via Israel

In the mid-1800, the British considered the proposal of a canal to the Red Sea via the Dead Sea. In 1855, Rear Admiral William Allen FRS, an English naval officer and an explorer proposed an alternative to the Suez Canal titled “The Dead Sea – A new route to India.” But William Allen did not know that the dead Sea was much below sea level. His idea was that a canal that would connect the three water bodies, Red Sea, Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, would be cheaper than the projected Suez Canal. The US toyed with the idea of digging a canal opposite the Suez Canal in 1963. It was recommended in a memo submitted by Lawrence Livermore Patriot Laps in the US as a response to the decision taken by the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to nationalize the Suez Canal in 1956. The controversial plan was revealed to the world only in 1994. The controversial US proposal involved 520 nuclear blasts to excavate more than 160 odd miles through Israel’s Negev desert, instead of traditional methods. The contentious proposal also noted that the project will be aggressively opposed by the Arab states. The canal would connect the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Aqaba (also called the Gulf of Eilat) and thus the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

The Modern Proposal

The idea of Ben Gurion canal has surfaced at a time when the Abraham Accords have radically changed the political landscape of the sensitive region. On 20th October 2020, the unthinkable happened when the Israeli state-owned Europe Asia Pipeline Company (EAPC) and the UAE-based MED-RED Land Bridge inked an arrangement to use the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline to move oil from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean.

On 2 April 2021, Israel announced that work on the Ben Gurion Canal is expected to begin by June 2021. The initial reference to the Ben Gurion Canal was published about two years back in Hebrew language publications. As per the sources, Israel will build the canal from Eilat on the Red Sea to Mediterranean….

GlobalResearch: Video: Israel Destroys Gaza to Control World’s Most Important Shipping Lane? The Ben Gurion Canal Linking the Eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf of Aqaba

Incisive and carefully documented geopolitical analysis by Richard Medhurst pertaining to the building of the Ben Gurion Canal linking the Eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf of Aqaba.

The Ben Gurion Canal Project was initially a “secret” (classified) U.S. project formulated in 1963 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNG, a strategic think tank (focussing on nuclear radiation) on contract with the U.S Department of Energy. The LLNG project was formulated in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970). Its intent was to bypass the Suez Canal.

According to the “classified” document prepared by the LLNG (1963) quoted by Business Insider, July 2023, a strategic plan was envisaged:

“to blast an alternative Suez Canal through Israel using 520 nuclear bombs”.

The plan consisted in using 520 buried nuclear explosions “to help in the excavation process through the hills in the Negev Desert. The document was declassified in 1993”. I have not been able to consult the “declassified” LLNG document.

The declassified document is acknowledged in Richard Medhurst’s video.

This U.S. plan, first negotiated with Israel in the 1960s is of utmost relevance to unfolding events in Palestine.

It’s objective is to achieve US-Israeli Maritime Dominance against the people of the Middle East. In the context of a broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda. It is consistent with Netanyahu’s “Plan to Wipe Palestine Off the Map”:

The Ben Gurion Canal will give Israel in particular and other friendly nations the freedom from blackmail arising out of access to the Suez Canal.

Arab states have been leveraging the Red Sea to pressure Israel and in response, Israel has decided to gain more control of the Red Sea. These African countries have cultural and economic affinities with the Arab states. One of the main military benefits for Israel is that it gives Israel the strategic options as the Ben Gurion Canal will totally take away the importance of Suez for the US military if needed in the aid for Israel.

Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center.

Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West. (Eurasia Review, November 7, 2023, emphasis added)

President Biden is broadly supportive of the Israeli led genocide. Visibly what is at stake is a U.S. hegemonic project which seeks the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland and the appropriation of all Palestinian lands.

According to Yvonne Ridley:

“The only thing stopping the newly-revised [Ben Gurion Canal] project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza. As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project” (Yvonne Ridley, November 10, 2023, emphasis added)….

Puts an interesting spin on the current Gaza war does it not? And then you can add in this:

Why Israel Created Hamas — Swiss Policy Research

Insider insights into the creation of Hamas – and other designated terrorist groups.

* * *

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas.” – Benjamin Netanyahu (2019)

“In the visible dimension Hamas is an enemy, in the hidden dimension it is an ally.”
– IDF Major General Gershon Hacohen (2019)

“Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet.”
– Charles Freeman, US diplomat and ambassador (2006)

* * *

A. Why Israel helped create Hamas

Since the founding of Hamas in 1987, Israeli, American and Palestinian officials have repeatedly acknowledged that Israel did indeed help create and fund the Islamist group.

The point made by many of these officials is not that Israel “allowed” the rise of Hamas or that Hamas emerged in response to Israeli “occupation” of Palestine. Rather, their point was and is that Israel’s intelligence agencies actively helped create and finance the Hamas group.

As the officials cited below make clear, the overall goal of supporting Hamas has been to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state and avert the implementation of a two-state solution to the Palestine question. From Israel’s perspective, a two-state solution would reduce Israel’s territory to the internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, prohibit any future territorial expansion, and prevent the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

More specifically, supporting the Islamist Hamas group has served several Israeli objectives at once: first, it undermined Yasser Arafat’s secular nationalist PLO; second, it helped prevent the implementation of the 1993 Oslo Accords; third, it undermined the Palestinian National Authority and isolated Gaza from the Westbank; fourth, it impeded Western support for the Palestinian cause; and fifth, it justified Israeli (counter-)attacks on Palestinian territory…

Given the above and the desire for the new canal, this Jerusalem Post article makes sense.

With that as background, these articles by a French socialist clicks into place.

First, what does he mean by ‘Straussians’?

William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard is one of Leo Strauss’s acolytes. “…Strauss was a German Jewish émigré who arrived in the United States during the rise of fascism in Germany…. He instilled a cult-like devotion in his students—who became known as the Straussians…” LINK

The coup d’état of the Straussians in Israel

by Thierry Meyssan French journalist and political activist of the Left.

March 7 2023

While observers predicted a war of Israel against one of its neighbors, the Hebrew State is not attacked from anywhere. It has opponents, but no enemy, except itself. Its political organization is not defined by any constitution and is therefore easy to overthrow. The Straussians, who are in power in the State Department and the White House, are now driving the change of its regime. [He is talking about Biden -GC] Demonstrations are taking place throughout the country to prevent the country from becoming, in the words of a former Mossad director, “a racist and violent state that cannot survive. But it is probably already too late...

Most of the Federalist Society’s adherents are just conservative or libertarian lawyers. They were only concerned with family law and economic law. However, within the Society, a small group became involved in international politics. It is this group that influences Israel today. In the United States, it first succeeded in making “American exceptionalism” triumph . [4].

This school of thought refuses to apply international treaties in domestic law; judges the behaviour of others harshly, but absolves Americans who do the same on principle; and refuses to allow any international jurisdiction to take an interest in its internal affairs. In short, it believes that, for religious reasons, the United States is not comparable to other states and should not be subject to any international law…. (See TheseTruths comment from February 17, 2025)

The other major struggle of this Federalist Society group was to overturn the “non-delegation doctrine. American jurists believed that the separation of constitutional powers did not allow the executive to encroach on the privileges of the legislature and to define the criteria for the application of a law. Now, the opposite is true: the separation of powers prohibits the Legislative branch from interfering with the activities of the Executive branch. The Congress thus loses its power to control the White House. It is on the basis of this sleight of hand that President George W. Bush was able to launch a series of wars and to generalize torture.

The links between this Federalist Society group and the Israeli Likud are not new. In 2003, Elliott Abrams organized the Jerusalem Summit with the participation of almost all Israeli political groups. He said that there would be no peace in the world until Israel crushes the Palestinians’ demands…

Bezalel Smotrich sees the Arabs as wild animals that must be tamed by force. But the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, approaches the issue from a different point of view. For him, God gave the land to the Jews who must expel the Arab squatters from it. Regardless of the points of view, all members of the coalition agree on one thing: the government is sovereign and should not be restricted by laws. This suits Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is under judicial investigation.

What is going on in Israel is not just about Israelis and Palestinians. Elliott Abrams is a historic Straussian, even more so than the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, and his deputy, Victoria Nuland. It is therefore foreseeable that if the “reform” of the Israeli justice system continues, the new regime will be fully aligned with the positions of the Straussians. For the time being, Israel refuses to send arms to Ukraine according to the principle of General Benny Gantz: “No Israeli arms should reach the mass murderers of Jews”. The risk of an alliance between Ukrainian “integral nationalists”, American “Straussians” and Israeli “revisionist Zionists” has never been greater [6]. The United States has just banned the Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, from visiting its territory. They still sanction his racist remarks, but for how long?

Do not forget that Kissinger was an agent of the Brits. LINK And the upsurge of Islamic orthodoxy-whether of the Iran variety, or that of the more commonly known Muslim Brotherhood, or the Jamaati Islam of Pakistan, or even the mystical Sufi brotherhoods of Asia-is a project of the City of London. After all war is so very, very profitable.

The second article by Thierry Meyssan.

September 12, 2024

The recent general strike in Israel is not just a demonstration against the rhetoric that we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists and that the IDF will release the hostages held in Gaza. It marks the beginning of a realization that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not defending Jews. While Jewish Israelis are not yet aware of the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, they are becoming aware of the anti-Arab pogroms in the West Bank. Gradually, they are beginning to admit that their enemies are not their neighbours, but are among them. These are the revisionist Zionists.

….As a result, the question we’ve been asking since mid-November[1]is also starting to resonate with Israelis:
what if Benyamin Netanyahu wasn’t incompetent, but an accomplice in the attack?

I think we can make a very good guess as to the answer, Yes Netanyahu was fully on board with allowing the attack and the ‘Standown’ of Israel troops. Given 9/11 that should sound very familiar.
…..
Since a lot of this has to do with the Rothschilds, I want to also add para59r comments to the end of this article.

“…last Wednesday brought in some solid evidence that suggests the Rothschilds are SATANIC rather than benign.

https://twitter.com/para59r/status/1828443065595408669

“Oh and of course she didn’t mind people associating Baphomet with Satanism. The Rothchild’s loved that sort of thing.”

A PRIMER ON MONEY

Trudeau is threatening to confiscate bank accounts. Steve Cortez and others has been warning of coming Stagflation. Steve has been a part of Wall Street as a trader and strategist for almost two decades. Others such as Clif High warn of a coming dollar collapse.

Ed Dowd, a former Blackrock Portfolio Manager, reports on Falling Pharma Stocks And Coming Financial Collapse. Edward has said elsewhere how COVID-19 may have been used to cover global debt, and how he predicts a financial collapse is ahead of us.

https://rumble.com/vvc53k-ed-dowd-reports-on-falling-pharma-stocks.html

And now even Tucker Carlson is warning of the problems if the US dollar loses it’s World Reserve Currency status.

On the other hand Edward Harrison, a senior editor at Bloomberg, wrote in 2011 an article On Hyperinflation explaining why the US dollar is still solid because it is the World Reserve Currency. The fly in the ointment is explained in this March, 2013 article, BRICS plan new 50bn bank to rival World Bank and IMF, and The China-Australia Currency Swap Agreement.

… the bilateral currency swap agreement on 22 March 2012. The agreement allows exchange of local currencies between the two central banks…’” thus cutting out the US Dollar as the exchange currency.
The China-Australia Currency Swap Agreement.

Given these circumstances, I thought a discussion about Central Banks and the US dollar was appropriate. I hoped the Q tree could benefit from having this information all in one place.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/06.20/images/servitude.jpg

“Inflation is the surest way to fertilize the rich man’s field with the sweat of the poor man’s brow.”
Charles Holt Carroll (1799-1890.)

Daniel Webster expanded on that idea.

“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation — these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression, on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced by government.”
Daniel Webster (1782 -1852) Statement to the Senate in 1832

With encouragement from Senators Clay and Daniel Webster, Mr Nicholas Biddle, then President of the Second Bank of the United States, applied for a renewal of the Bank’s charter in 1832. President Jackson vetoed the renewal, stating “. . . It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our citizens, chiefly of the richest class. . .” LINK

So it should not surprising that Senator Aldrich (R) read that Webster quote at a New York City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 on the eve of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. He was NOT advocating AGAINST a Fractional Reserve Currency but rather FOR IT! — SEE: aIV Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science #1, at 38 (Columbia University, New York (1914))

For those who might not know the history of Fractional Reserve Banking see: The Magic of Fractional Banking. In essence it is counterfeiting.

https://soundmonetarypolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/banksters-11470-20110901-26.jpg

INFLATION or Currency Devaluation:

One of the biggest victories achieved by modern economists and modern central bankers is changing the definition of inflation. Inflation used to mean an increase in the money supply – full stop.
PETER C. SCHMIDT (A very good article)

https://soundmonetarypolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/032310Whiskey.jpg

A few more definitions:

Money is metal coins, currency (Bank IOUs) and credit (fairy dust created out of thin air) or even beads and obsidian arrowheads. Money needs to be durable, accepted and dividable which is why precious metals were often the choice.

Money is a generally accepted, recognized, and centralized medium of exchange in an economy that is used to facilitate transactional trade for goods and services.
Investopedia Definition of Money

Wealth is LAND, RESOURCES and the labor that fashions usable and saleable goods.

Wealth is an accumulation of valuable economic resources that can be measured in terms of either real goods or money value.
Investopedia definition of Wealth

Capitalism is a private individual’s wealth, labor and resources reinvested to produce more wealth.

Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market.

@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } h2 { margin-top: 0.14in; margin-bottom: 0.08in; background: transparent; page-break-after: avoid } h2.western { font-family: “Liberation Serif”, serif; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } h2.cjk { font-family: “Noto Serif CJK SC”; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } h2.ctl { font-family: “Lohit Devanagari”; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; background: transparent } a:link { color: #000080; so-language: zxx; text-decoration: underline }
Investopedia definition of Capitalism

E.M. Smith aka Chiefio, who trained as an economist, gets into the definition of capitalism and other definitions surrounding capitalism: Monopoly, Monopsony, Oligopoly, Collusion And Economics 1 “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” is a short comment by EM describing the continuum between straight capitalism and Communism.

One of the best explanations of the Federal Reserve is by G Edward Griffin. A Talk by G. Edward Griffin-The Creature from Jekyll Island. Unfortunately Griffin is a member of the John Birch Society and is therefore attacked on that basis by the defenders of the Fed. So I am presenting more rigorous sources.

Money Is Created by Banks – Evidence Given by Graham Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada

Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939… Most of the evidence quoted was the result of interrogation by Mr. “Gerry” McGeer, K.C., a former mayor of Vancouver, who clearly understood the essentials of central banking. Here are a few excerpts:

Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?
Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)
The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238)
Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238)
Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.
As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)

Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?
Mr. Towers: Yes.

Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?
Mr. Towers: That is right.

Q. Now, the same thing holds true when the municipality or the province goes to the bank?
Mr. Towers: Or an individual borrower.

Q. Or when a private person goes to a bank?
Mr. Towers: Yes.

Q. When I borrow $100 from the bank as a private citizen, the bank makes a bookkeeping entry, and there is a $100 increase in the deposits of that bank, in the total deposits of that bank?
Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 238)

Q. Mr. Towers, when you allow the merchant banking system to issue bank deposits which, with the practice of using the cheques as we have it in vogue today, constitutes the medium of exchange upon which I think 95 per cent of our public and private business is transacted, you virtually allow the banks to issue an effective substitute for money, do you not?
Mr. Towers: The bank deposits are actual money in that sense, yes.

Q. In that sense they are actual money, but, as a matter of fact, they are not actual money but credit, bookkeeping accounts, which are used as a substitute for money?
Mr. Towers: Yes.

Q. Then we authorize the banks to issue a substitute for money?
Mr. Towers: Yes, I think that is a very fair statement of banking. (p. 285)

US banks operate without Reserve

“Banks typically have 3% of their assets in cash in order to meet customer needs. Since 1960, banks have been allowed to use this “vault cash” to satisfy their reserve requirements. Today, bank reserve requirements have fallen to the point where they are now exceeded by vault cash, which means lowering reserve requirements to zero would have virtually no impact on the banking system. US banks are already operating free of any reserve constraints. The graph below shows reserve requirements falling to zero over the last fifty years….”
Eric deCarbonnel

https://web.archive.org/web/20111110155612im_/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EZMGVwURo3M/SdBtYrToHuI/AAAAAAAAA6k/Z_ym5xtlBRU/s400/RequiredReservesMinusVaultCash-758249.PNG

E.M. Smith and other economists, such as Steve Bannon and those he has on the War Room as well as other financial experts are trained (and believe in) Keynesian Economics (IMF.) I prefer Mises and have had arguments with E.M to that effect. (He has started to come around a bit.) It should be noted that Communist spy Harry Dexter White of the US Treasury and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keyne are the two who saddled the world with the IMF and World Bank via the 1944 Bretton Woods system. I mentioned recently Structural Adjustment Policies, the noose the IMF & World Bank Banksters put around the neck of countries that go bankrupt. There is another Economic Philosophy not connected to the Communists and Fabian Socialists. It was developed by Mises.

Mises on Money by Gary North

This is very long so I want to highlight a few critical points.

#1. Because money is not capital, he [Mises] concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises’s theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges.
An increase in the quantity of money can no more increase the welfare of the members of a community, than a diminution of it can decrease their welfare. Regarded from this point of view, those goods that are employed as money are indeed what Adam Smith called them, “dead stock, which . . . produces nothing”
#2. New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people’s bank accounts or under their mattresses. [New] Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money.
It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the mine owners and the groups most closely connected with them
[This is a critical point and the reason Bankers can steal our wealth]
This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises’s monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game. Mises did not use this terminology, but he used the zero-sum concept. Because the free market always maximizes the utility of the existing money supply, changes in the money supply inescapably have the characteristic features of a zero-sum game. Some individuals are made better off by an increase in the money supply; others are made worse off. The existing money is an example of a “fixed pie of social value.” Adding to the money supply does not add to its value.
MISES ON GOLD
…the attempt by modern governments to regulate in any way an international gold standard is always a political ruse to undermine its anti-inflationary bias. “The international gold standard works without any action on the part of governments. It is effective real cooperation of all members of the world-embracing market community. . . . What governments call international monetary cooperation is concerted action for the sake of credit expansion”
“Now, the gold standard is not a game, but a social institution. Its working does not depend on the preparedness of any people to observe arbitrary rules. It is controlled by the operation of inexorable economic law” (p. 462)…..
. . . The role played by ingots in the gold reserves of the banks is a proof that the monetary standard consists in the precious metal, and not in the proclamation of the authorities (p. 67).
In order to effect the acceptance of fiat money or credit money, the State adopts a policy of the abolition of its previous contractual obligations. What was previously a legal right of full convertability into either gold or silver coins is abolished by a new law. The State removes the individual’s legal right to exchange the State’s paper notes for gold or silver coins. It then declares that the new, inconvertible fiat paper money or bank credit money is equal in value to the older redeemable notes, meaning equal to the value of the actual coins previously obtainable through redemption. But the free market determines otherwise. The two forms of money are not equal in value in the judgment of the market’s individual participants. Gresham’s law is still obeyed….
Gresham’s law
The State can set legal prices, meaning exchange ratios, between the various kinds of money. The effects of such fixed exchange rates are identical to the effects of any other kind of price control: gluts and shortages. The artificially overvalued money (glut) replaces the artificially undervalued money (shortage). This cause-and-effect relationship is called Gresham’s law.
MONEY:
Mises therefore defined money as the most marketable commodity. “It is the most marketable good which people accept because they want to offer it in later acts of impersonal exchange” (Human Action, p. 401.).
Money serves as a transmitter of value through time because certain goods serve as media of exchange.
Money transmits value, Mises taught, but money does not measure value. This distinction is fundamental in Mises’s theory of money.
Mises was adamant: there is no measure of economic value.
….Mises concluded that money is neither a consumption good nor a capital good. He argued that production and consumption are possible without money (p. 82). Money facilitates both production and consumption, but it is neither a production good nor a consumption good. Money is therefore a separate analytical category.
“It is illegitimate to compare the part played by money in production with that played by ships and railways. Money is obviously not a ‘commercial tool’ in the same sense as account books, exchange lists, the Stock Exchange, or the credit system”
Because money is not capital, he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises’s theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges….
This theory regarding the impact that changes in the money supply have on social value is the basis of everything that follows. Mises offered here a unique assessment of the demand for money. He implied here that an individual’s demand for production goods or consumption goods, when met by increased production, confers an increase in social value or social welfare.
If a producer benefits society by increasing the production of a non-monetary good, later finding a buyer, then society is benefitted because there are at least two winners and no losers.
Therefore, if a producer of gold and a buyer of gold both benefit from an exchange – which they do, or else they would not trade – yet society receives no social benefit, then the analyst has to conclude that some other members of society have been made, or will be made, worse off by the increase in the money supply. This analysis would also apply to decreases in the money supply.
There are two conceptually related issues here: (1) money as a separate analytical category, neither a consumption good nor a production good; (2) changes in the money supply as conveying neither an increase nor decrease in social value.

With that as a background in economics, we look at the Federal Reserve Bank through the eyes of Congressman Wright Patman (D) in 1964 before President Nixon had to close the gold window.

Excerpts from:

A PRIMER ON MONEY

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman 1964

Again this is very long, which is why I have posted excerpts. However if you want to understand our Central Banking System this is a very good document to read.

President Lincoln said :
“Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of the National Government. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the Government, it is the Government’s greatest opportunity.” [pg 16]
This is very important. Although US citizens can not exchange Federal Reserve notes for treasury gold, official and semi official foreign banks can.
Behind the Federal Reserve notes is the credit of the U.S. Government. If you happen to have a $5, $10, or $20 Federal Reserve note, you will notice across the top of the bill a printed statement of the fact that the US government promises to pay not the Federal Reserve promises to pay. Nevertheless most Americans to do not understand what the US Government promises to pay: American citizens holding these notes cannot demand anything for them except (a) they can be exchanged for other Federal Reserve notes or (b) that they be accepted in payment of taxes and all debts public and private. Certain official or semiofficial foreign banks may exchange any “dollar credits” they may hold-that is, deposits with the commercial banks-for an equal amount of the Treasury’s gold. Americans themselves may not exchange them for gold . [pg 19]
Of the 19 Federal Reserve officials 12 are elected by bankers so HOW the money supply is increase and WHO gets the interest on the US treasury bonds can get very interesting.
The Federal Reserve officials can always decide to create a large portion of any increase in the money supply themselves, though, of course, a larger portion of the supply will always be provided by the private banks under present law. Still the larger portion of Reserve-created money, the more the U.S. Treasury benefits-because all income of the Federal Reserve after expenses reverts to the Treasury. Thus the Treasury receives a good share of the income earned from the Government securities purchased in Reserve money-creating operations.
On the other hand, if the Federal Reserve officials decide that the increase in the money supply they want is all, or substantially all, to be made by the private banks, the private banks acquire and hold more Government securities than in the first case, and the interest payments on these securities go into bank profits. So, whether the Federal Reserve officials decide to favor the U.S. Treasury or the private banks does make a difference-millions of dollars of difference-in the amount of taxes you, I, and all other taxpayers must pay. After all, one of the biggest items of expense of the Federal Government is the interest it must pay on its debt. [pg 36]

[JUMPING FORWARD IN TIME]

“…Although the money in the Federal Reserve is not in anyway “owned” by private banks they get paid interest on it….
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:”

“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”
Global Research

[BACK TO WRIGHT PATMAN]

[An incorrect but ] typical explanation runs this way: John Jones deposits $100 in cash with his bank. The bank is required to keep, say, 20 percent of its deposits in reserves, so the bank must deposit $20 of this $100 as reserves, with a Federal Reserve bank. The bank is free to use the other $80, however, to make loans to customers or invest in securities. The expansion of money thus begins. This kind of explanation not only leads to misunderstanding, it also leads to misguided Government policies and rather constant agitation on the part of bankers for other such policies. Many of the smaller bankers who are, on the whole, not as well versed with the mechanics of the money system as they might be, actually believe that they have deposited a portion of their money, or their depositors’ money, with the Federal Reserve. Thus they feel they are being denied the opportunity to make profitable use of this money. Accordingly, there is always agitation to have the Federal Reserve pay the banks interest on this money which they think they have “deposited” with the Federal Reserve.

Furthermore, they are quite certain that the Federal Reserve System has “used” their money to acquire the Government securities which the Federal Reserve may buy in the process of reserve creation. Believing this, the bankers naturally feel that they are entitled to some share of the tremendous profits which the System receives from interest payments on its Government securities. Many bankers know better. The leaders of the bankers’ associations certainly do. But some of these leaders have not hesitated to play on general ignorance and misunderstanding to mobilize the whole banking community behind drives that are nothing but attempts to raid the Public Treasury.

The truth is, however, that the Private banks, collectively, have deposited not a penny of their own funds, or their depositors funds, with the Federal Reserve banks. The impression that they do so arises from the fact that reserves, once created, can be, and are, transferred back and forth from one bank to another, as one bank gains deposits and another loses deposits. [pg 37]
Under Secretary of the Treasury Robert V. Roosa, formerly a Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1960, described the misconception as follows:

“There is another misconception which occurs much more frequently-that is, the banks think that they give us the reserves on which we operate and that, too, is a misconception. We encounter that frequently, and, as you know, we create those reserves under the authority that has been described here.”
The writer [Wright Patman] has had a couple of personal experiences which ‘have provided some amusing confirmation of the fact that the source of bank reserves is not deposits of cash by the member banks with the Federal Reserve banks. having seen reports that the Federal Reserve System had, on a given date, Government securities amounting to a proximately $28 billion, I went on one occasion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where these securities are supposed to be housed, and asked if I might be allowed to see them. The officials of this bank said, yes, they would be glad to show them to me; whereupon they opened the vaults and let me look at, and even hold in my hand, the large mound of Government securities which they claimed to have and which, in fact, they did have.

Since I had also seen reports that the member banks of the Federal Reserve System had a certain number of millions of dollars in “cash reserves” on deposit with the Federal Reserve bank, I then asked if I might be allowed to see these cash reserves. This time my question was met with some looks of surprise; the bank officials then patiently explained to me that there were no cash reserves. The cash, in truth, does not exist and never has existed. [pg 38]
When the Federal Reserve purchases a $1 million Government bond and gives some bank credit for $1 million in its reserve account, that bank also credits the bond dealer’s checking account with $1 million. I n other words, to acquire $1 million of reserves, the bank also assumes a liability to pay its customers $1 million. If the transactions stopped here, the bank would, of course, come out even, neither gaining anything nor losing anything. But the fact that there is now $1.million more of bank reserves than existed before means that the private banks as a group can create $6 million more money than existed before. In other words, by acquiring this $1 million more in bank reserves, the private banks have the privilege of creating another $6 million of bank deposits, in the process of which they acquire $6 million in interest-bearing securities or loan paper, less an allowance for leakage into the cash (currency) balances of the public. [pg 43]
What amount of Government securities have the private banks acquired with bank-created money?

On January 31, 1964, all commercial banks in this country owned $62.7 billion in U.S. Government securities. The banks have acquired these securities with bank-created money. In other words, the (banks have used the Federal Government’s power to create money without charge to lend $62.7 billion to the Government at interest.

On January 29, 1964, commercial banks had total assets amounting to $304.7 billion, and all of these had been paid for with bank-created money, except $25.4 billion which had been paid for with their stockholders’ capital. In other words, less than 10 percent of the banks’ assets have been acquired with money invested by stockholders in the banks. [pg 46]
The make-up of the Federal Reserve Directors changed in favor of the bankers

The Federal Open Market Committee.
There are 19 participants in this powerful body, 7 appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Once appointed, however, a man serves for a period of 14 years, and cannot be removed by the President or by any other official body, except for cause. The other 12 men in this select group are elected to their places through the votes of private commercial bankers. there are 12 voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee. The voting members consist of 7 members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, plus some 5 of the 12 Federal Reserve bank residents. [pg 65]
Because of this, the balance of power over the money supply lay securely, it was thought, with the public side of the System through authority of the Board of Governors. But when the move toward the alternative open-market technique of control was given legislative blessing by Congress in 1933 and 1935 and a full-fledged central bank thereby created the balance shifted radically toward the private, commercial banking side of the System. [pg 72]
.
.
“ownership” of the fed reserve: Confusion due to stock and elected board members:
The position of the Federal Reserve officials thus seems to be clear :

The Federa1 Reserve banks are not owned by the commercial banks. The viewpoint of the individuals quoted above has also been borne out by the presidents of the Federal Reserve banks in hearings before the House Banking and Currency Committee. However, officials of the Federal Reserve banks are sometimes inclined to take the opposite position. [pg 78]

Do bankers believe that they own the Federal Reserve banks.
Yes. [100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks. Also after instigating “the Accord” It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do”….Therefore the Federal Reserve is not answerable to the President or Congress or the electorate, nor even to a government audit or even Congressional funding!]

The original act required that the banks invest 6 percent of their capital stock in the Federal Reserve banks.

Why was the Federal Reserve Act written to require member banks to invest in the so-called stock of the Federal Reserve banks?
The framers of the Federal Reserve Act gave many reasons, but the main, reason was this: it was expected that the Federal Reserve would issue money, not mainly against Government securities as is now the practice, but against commercial and industrial loan paper-“eligible paper” as the reader knows.
It was in view of these considerations that Congress, in framing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, required member banks of the Federal Reserve System to put a certain percentage of their capital into the .’stock” of the Federal Reserve banks; this “stock” was a safeguard against a misuse of the Government’s credit which was being delegated to these banks. The 1013 act placed on the member banks, furthermore, a “double liability” for their “stock” in the Federal Reserve banks. In other words, if a Federal Reserve bank failed, the member banks would lose not only their invested capital, but an equal amount of capital which they would also forfeit. [pg 79]
The 1933 act also prohibited commercial banks from making stock market loans, and investment banks from accepting public deposits. This was an effort to prevent a wave of stock market speculation like that of the twenties by keeping commercial banking and investment banking separate and distinct. [pg 84] [Clinton got rid of that and other limits on the banks.]
What changes were made the Banking Act of 1935?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was made permanent, and the Board of Governors was given power to change reserve requirements. The act of 1935 had other important revisions :

(1) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was changed. Membership no longer included the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency, and the number of members was cut from nine to seven. The name, the Federal Reserve Board, was changed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The reorganized Board, with its increased powers really gave us a central bank for the first time, in place of a system of individual Federal Reserve banks which were largely on their own.

(2) Also of primary importance in creating a true central bank was the establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee to determine purchases and sales of Government securities for the entire System.

(3) Another change made by the 1935 act related to loans of the Federal Reserve banks. This act allowed the Federal Reserve banks to extend reserve bank credit on any type of credit which the commercial bank possessed.

4 ) The 1935 act also contained provisions concerning regulation of bank holding companies. [Pg 84]
Private banks enjoy a very special relationship with the Federal Government. After all, most business firms employ private capital or privately owned resources to produce a product or provide a service which can be profitably sold in the marketplace. Most business firms pay for the raw materials and services they receive, and, furthermore, in the case of most kinds of business firms, the business itself is a risk-taking venture. The firm succeeds or fails in competition with other business firms.
But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such a Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers’ salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge.
On the contrary, this is but one of the many ways the Government subsidizes the private banking system and protects it from competition. The Government, through the Federal Reserve System, provides a huge subsidy through the free services the System provides for member banks. “Check clearing” is one of the services; i.e., the collection and payment of funds due one bank from another because of depositors’ use of their checkbook money. The costs of this service alone runs into scores of millions of dollars.

The gross expenses of the combined Federal Reserve banks totaled $207 million in 1963, most of which was incurred as a cost of providing free services to the private banks. Other Federal agencies also receive services from the Federal Reserve. But these are not free. The System received about $20 million for “fiscal agency and other expenses” in 1963.
In addition, the Federal Government provides private banks with a large measure of protection from competition, and the hazards of failure. … This means, in brief, that nobody can enter the banking business by opening a national bank, unless the proposed bank is to be located where it will not cause an inconvenient amount of competition to other banks already in business. [pg 89]
In mid-August of 1950, however, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate and short-term Treasury bills jumped toward 11/2 percent, although there were requests from the Secretary of the Treasury and the President for the System to continue a low-rate policy. It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only t o raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do….
Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.” It would no longer ” peg Government bond prices. It would raise or lower interest rates as it might see fit, as a means of trying to prevent inflation or deflation.
These are understandings which have been grafted onto the accord over the years. Certainly, no such understandings were universal at the time the accord was signed. ….
At the end of 1951, then, the Federal Reserve had both self-proclaimed independence, as a result of the accord, and an operational policy which aimed at maximum credit effects through minimum changes in interest rates….. the Federal Reserve people were quite sure that they could do a better job of running the country than the President, and with only slight increases in interest rates. …
It then added another string to its bow- the “bills only” policy. … Henceforth when the Treasury issued bonds or medium-term securities, it was to dump these issues on the market and watch the natural consequences-first a drop in bond prices, then a gradual recovery as the market absorbed the bonds. Any private rigging or manipulations of the market were to go without interference from the Federal Reserve, as were any speculative booms or panics short of a “disorderly” market. The “bil1s-only” policy had only one reservation: The Federal Reserve would buy long-term bonds in the event that the Open Market Committee made a findings that the market was disorderly. [ full details starting on pg 103]
The [Eisenhower ] administration announced at the outset that it would re1y on monetary policy exclusive1y for its economic regulation and would respect the complete independence of the Federal Reserve to carry out these policies as it saw fit …..
Thirteen years have now passed since the accord and the liberation of the Federal Reserve. What have been the results? The major result is shockingly obvious. Interest rates have climbed steadily, with slight interruptions, during the entire post accord period. (See table 3.) The period has been marked, then, by a continual shift of income to the banks, other major financial institutions, and individuals with significant interest income. The rest of the country provided this income. …
Another result of post accord monetary policy is that the U.S. economy has unwittingly become a low investment economy… The Federal Reserve has chosen the high interest, slower growth option for this country.
In fiscal year 1963, the U S Government paid out approximately $10 billion as interest on the national debt. The budget deficit for the same year was $8.8 billion. Much political hay was made with the deficit. It was potential inflationary dynamite, ran the ”no deficit” claim. And these same people strongly supported tighter money and higher interest rates to prevent the otherwise inevitable inflationary explosion. Yet if these people were really worried about the deficit they should have been rabid partisans of a low-interest policy. For it can be shown that last year’s deficit would have been $5 billion less if the Government had not been forced by Federal Reserve policy to pay increasingly more on its outstanding debt. I n fact, the total national debt would now be $40 billion less if the interest rates of the early 1940’s had prevailed in the postwar period.
Moreover, the system eludes even the audit control exercised by the General Accounting Office, whose function it is to make sure that other Federal agencies not only handle their financial affairs properly but also pursue policies and practices that are in accord with the law. The system provides for its own auditing; clutching its mantle of independence, it has stoutly resisted repeated congressional suggestions that the General Accounting Office perform an annual audit.[ pg 121]
Congress has never given authority for determining monetary policy to the Federal Reserve System-and certainly not to a committee within the System containing members who owe their selection to private bank interests. This basic authorization has not been changed by any amendments to the Federal Reserve Act made to date. Yet two evolutions have taken place within the Federal Reserve System, in one instance, without authorization, and, in the other, directly contrary to the expressed intent of the Federal Reserve Act. In brief, the Federal Reserve’s “monetary policies,” as they are practiced today, were never authorized by law…There is little doubt in the author’s mind that if any legal challenge were ever raised to the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies, the courts could hold them unconstitutional.

The First Annual Report of the Board of Governors after passage of the 1935 act opened with a statement that the act “places responsibility for national monetary and credit on the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee”-although the act contained no reference whatever to monetary policy nor any provision which indicated a change in the convertibility concept on which the 1913 act was drawn. In brief, the Federal Reserve’s “monetary policies,” as they are practiced today, were never authorized by law.

The monetary powers, as has frequently been pointed out, are reserved to the Congress by the constitution. There is no doubt that it is within the prerogative of the Congress to delegate these powers either to the executive branch of the Government or to an independent agency. But it is not within Congress’s constitutional means to delegate these powers without prescribing policy objectives and clear guidelines detailing how the powers may be used. Inevitably, the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional those grants of powers made without any spelling out of the specific objectives and limitations placed on their use [pg 128]

This second change, whatever else it accomplished, did open the door to private banker influence in the formation of monetary policy. T h e regional bank presidents have become policymakers. At the very least, the type of man chosen to become the president of a regional bank affects the bent of Open Market Committee thinking. Now the private bankers have the dominant voice in choosing the regional bank presidents. They are hardly likely to choose and retain man as presidents whose approach to monetary matters does not in general conform to their taste.

I hope you take the time to read these excerpts and do not blow your blood pressure too high.

“Capitalists with government help are the worst of all economic phenomena.” — A. Rand

Rand was wrong, the absolute worst economic phenomenon is “Capitalists with government help ALL paid for by counterfeit money printed by the Robber Baron Bankers”

The book “Bank Control of Large Corporations in the United States” By David M. Kotz, explains how banks use pension funds to buy controlling interest in large corporations among other strategies.