The Money Masters: How the International Bankers ...

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:31 am

Oh, look here, another answer that doesn't give an answer. This is a 2005 msnbc article, what do you make of what this guy is saying about the Fed? <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7762302/">www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7762302/</a> Just who owns the Federal Reserve? MSNBC.com answers your questions on business, personal finance THE ANSWER DESK By John W. Schoen Senior Producer MSNBC John W. Schoen Senior Producer May 2, 2005 - With the sages at the Federal Reserve set to meet Tuesday to decide how much all of us are going to have to pay to borrow money, Gary in Delaware got to wondering: just who owns the Fed anyway? Is the Federal Reserve Bank owned by the United States government or is it owned by private individual stock holders? — Gary S., Millsboro, Del. Story continues below ↓ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- advertisement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, neither of the above. Technically, the Federal Reserve System is -- more or less -- owned by itself. This has given rise to numerous rumors, urban myths and conspiracy theories about how and where the Fed derives its unique powers. Since it was set up by the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913, the system has been made up of 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which are structured like corporations –- but with a few very important differences. The Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to “member banks” that are part of the larger banking system that the Fed is charged with regulating. But that stock can’t be sold or traded, and dividends are set by law at 6 percent a year. And unlike most corporations, the Federal Reserve System is not set up to generate profits. Its main job to keep the financial system humming along nicely (and step in to put out fires when they flare up.) Still, the Fed does generate income -– mainly from interest on Treasury debt that it buys and sells in the open market. (That's what the Open Market Committee is in charge of.) The Fed also makes money on interest paid on foreign debt it holds, and from money it lends out to your bank (at the so-called “discount rate.”) And from time to time it makes some pretty big foreign currency trades -- some of them winners and some losers. Even though the Fed is the 800-pound gorilla in the bond and currency markets, it’s not making trades for the same reason as the folks over at Merrill Lynch. The Fed's main goal –- at the moment -– is to fight inflation. By using its huge pools of debt securities, U.S. and foreign currencies, the Fed tries to manage the supply of money out there. Selling bonds soaks up cash, buying them pushes more cash back into the system. Buying dollars helps support its value, selling them tends to cool things off. But if, after all this buying and selling, there’s some money left over it gets deposited in the U.S. Treasury. THE ANSWER DESK • The archive Answers to earlier reader questions Though Congress set it up, the Fed is not managed like other government agencies. Since it makes a nice living without having to ask Congress for money, the Fed enjoys a level of independence not found anywhere else in our government. Sure, the seven members of the Fed’s Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But their terms run for 14 years -- which means they don’t have to take a call from the White House if they don’t want to. About all the Fed has to do is to send the Chairman up to Capitol Hill twice a year to answer a lot of annoying questions by members of Congress looking to score points with the dozen or so people who actually watch this testimony. But there’s a good reason for giving the Fed so much independence. Decisions about the stability of the financial system often require quick decisions in times of crisis. And the Fed is the biggest piggy bank we’ve got. Given the track record of Congress and the White House in managing the federal budget, it’s a good thing they can’t get their hands on it.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:37 am

Good luck on the auction. Here's the current list of Fed Directors, along with an explanation of how they are appointed. Click on each city to get the directors from that district. The article below that should clear up any other confusion. Note...none of this makes the fed a good thing. But we ought at least to get our facts straight. <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/listdirectors/default.cfm">www.federalreserve.gov/ge...efault.cfm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Myth #5. The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C. Do foreigners own or control the Federal Reserve? Conspiracy theorists Gary Kah (1991) and Eustace Mullins (1983) certainly think so, as do many of their readers. Kah and Mullins each authored books alleging that the U.S. central bank – the Federal Reserve – is under the direction of an international banking community and that this financial elite, primarily British, uses its control to manipulate the U.S. economy and its financial markets for their personal gain. This is a very serious charge. The Federal Reserve sets the government’s monetary and interest rate policies. Any change in them has significant repercussions for just about everyone. An increase in interest rates that benefits savers could also price a new home just out of a family’s reach or make a manufacturing firm’s modernization plan too expensive to undertake. The Fed is supposed to choose a policy that benefits the whole of the U.S. economy, not an overseas banking cabal. The ultimate aim of this international banking elite, the conspiracy theory declares, is to establish a one-world government – the infamous New World Order. The Fed’s alleged role in this is simple according to Kah: At the appointed time, the New World Order schemers will instruct the Fed to sabotage the U.S. economy, causing financial and social chaos that will make it much easier for them to gain real political and military control over the United States. In the meantime they simply reap the Fed’s huge annual profits and manipulate the financial markets for further gain. Kah specifically claims that foreigners directly own the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the largest and most important of the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks. Through the N.Y. Federal Reserve the international conspirators control the entire Federal Reserve System and gain its profits. In his book En Route to Global Occupation Kah also plays up the Fed’s alleged role in the New World Order plot. Mullins agrees on the importance of the N.Y. Fed, but claims that while domestic commercial banks own it, in reality a secret European banking club actually controls its policies from a distance. How much of these conspiracy theories, if any, is true? In this article I investigate the remarkable claims of Kah and Mullins. Specifically, I examine whether foreigners own the New York Federal Reserve Bank either directly or indirectly, whether the N.Y. Fed controls the whole of the Federal Reserve System, and whether foreigners receive the System’s large annual profits. As it turns out, very little of these conspiracy tales are true. Who Owns the New York Federal Reserve Bank? Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized as a corporation in much the same way as many other firms. However, Gary Kah in 1991 claimed foreigners intent on global economic and political domination own a controlling interest in the shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. “Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts,” according to Kah (p. 13), identified the top eight shareholders as Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam Lehman Brothers of New York Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York Chase Manhatten Bank Goldman, Sachs of New York. Kah describes these as the Fed’s “Class A shareholders” (p. 14). This is curious because Federal Reserve stock is not classified in this manner. It can be either “member stock” or “public stock.” However, the directors of a Federal Reserve Bank are separated into Classes A, B, and C depending on how they are appointed (12 USCA §302). Fellow conspiracy theorist Eustace Mullins presents a different list in his 1983 book Secrets of the Federal Reserve. He reports the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed in 1982 were Citibank Chase Manhatten Bank Morgan Guaranty Trust Chemical Bank Manufacturers Hanover Trust Bankers Trust Company National Bank of North America Bank of New York. He notes that together these banks own about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. European banking organizations, most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty, he then claims, own many of these banks. Mullins also contends that through their American agents, the European bankers – who he calls the London Connection – select the board of directors for the N.Y. Fed. Since the N.Y. Fed supposedly controls the whole Federal Reserve System, this allows the London Connection to direct U.S. monetary policy. He explains, ... The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today (Mullins, p. 47-4<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the two lists. According to Kah, foreigners own shares of the N.Y. Fed directly. On the other hand, Mullins does not report any such direct foreign ownership. Instead, Europeans allegedly own the U.S. banks which, in turn, own the N.Y. Fed – an indirect ownership. So who is right? Mullins claimed the source of his information was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, however, that publication has never reported the shareholder list of any Federal Reserve Bank. It is not clear where he obtained his list. Kah’s source was supposedly an unnamed group of Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts and so it is impossible even to verify his list. On the other hand, the two authors published their lists eight years apart. Since Mullins’ was the earlier of the two, it may be possible that sometime between 1983 and 1991 foreigners acquired a substantial amount of stock in the N.Y. Fed. It is also possible that both lists are wrong. To clarify this mystery, let’s first look at the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 itself. The law requires that all nationally chartered commercial banks and savings & loans buy stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank, thereby becoming “member banks” (12 USCA §282).1 The amount of stock a bank must buy, called “member stock,” is proportional to the bank’s size. So, we would expect that by law the largest shareholders of the N.Y. Fed to be the largest banks operating in its district. This is consistent with Mullins since all of the banks on his list were, at the time, the largest banks in the N.Y. Fed region. Further examination of the law and the facts makes Kah’s list suspect. The law does not permit the stock of a Federal Reserve Bank to be traded publicly like the stock of a typical corporation. The original Federal Reserve Act called for each regional Bank to sell stock to raise at least $4 million to begin operations (12 USCA §281). The stock was to be sold to banks, not to the public. Only in the event that sales to member banks did not raise the necessary $4 million would the regional Fed Banks be permitted to sell shares to the public, called “public stock.” However, this did not happen and no stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm (Woodward, 1996). Note that foreign interests comprise half of the alleged owners on Kah’s list. Moreover, three of the hypothesized American owners are not even banks. The law permits neither foreigners nor non-bank firms from owning shares in any Federal Reserve Bank. Chase Manhatten is the only entity on Kah’s list that could possibly own shares of the N.Y. Fed. We can simply look at the most recent list of shareholders to test the claim that foreigners own the New York Federal Reserve Bank. According to the N.Y. Fed itself, as of June 30, 1997 the top eight shareholders were Chase Manhatten Bank Citibank Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Fleet Bank Bankers Trust Bank of New York Marine Midland Bank Summit Bank. All of the major shareholders seen here and all of the banks on the complete list are either nationally- or state-chartered banks. All of them are U.S.-owned. Kah’s claim that foreigners directly own the N.Y. Fed is completely wrong. This list is consistent, however, with Mullins in that all the owners are domestic banks functioning within the N.Y. Federal Reserve district. The discrepancies are likely due to mergers, new entries into the banking market, or other significant changes in the size of district banks since the publication of Mullins’ list. One point is clear: foreigners do not own the New York Federal Reserve directly. Global Domination Through the Back Door? Although foreigners do not own the New York Federal Reserve Bank directly, perhaps, Mullins argues, they own and control it indirectly via ownership of domestic banks. He claims that since the money-center banks of New York own the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires that firms whose stock is traded publicly report their major stockholders each year. The reports identify all institutional shareholders (primarily, firms owning stock in other companies), all company officials who own shares in their firm, and any individual or institution owning more than 5% of the firm’s stock. These reports show that only one of the N.Y. Fed’s current largest shareholders, Citicorp, has any major foreign stockholders. As of January 1996, Price Alwaleed Bin Talad of Saudi Arabia owned 8.9% of Citicorp stock.2 None of the member banks on the above list have any significant portion of shares held by any foreign individual or institution. Mullins' claim that foreigners own the N.Y. Federal Reserve indirectly is also wrong. Moreover, the ownership rights of Federal Reserve Bank stock are different than the common stock of typical corporations. Usually, the number of votes a shareholder has is proportional to the number of shares he owns. However, ownership of Federal Reserve Bank stock entitles the shareholder to one vote when voting for its regional Federal Reserve Bank officials regardless of how many total shares the member bank may own. A group of international conspirators would need to purchase a controlling interest in a majority of the banks operating in the N.Y. district to guarantee the election of their desired minions to the N.Y. Fed’s board of directors. Buying that much stock in so many U.S. banks would require an outlay of hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there must be a cheaper path to global domination. Mullins’ premise here is that the member banks control the policies of the N.Y. Fed. In the next section I detail why this is wrong, but an historical example also illustrates the fault of this assumption. Galbraith (1990) recounts that in the spring of 1929 the New York Stock Exchange was booming. Prices there had been rising considerably, extending the bull market that began in 1924. The Federal Reserve Board decided to take steps to arrest the speculative bubble that appeared to be forming: It raised the cost banks had to pay to borrow from the Federal Reserve and it increased speculators’ margin requirements. Charles Mitchell, then the head of National City Bank (now Citicorp, one of the largest shareholders of the N.Y. Fed at the time), was so irritated by this decision that in a bank statement he wrote, “We feel that we have an obligation which is paramount to any Federal Reserve warning, or anything else, to avert any dangerous crisis in the money market” (Galbraith, p. 57). National City Bank promised to increase lending to offset any restrictive policies of the Federal Reserve. Wrote Galbraith, “The effect was more than satisfactory: the market took off again. In the three summer months, the increase in prices outran all of the quite impressive increase that had occurred during the entire previous year” (Ibid). If the Fed and its policies were really under the control of its major stockholders, then why did the Federal Reserve Board clearly defy the intent of its single largest shareholder? Does the New York Fed Call the Shots? Mullins and Kah both argue that by controlling the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the international banking elite command the entire Federal Reserve System and thus direct U.S. monetary policy for their own profit. “For all practical purposes,” Kah writes, “the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the Federal Reserve” (Kah, p.13; emphasis his). This is the linchpin of their conspiracy theory because it provides the mechanism by which the international bankers can execute their plans. A brief look at how the Fed’s powers are actually distributed shows that this key assumption in the conspiracy theory is wrong. The Federal Reserve System is controlled not by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, but by the Board of Governors (the Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Board is a seven-member panel appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. It determines the interest rate for loans to commercial banks and thrifts, selects the required reserve ratio which determines how much of customer deposits a bank must keep on hand (a factor that significantly affects a bank’s ability create new credit), and also decides how much new currency Federal Reserve Banks may issue each year (12 USCA §24<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . The FOMC consists of the members of the Board, the president of the New York Fed, and four presidents from other regional Federal Reserve Banks. It formulates open market policy which determines how much in government bonds the Fed Banks may buy or sell – the major tool of monetary policy (12 USCA §263). The key point is that a Federal Reserve Bank cannot change its discount rate or required reserve ratio, issue additional currency, or purchase government bonds without the explicit approval of either the Board or the FOMC. The New York Federal Reserve Bank, through its direct and permanent representation on the FOMC, has more say on monetary policy than any other Federal Reserve Bank, but it still only has one vote of twelve on the FOMC and no say at all in setting the discount rate or the required reserve ratio. If it wanted monetary policy to go in one direction, while the Board and the rest of the FOMC wanted policy to go another, then the New York Fed would be out-voted. The powers over U.S. monetary policy rest firmly with the publicly-appointed Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, not with the New York Federal Reserve Bank or a group of international conspirators. Mullins also made a great to-do about the Federal Advisory Council. This is a panel of twelve representatives appointed by the board of directors of each Fed Bank. The Council meets at least four times each year with the members of the Board to give them their advice and to discuss general economic conditions (12 USCA §261). Many of the members have been bankers, a point not at all missed by Mullins. He speculates that this Council of bankers is able to force its will on the Board of Governors: The claim that the “advice” of the council members is not binding on the Governors or that it carries no weight is to claim that four times a year, twelve of the most influential bankers in the United States take time from their work to travel to Washington to meet with the Federal Reserve Board merely to drink coffee and exchange pleasantries (Mullins, p. 45). A point Mullins neglects entirely is that the Council has no voting power in Board meetings, and thus has no direct input into monetary policy. In support of his hypothesis Mullins offers no evidence, not even an anecdote. Moreover, his Council theory is inconsistent with his general thesis that the London Connection runs the Federal Reserve System via their imagined control of the N.Y. Fed. If this were true, then why would they also need the Council? Who Gets the Fed’s Profits? Gary Kah and Thomas Schauf (1992) also maintain that the huge profits of the Federal Reserve System are diverted to its foreign owners through the dividends paid to its stockholders. Kah reports “Each year billions of dollars are ‘earned’ by Class A stockholders of the Federal Reserve” (Kah, p. 20). Schauf further laments by asking, “When are the profits of the Fed going to start flowing into the Treasury so that average Americans are no longer burdened with excessive, unnecessary taxes?” The Federal Reserve System certainly makes large profits. According to the Board’s 1995 Annual Report, the System had net income totaling $23.9 billion, which, if it were a single firm, would qualify it as one of the most profitable companies in the world. How were these profits distributed? By an agreement between the Board and the Treasury, nearly all of the Fed’s annual profits are paid to the federal government. Accordingly, a lion’s share of $23.4 billion, which represented 97.9 percent of the Federal Reserve’s net income, was paid to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Banks kept $283 million, and the remaining $231 million was paid to the Fed’s stockholders as dividends. Regarding Schauf’s lamentation, the Federal Reserve System has been paying its profits to the Treasury since 1947. Conclusion The allegation that an international banking cartel controls the Federal Reserve is wrong. Contrary to Kah’s claim, foreigners do not own any stock in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Neither do they currently own any significant shares of the domestic banks that actually do own shares in the N.Y. Fed. Moreover, the central assumption that control of the New York Federal Reserve is the same as control of the whole System is badly mistaken. Also, the profits of the Federal Reserve System, again contrary to the conspiracy theorists, are funneled almost entirely back to the federal government, not to an international banking elite. If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of an international conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it. Footnotes: 1. State chartered banks have the option of becoming member banks of the Federal Reserve System. Interestingly, only 10% of have done so. 2. Compact Disclosure CD-ROM, v3.0 References: 82nd Annual Report, 1995, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, U.S. Government Printing Office. Galbraith, John K. (1990), A Short History of Financial Euphoria. New York: Whittle Direct Books. Kah, Gary (1991), En Route to Global Occupation. Lafayette, La.: Huntington House. Mullins, Eustace (1983), Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Staunton, Va.: Bankers Research Institute. Schauf, Thomas (1992), The Federal Reserve, Streamwood, IL: FED-UP, Inc. Woodward, G. Thomas (1996), “Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality.” Congressional Research Service. United States Code Annotated, 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty5.html">www.geocities.com/Capitol...erty5.html</a> <hr></blockquote> Let me know when you have access to Google again.

by JD » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:58 am

Again, I don't understand this topic. Seeking answers. Thanks for the post Pug. I like this little bon mot: "The Fed also makes money on interest paid on foreign debt it holds, and from money it lends out to your bank (at the so-called “discount rate.”) " The last published M3 data (before it stopped being published!) stated that as of 16th March 2006 M3 was $10.34 trillion. Assuming an average 5% prime rate on the money supply, so under that asssumption "The Fed" is making about $500 billion dollars per year simply for having the right to create money. If that simple calculation is correct, that's more dough than Saudi Arabia makes selling its crude oil. All rolling into private hands. Sweet! Wish I had a piece of that gig!! As MSNBC states "Since it makes a nice living without having to ask Congress for money, the Fed enjoys a level of independence not found anywhere else in our government." And, according to MSNBC, "the Federal Reserve System is -- more or less -- owned by itself. This has given rise to numerous rumors, urban myths and conspiracy theories about how and where the Fed derives its unique powers." So the Fed owns itself, and the $500 billion per year goes.......... where? The dividend rate of 6% sounds reassuring. But it is based on what? The intial capitalization? The total M3 (LOL!) And when it comes to answering the basic question: Who owns the "member banks" who own the shares in the Fed? Silence. Now I'm sure that the numerous "rumors, urban myths and conspiracy theories" could be easily put to rest with some good disclosure? I wonder if the Fed is subject to SOX?? This is the easy to find stuff. We haven't even gotten to the City yet.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by JD » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:09 am

DE - as my previous postings hardly painted Mullins or Kah as credible, bebunking them isn't helping with my question. Debunking the debunked is merely increasing confusion. Who are the controlling shareholders in the member banks? I'm not seeking the answer as to who DOESN'T own the shares. Rather the question is: who does? And the point stating "According to the Board’s 1995 Annual Report, the System had net income totaling $23.9 billion" - uhhhh - yeah but we know the M3 and we know the discount rate, so where are the extra hundreds of billions of dollars going? Overhead? Shareholder dividends? Maybe Arthur Anderson was the Fed's auditor in 1995 LOL? I'm not a forensic accountant but have been around the block enough to cast suspicious eyes on any financial report I don't understand. Am I grossly overestimating the cash flow the Fed should be generating?

by JD » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 am

<a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/listdirectors/default.cfm">www.federalreserve.gov/ge...efault.cfm</a> This helps with the management but does nothing to identify the controlling shareholders.

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:39 am

JD, In one of my forays through numerous sites, I saw a reference to the effect: if you want to get to the bottom of who are the true shareholders, a search of Standard and Poor is in order, regarding the member banks. Haven't got that far yet and am not even sure that isn't another rabbit hole to leap into. This really is something, isn't it, trying to find out what should be such simple answers. I went through several sites run by the banks and they are all just as ambiguous and unhelpful.

by jc » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>We bear witness against the merchants of Babylon that they have planted ink and reaped figures.*<hr></blockquote> To think that the digital scam is an idea so ancient as shown in the opening quote is not something that comes naturally to people with no concept of history. But it is. Usury is “age old, age thick;” the creation of money out of nothing also. To realize that this creation of money is taught in every basic course on economics today, and taught as sound economics, without any student of same realizing this is beyond comprehension. To hear that some have so feeble a rational grasp of economics and the nature of money as to think that it is dependent upon the material with which it is made is simply baffling. Let's make this clear from the outset. Whether the means of exchange: money, is made of gold, silver, leather, shells, salt, camels, cattle, fur, amber, myrrh, paper or mere digits in a ledger whether digital or no is of no great consequence. This is a BASIC lesson in economics, and the fact that those who study economics cannot see the implications of this is either due to gross and willful ignorance, neglect, shoddy reasoning and bad judgment or simple deviousness. Money has three characteristics. It is (1) a measure of value [edit: that means it's used to determine the "price" of a commodity], (2) a means of exchange (of goods and services), and (3) a repository of value. Aye, that last, that’s the rub. What is meant, what can only be meant, by (3) is that money as a repository of value functions as a future possibility of exchange. No more, no less. There is no mention of materials. The idea that money is capital: that the measure of value has value in and of itself in the same way that goods have is a perversion. That it can be bought and sold is a gross perversion. That money BEGETS money is a perversion of perversion. That paper or digital money is free to beget and be gotten is the MOTHER of all perversions. That these perversions form the basis of modern economics and are the root cause of great ills and injustice in this world shall be made so very apparent that ignoring this ought constitute a crime, if it doesn’t already. How Banks Make Money In a basic book, Success in Economics by Derek Lobley,** one finds an illustrative example of what is termed the “creation of credit.” (A foul misnomer if ever there was one.) But how is this done? Imagine there is only one bank in our economy. This one bank has a balance sheet of £10,000 constituting the total amount of actual deposits made by its customers, and therefore the total money supply in the form of banknotes and coins, regardless of material. So the bank has £10,000 worth of liabilities in the form of deposits, and the same amount in assets to meet those liabilities. Which means that it has sufficient funds to meet all customer demands. If customers settle their debts with checks all the bank has to do is transfer money from one account to the other, not even that, it can merely transfer the appropriate digits. Customers, however, make withdrawals in order to settle small transactions in cash, which creditors then deposit in the bank. At some point the bank will realize that the average of all cash withdrawals amounts to ten percent of total deposits, so that the bank needs, at most, £1,000 to meet all customer demands. Or as Lobley has it: “we may take the view that with cash in hand of £10,000 the bank can afford liabilities of £100,000.” What? Imagine that a customer, Mr Clark, asks for a loan of £1,000. The bank opens an account for him with that amount in “credit.” But if we then look at the balance sheet we see that Clark’s loan figures as “a promise to repay” and now the bank has a total of £11,000 in liabilities and assets; ninety percent of that in the form of deposited banknotes and coins, the remaining ten percent (plus interest) is a debt in ink Clark owes the bank. (Remember, loans from the bank figure as deposits in the bank.) It is there on the balance sheet. It is money, created out of nothing. The bank can go on doing this until the amount of banknotes and coins equals ten percent of the total amount of assets and liabilities: £100,000, because any bank at any given time only needs, at most, ten percent of total assets to meet all customer demands. The bank has created £90,000 out of nothing. They call it credit but it is debt. And they charge interest on it. The customers go on as before, oblivious. The amount of banknotes and coins is as before: £10,000. No smoke, no hat, no rabbit. Just plain paper and ink is all. Apply the above the FED RES. They "make" money, i.e. create it as debt, for the customer: the GOV (i.e. YOU) and charge you interest for it. Do you feel robbed? JD's question then is: WHO THE HELL IS ROBBING ME? Do you honestly think some "mainstream economist" will answer and answer honestly? Do you think the FED will? Do you think they'll do anything they can to defame and silence all who attempt to supply an answer? (Upon edit) Is it the owners of banks or the system of banking that is in need of being abolished? Notes: * Basil Bunting, “al-Anfal or The Spoils,” in The Complete Poems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). ** London: John Murray Publishers Ltd., 1978. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jc@rigorousintuition>jc</A> at: 6/14/06 5:00 am

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:18 am

Jd...you are kidding, right? First off, these aren't publicly traded companies, per se. Each fed bank has "members"...LOTS of members. Just about all the banks in the district. They have stock per a set formula with a set dividend of 6 percent a year. And as it is CLEARLY stated in the piece I already posted: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, <hr></blockquote> So, you expect me to go out and get all of THEIR major shareholders? As to the question of what happens to the profits...that article also already answered that question: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>How were these profits distributed? By an agreement between the Board and the Treasury, nearly all of the Fed’s annual profits are paid to the federal government. Accordingly, a lion’s share of $23.4 billion, which represented 97.9 percent of the Federal Reserve’s net income, was paid to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Banks kept $283 million, and the remaining $231 million was paid to the Fed’s stockholders as dividends. Regarding Schauf’s lamentation, the Federal Reserve System has been paying its profits to the Treasury since 1947.<hr></blockquote> The reason you are having so much trouble is that google hits continue to generate so many of the same recyclings of the Mullens piece. I had the same trouble, though the "Myths" article I posted I found in just a few minutes. I think it is good that you are barking...but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree. The harm that the Fed does is not because of some little secret cabal. The harm is that it does EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO. And that is to steer the economy in certain directions to the benefit, ultimately, of a very small percentage of the population. Try "Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider. Probably has most of the details you are looking for.

by **IanEye** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:29 pm

Hello, In terms of identifying who the “International Bankers” are, you might want to start at the web page of Canada’s own, Yamaguchy: <a href="http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/">www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/</a> Apparently, Canada’s universities have really comprehensive libraries! It is my understanding that that is how Yamaguchy came in contact with a lot of the books featured on the website. For money matters, try Silas Adam’s “The Legalized Crime of Banking” or June Grem’s “The Money Manipulators”. In general, this is a great site, where else can you find Mussolini’s Saturday Evening Post missive on how great Fascism is?!? <a href="http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/benito/paths.html">www.yamaguchy.netfirms.co...paths.html</a> Thanks for reading, IanEye

by jc » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:26 pm

<a href="http://www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter_1.htm">www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter_1.htm</a> What if you were to wake up one morning to that headline in your morning paper? Well, it's time to WAKE-UP AMERICA, because as we slept, someone has stolen America. The thieves have dismantled our Constitution, eroded our rights and liberties and destroyed our economy. WAKE-UP AMERICA AND LOOK AROUND YOU! What do you see? Our banks and savings and loans are failing, while you, the taxpayers are held responsible for the bail-out. Real estate foreclosures are at an all time high. American farmers are loosing their land and the bread-basket of the world is being transferred to foreign interests. Our factories and steel mills are closing and unemployment continues climbing to unprecedented numbers. Giant companies like IBM, AT&T, XEROX, Hughes Aircraft, Boeing, G.M. and Ford Motor Co. etc. are laying-off more and more American workers. American jobs are being transferred to foreign countries under the GATT & NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Business failures are skyrocketing. Our streets are filling up with homeless men, women and children. Taxes continue to rise, while government services decrease. The national debt is exceeded $5 trillion with no end in sight. Americans have become indentured servants! Wars and rumors of wars have reached the four corners of the earth. Our freedoms and liberties are being bartered for a dole. Our Constitution is ignored as it sits on a shelf collecting dust. Corruption has reached every facet of government. The judicial system that is supposed to protect our Inalienable Rights has failed us. Our sovereignty is being taken away in the name of "NEW WORLD ORDER". Our nation fears its own government and the people are saying, "There is nothing I can do about it." America was once a proud, free, and prosperous nation and now, we are the world's largest debtor nation . . . and the worst is yet to come. Economic collapse knocks at our door. Thomas Jefferson, declared, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Did Jefferson have a crystal ball when he spoke these words? Has a private bank taken control over our nation's money supply? The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco, Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation reconstructed to the best of my ability from notes taken during the conversation on October 8, 1992. CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System? MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government. CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country? MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress. CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve? MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks. CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything? MR. SUPINSKI -Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people. CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve? MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets. CALLER - What are these assets comprised of? MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities. CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold. CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes. CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from? MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury. CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note? MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents. CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note? MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents. CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - According to the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct? MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close. CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase U.S. Bonds from the government? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that. CALLER - Basically, that is what happens? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct. CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation? MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage. CALLER - Where did they go? MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money. CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know. CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt? MR. SUPINSKI - No CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy? MR. SUPINSKI - About $7. CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason. CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nations money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country? MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes. CALLER - I smell a rat, do you? MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here. CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited? MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited. CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the G.A.O. and why is the Federal Reserve resisting? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know. CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the U.S., which comprises of the Senate and the House of Representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it? MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department. CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress. CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution? MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying. CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights? MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer). CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court? MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter. CALLER - Have they been Supreme Court Cases? MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure. CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. U.S. and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co.] MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department. CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off? MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution. CALLER - What is the solution? MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card. CALLER - Do you mean under the E.F.T. Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the E.F.T. they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder. CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers? MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest. CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy? MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that. CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death? MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so. CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am. MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good. CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse. MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good. CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time. MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling. If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won't find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true. And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. U.S., case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentalities . . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations . . . federal reserve banks are listed neither as `wholly owned' government corporations [under 31 U.S.C. Section 846] nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations [under 31 U.S.C. Section 856] . . . 28 U.S.C. Sections 1346(b), 2671. `Federal agency' is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . . There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the `detailed physical performance' and `day to day operations' of that entity. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity's finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities . . . It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . ." According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, "When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks." ("The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears", published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) The original Stock-holders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller's, J.P. Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEY-CHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, "NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE U.S." * Monopoly - "A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service. `Monopoly', as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, "No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank." They didn't want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials. <a href="http://www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter_1.htm">www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter_1.htm</a>

by **Dreams End** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:12 am

I think I'm figuring out how to articulate the more subtle but ultimately more important concern I have about the "banker" theory. I think that often, such theories come from a genuine populist, anti-capitalist perspective. Check out the link from IanEye...great historical collection. We are not "allowed" to be anti-capitalist, so it gets focused on bankers or even Jews (not saying that's what this movie did...but this is true historiclaly.) Sometimes this is intentional and manipulated, as Hitler did. Sometimes, folks look around, understand their conditions suck and find the most "obvious" representative of oppressive forces. For example, in South Central Los Angeles, the tension was with Korean store owners. While Korean store owners have very little power in the US, they do have lots of little shops and liquor stores in South Central. But the whole idea of bankers being the problem leaves so much out. For example, the historical documents that IanEye linked to show anti-banker rhetoric going all the way back to 1870's. And history buffs are aware about the concerns about leaving the gold standard, etc. However, life really, really sucked hard for a very large percentage of the population already and this is what gets left out. It had only been a few years since slavery had been outlawed, for example. Surely we are not to believe that life was "better" for slaves before the Morgan's "created" (according to the pamphlets) the Federal Reserve. In fact, since the founding of this country, the vast majority of people have been slaves, indentured servants (during colonial times), poor white sons and daughters of indentured servants or those otherwise shipped out of England via the very lucrative transport business to America who were facing nothing but workhouses as options in England. Everywhere, aristocratic property ownership patterns from England repeated themselves here. In fact, many colonies were specifically granted by the crown for individual families to "rule". Everywhere the local charters and constitutions were written to keep a class of "nobles" in charge of most of the property...often monopolizing the good land and driving the storied small farmers west. Toss in industrialization and the working conditions in factories, etc and you have a very large number of folks in very desperate condition. It has always been thus. Bankers lend money at interest and make money off of activities that in and of themselves don't result in manufactured items. But this does not mean that those who do end up making actual goods were automatically making life better for people. Think "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory"...one of the examples of bad working conditions that makes it into mainstream history books. Ultimately, banker conspiracy theory doesn't address those concerns at all. Owners will exploit labor, whether or not the bankers are around. it has always been thus, and has usually been dealt with in history by overt slavery. One could, in fact, argue that banking is the engine of capitalism, allowing the capitalization of much larger scale projects than could be built simply using the funds at hand. And while the impacts in areas like inflation and devaluation of the dollar are important...again, it leaves out a very large segment of the population who suffer regardless of what banks are up to. So to sum up, anti-banker and even anti-Jewish sentiment has often grown out of a genuine populism, of people whose living conditions are not adequate and who band together to fight back. Sometimes, maybe even often, I think this energy gets manipulated either by "demagogues" (which term, however, in most mainstream history books, often simply means, "those who rile up the poor") and by the business classes themselves. And sometimes these movements simply rise up on their own and attach to bankers as the most obvious representatives of the ruling class.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:46 am

I had never heard of Jay Kinney. He has a really interesting website that is in the tradition, I guess, of "third positionists". While I think the third positionist movement is more about right subverting left than right meets left (for example, Alexander Dugin who represents this ideology of mixing nationalism (with some racial elements), with some aspects of "leftist" economics and various esoteric spiritualities, has clear ties to the Russian security apparatus, I have never seen it more comprehensively represented. The essay below I agree with in parts and disagree with in parts. I found this reprinted on a discussion board, and I can't find it on his site. Weirdly, Rigorous Intuition is not on his list of links...though it would fit right in. Here's the website: <a href="http://www.jaykinney.com/">www.jaykinney.com/</a> And here's the essay which takes the position that "international banker" is pretty much the rights way of looking at the same issues as the left from a different perspective. In rightwing thought, free enterprise has been "subverted" by these bankers, etc. Get rid of the bankers, and we all can enjoy the true marketplace again. I think this begs the question, how did the elites get to be elite and what changes would we need to simply keep the cycle of concentration of wealth from repeating. Ironically, I think one possible answer would be the adoption of Islamic banking practices, though I don't know much about it. However, exploitation of labor, in my view, would continue apace. The left, argues this essay, misses out by ignoring the role of banking. I guess this essay was written before Greiders' "Secrets of the Temple" and oddly, he doesn't even mention Holly Sklar's "Trilateralism", which deals with financial elites...not just banks, from a more or less leftist perspective. (A leftist friend of mine suggests some disinfo games may be present in that book and I haven't revisited it yet with that caveat in mind.) So with the caveat that I, personally, am not a fan of this third positionist ideology, I think it does a good job of delineating how the "far right and far left" as he calls them, hit on some ideas that the mainstream excludes. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The Disharmonic Convergence: the Far Left and Far Right as Strange Bedfellows by Jay Kinney If one were to pay serious attention to the pundits of the mass media - always a risky proposition - a curious fact would soon make itself evident. In the wake of the new Democratic majority in the Senate, the recent stock market crash, the defeat of Bork's high court nomination, and, lo, the infighting among the TV evangelists, the liberal commentators are busy trumpeting the end of the Reagan era and the imminent demise of conservatism. Meanwhile, the deep thinkers of the right, bolstered by the lackluster performance so far of the nonentities competing for the Democratic presidential nomination, and the general lack of ideas among the left-of-center politicians are clucking their tongues over the bankruptcy of liberalism. In a sense, both views are accurate: the conservatives and liberals alike are irrelevant to tackling the problems confronting us. This realization among increasing numbers of people has led to the search for a new political analysis and a workable economics that transcend the limitations of the old Left/Right debate. Yet, because the mass media and the political and business institutions of our society have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - even as it crumbles - it is nearly impossible to engage in a public discussion of alternatives. Any alternate approach to government or economics inevitably involves rejuggling the power relations of society, and that is the last thing that those who monopolize the public arena wish to see happen (or even discussed). Neo-conservativism and neo-liberalism have been presented in recent years as steps toward formulating a new pragmatic politics, but neither camp in fact represents much of anything other than the shifting of warm bodies from the vaguely left to the vaguely right. The only real critiques of the status quo with any bite have been those of groups so far outside of the mainstream that they never get favorable mention in the mass media, i.e. the far left and far right. As mortal enemies, the individuals and small groups that make up these camps generally want nothing to do with each other, preferring to characterize each other as "fascists" or "commies." Yet, ironically, the worldviews of the far left and far right have more in common than either usually care to admit. At their worst, many proponents of both camps share a mutual fondness for sweeping solutions that all too easily slide into totalitarianism. At their best, however, they each hit political nails on the head more often than those in the center. If a new political perspective is to emerge, it will likely incorporate the strengths and insights of both of these camps rather than hover around the center. The following observations are offered as a small step towards understanding what those insights may be. * * * Conventional wisdom has it that the pluralist nature of America (and of Western democracies in general) serves as a safeguard against one group gaining too much power over the whole of society. Thus the private sector balances the public sector, labor balances management, and the South balances the North, etc. In the governmental realm, sometimes the Republicans win and sometimes the Democrats, but neither wins all the time, while the influence of Congress itself is offset by the Executive and Judicial branches. This is a comforting and admirable enough formulation; whether it actually matches reality or prevents the formation of powerful elites is another matter. Both the far left and far right dispute that America's pluralism has, in fact, prevented small elites from acquiring and manipulating economic and political power. These elites - labeled the ruling class in the case of left analyses and international bankers and one worlders in the case of right analyses - are identified as individuals and corporate entities that largely operate outside of the arena of public decision-making. In focusing on these elites both worldviews challenge the reigning myths of Western democracies and risk being labelled as "conspiracy theories." In their most extreme formulations, the analyses of the far left and right may indeed become conspiracy theories and exhibit the defects of paranoia, scapegoating, and guilt by association commonly associated with that label. However, the most sophisticated analyses of both sides are worth serious consideration and should not be ignored. The following are some of their points in common as well as their areas of greatest disagreement. Both left and right analyses describe the present economic order as "monopoly capitalism" though some other terms are also used (on the left: late capitalism, imperialism; on the right: supercapitalism, finance capitalism). Both analyses contrast monopoly capitalism with an earlier system of free enterprise capitalism, and see monopoly capitalism as having overtaken free enterprise. The left's analysis views this situation as the result of the evolving logic of capitalism itself wherein large companies consume smaller ones, national corporations become multinational in the search for both new markets and cheaper labor, and capitalism becomes integrated on an international scale. In other words, for the left, the monopolization of capital is not necessarily the result of a sneaky plot by some backroom elite; rather, the system of capitalism produces monopolies and elites as natural byproducts of its own evolution. By contrast, the right's analysis sees monopoly capitalism as having usurped free enterprise through a combination of government controls (manipulated by "insiders"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> , the conniving of international financiers and internationalists, and the drowning of real capital in a sea of debt and paper-based money. The right usually presumes that if the elite conspirators behind this usurpation were identified on a mass scale and their influence and control destroyed, the U.S. economy could then be returned to a system of free enterprise. Significantly, both analyses are primarily talking about the same phenomenon: the means by which the leadership of the American ruling elite have attempted to "make the system work." Crucial institutions for arriving at an informal consensus among this leadership such as the Council on Foreign Relations have come under fire from both the left and right for largely identical reasons: they are the apparatus for maintaining the status quo regardless of what party is in power or who is elected President. Because the largest (and most influential) American corporations are now multinationals with both markets and workers all over the world, they have a vested interest in expediting international economic cooperation and coordination. Since this coordination is characterized by the intertwining of U.S. Corporate and Government policy with their counterparts in dozens of countries (the much vaunted "interdependence" of the modern era) it can best (by the left) and one-world internationalist (by the right). Still, despite their shared perception of this phenomenon, each camp has its blind spots. In its emphasis on capitalism as a system, (and on capitalists as a class), the left tends to skip over how the realms of international banking and world monetary policy provide constant opportunities for the amassing of fortunes and powers independent of any actual productive enterprises. Since international banker is a catch phrase of the right, no self-respecting leftist is going to be caught dead investigating what reality may lurk behind the phrase.(1) Also often overlooked by some leftists is the actual integration of "communist" economies into the existing world economic order. Those who don't overlook this tend to write such countries off as "state capitalist." On the other hand, because the right's analysis maintains an idealized system of free enterprise as its touchstone, it tends to deny the possible existeof opposing class interests in conflict. It also ignores the negative effects of turning all human necessities and desires into commodities hawked in what the Situationists have called "the Spectacle," and the complicity of capitalism in the destruction of earlier forms of community. It is in the search for solutions that both camps are most polarized by their own idealism. For instance, the classic left analysis sees no hope of salvaging capitalism, especially not a free enterprise version, viewing it as being in chronic crisis due to internal contradictions that can only be resolved through instituting socialism/communism. In mirror-like fashion, the classic right analysis sees no hope for socialism/communism, viewing it as tyrannical and stagnant due to bureaucratic waste, power-monopolizing elites, lack of freedom and incentive, and assuming that the only way out for countries under its yoke is through a return to market-driven free enterprise. Because the left is driven by a vision of a utopian future that has never materialized, and the right is driven by a romanticized concept of a past that never was, both analyses cancel each other out. According to each, the "solution" of the other is impossible and/or illusory. Since each side is defending an ideal system that doesn't exist in a pure state in the "real world," but could supposedly exist if only the other system weren't screwing things up, both sides end up talking past each other as a matter of course. However, there are parts of both the left and the right that begin to depart from this stalemate. This departure has been most pronounced in Europe where the political polarities have always been more defined to begin with. For instance, the most innovative segments of the far left (usually identified with anarchism or "anti-authoritarianism" or autonomia) tend to identify the State as the root of most social repression, and disown any political or economic system that posits a strong role for government. These segments often call for the free association of workers' councils or the autonomous organization of cooperatives or similar utopian formulations as alternatives to a centralized political economy. Then again they often decline to call for any specific goal or reorganization ahead of the fact, leaving open the question of what might be ahead. In any event, they invariably denounce the governments of both the Western and the Eastern blocs as enemies of their respective citizens. This last tendency is paralleled in some respects by the critique offered by the so-called French New Right, identified most often with GRECE - Groupement de recherche et d'étude pour une civilisation européenne (Research and study group for a European civilization). GRECE's leading thinkers, such as Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, call for a Europe united in its independence from both "the West" (i.e. the American way of life, including consumerism, chronic mobility, and a passive depoliticized populace held in thrall to the mass media) and "the East" (i.e. the Soviet system with its party bureaucracy, police surveillance, and political repression). The Europe they champion in opposition to the Superpowers is a Europe of specific peoples whose individual cultures and heritages are fast disappearing beneath the tidal wave of Atlanticist universalism. The appeal of this position must be obvious even to Americans, many of whom feel the same repugnance in discovering that London is now overrun with Pizza Huts and that a giant Disneyworld is under construction outside Paris.(2) In defending European nations and peoples against cultural penetration, GRECE's position resembles that of defenders of indigenous peoples in the "Fourth World." Indeed, strange about-faces can occur when former colonizers find themselves becoming the new colonies. When this is combined with an expanding concern for the environment and an interest in alternative spiritualities, one finds the French New Right common ground with those other European renegades, the Greens. Of course, despite their disavowals of being beyond the polarized politics of the past, (both GRECE and the Greens announce themselves as "Neither Left nor Right,"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> they still have the reflexes of their ancestors. Thus, any interest shown by the New Right in establishing dialog with the Greens is usually written off as an attempt at infiltration and entryism. Recently, scattered reports from Europe have noted the development of a "Third Position" of former leftists and rightists which has, apparently, been evolving for nearly ten years or longer. Information on this movement has been extremely scanty: an article by Martin Lee in the May, 1987 Mother Jones directly linked it with neo-fascist terrorists such as the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (NAR), and reported slogans such as "Hitler and Mao united in struggle," which suggest a "worst of both worlds" approach. While this spectre of totalitarian berserkers is dramatically horrific, it is far more likely that any real new political movement, either there or here, will primarily draw upon people with neither skeletons to hide in their closet nor the desire to create new ones. * * * The prospects for political convergence in the U.S. are considerably different from those in Europe. For one thing, the domestic far right tends to identify itself heavily with the same American Founding Fathers that the European far right cites as the original source of much of America's leveling aggressiveness. While GRECE and those within its orbit (including the European political journal, The Scorpion)(3) criticize the American "faith in limitless material progress" and assembly-line individualism, the ultra-right in the U.S. is practically synonymous with an "America First" ideology. This makes for some curious contradictions. For instance, despite the fact that their analysis says that a group of insiders has cooked up the East-West conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as a phony rivalry to distract us while the conspirators actually pull the strings, lend money to both, and make big bucks behind the scenes, the far right's reflexive demeanor is to take the conflict at face value and opt for an ultra-patriotic response. It is only with a few far right organizations such as the Liberty Lobby that exhibit an isolationist distaste for foreign entanglements and foreign wars that one can begin to see a stance that may give them common cause with the non-interventionist left. The question of patriotism and nationalism enters here and may be the area where the political extremes are farthest apart. Building on the communist principle of proletarian internationalism, (i.e. that the working people of various countries have more in common with each other as a class than they do with the capitalists and governments of their own countries) the far left has usually considered nationalistic patriotism to be a reactionary delusion. The far right, on the other hand, has generally considered the U.S. to be the greatest country in the world, one uniquely blessed with freedoms and opportunities not found elsewhere, and has consequently feared any kind of internationalism that could compromise national sovereignty or usher in a coercive world government from which there would be no escape. Nevertheless there are numerous exceptions that the extremes entertain within these stances. It turns out that many on the far left do support nationalistic patriotism, in other countries at least (in the form of so-called national liberation movements and/or the struggles of indigenous peoples), while many on the far right practice a kind of internationalism in forging links with anti-communists in other countries and, ironically, don't have much fondness for the actual U.S. government in Washington, D.C. This is not to say that the far right and left are actually closer than they realize on this question-such is hardly the case: the respeal camps that the U.S. extremes champion in places such as Central America are locked in life and death struggles with each other and the piles of bodies keep growing daily. My point is simply that terms such as patriotism and internationalism are not the monolithic catchphrases that they often are cast as. Speaking of such catchphrases, mention should be made of the troubles that arise with the use of certain words. A common complaint about the far right's use of the terms "international bankers" or "internationalists" or "insiders" is that they are code words for Jews and indicates an anti-semitic bias. While this is undoubtedly true in some cases, it is simply not true in many others. Gary Allen and Larry Abraham's enduring best-seller, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, (recently revised by Abraham and republished as Call it Conspiracy), has much to say about bankers and the super-rich, but is careful to disengage itself and its analysis from anti-semitism. Allen and Abraham note: "Anti-Semites have played into the hands of the conspiracy by trying to portray the entire conspiracy as Jewish. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The traditionally Anglo-Saxon J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller international banking institutions have played a key role in the conspiracy."(4) Other far-right classics such as Dan Smoot's The Invisible Government, and W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist also present the far right's analysis without resorting to anti-semitism. Skousen emphasizes: "No student of the global conspiracy should fall for the Hitlerian doctrine that the root of all evil is a super 'Jewish conspiracy.' . . . In studying the global conspiracy it is important to keep in mind that it was not any particular race or religion but the 'passion for money and power' which has drawn the tycoons of world finance into a tightly-knit, mutual-aid society."(5) While some writers do indulge in a reductionism that says: Bankers = Jews = Zionists = Communists, the simple truth is that the bulk of the far right's assertions about manipulative elites are independent of anti-semitic intent. Moreover, the unfortunate fact that some far right theorists are anti-semitic does not necessarily negate all of their research. To be sure, one must exercise extreme caution when choosing what to take seriously from an extreme source, but this is a wise policy to follow in confronting either end of the political spectrum. Perhaps the biggest roadblock to getting a handle on the ideas of the political extremes is the taboos surrounding their literature, especially if one is approaching the publications of the opposite camp. "Commies," as a matter of course, are not going to read the Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, or the revisionists' The Journal of Historical Review. Similarly, few rightists are going to regularly peruse the anarchist tabloid Open Road, or the Situationist International Anthology. If they were to check them out they'd likely discover that both sides do have some valid points in their critiques and that - at their best - there may be more intelligence at work in the opposition than previously suspected. Consider the following quote: ". . . Production has, for the past fifty years or so, been outstripping the ability of our society to absorb it, and this trend grows at an accelerating rate. The reasons are basically two: the continuing advancement in production techniques of everything in the material world, and the constricting effect of a money system based on usury, compound interest and inflation-a money system which is designed not for the distribution of goods but for the profit of those who manipulate it. Thus, the balance between production and consumption must be redressed every generation or so by war, which not only consumes vast amounts of production but also removes men from the labor market and leaves a void of destruction as its aftermath which requires more production to repair. This describes the horror ituation . . . The big picture is this. We are all ensnared by the tentacles of a system of social control, operating at all levels of society, which demands the blood sacrifice of millions of the cream of our youth every generation in bloody aggression to maintain prosperity."(6) A quote from Lenin or Rosa Luxemburg discussing the genesis of Imperialist wars in this century? No, curiously enough, this analysis springs from the pen of Willis Carto, founder of both the far right Liberty Lobby and the revisionist Institute for Historical Review. Of course, to discover coherent points of intelligence in the literature of the previously despised is to surrender some small part of one's own dogmatic purity which is often the primary solace of the isolated extremist. What this means in practical terms is that though a political convergence may be on the horizon (most likely with the label "populist," I'll wager) it will probably not involve leftists as leftists sitting down to cooperate with rightists as rightists. Rather it will probably be birthed by people fed up with both ideologies who are eager to scavenge for truths wherever they may be found and who are not scared off by obsolete stereotypes and ad hominem attacks. * * * Looking beyond the developments of the past and present and projecting into the future, what are some areas of concern where those coming from both left and right backgrounds are likely to come together? The follow short list merely skims the surface: Regionalism. (Fourth World/indigenous autonomy) The defense of native peoples and their cultures against encroachments from both multinational corporations and racist governments cuts across political lines. Community. (Ethnic Traditions/recession-fighting cooperation) The celebration of ethnicity, be-it Afro-American or Latvian or Anglo-Saxon, should be something that everyone can support without having to be stigmatized as racist or, conversely, claiming that one's own heritage is superior. Spirituality. (Anti-materialism/nonmainstream religion) Many people share a disgust with the worship of "success" and the acquisition of material goods as the goal of one's life. Outside of the ranks of the fundamentalists (both religious and atheist) who have little tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them, large numbers of people have been responding to the spiritual barrenness in their lives by investigating and participating in non-mainstream religions. Populism. (Anti-Big Business/Anti-Banks/new monetary policies) No one likes to be yanked around by giant structures and bureaucracies, whether private or public, and this goes for the farmer in Iowa who is losing his farm to the bank or the city dweller forced out of her neighborhood by gentrification. As the IRS goes after the underground economy, all sorts of citizens from the flea marketeer to the odd-jobber are going to be mighty pissed assurvival shrinks to nothing. Health/Environment. (Alternative medicine/anti-pollution) Whether they use DMSO or MMDA, increasing numbers of people want the FDA and the AMA to quit breathing down their necks. In recent years, the one place where the far right and the far left have been likely to meet is at the vitamin counter. And while it may have seemed like the left was the main contingent fighting nuclear energy and pollution in the past, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have helped drive home the value of a decent environment to everyone. Foreign Policy. (Non-interventionist/Isolationist/revamp Mideast policy) It has been common for both the far left and the far right to be anti-Zionist; the left because the PLO is explicitly socialist while Israel portrays itself as the watchdog for U.S. interests in the region and is a trading partner with South Africa, and the right because it sees Israel as a drain on the federal budget and an undependable ally with a penchant for dragging the U.S. into cul-de-sacs (e.g. Lebanon, the Iranscam mess, etc.). Both political extremes also question U.S. involvement in other regions especially if shooting wars are likely. Contemplating the convergence of the far left and right is an intriguing pastime. It can also be a scary one. Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy can, in part, be seen as examples of swiftly growing movements that drew upon elements of both the left and the right and created new amalgams. However, they also involved the glorification of a corporatist State - a form of submission to an authoritarian Big Brother which seems to be the antithesis of the "don't tread on me" stance of the political extremes in the U.S. If we are to fear fascism arising here, given current trends it seems far more likely that the centrist Establishment itself will quietly usher in an era of pragmatic, technocratic "friendly fascism" (as Bertram Gross termed it in his book of the same name)(7) than that doughty populists will opt for a totalitarian solution. Freedom is the mutually stated goal of both the far left and far right; if weary veterans of both camps can just reach an agreement regarding freedom from what and freedom to do what, then a truly "third way" may develop unlike any seen before. That would be a convergence worth celebrating! Notes 1. A rare exception is Michael Moffitt's book, The World's Money, which does cover global banks and their effects. Penny Lernoux's In Banks We Trust also treats the topic with some rare leftist savvy. 2. On the other hand, I must admit to feeling far less horror when confronted with a San Francisco overrun with French bakeries, Thai restaurants and Japanese sushi bars. No doubt it is a double standard to view the cultural invasion here as a relief from homogenization but to view it there as a symptom of homogenization. Yet it is worth noting that the appeal of, say, a Szechuan restaurant derives in no small part from its implicit "message" of culture and customs maintained, usually by an extended family who have immigrated en masse. By contrast, a MacDonald's in Frankfurt communicates only the reproduction of a corporate franchise and the attendant images and decor concocted by commercial ad and design agencies. 3. The Scorpion ($40 U.S. for four issues from The Scorpion, BCM 5766, London WC1, England) is the primary English-language journal that has translated texts by Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Julius Evola, and other thinkers influential among the European "third position" and New Right movements. Under the editorship of Michael Walker, it is a well-put-together approximately annual European journal of discussions about the topics raised by those authors. Issue themes have included Racism, Nihilism, Nationalism, America, the Romantic Vision, and Ecology. If you think that the New Right has no intellectual chops, The Scorpion will set you straight in short order. 4. Gary Allen, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, Rossmoor, California, Concord Press, 1971, p. 39. 5. W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, Salt Lake City, Utah, Skousen, 1970, p. 8. 6. Willis A. Carto, "Toward History," The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring, 1984, p. 13. 7. Bertram Gross, Friendly Fascism, Boston, Massachusetts, South End Press, 1982. Originally published in Critique #27, 1988. Reprinted in Whole Earth Review, 1989. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-11530.html">www.originaldissent.com/f...11530.html</a>

The Money Masters: How the International Bankers ...

Re: An answer - SWEET!

Re: An answer - SWEET!

Oh That Helps!

No Closer??

Answered - nice

Re: Answered - nice

Money, and How It's Made

Re: Money, and How It's Made

identifying the "Money Manipulators"

While we were sleeping somebody stole America.

Re: While we were sleeping somebody stole America.

Re: The Money Masters: How the International Bankers ...

Who is online