Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society: Part 1

Immensurated debt slavery

Continued from Dissonance to Informational Control in Technological Society: Part 6…

This part argues that a handful of families own the central banks of the world, controlling society via unlimited fiat printing and a sophisticated propaganda and security apparatus.  It then offers a historical overview for how this system took over the world.

WHAT DO THE POWERS THAT CONTROL GOVERNMENTS WANT?

"History, as seen by a Monetary Economist, is a continuous struggle between producers and non-producers, and those who try to make a living by inserting a false system of book-keeping between the producers and their just recompense…The usurers act through fraud, falsification, superstitions, habits and, when these methods do not function, they let loose a war. Everything hinges on monopoly, and the particular monopolies hinge around the great illusionistic monetary monopoly." - Ezra Pound, An Introduction to the Economic Nature of the United States (1950)

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build an integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”¹  - David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405.

Cutting to the heart of the matter, the objective of the powers that control governments is to enslave mankind through the expansion of individual, corporate, and governmental debt as high as possible to the point where humanity will end up slaving away solely to service the interest on its debt.²  This objective necessarily entails the complete disappearance of the middle class throughout the world, leaving a tiny number of central bank owning families, a small cadre of working professionals servicing them, and the vast multitudes of the world’s population living hand-to-mouth in perpetual bondage to the banking class.  To put this system into place requires total ownership and control of the media, which is used as a weapon to distract the public via bread and circus propaganda and divert their energies into fighting with each other (using race, gender, and sexual orientation divide et impera tactics) so no force rises to challenge it.  The banking class seeks nothing less than a permanent neoliberal feudalism where they control the entirety of the world’s wealth, a system they intend to last forever. 

Debt, debt, and more debt

Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, a man possessing impeccable liberal credentials and extensive high-level contacts, revealed the network behind this in his 1350-page 1966 book Tragedy and Hope.  He spoke highly of this group and was given special access to insider records, including archived files from the Council on Foreign Relations.  Quigley stated the network’s aim is “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.  The system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”³  Worse, they want total control over all individual actions.  Quigley argued that an individual’s “freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.”⁴  

Father Pedro Arrupe, head of the Jesuit Order of the Roman Catholic Church, was well aware of this group and he made the following charges during his remarks to the Ecumenical Council in 1965: “This…Godless society operates in an extremely efficient manner at least in its higher levels of leadership.  It makes use of every possible means at its disposal, be they scientific, technical, social or economic.  It follows a perfectly mapped-out strategy.  It holds almost complete sway in international organizations, in financial circles, in the field of mass communications; press, cinema, radio and television.”

The best way at explaining the banker’s motivations and strategies is to delve into how this system developed from the start.  There are two eras to this process: the pre-central bank money-lending era in Europe and the central bank era.  

---

The Pre-Central Bank Era

Before the era of central banks that began in the late 17th century, European kings would turn to money lenders to finance their wars.  These kings were worried about short term problems and the survival of their regimes; to borrow funds from third parties was an immediate solution while longer-term loan payback issues could be dealt with later or by future generations.  These money lenders were Jewish, unshackled by the strict anti-usury practices Christians and Muslims were subject to⁵, and they were able to leverage the debts placed on the kings to carve out special privileges, especially the ability to lend at exorbitant rates to the nation’s nobility and general population.  Any industry that received expansion of credit in this manner resulted in major price appreciation, so individuals were forced to take out debt at whatever rate was demanded or get priced out of their industries.  For example, Jewish money lenders first arrived in England in 1066 in the wake of William I’s defeat of King Harold II at Hastings.  They had financed the war and, in return for their support, William I richly awarded the money lenders by allowing them to practice usury under royal protection.  By charging rates of interest of 33% per annum on lands mortgaged by nobles and 300% per annum on tools of trade or chattels pledged by workmen, within two generations 1/4 of all English lands were in the hands of usurers.  At his death in 1186, the English financier Aaron of Lincoln’s wealth exceeded that of King Henry II.  The famous economist Dr. William Cunningham compares “the activity of the money-lenders in England from the eleventh century onward to a sponge, which sucks up all the wealth of the land and thereby hinders all economic development.”⁶

The money-lenders attempted to finance both sides of European conflicts, hoping for long, drawn out wars to increase the debts owed to them and thus their leverage against the debtor kings.  These lenders sought to obtain a balance of power among European countries so that if any king tried to cancel their debt arrangements they could finance other nearby countries to overthrow them.  In this way they could ensure kings would pay their debts and not abrogate them by decree.  They also used less savory methods including allegedly paying for Charles I’s assassination⁷ and likely assassinating the heirs of King Louis XIV, the Sun King.⁸ But these lenders were still ultimately subject to the laws of the countries they were in and they had to tread with a measure of caution — the sovereign could always try to cancel the debts owed or even kick them out of the country, both of which King Edward I did in 1275 and 1290, compelling the entire Jewish population of 16,511 to leave England.⁹  These money-lenders did not have sovereign power until the era of central banks.

King Edward I. He was portrayed as the villain in Braveheart

---

The Central Bank Era: War and Debt Slavery in Perpetuity

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

In 1696 the money-lenders achieved one of their core objectives: the establishment of the Bank of England.  William of Orange had dethroned his brother James II in 1688 with their financial support, and in return William surrendered the royal prerogative of issuing England’s money free of debt and interest to them.  This led directly to the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England, whose ostensible purpose was to lend King William unlimited sums at interest to enable the prosecution of war, but whose hidden purpose was to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money out of nothing at interest.  Coinciding with the establishment of the bank were a large number of new taxes on citizens, including a 20% corporate and personal income tax which were needed by the government to pay interest on loans they would subsequently seek from the central bank¹⁰ (while the money-lenders utilized tax exempt foundations and other loopholes to avoid the taxes that the masses had to pay¹¹).

With their new ability to print money out of thin air and lend it to the government at interest (instead of using their own money which had always carried with it some measure of risk), the owners of the Bank of England achieved a level of supra-sovereign power above that of the king.  They had won and England was theirs.  This dynamic has continued into the present.¹²  

The Bank of England

The central bank owner’s next step was to involve England in a series of wars in order to dramatically increase the national debt (printed out of thin air!), thereby increasing the interest payments that the English public would be forced to pay.  The equation was simple: the more debt owed on printed money, the more interest paid into the pockets of the central bank owners, so the incentives of this model always favored the accumulation of more debt.  They placed direct and indirect pressure on the government via the media (which they controlled as a first order priority through various shell companies and intermediaries) and via other tactics.  As a result England became involved in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), American War of Independence (1775-83), war against France (1792-1815), War of 1812, War War I and II, each of which assisted in raising its national debt from a minuscule amount to over £5 trillion in 2017.¹³   

They also tried repeating their Bank of England coup in other countries, especially France and Austria.  According to Professor Stuart Crane as told by Gary Allen, “If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power’.  With each reshuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France or Austria.  They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went.  Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.”  They even provided loans to the Holy See of the Catholic Church.

An illustration of the European balance of power

The money-lenders were happy to continue funding both sides in European wars (like Nathan Rothschild funding all the belligerents, England, Prussia, and France, at Waterloo, with France receiving a loan of 10 million pounds¹⁴) as well as funding both sides of the U.S. Civil War (the North through their American agent August Belmont and the South through the Erlangers, Rothschild relatives¹⁵).  In The Rothschilds, the Financial Rulers of Nations, John Reeves noted that when the family met in London in 1857 for a wedding, Prime Minister of England Benjamin Disraeli declared: “Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild - a name famous in every capital of Europe and every division of the globe.  If you like, we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James, and one for you, Lionel.  Napoleon will do exactly and all that I shall advise him.”¹⁶  Otto Von Bismark stated in 1867: “The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the civil war by the high financial power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic.” Rothschild family biographer Niall Ferguson notes a “substantial and unexplained gap” in private Rothschild correspondence between 1854-1860.  He says all copies of outgoing letters written by the London Rothschilds during this Civil War period “were destroyed at the orders of successive partners”.¹⁷ 

That being said, the central bank owners learned that even better than driving up public debt of countries at war with each other and profiting from increased interest payments from both was to use their central banks as a cudgel of expansion against any countries that did not have privately-owned central banks, especially any country that had implemented interest-free, publicly owned state banking systems.  Their goal became to destroy the sovereignty of other countries in order to establish central banks there that they would own.  They were ruthless in its implementation.  Combining industrial production of the advanced nations they controlled, unlimited monetary printing and the use of the ignorant, unwashed masses as boots-on-the-ground, they defeated Napoleon in France¹⁸, Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya in 2011.  These were all states which had state banking systems which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equitable basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries.  See Appendix A for details on each of these examples.

---

THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE CENTRAL BANK DISTINCTION AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Circling back and to restate, private ownership of all of the central banks of the world by a handful of families is at the heart of the elite’s conspiracy.   There are two types of central banks: truly publicly owned central banks, and privately owned central banks (whether private or nominally public in name only).  In a publicly owned central bank, the bank prints money without payment to third parties and then uses it to stimulate economic activity.  In a privately owned central bank, the private bank prints money and then loans it to the nation’s government and charges interest on it.  The interest charged on the printed money creates wealth out of thin air for the owners of these central banks without having done any work, and it creates an inflationary tax on the citizenry and impoverishes them (without the vast majority of people even knowing! Which is the genius of it, a world of slaves who don’t know the status of their slavery).  Their goal is to grow the debt owed by the public at a faster and faster rate, forcing even greater interest payments paid to the privately owned central banks, bringing their ultimate objective of controlling all of the wealth of the world closer and closer.  Governments with privately owned central banks are forced to institute significant personal income taxes on their citizens in order to pay the interest accruing on the loans printed out of nothing.  

In the United States the 16th Amendment authorizing personal income taxes, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) all came into existence in 1913, after two previous failed Rothschild-sponsored central bank attempts.¹⁹  The establishment of the Federal Reserve required much financial shenanigans by the perpetrators, including artificial bank runs such as the fake panic of 1907, bribery of politicians, and incorporating powerful figures like the Rockefeller’s into their alliance.  Senator Aldrich met with Henry P. Davison of J.P. Morgan; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of the Rockefeller-owned National City Bank; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Benjamin Strong of Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; and Paul Warburg, the Rothschild’s direct representative, at Jekyll Island, where they conspired to bring about the central bank under a great veil of secrecy.²⁰  

Formation Of The Fed: The Meeting At Jekyll Island

Second to the Rothschilds, the Warburgs were considered the most important international banking family of the 19th and 20th centuries.  In 1814, the Warburgs became one of the first affiliates of N.M. Rothschild of London.  They were related to the leading banking families of Europe, the Rosenbergs of Kiev, the Gunzburgs in St. Petersburg, the Oppenheims and Goldschmidts in Germany.  Moritz Warburg was apprenticed to the Rothschilds in Italy and Paris.  He had five sons who spread out and coordinated their actions and strategies: Aby founded the Warburg Instituted; Max financed the German struggle in World War I and later the Nazi regime; Dr. Fritz Warburg was the German commercial attache in Stockholm during World War I; Paul and Felix emigrated to America and joined the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. with Jacob Schiff, who had been born in the Rothschild house in Frankfort.²¹  Paul wrote the Federal Reserve Act and saw it through Congress.  He represented the U.S. at the Versailles Peace Conference, while his brother Max represented German interests.²²

According to a Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing Staff Report from the House of Representatives in 1976, a few families which owned controlling stock in existing banks caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks at their founding, and examination of the charts and text and the stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show the same families in control in 1976. These are our overlords, and they sit, hidden out of view, constantly scheming against the blissfully unaware public.

The Federal Reserve Act was presented as a "victory of democracy."  In reality, private bankers could determine inflation, recession, and boom periods; they could swing the stock market at will; and they could subordinate the fiscal powers reserved for Congress.  They sought to run up the debt through the expansion of government spending.  Simultaneously, they benefited from the increased money supply and bid up the stock market or destroyed it at their leisure. Paul Warburg arranged the 1929 stock market crash; first he advised all member banks to get out of the stock market or sell it short on March 9, 1929, then on October 24 the Federal Reserve Bank suddenly increased the rediscount rate to 6%, thousands of orders hit the exchange to sell “at market”, and six days later the Federal Reserve Bank ordered the contraction of brokers’ loans in the amount of $2.3 million, the combination of which caused the crash.  Congressman Louis T. McFadden stated “It was a carefully contrived occurrence.  The international [central] bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all."²³ 

Paul Warburg

Laws were made to allow the central bank owners to set up tax-free foundations, avoiding the taxes they imposed on everyone else.  They compounded their wealth tax-free.  Since Woodrow Wilson took his oath of office and signed the Federal Reserve Act, which he later reportedly regretted²⁴, the national debt has risen from $1 billion to over $30 trillion.  Continuing the tradition, after printing $11+ trillion dollars during the two years of COVID and handing much of it to the central bank owner’s friends and allies, the United States hired 87,000 new IRS agents in 2022 to shake down the population to pay the interest owed on this newly created debt.

Unlimited debt, unlimited slavery

---

WORLD WAR I

After conquering America in 1913 the central bank owners turned their attention to World War I.  They wanted an attenuated, long, drawn out war in order to drive up national debts.  In 1916, the promoters of the war were dismayed when Germany insisted it could not continue fighting because of shortages of food and money.  To keep Germany fighting Paul Warburg, head of the Federal Reserve System, hastily arranged for credits to be routed to his brother, Max Warburg, through Stockholm to M.M. Warburg Co. Hamburg.  Food presented a more difficult problem.  It was decided to ship it directly to Belgium as “relief for the starving Belgians.”  The supplies could then be shipped over Rothschild railway lines into Germany.  As director for this “relief operation” the Rothschilds chose Herbert Hoover.  The plan was so successful that it kept the war going for an additional two years, allowing the U.S. to get into the “war to end wars”.²⁵  

Max Warburg

Lloyd George told the N.Y. Journal American, June 24, 1924, how the international bankers were the decision makers and not the heads of state of the participating countries in the settlement to the war: “The international bankers dictated the Dawes reparations settlement.  The Protocol which was signed between the Allies and Associated Powers and Germany is the triumph of the international financier.  Agreement would never have been reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of the international bankers.  They swept statesmen, politicians and journalists to one side, and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees…the orders of German financiers to their political representatives were just as peremptory as those of allied bankers to their political representatives.”²⁶

After the war the international bankers copied their successful central bank model and spread it throughout most of the countries of the world.  By the turn of the twentieth century there were only 18 central banks, yet after a conference in 1922 attended by heads of state, governors of the Bank of England, Banque de France and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a host of other international bankers, it was resolved to set up central banks in all countries where they were not in existence, and that the central banks should be “independent” of their governments (i.e. immune from public influence).  The number of new central banks increased dramatically and currently stands at 157, the coordinated establishment of which proves that they are “part of an international monetary trust”.²⁷ Coordination of the central banks is via the Bank for International Settlements, set up in 1930.

The Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland

---

THE CENTRAL BANK OWNER’S DECISIVE SUPPORT FOR SOVIET COMMUNISM

Even the Soviet Union, supposedly the “enemy” of the United States, was financed from the beginning by the Rothschilds and their allies.  According to Gary Allen's research, the USSR was practically manufactured by the U.S. elite and they played a major role in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.  He quotes W. Averell Harriman, ambassador to the USSR from 1943 to 1945 as saying, "Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war.  He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance."  Allen explains how financiers in America and Britain intentionally created an enemy for the West; he divulges how Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (where the two Warburg brothers worked) even financed the First Five-Year Plan of the Soviet Union.  Through these means, plutocrats gained a geographic homeland from which to launch assaults against other nations of the world.  Indeed, The New York Journal-American stated on February 3, 1949: “Today it is estimated even by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, a prominent member of New York Society, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.  Other New York Banking firms also contributed.”²⁸   In the summer of 1917, fifteen Wall Street financiers and attorneys led by Federal Reserve director William Boyce Thompson traveled to Petrograd - the nerve center of the Russian Revolution - and provided $1 million by J.P. Morgan to the Bolsheviks through the National City Bank, the only bank in Russia the Bolsheviks did not nationalize.²⁹  During the 1920s the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank helped found the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, scoop up Russian oil fields, build the Soviets a refinery and made an arrangement to market their oil in Europe and it was involved in financing Soviet raw material exports and selling Soviet bonds in the United States.³⁰  

Jacob Schiff, who spent a fortune financing the rise of the Bolsheviks

Three of the most prominent officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are on record as supporting Bolshevism: William Laurence Sanders, George Foster Peabody and William Boyce Thompson.  Thompson announced he was giving $1 million dollars to promote Bolshevik propaganda in the United States.  Because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was controlled by five New York banks which owned 53% of its stock, and because these five banks were directly controlled by N.M. Rothschild & Sons of London, we can only conclude that these three men were merely stating the preferences of their employer.³¹

Of particular interest in the financing of the revolution is the role which Maxim Litvinov, born Meyer-Genokh Mojsjewicz Wallach-Finkelstein, played as a “revolutionary” in destroying Imperial Russia and handing it over to the international bankers.  Litvinov became the source of all foreign funds and was appointed treasurer of the Russian Socialist Democrat Party.  He was a representative of the Rothschilds with powers exceeding that of Lenin.  When Stalin became leader of the Soviet Union Litvinov, who feared no one, remained pre-eminent.  His rudeness to Stalin was legendary.  During World War 2 the Americans were reluctant to lend money to the Soviet Union but Litvinov sorted everything out; a Lend Lease agreement was signed and over the next four years $11 billion worth of supplies and services were provided.  Litvinov “could call the White House at any time and the President [Roosevelt] would see him immediately.”  Molotov, Litvinov’s successor in 1943, stated “Litvinov was utterly hostile to us…he deserved the highest measure of punishment at the hands of the proletariat.  Every punishment.”³²

Maxim Litvinov

Indeed, the central bank owners retained control over even the top Soviet leaders.  Because of the struggle for power which developed between Stalin and Trotsky, the Rockefellers intervened in October 1926 and backed Stalin, ousting Trotsky.  Years later, they would again intervene when the Kremlin was racked by disagreements; David Rockefeller may have fired Khrushchev during a trip there.³³ John D. Rockefeller instructed his press agent to promote communism in the U.S. and to spark a public relations drive which culminated in 1933 with the U.S. recognition of Soviet Russia.  In 1927 Standard Oil of New Jersey built a refinery in Russia after having been promised 50% of the Caucasus oil production.  The Standard Oil operation was directed by its Rothschild bankers, maintaining close supervision of the “Rockefeller” fortune.  In 1935 Stalin expropriated many foreign investments in Russia but the Standard Oil properties were not touched.  The Five Year Plans (1928-32, 1933-37, and 1938-42) were all financed by the international banking houses.³⁴  

According to Gary Allen, “In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its true existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth men like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners.  But obviously these men have no fear of international communism.  It is only logical to assume if they financed it and do not fear it, it must be because they control it.  Can there be any other explanation that makes sense?  Remember that for over 150 years it has been standard operating procedure of the Rothschilds and their allies to control both sides of every conflict.  You must have an ‘enemy’ if you are going to collect from the King.  The East-West balance-of-power politics is used as one of the main excuses for the socialization of America.  Although it was not their main purpose, by nationalization of Russia the Insiders bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate, complete with mineral rights, for somewhere between $30 and $40 million.”³⁵

It appears that no country remains outside of this privately owned central bank deathgrip today other than potentially heavily-demonized North Korea.  Two other holdouts, Libya and Iraq, were brutally crushed by the establishment under various pretexts in the last 20 years.  The publicly available information on world central bank ownership is deliberately opaque, never investigated (there has never been an audit of the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is insane) but they ultimately trace their origins through various intermediaries and shell companies to the Rothschild and Warburg families and their allies (the continued Rothschild/Rockefeller alliance was confirmed publicly as recently as 2012).  This control is either via direct or indirect ownership where, for purposes of public consumption and public relations, many central banks are nominally publicly owned but, via various methods, intermediaries and loopholes are still ultimately owned by these families (such as the Bank of England which nominally nationalized in 1946 but still remains under Rothschild control; the bank is not wholly subject to public or parliamentary scrutiny³⁶). 

For a brief history of the central bank owners’ role in European wars and their vicious destruction of any nation that attempted to establish a publicly owned central bank, see Appendix A.

---

THE DIALECTIC OF MATERIALISM: THE WORLD AS POWER AND THE WORLD AS REALITY

When Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, the fifth plank read: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”  Lenin later said that the establishment of a central bank was ninety percent of communizing a country.³⁷

With the core activity of the central bank owners being the usurious theft of the population’s wealth via printing money out of thin air, lending it at interest to the government and then enticing the government to maximize their spending (especially via war against countries with publicly owned central banks) in order to maximize interest payments, the goal of this small group of individuals is deeply antithetical to the dreams, goals and aspirations of the vast majority of the world.  The Rothschilds and their allies despise the populations that they rule over as well as fear them, for if the public ever wakes up to the structure of modern society they could be overthrown and stripped of their wealth in a heartbeat.

According to Eustace Mullins, “the central bank owners adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality.  It denies all other powers and all other realities.  It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis…Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups; it organizes Communist groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups.  It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other; they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles and try to destroy each other.  By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome.  In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other.  John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi.  David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist…a distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order.  Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group…If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect.  You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.”³⁸

To clarify on this point further, to take a group of people that do not believe in an afterlife, do not believe in God’s judgment after death, that believe life is purely a matter of who dominates who and therefore one needs to do everything possible to dominate others less they become prey themselves, this group is going to be much more incentivized than others, it will act with a much greater sense of urgency, it will be willing to perform morally dubious actions that others would blanch at, and because of these factors it is therefore generally going to outcompete, at least in this physical realm, those who hold themselves to higher moral and ethical standards and those that believe in God’s judgment and an afterlife.

While it is the destiny for humanity to be ruled by a small, ambitious minority, whether it be kings or an upper class nobility, the difference between them as our rulers versus the central bank owning rulers as our rulers is twofold: first, a king or nobility is ultimately responsible for their decisions to the public, whereas the central bank owners constantly hide in the shadows, immune from responsibility, with intermediary paid actors in political roles suffering the consequences of the policies advanced on their behalf.  Second, kings were not motivated to punish and destroy their own populations; they were generally motivated by a sense of noblesse oblige, whereas the core activity of the Rothschilds and their allies is fundamentally parasitic and filled with noblesse malice, seeking to divide and conquer their own populations and weaken them so they won’t be able to resist perpetual debt slavery.  

***

If this is some sort of “grand conspiracy” why don’t more people know about it? How do the central bank owners keep the public from discovering their strategies? How do they coordinate, and how do they prevent leaks? This is where we turn to next.

1. The Rockefellers even donated the site on which the U.N. headquarter building is built.

2. i.e.:

3.  Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 324.

4. Ibid.

5. See Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World: "There was a good reason why Venetian merchants had to come to the Jewish ghetto if they wanted to borrow money.  For Christians, lending money at interest was a sin.  Usurers, people who lent money at interest, had been excommunicated by the Third Lateran Council in 1179.  Even arguing that usury was not a sin had been condemned as heresy by the Council of Vienna in 1311-12.  Christian usurers had to make restitution to the Church before they could be buried on hallowed ground.  They were especially detested by the Franciscan and Dominican orders, founded in 1206 and 1216 (just after the publication of Fibonacci's Liber Abaci).  The power of this taboo should not be underestimated, though it had certainly weakened by Shakespeare's time.

Jews, too, were not supposed to lend at interest.  But there was a convenient get-out clause in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy: 'Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.' In other words, a Jew might legitimately lend to a Christian, though not to another Jew.  The price of doing so was social exclusion."

6. Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History fo Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind, 24. This is a very important book by a South African central banker with impeccable establishment credentials (and a descendant of the Mitford sisters). He was allegedly murdered by globohomo for writing it. It can be read in its entirety here.

7. Goodson, 32.  See letter from Oliver Cromwell to Ebernezer Pratt.

8. Goodson, 48.

9.  Goodson, 25.

10.  Goodson, 37-40.

11. In 1953, Congress established the Reece Committee to investigate tax-free foundations.  For what was probably the first and last time, the central bank owners came under official scrutiny.  The Committee's findings stated: "In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international.  This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse.  The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote "internationalism" in a particular sense - a form directed toward "world government" and a derogation of American “nationalism."  James Perloff, The Shadow of Power, 105.

12. The British mindset as a nimble sea-power, adept at diplomacy and treacherous double-dealing which earned them the nickname "Perfidious Albions”, has made them natural allies of globalist banking families, both of whom sought to keep the European continent divided and weak.  Protestantism in general removes the hierarchy which had helped keep external influence out of the Catholic Church, at least to an extent, and at least partially explains why Protestant Oliver Cromwell was very pro-Jewish; he invited Jews back to England after their expulsion by (nominally) Catholic Edward I 350 years earlier.

An occasionally bumpy alliance but one that thereafter has lasted for hundreds of years.  

This dynamic has continued into the present era.  Halford Mackinder's 1904 Heartland Theory posited control of Europe as belonging either to a land power (Germany) or a sea power (England). Mackinder provided a warning to England that continent-sized powers with a strong industrial base, large populations, and national resources could dominate world politics—not those that ruled the seas.  One can see such tension also in Rome vs. Carthage.  This served as a contrast to Alfred Thayer Mahan's highly influential 1890 argument in The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, that island states such as England or the United States could prevail in the world through sea power.

The thesis of the 2005 book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich by Guido Giacomo Preparata furthers this argument, explaining that Britain and globalist banking families deliberately funded and supported the Bolsheviks in Russia to create an anti-western European ideology, and deliberately funded and supported Hitler in Germany to create an anti-Slavic ideology, so that they would destroy each other and allow England to control the continent, after arranging a similar dynamic in World War 1.  To England, the worst nightmare would have been a German/Russian alliance to control the continent which would have relegated England to a secondary power.  This also explains why England (and the U.S.) have worked so hard to dynamite deepening German/Russian ties by blowing up the Nordstream 2 pipeline in the present.

13. Goodson, 44.

14. Goodson, 55.

15. Allen, 32.

16. Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, 25.

17. As a side note, slavery ending was a direct result of the industrial revolution decreasing the need for coerced manual labor, so to assign retrospective moral judgments for ending what was really a result of technological innovation is to miss the point (this is not a comment on the extent of brutality of such coercive measures.  To the extent industrial society ever fails, one can hardly doubt that slavery would quickly return). 

Also, a critical insight is that slavery never really ended, it simply shifted from (a) direct coercion with threat of physical punishment applied to one class of people to (b) indirect coercion with threat of imprisonment, applied to the entire taxpayer base whose tax burden is many times worse than those paying taxes to the British in 1776.

18. Napoleon relied on Rothschild loans for his Waterloo attempt, but not before that.

19. Andrew Jackson killed the second Rothschild central bank after a long and very difficult drawn out fight.  Before his death he was asked what he regarded as his greatest achievement, and he replied without hesitation: "I killed the bank." Later when the Federal Reserve was established (the third central bank), they ultimately put his face on the $20 bill as a "screw you, we won", because it was everything he was against, where it remains to this day.

20. Allen, 37.

21. Is globohomo congressman and conniving liar Adam Schiff a descendant of Jacob Schiff? Public records are scant on this point.

22. Mullins, 148.

23. Goodson, 104.

24. He is quoted as saying, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men”, although part of this quote is disputed.

25. Mullins, 253.

26. Mullins, 68.

27. Goodson 97-101.

28. Perloff, 39-40.

29. Ibid.

30. Perloff, 43.

31. Mullins, 92-93.

32. Goodson, 83-87

33. Allen, chapter 6: "“Indicative of this was a strange event which occurred in October of 1964. David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, took a vacation in the Soviet Union. This is a peculiar place for the world's greatest "imperialist" to take his vacation since much of Communist propaganda deals with taking all of David's wealth away from him and distributing it to "the people." A few days after Rockefeller ended his "vacation" in the Kremlin, Nikita Khrushchev was recalled from a vacation at a Black Sea resort to learn that he had been fired. How strange! As far as the world knew, Khrushchev was the absolute dictator of the Soviet government and, more important, head of the Communist Party which runs the USSR. Who has the power to fire the man who was supposedly the absolute dictator? Did David Rockefeller journey to the Soviet Union to fire an employee? Obviously the position of premier in the Soviet Union is a figurehead with the true power residing elsewhere. Perhaps in New York.”

34. Mullins, 97.

35. Allen, 59.

36. Goodson, 45.

37. Allen, 33.

38. Mullins, 297-298.