The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy (10 page)

Some suspicious researchers have speculated on why so many secret society members—Greenspan, Bernanke, Tarullo (all members of the CFR)—and attorneys are needed to supervise the U.S. monetary system. It might be that bankers need their legal expertise. According to early conspiracy researcher and author Gary Allen, “Using a central bank to create alternate periods of inflation and deflation, and thus whipsawing the public for vast profits, had been worked out by the international bankers [aided by legal and public opinion experts] to an exact science.”

In 1913, Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh said that the Federal Reserve System “establishes the most gigantic trust on earth…. When the President signs this act, the invisible government by the money power…will be legitimized. The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created,” he warned.

“Most Americans understand that the Fed controls our money system, but they believe its [
sic
] part of our government, as would be expected of any organization holding that much power over the destiny of our country,” explained Stephen Zarlenga, director of the American Monetary Institute in New York State. “Americans also erroneously believe the banking business consists of accepting deposits from clients and then re-loaning them to borrowers at a higher rate of interest.

“Though the number is definitely growing, most Americans have no idea that money (or more accurately interest-bearing bank credits [acting as a] purchasing media which serves as money) is created by the banking system when loans are made, through the fractional reserve provisions. This is understood by few novices, and often economists and even bankers fail to comprehend that they function as part of a money creation system, when they issue credits, and deposit them into their client’s accounts when loans are extended. Therefore most Americans would be surprised to learn that almost all of what we use for money is not issued by our government, but by private banks. They have been ‘allowed’ to form erroneous assumptions about our money and banking system that are far from reality and that serves to shield from closer scrutiny [from questions such as] whether the Fed is truly operating in the public interest or advancing more private agendas, either on purpose or by default.”

Bruce Wiseman, president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and former chairman of the history department at John F. Kennedy University, explained the Fed’s operations: “When the Fed prints the money or clicks the mouse, they have no money themselves. They are just creating it out of thin air. They just print it, or send it digitally. And then they charge interest on the money they lent to the Treasury. A hundred-dollar bill costs $0.04 to print. But the interest is charged on the $100. Go ahead: read it again; the words won’t change.

“The interest on the national debt last year [2008] was $451,154,049,950.63. That’s $1.23 billion a day. These are the same people that are now running our banks, insurance companies and automobile manufacturers. Reason weeps. Sure, I oversimplified it. The Fed doesn’t own all the debt and they do some other things. But these are the basics. That is how a central bank works.”

Wiseman and many others believe the goal of the current financial crisis is to destroy the U.S. dollar as the currency of world finance and, in the resulting chaos, put in its place a globalist-run monetary authority that pledges such a crisis shall not happen again.

FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD

T
HE GLOBAL FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
Wiseman alluded to may be found in the Financial Stability Board (FSB), created in April 2009 during the G-20 London Summit. The acronym G-20 refers to the group of twenty finance ministers and central bank governors from nineteen nations and the European Union. The FSB includes representatives from all G-20 nations.

The FSB evolved from the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), which was established in 1999 as a group within the Bank for International Settlements to “promote international financial stability.” It is clear now that the Forum’s agenda of stability did not work out so well. Following the G-20 London Summit, this group expanded from the discussion group forum (FSF) to a policy-making board (FSB) that can set standards, policies, and regulations and then pass them on to the respective nations. Today, the FSB is made up of the central bankers from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus representatives of the World Bank, the European Union, the IMF, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Europe, in other words, has six of the twelve national members.

It has been noted that the G-20 will enlarge the FSB to include all its member nations. However, observers see a definite pro-European bias. The United States will have one vote, equal to that of Italy.

The governor of Italy’s central bank, Mario Draghi, chairs the FSB and is former executive director of the World Bank. Like former Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Draghi is a former executive with Goldman Sachs. Both Paulson and Draghi left the global investment firm in 2006 when Paulson went to Washington to head the up the Treasury and Draghi went to Rome to oversee Italy’s financial system and the FSF.

America’s commitment to the FSB was made on April 2, 2009, when President Obama signed the G-20 communiqué in London and announced America’s agreement to the new global economic union. “Henceforth, our SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], Commodities Trading Commission, Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board, a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union,” warned Dick Morris, bestselling author and former adviser to President Clinton. “The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades. It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive. Now, with President Obama’s approval, they have done it.”

Morris also opined on the FSB’s ability for “implementing…tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms…. That means that the FSB will regulate how much executives are to be paid and will enforce its idea of corporate social responsibility at ‘all firms.’” Bruce Wiseman interprets President Barack Obama’s signing of the United States into the FSB as “essentially turn[ing] over financial control of the country, and the planet, to a handful of central bankers, who, besides dictating policy covering everything from your retirement income to shareholder rights, will additionally have access to your health and education records.”

Although the Fed is technically owned through shares held by its twelve regional banks, these banks are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts. And who controls these banks? Their investors, many of whom may not even be Americans. Stephen Zarlenga argues that there may not be reason for concern here, however. “Stories that the Federal Reserve is ‘owned’ by foreign bankers…are not accurate and these types of rumors have mainly served to discredit wholesome criticism of the banking system…. The control of the Federal Reserve System is more difficult to untangle and is not just a matter of counting shareholder votes. While foreign bankers might indirectly own shares of the regional Federal Reserve Banks through ownership of American banking companies, such ownership would be reported to the SEC if any entity held more than 5 percent of the American corporation.”

But, according to Zarlenga, there is one significant caveat: “The strong, potentially undue foreign influence, for example through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).” Bringing the BIS into the financial mix is cause for further concern.

INTO A BIS

I
N A
2003
ARTICLE
titled “Controlling the World’s Monetary System: The Bank for International Settlements,” Joan Veon noted that the BIS is “where all of the world’s central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them…. When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world’s monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.”

The BIS has even seemed to be cryptically signaling that it may try to exert more global financial control. In September 2009, a BIS report stated, “The global market for derivatives rebounded to $426 trillion in the second quarter [2009] as risk appetite returned, but the system remains unstable and prone to crises.” Within days of this report, the former chief economist for the BIS, William White, warned that the world has not tackled the problems at the heart of the economic downturn and is likely to slip back into recession. He added, “The only thing that would really surprise me is a rapid and sustainable recovery from the position we’re in.”

Considering the growing power of the BIS over the U.S. economy and the bank’s Nazi history, BIS developments should be of serious concern to all Americans. It deserves much closer scrutiny than that provided by the corporate mass media. For one, the public should be aware that the BIS is essentially a sovereign state. Its personnel have diplomatic immunity for their persons and papers. No taxes are levied on the bank or the personnel’s salaries. The grounds on which BIS offices sit are sovereign, as are the buildings and offices. No government has legal jurisdiction over the bank, nor do any governments have oversight over its operations.

It should also be noted that the BIS was originally owned in part by the Fed, the Morgan-affiliated First National Bank of New York, the Bank of England, Germany’s Reichsbank, the Bank of Italy, the Bank of France, and other major central banks. The BIS, considered a “central bankers’ bank,” was created in 1930 in Basel, Switzerland, ostensibly to handle German war reparations.

The BIS was also heavily manipulated by secret societies. According to Carroll Quigley, a historian and a mentor to former President Bill Clinton, it was part of a plan “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…to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.”

The BIS continued to control the finances between Germany and the Allied nations throughout World War II. According to Quigley, the BIS was administered by a multinational staff and was considered the “apex of the system” of bankers who secretly exchanged information and planning during World War II. Even worse, by the start of the war, the BIS was under total Nazi control. According to the bank’s charter, which was agreed to by the governments that formed the bank, the bank was immune from seizure, closure, or censure even if its owners were at war. “The [BIS] bank soon turned out to be…a money funnel for American and British funds to flow into Hitler’s coffers and to help Hitler build up his war machine,” stated author Charles Higham.

“Over the years, I have watched as the BIS has continued to push the envelope further in a borderless world,” wrote Joan Veon. “Some of their growing powers have come directly from governments like ours that have transferred the regulatory power they used to have over the banking system to the central bank while the rest comes from the simple fact that they do indeed control the monetary system of the world.”

Veon, who had occasion to visit BIS headquarters, believes the bank has gained more power in global finance than most people know. This power stems from “[the BIS’s] very powerful committees which include: the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision which has been working on how to regulate not only international banks of the world, but eventually…every national bank as well; the Committee on the Global Financial System, which monitors financial markets around the world with the objective of identifying potential risks for financial stability; and the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, [which] looks to strengthen the infrastructure of financial markets with regard to rules on how to transfer monies and how to make payments between member banks.

“The
Wall Street Journal
reported on a [2003] meeting which included [economist] Dr. [Jacob] Frenkel, former U.S. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Nobel Laureate and Columbia Economics Professor Dr. Robert Mundell…. Their theme was ‘Does the Global Economy Need a Global Currency?’ The thesis was that if the euro can replace the franc, mark and lira, why can’t a new world currency merge the dollar, euro and yen? I submit to you that this is the next agenda of the central bankers. When this change occurs, I can assure you, they will make money on a new global currency. Time will tell if we do.”

The globalist bankers make money on each dollar they print because the American taxpayer is available to make up for any losses incurred.

G. Edward Griffin quoted Paul Warburg, one of the founders of the Fed and its first chairman, as admitting, “While technically and legally the Federal Reserve note is an obligation of the United States Government, in reality it is an obligation, the sole actual responsibility for which rests on the reserve banks…. The government could only be called upon to take them up [on their obligation] after the reserve banks had failed.”

“The man who masterminded the Federal Reserve System is telling us that
Federal Reserve notes constitute privately issued money with the taxpayers standing by to cover the potential losses of those banks which issue it
[original emphasis],” Griffin explained. Again, we see a clear example of private profit but public debt—the reserve banks take the profit while the taxpayers take the losses.