The Synagogue of Satan, Part 1 – Prophecy, Bankster Cabal Wars & The Zionist Plan

by Dan Fournier, Commentary, published Wednesday, November 22, 15:10 EST on fournier.substack.com

Nov 22, 2023

Author note: As this article touches upon sensitive issues, be sure to read the Disclaimer found at the end.

This post, my single largest ever published at over 70 pages in length, is structured into the following sections and sub-sections:

PART 1 – Prophecy, Bankster Cabal Wars & The Zionist Plan (this post)

PART 2 – Bankster Priesthood, Satanic Ritual Sacrifices, & Secret Societies

PART 3 – The Great Reset & Return to Freedom and Real Money

The Bible foretells and warns

The Bible (Old Testament & New Testament) is unequalled in its combined readership, wisdom, and prophecy.

There is no other book that has better illustrated and revealed the nature of man, our collective humanity, the trials and tribulations of war and life itself, and the constant battle between good and evil.

Endless wisdom and solace can be found therein – even for atheists or those who believe in other religions than Christianity.

Here are but a few passages that may help us to comprehend the world’s current predicament, particularly in light of the recent events in Israel and Palestine and the coming years leading to 2030.

When his disciples asked Jesus what would be the signs of his coming to earth during the end time he stated several events. He first warned them to watch, so that they would not be fooled. Jesus then stated the following.

We shall hear of wars and “rumours of war.” Today, this can be interpreted as what the controlled mainstream media would like us to believe. In other words, it is a means to divide peoples and pit them against one another.

There shall be famines is quite fitting also, since there does seem to be an attack on farmers, growers and land owners. In recent times we’ve seen this in the Netherlands, as the WEF-loving Dutch government is hell bent on doing everything they can to seize Dutch farmers’ land. The use of geoengineering also serves as an assault on our land and crops. Billionaires such as Bill Gates and his American peers are also buying farmland from real growers so they can substitute real produce and livestock with lab-grown meat and synthetic foods.

Pestilences can easily refer to the so-called Covid-19 Pandemic and whatever ones they have on deck for us plebs; these would likely come about by the unelected oligarchical elites who run the World Health Organization (WHO) along with Big Pharma.

By “Kingdom against Kingdom,” Jesus implied the Kingdom of God (good) versus the Kingdom of Satan (evil).

In Ephesians, the Apostle Paul warned the entire world who the real enemy is:

The complete passage, Ephesians 6:10-13, reads as follows:

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”

Paul tells Christians to suit up for battle with the Armour of God since the enemy is evil itself; he wants his readers to know that spiritual warfare is real.

More specifically, by “we wrestle not against flesh and blood” (soldiers of a particular nation or tribe) and “against principalities” (the devil/Lucifer/fallen angels) and “spiritual wickedness in high places”, Paul tells us who we are truly dealing with with the latter two.

The latter of the two refers to the cult-like belief system espoused by those in “high places” who yield real power and control in our society.

Largely hidden and operating from the darkest shadowy corners, these evil ones – who are of flesh and blood but who fully worship Lucifer instead of the real Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, are hell bent on destroying everything that is wholesome and of God’s creative will.

Part 2 of this series will dive into this in greater depth and detail in order for us to better understand the true nature of such evil.

The Synagogue of Satan, an initial look

What is the Synagogue of Satan?

Monte Judah from Lion & Lamb Ministries helps to answer this question. This ministry is a Messianic Jewish movement that promotes Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah and the Torah as the constitution for their believers.

For those unfamiliar, Messianic Judaism or Messianic Jews are those who recognise Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah of the Jewish people and an integral part to their Jewish faith. Jonathan Cahn, a popular American author, is an example of a Messianic Jew who is also a rabbi.

While answering the question, Monte Judah cites two passages from the Book of Revelation from the New Testament:

“Revelation 2 - 9: "I know your tribulation and your poverty by those who are rich and the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not but the synagogue of Satan."
Revelation 3 - 9: "Behold I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not but lie behold I will make them to come and bow down at your feet that I have loved you."”

Monte Judah sees these passages as an “end time message from the Messiah” (Jesus), telling the Believers to get ready for the Great Tribulation.

“So, we’re talking about a group of end-believers on the brink of the Great Tribulation who say they are Jews, but are not really,” emphasises Monta Judah while expanding on these.

He goes on to explain that Paul is defining these Jews as being of the “synagogue of Satan,” or “assembly of Satan,” as the apostle puts it.

He adds that Satan is always up there accusing the brethren, and that it is a well-known fact that many of his so-called Jewish brothers are “not Jewish at all.”

“Some of my Jewish-believing brethren...have decided to be critical and accusatory of all other brethren,” Monta Judah further admits, hinting that some “false” Jews play these kinds of games of shaming and disfavouring Messianic Jews when they are not aligned and onboard with their own doctrine.

Monte sadly notes that many in the movement assert their Jewish identity even though they “are not Jewish at all,” specifically discrediting Monte Judah or his Lion & Lamb Ministry, Eddie Chumney, Rico Cortez, and other independent messianic teachers and groups such as Messianic Alliance, Hebrew Roots Network, and Hebrew Nation. “These people will literally almost stone you and throw you out of their synagogue,” he further says, eluding to their vile ways.

Monte Judah, however, is encouraged for this is all prophesised in the Bible and that restoration and reconciliation will one day take place.

There could perhaps be no better illustration about what Monte Judah eluded to than the stern disapproval that Jewish American author of the 1984 book Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel Jack Bernstein had to say on the matter:

The American author of Jewish heritage had returned to Israel only to be disenfranchised with what it was really about. The following introduction for his book via Goodreads speaks volumes [with some emphasis added]:

“Unlike most American Jews, whose support for Israel is limited to words and money, Jack Bernstein actually "returned" to the "Jewish homeland" not as a tourist, or for a summer visit but to live and die in Israel as a committed builder of the Jewish nation. As he explains here in this punchy and persuasive booklet, his idealism soon turned to disillusionment. He takes the reader on a guided tour of Israel s history, institutions and values. He exposes Israel’s sham and hypocrisy, revealing its oppressive, racist, militaristic, and parasitic character.
Bernstein speaks above all to the deceived and misguided American people, whose money, toil and blood sustain the Zionist state. As long as the US continues to support Israel, he prophetically warns, there will be no end to war in the Middle East, strife between Jews and non-Jews, and the brutal oppression of Palestinians.”

Book cover for the 1984 edition of The Life of an American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel by Jack Bernstein.

The last sentence of those introductory remarks has certainly proved true, as history has painfully demonstrated.

“Jack Bernstein, an American Jew emigrated from the U.S. to Israel following the Six-Day War in 1967. After six and one half years living there, now married, and much wiser, he moved back to America. Bernstein reveals the corruption, graft, persecutions and dangers forced upon all who claim to be "Jews", but not "Zionist Jews", who moved to Israel. Bernstein now "challenges" the Zionist Jew to deny or prove him wrong in his report of their subversive actions,” reads the introduction of his 2000 book – My Farewell to Israel the Thorn in the Mideast.

From the passages above, Bernstein makes a clear distinction between Jews versus Zionist Jews.

Furthermore, he states that Zionism stems from Ashkenazi Jews who were a driving force behind communism – which likely motivated him to put the infamous hammer ☭ sickle symbol on the cover of his two books.

Some believe that Bernstein was assassinated by Mossad, the national Israeli intelligence service.

Zionism & Zionist Aspirations

What is Zionism?

Zionism’s general definition, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

The term was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum, as was Political Zionism, though the latter was a movement characterised by Theodor Herzl with the goal of obtaining a charter in Palestine, which called for the intensification of rural settlement in the region.

Simply put, Zionism calls for the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory which includes the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, and the Holy Land (Land of Israel and Palestine).

Apart from its nationalistic movement, Zionism is a complex notion that stretches back to biblical times, as many Jews were exiled due to Roman dominance in the region two millennia ago.

Going back even earlier, the Israelites were exiled to both Egypt and Babylon and longed for their return to the Promised Land.

A bit more History...

As is described in the two MyJewishLearning.com web pages referenced above (Zionism 101 and European Jewry: The Beginning), it was in Eastern Europe where the largest population of Jewish communities dwelled.

The first article focuses largely on Jewish communities during the period approaching the end of the 19^th century; while the second article rewinds history back to the Middle Ages [with emphasis added]:

“In the ninth century, some of these [Jewish] merchants were involved in long-distance trade encompassing the whole of Eurasia. From the Frankish kingdom they exported swords, slaves, and furs to the Muslim world: then, following the Silk Road to India and China and returning via Khazaria and the Slavic lands, they brought back spices and perfumes to Europe. A Muslim document refers to these great dealers as radhaniya (from the river Rhone or a region near Baghdad).”

The Frankish kingdom, or Francia basically refers to the post-Roman barbarian kingdom in Western Europe that was ruled by the Frankish (German) Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties during the Early Middle Ages.

The latter part of the quotation from above refers to Khazaria which denotes the area that includes the western tip of Russia, southern Ukraine, Crimea, and Kazakhstan.

The Khazars were a Turkic people that helped forge a formidable commercial empire due to Khazaria acting as a bridge on the western marches of the Silk Road, controlling the key commercial crossroads between China, the Middle East, and Kevian Rus (Ukraine and Western Russia).

With the geographical advantage along the Silk Road, the Khazars gained a reputation for levying onerous taxes on merchants seeking to cross the East-West divide in order to sell their goods.

Map showing trade routes of the Khazarian, Kievan Rus and other regions at various crossroads of the Silk Road, 8th–11th centuries. Source: Wikipedia.

As MyJewishLearning notes from another article, it is believed that the Khazars converted to Judaism in the 8^th century; and, at the very least, a Jewish presence in Kyiv (Kiev, Ukraine) was firmly established by the 10^th century.

Writers from Veterans Today provide a historical overview into what they refer to as the Incredibly Evil Khazarian Mafia.

The article goes on to describe in great detail how the Khazarian Mafia has evolved, over the centuries, as a large international crime syndicate. This author has contacted its writer with questions and for comment, but has not received a response.

Perhaps serving as a complement to the MyJewishLearning article, the Veterans Today authors provide a reason for which the Khazars converted to Judaism [with some emphasis added]:

“100-800 AD – an incredibly Evil Society Emerges in Khazaria:
Khazarians develop into a nation ruled by an evil king, who had ancient Babylonian black arts, occult oligarchs serving as his court. During this time, Khazarians became known to surrounding countries as thieves, murderers, road bandits, and for assuming the identities of those travelers they murdered as a normal occupational practice and way of life.
800 AD – The Ultimatum is delivered by Russia and other surrounding nations:
The leaders of the surrounding nations, especially Russia, have had so many years of complaints by their citizens that, as a group, they deliver an ultimatum to the Khazarian king. They send a communique to the Khazarian king that he must choose one of the three Abrahamic religions for his people, make it his official state religion and require all Khazarian citizens to practice it, and socialize all Khazarian children to practice that faith.
The Khazarian king was given a choice between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The Khazarian king chose Judaism and promised to stay within the requirements laid out by the surrounding confederacy of nations led by the Russian czar. Despite his agreement and promise, the Khazarian king and his inner circle of oligarchs kept practicing ancient Babylonian black magic, also known as Secret Satanism. This Secret Satanism involved occult ceremonies featuring child sacrifice, after “bleeding them out”, drinking their blood, and eating their hearts.”

The term “evil” was chosen by the authors of the article since the Khazarian king and his oligarchs appeared to practise the ancient art of Babylonian black magic which they refer to as “Secret Satanism.”

Such allegations are scarcely found in historical textbooks, but nevertheless carry some merit.

The Old Testament from the Bible references such dark arts and practices occurring in Babylon and elsewhere in ancient times.

American Zionism

The current President of the United States, Joe Biden, repeatedly said one needn’t be a Jew to be a Zionist.

“You know I use to say early on when I was a kid, I’d say, when I was a young senator I say if I were a Jew I’d be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

Just last month (on October 18, 2023) Biden once more repeated the phrase during a visit to Israel to assure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of his administration’s unswerving support.

Such a statement coming from the country’s most prominent politician helps to explain the country’s stance and support towards the Zionist ambition.

In fact, over the last 75 years the U.S. Government has provided more aid to Israel than any other country with the lion’s share going to military weaponry even though the country has a higher per capita GDP than the U.K., France, and Japan.

U.S. economic and military aid to Israel, 1951–2023. Source: Axios.

Moreover, the amount of military support that the U.S. funelled to Israel in the past several decades is symptomatic of the influence the young Middle-Eastern nation holds in the halls of power of the world’s superpower.

Though Jews make up just 2% of the U.S. population, over 7% of the new Congress is Jewish (10% in the Senate and 7% in the House of Representatives).

Outside of Congress, and according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Biden Administration has Jewish persons in key posts, not the least of which are Anthony Blinken – the current Secretary of State, and David S. Cohen – the current Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Other notables include:

Janet Yellen, Treasury secretary (and former Chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018);
Merrick Garland, the Attorney General;
Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI);
Ronald Klain, White House Chief of Staff;
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security – who has been sharply criticised for his failure to protect the U.S. Border;
Anne Neuberger, Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technology.

“You can count on Congress to be a friend,” said Ritchie Torres, a member of the House of Representatives from New York who describes himself as a pro-Israel progressive.

In a November 6, 2023, article titled In Israeli-Palestinian battle to sway Congress, only one side wins, Abigail Hauslohner, a national security reporter for the Washington Post, asserts that the Capitol itself has become a front in this battle of narratives, further stating that “in Congress, only one side holds majority sway among those who control the funding of American foreign policy.”

The author expands on the idea by saying that it’s a reflection of the “decades-long influence of a powerful lobby” and that Pro-Israel lobbyist groups and individuals contributed nearly $31 million to American congressional candidates during last year’s election cycle, according to data from OpenSecrets.org – a nonpartisan and independent nonprofit organisation that tracks money in U.S. politics.

The Washington Post reporter adds the following:

“Torres, among the top 20 recipients in the House and Senate, received well over a quarter-million dollars from pro-Israel lobbyists during that election. His single biggest donor was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Open Secrets data shows.”

Over a quarter-million dollars for one candidate alone speaks volumes.

Money talks; and to think that it can’t buy influence and votes (in Congress) is to be naive at best.

In this case, Torres’ single biggest donor was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, more commonly known as AIPAC which describes itself as the largest pro-Israel PAC (Political Action Committee) in America.

AIPAC’s website says that 98 percent of candidates it backed won their elections, and that it “helped defeat” 13 candidates “who would have undermined the U.S.-Israel relationship,” as Hauslohner confirms in her piece.

Regardless of whether those representatives view themselves as Zionists or not, their penchant or leanings towards pro-Israeli policies, including war-related ones, cannot be readily dismissed.

In the United States, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is another pro-Israel organisation that holds a tremendous amount of power, influence, and sway about narratives surrounding Israel’s policies.

Over the years, the ADL has gained a reputation for going after those who are critical of Israel and their policies.

Even Haaretz, one of 70 Jewish publications from the Jewish Telegraph Agency, criticised the ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt for his outfit’s “crazily irresponsible crusade against anti-Zionism.”

The Haaretz piece further blasted the CEO for equating anti-zionism as anti-semitism and labelling anti-Zionist groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, as “extremists.”

Jewish Currents is another group that criticised the ADL’s Israel advocacy as well as its CEO for undermining civil rights and civil liberties, even returning to the 1967 Arab-Israel War period [with emphasis added and original link included]:

“The Black Panther Party, for example, condemned Israel in 1968 as an “imperialist, expansionist power” and said that “Zionism in Palestine and fascism here in America” stems from the same cause: “US imperialism.”

The ADL itself appears quite clear in their stance on “anti-Zionism,” as outlined in their chapter Myth: Anti-Zionism or Criticism of Israel is Never Antisemitic which includes the following video:

Jews Against Zionism

Apart from groups mentioned in the previous section such as Jewish Voice for Peace, others exist such as True Torah Jews based in New York that are against Zionism.

Jews For Zionism

Like for almost any other issue, there are also many Jews and organisations that hold pro-Zionist views and aspirations.

On a global level, the World Zionist Organization is one of them.

Many other organisations exist on the national level – too many to list in this post, but what follows are a few worth mentioning.

In the United Sates, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was founded over a century ago in 1897, playing a key role in the Jewish state’s re-establishment.

Unlike other Zionist organisations, the ZOA is more critical of Joe Biden’s appointees which it deems “Hostile-to-Israel.” In a November 9, 2023 press release, they also heavily criticised Benjamin Netanyahu for “caving in to Biden’s pressure for daily humanitarian pauses which their National President, Morton A. Klein (whom they regard as “one of the leading Jewish activists in the United States”), deems will endanger “Israel, Jews, [the] U.S.” and will “help Hamas.” Here are a few notable excerpt from the press release showcasing the scathing verbiage [with original emphasis and links]:

“Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein released the following statement:
It is disgraceful and frighteningly dangerous that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly caved in to President Biden’s unconscionable pro-Hamas pressure (exerted during a call on Monday and at other times) to begin daily four-hour so-called “humanitarian pauses” today that endanger the IDF soldiers, Israel and Jews and America. Shamefully, this makes a joke of PM Netanyahu’s fervent pledge that there would no cessation of this war until Hamas released every Israeli hostage. Yet, despicably, Biden is still complaining that he wants even longer pauses. Pauses should not even be considered unless EVERY hostage is freed first and Hamas is destroyed...
Further, agreeing to a pause sends the dangerous message that worldwide violent demonstrations, anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitism works in changing policy which harms Israel and helps Hamas. This will encourage more antisemitism, more pressure and more demonstrations. Israel should be standing doubly strong now instead of caving in to pressure and undermining Israel’s war against Hamas.”

Wikipedia also lists American Zionists which includes the likes of billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, Charles Bronfman, Robert Kraft, Alan Dershowitz, Jack Parsons, and the aforementioned President Joe Biden and Anthony Blinken, among many others.

In Canada, there is the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian Zionist Federation (CZF), an an umbrella organization of Zionist groups in Canada associated with the World Zionist Organization.

The CZF’s page on Zionism provides a historical and detailed view on the movement. Here are a few excerpts which help us understand the settling of European Jews in the land of Palestine just after World War I when the British had conquered it:

“The Zionist Movement, the generator of modern Jewish nationalism, emerged in the late nineteenth century in Russia and Eastern Europe. In the 1880s the first national Jewish settlers arrived in Palestine, where they lived under Ottoman rule and established close to 50 villages (moshavot). By the beginning of World War I, around 85,000 Jews lived in Palestine, about two-thirds of them new immigrants.
Towards the end of the war, Palestine was conquered by Britain. Immigration to Palestine continued under the British mandate, though with restrictions and in face of growing Arab rejection, and by the end of World War II the Jewish community (Yishuv) numbered close to half a million.”

They also make a distinction between “Modern Zionism” and “Practical Zionism” [with some emphasis added]:

“Modern Zionism was officially established as a political organization by Theodor Herzl in 1897. A Jewish journalist and political activist from Austria, Herzl believed that the Jewish population couldn’t survive if it didn’t have a nation of its own. In 1897, Herzl organized the First Zionist Congress, which met in Basel, Switzerland. He also formed and became the first president of the World Zionist Organization.
Practical Zionism – the core idea of Practical Zionism was the creation of a gradual process through which Jews, via immigration and settlement, would gain a large enough foothold in Palestine that world powers would have no choice but to grant them approval to establish a Jewish national home (Berlin, 1996).”

Canada’s role in the in the drafting of the United Nations’ Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 (U.N. Resolution 181) should also be noted – particularly with regards to its 14^th Prime Minister’s role in the partition plan [with some emphasis added]:

“Lester B. Pearson, then a senior Canadian diplomat and later the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, became the chairman of the UN sub-committee responsible for drawing up a detailed plan of partition. He played a pivotal role in securing a compromise in support of partition at the UN General Assembly in November 1947. Some historians have credited Pearson’s efforts with securing the positive vote in favour of partition at the UN (Bercuson 1985). In fact, “Zionists so appreciated Pearson’s and Rand’s role that they called the Under-Secretary of State the ‘Balfour of Canada’ and they established the Ivan C. Rand Chair of Law at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem” (Hillmer 1981, 166)”

Map showing the United Nations’ Partition Plan for Israel and Palestine in 1947. Source: Encyclopædia Britannica.

If one were to look at the territorial gains made in Palestine over the last several decades (as shown in maps in this post), one could certainly argue that Practical Zionism has indeed been effective in its pursuit.

The quote from above also mentioned Rand, referring to Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ivan C. Rand who had also been instrumental to the Israeli cause.

Though Canada is often seen as a neutral party and “peacemaker” in international conflicts, Umm Kulthum from the Yellowhead Institute recently noted in his brief titled A Brief History of Canada’s Role in the Colonization of Palestine that that has been far from being the case.

Kulthum explains that the brief offers an overview of some of the key roles Canada has played in the colonization of Palestine from the Partition and Nakba, to the emergence of Peacekeeping, and direct involvement in invasions, and that Canadians should confront the realities of their ongoing involvement. Here are some notable excerpts [with some emphasis added and original links preserved]:

“Canada’s role in the Nakba and the ongoing occupation of Palestine by the State of Israel has been erased from Canadian consciousness.
Looking back on this history, we can see that Pearson’s efforts were ultimately in the service of neutralizing Palestinian resistance (and resistance of their allies).
Since 2003, and well before then, Canada has been one of Israel’s loudest cheerleaders on the international stage, even as Canadians disagree; it supplies tens of millions in arms to Israel that it knows full well will be used to displace and kill Palestinians; and even commits personnel to assist Israel.”

For those unfamiliar, Nakba – which means catastrophe or disaster in Arabic, refers to the flight and expulsion of around 700,000 Palestinians from the homeland which occurred between 1947 and 1948 due to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

Kulthum also states that Canada actively supports, funds, and actively participates in the oppression of Palestinians and “treats the incarceration and bombing of over two million Palestinians in Gaza with little concern, condemnation, or humanitarianism.”

Are the Rothschilds Zionists?

Even though records from their own family history show that they have German origins, seemingly from Ashkenazi Jewish descent, the Rothschilds have nevertheless been instrumental in the establishment of the modern State of Israel which was created in 1948.

They have no stated claim to be of Middle-Eastern Jewish origin from the ancient Land of Israel or Judah, and thus are not descendants of the peoples who lived there.

Yet for well over a century, they have endeavoured to establish a state to call home.

While some may be criticised for calling either the Rothschilds or their stately ambition a Zionist one, that is precisely what they have stated. The Edmond de Rothschild Foundation website confirms their long-held Zionist ambitions along with their role in the affair:

“140 Years of pioneering spirit
From the end of the 19th century till today, the Rothschild family has been one of the pillars on which the Zionist vision and the State of Israel are based. The aspiration to establish and develop an advanced state – which will not only be the home of the Jewish people but will be a model for a moral and inclusive society – has been leading the family for 140 years, since Baron Abraham Benjamin Edmond James de Rothschild – “the Known Benefactor – Hanadiv” operated in the Land of Israel.”

It would really be at the turn of the 20^th century after World War I where the elite banking family’s Zionist ambitions would start to bear fruit.

The Balfour Declaration & the Modern State of Israel

During the first World War there was a battalion of Zionist volunteers called the Jewish Legion under an infantry regiment of the British Army.

Then British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), the unofficial leader of the British Jewish community, stating that Britain would use its “best endeavours” to facilitate “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

Original final draft of the Balfour Declaration dated November 2, 1917. Source: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA).

Though the Balfour Declaration – which underwent five revisions – was deemed unsuccessful amidst competing powers’ interests, after the Second World War, the modern state of Israel came about. Decades prior, the British had secured control over the region referred to as Mandatory Palestine which had been ceded by the Ottomans after their dissolution post-WWI.

“...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” reads part of the declaration.

In contrast to the sentiment expressed in the passage above from the declaration, many have argued that what has transpired over the past several decades in Palestine and towards the Palestinian people has been far from diplomatic, particularly with the incremental expansion of Israel over Palestinian territory since 1948 and the incessant conflict.

Map depicting the diminishing Palestinian territory since 1917. Source: Al Jazeera.

On the centennial of the Balfour Declaration, the President of the Palestinian National Authority – Mahmoud Abbas – asked for an apology for the infamous document, but was rejected by the British Government.

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East (Oded Yinon Plan)

“Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians?
Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”?”

“This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite,” replies Prof. Emeritus Michel Chossudovsky in an updated article titled “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East which revisits the infamous Oded Yinon Plan.

“Evidence and testimony suggest that the Netanyahu government was aware of Hamas' actions which led the deaths of hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians. And “they let it happen,” contends the same author in a related article, also reaffirming the assertion in an interview on the matter.

This same article provides additional evidence which corroborates the claim that Israel willingly let the Hamas attack happen; it comes from an update by independent Israeli journalist Efrat Feningson who previously served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and stated that “It is impossible that Israel did not know what was coming.” Feningson offered several other reasons why she believes that the Netanyahu government allowed the brutal attack on its territory.

Was Hamas created by Israel and Netanyahu?

There exists a significant amount of evidence that supports the claim that Benjamin Netanyahu was initially involved in the creation of the Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as Hamas back in 1987 in Gaza.

The main idea for the creation of Hamas by Israel was to counter secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) led by Yasser Arafat.

Back on January 24, 2009, journalist Andrew Higgins from the Wall Street Journal wrote the following [with emphasis added in red] in his article How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas:

Also in 2009, U.S. Congressman Ron Paul also said that Hamas was created by Israel (alternate video links here and here):

“if you look at history you’ll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counter Yassir Arafat.”

And on July 30, 2014, in an article titled How Israel helped create Hamas, Ishaan Tharoor from The Washington Post wrote the following [with original links included and some emphasis added]:

“All signs indicate that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to wage a protracted battle in the battered Gaza Strip as it seeks to crush the capabilities of the Islamist militant group Hamas. The ongoing conflict has already exacted a bloody toll, with the Palestinian death count approaching the total of Israel's 2008-2009 bombing campaign and ground offensive in Gaza, which led to the deaths of at least 1,383 Palestinians over three weeks.
It also obscures Hamas's curious history. To a certain degree, the Islamist organization whose militant wing has rained rockets on Israel the past few weeks has the Jewish state to thank for its existence. Hamas launched in 1988 in Gaza at the time of the first intifada, or uprising, with a charter now infamous for its anti-Semitism and its refusal to accept the existence of the Israeli state. But for more than a decade prior, Israeli authorities actively enabled its rise.”

“Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas,” stated Netanyahu in 2019 when addressing members of the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament).

These historical refreshers can offer some additional nuance and context for this, reoccurring, current Israeli-Gaza conflict.

Tweet (archived here) posted by Benjamin Netanyahu on Dec. 28, 2022 (a day before he resumed his duties as the Prime Minister of Israel).

The above tweet from Netanyahu can be translated into English as follows:

“These are the basic lines of the national government that I [Netanyahu] lead: The Jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will encourage and expand settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel – in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.”

It’s obvious for anyone to see that Netanyahu seeks to appropriate all of the land in Gaza (and the West Bank) and displace over 2.2 million people from their homeland who dwell in this open air prison.

Returning to the “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East article which outlines Netanyahu’s commitment to the “Greater Israel” and the “Promised Land” project, Chossudovsky notes:

“Under the Biden administration, despite rhetorical shifts in the political narrative, Washington remains supportive of Israel plans to annex the entire Jordan River valley as well the illegal settlements in the West Bank.”

He also stresses that the Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist project, but is also an integral part of U.S. foreign policy (undoubtedly backed by the war-lusting Neocons) as a means to “Balkanize” the Middle East.

In other words, the United States is assisting Israel to materialise the ambitious project of restoring the “Promised Land.”

More specifically, Greater Israel would create a number of proxy states that would include parts of Lebanon, Syria, the Sinai, as well as part of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Map showing ‘Greater Israel’ as the area of the Jewish State stretching: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates,” according to Theodore Herzl or “The Promised Land [that] extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates [which] includes parts of Syria and Lebanon,” according to Rabbi Fischmann. Image source: Centre for Research on Globalization (GlobalResearch.ca).

Chossudovsky then outlines an introductory backdrop for “The Greater Israel Project” prefacing it as “the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.”

He also states that the project consists in “weakening and eventually fracturing neighbouring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia,” and also in confronting Iran.

The Yinon Plan

The article mentions The Yinon Plan (translated as The Zionist Plan for The Middle East by Oded Yinon Israël Shahak – an Israeli journalist who was formerly attached to the Foreign

Ministry of Israel – from his original “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” from 1982 which referred to a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East as an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority.

The article further notes:

“Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.”

Coincidentally, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran were among the countries that the United States were planning are going to war with, as had been revealed from an active U.S. General to retired General Wesley Clark in the days following the September 11, 2011 attacks (which many also consider a false flag).

The Deadly Cost of War

The amount of destruction and devastation caused by the United States and its powerful military on the nations of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Sudan (among other countries such as Afghanistan) have been undeniably significant.

War Death Toll showing over 900,000 deaths – nearly half civilian: Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones, Afghanistan & Pakistan (Oct. 2001 – Aug. 2021); Iraq (March 2003 – March 2023); Syria (Sept. 2014 – March 2023); Yemen (Oct. 2002-Aug. 2021) and Other Post-9/11 War Zones. Source: Brown University’s Watson Institute International & Public Affairs.

As shown in the image above, Iraq suffered the greatest numbers of victims with other estimates as high as half a million children whereby then U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stating “the price, we think, the price was worth it.”

One has to wonder, therefore, whether part of these very costly military endeavours were actually for a “war on terror” and the protection of the United States, or to help Israel in its Zionist aspirations.

In contemplating the latter, we must further examine the powerful forces that have long been ruling from the shadows and what their ultimate plans are.

The Host and the Parasite – Has Israel taken over the U.S. Government?

“[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon reportedly yelled at [his foreign Minister Shimon] Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.” – October 3, 2001, source: Media Monitors Network

It is not without controversy that the appearance by Canadian author Greg Felton, a Vancouver-based journalist and teacher, for a February 2008 talk at the Vancouver Public Library (VPL) took place.

Prior to the event, there was apprehension among members of the Jewish community for the topics that Felton would be discussing; for, they were deemed highly critical of Israel and perceived as antisemitic. But there were also supporters.

Felton’s 2007 book, The Host and The Parasite: How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America certainly helped to fuel the angst felt by Jewish Canadians and others.

Book cover for The Host and The Parasite: How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America, by Greg Felton. Image source: Goodreads.com.

An editorial featured in the Jewish Independent on the very next day called Felton “truth-challenged,” but in the end remarked that “debate and discussion is possible, even among the most adversarial opponents.”

Though the Vancouver Public Library nearly cancelled the event, it nonetheless took place.

At the start of the talk City Librarian Paul Whitney from the VPL mentioned the regret felt by members of the Jewish community, but said that “it remains the library’s belief that we must stand by the principle of freedom of expression.”

The talk largely focused on how U.S. foreign policy is largely commanded by Israeli interests, as per Felton’s research and sentiments on the matter.

The entire talk is around 55 minutes (with a Q & A at the end). Felton’s monologue lasts about 30 minutes which is split into three parts below along with key excerpts for each:

Part 1:

Key excerpts:

“The United States is fundamentally different than it was in the 1950s and 1960s, or even the 1970s.”
“September the 11^th knocked down a couple buildings [which] led to the passage of the USA Patriot Act and from there people might argue we went into a spiral to the abyss of statism, torture, imperial overreach, and all other sorts of things you can associate with undemocratic activity.”
On October 3, 2001 – 24 days after September the 11^th happened the Department of Justice handed Congress a document, [repeating] the Department of Justice handed Congress a document [which] is called the USA Patriot Act and Congress was told to pass it. Now Congress is a legislative body. It’s the body that makes laws. But here we have a Congress that is told to follow a diktat from the Executive which is kind of weird.”
“The Patriot Act was entered into the House [of Representatives] October 23^rd and signed by [George W.] Bush on October 26^th. Now for legislation that is an absurdly fast scenario.”
“But that document did something very strange and very sad because it legislated the Republic out of existence.”
“That document killed the Republic and turned the United States into a proto-fascist empire.”
“We have to explain why a Congress would commit political suicide. Why would Congress do this?”
“My book takes a perspective that Congress was incapable of defending the Constitution – which of course the Patriot Act utterly destroys.”
“...The third group [are] what are called Jewish Zionists: Norman [inaudible], Irving Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, a whole list of individuals who George H. W. Bush would collectively call the crazies.”

Part 2:

Key excerpts:

“And then 1967 happened. Israel provoked a war in the Middle East and managed to seize control of the Suez [Canal]. The[y] occupied East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Suez, the West Bank, Gaza Strip.”
“It is still an illegal occupation of much of that territory today.”
“But the fact that Israel did it meant that Israel is no longer some after thought in U.S. policy – which was oil-based. Strictly speaking, the U.S. wanted the Middle East for oil, that’s all it cared about.”
“But Israel now is [a] major player. Israeli Jews could now look upon Israel with pride, as they conquered territory. They can now espouse support for Israel and the United States. And so did Lyndon Johnson.”
“So, by the time 1973 comes around, we have three groups of people: evangelical Christians, Jewish Zionists, and Strauss [inaudible] Neoconservatives.”
“[What President Jimmy] Carter failed to understand, though, is that with respect to the Middle East, he was not there to represent the United Sates; he was there to represent, well, Israel.”
“Because soon after he was elected – now I’m talking about 1977 March in Clinton, Massachusetts, he delivered a speech where he spoke honestly, intelligently, I think, about the need for a Palestinian homeland.”
“Well, the Israel lobby basically had a collective heart attack. They assailed him. They slandered him, libelled him, they attacked vigorously. And Carter tried to backpedal out of this.”
“So, what happened with the election in 1980 was that the Zionist – both Christian and Jewish, and the Neocons came to power and their front man was Ronald Reagan.”
“And for the 1980s we have a transition period. A transition period between the role of oil as the dominant influence and cause of U.S. policy in the Middle East, and that of supporting Israel to the detriment of oil and to the detriment of the United States.”
“Now, in 1991 [U.S. Secretary of Defense] Dick Cheney had acknowledged that there was never there was no more threat of nuclear weapons, excuse-me of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein. Colin Powell said the same thing in 2000.”

Part 3:

Key excerpts:

“So did [U.S. National Security Advisor] Condoleezza Rice the next year [in 2001]. In fact, Dick Cheney twice in ten years, Powell twice, Rice once within the last seven years had admitted that Saddam Hussein had no useful weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the U.S. or Israel.”
“Within months of the last of those announcements, the U.S. policy flip-flopped 180 degrees. All of a sudden weapons of mass destruction which were dismissed as nonsense, which were openly acknowledged to be non-existent were now asserted to be facts. Why would the U.S. do this? What caused the United States to have such a complete change of understanding, as no new information had come forward to change the previous assessments which were correct and have shown to be correct.”
“Well, the only interest party, the only country interested in bombing Iraq was Israel for two reasons, or three reasons, actually. Iran, Iraq has a lot of oil. Israel needs oil. Iraq has a lot of water. The Tigris and the Euphrates [rivers] are within the ambit of what is called the maximal Zionist claim on Middle Eastern land from the mouth of the Euphrates.”
“It’s also the case that Saddam Hussein was one of the few Arab leaders courageous enough to stand up and defend the Palestinians against the repression and the sadism of the Israeli state.”
“The occupation to this day is illegal, but it’s hard to find any outlet in the media willing to say this.”
“So, Saddam Hussein was a political problem and also the head of a country that was the capital of the Arab world, culturally speaking. Baghdad was a great center of learning. And Hussein had a good army. But armies in the Middle East are not something Israel wants on its doorstep. Israel wants to have complete military superiority over the region.”
“And so, we had a provocation to bomb Iraq. It wasn’t just [George] Bush though. Throughout the 1990s, Iraq was starved under more illegal no-fly zones and sanctions regimes which did nothing but starve Iraqi children and older people.”
“Iran has never posed a threat to anyone militarily speaking.”
“Hussein, I mean Hussein was an American ally for all intents and purposes. He attacked Iran after being goaded by the U.S. The Iran-Iraq war started because the U.S. pushed Hussein to attack Iran around the [inaudible] waterway in the south. And then Sadam Hussein took the American bait and invaded Kuwait – an excuse for George W. Bush, H.W. Bush, to put military into Saudi Arabia to secure oil.”
“Now, if you want to ask why on earth would [the] U.S. want to attack Iraq, you’ve got me, because Iraq posed no threat to the United States. It was not in the interest of the United States to bomb Iraq. Why else do it?”
“Again, we have to understand that the United States government, especially since Clinton, has been populated by people who owe more of an allegiance to Israel than to the United States itself.”
“To this day [in 2008] there are people in the American government who are citizens of Israel. And to have a dual citizen formative policy really brings questions of duplicity, treason, the very sort of concerns that Jews had before 1967. But these don’t matter anymore.”
“It is impossible to believe that a republic could commit suicide by passing the Patriot Act. But it makes more sense to believe that Israel with [the] United States Congress is not in control of itself.”
“The people [in Congress] making policy would rather serve Israel, than serve their own public. I mean, why else would George W. Bush veto a bill for 30 billion dollars for child insurance, yet write a blank check to bomb Arabs into oblivion? Why terrorise and torture people for no good purpose?”
“It’s important to realise that if we’re gonna have a discussion on what happened on September the 11^th and other such things, we have to look at who benefited from it.”
“The Patriot Act in my view represents the culminating act of the fascist coup d'état that happened in 1980.”
“To this day [2008] the United States has something called the Strategic Oil Reserve Agreement with Israel under which it will guarantee [to] supply Israel with oil in the event of a crisis – even to the extent of denying oil to its own people.”
“The United States has been humiliated, abused, disgraced internationally and domestically as it moves to support Israel in whatever it does. And it is impossible to think that this is being done willingly.”
“The only thing that we can conclude is that the United States has been under Israeli occupation to all intents and purposes.”
“The only way to understand the last 38 years is that it’s a culmination of a number of things that happened in the United States that I articulate here in my book that shows how the United States slowly and quite clearly allowed itself to be occupied and humiliated by a lobby that had at its primary interest the interest of another government.”
“Because a lot of people will argue that, well, the United States is the strongest country in the world; nobody can push the United States around. Well, if you look at the people who run the United States, the Military-Industrial Complex is a very good example; the interplay between them and the Israel lobby is very very close.”
“And it makes no sense for the United States to murder Arabs en masse.”
“It makes no sense for the United States to repudiate its own principles and declare war on its own citizens.”
“The other way we can make sense of this is that the people in Washington [D.C.] are serving another government – that we have essentially a treasonous government.”
“...and we look at the events of September the 11^th and how that happened, and the people who were responsible for it, we end up with conclusions that the United States has been dominated by interest groups to put the interests of America behind that of Israel.”

The south tower of the World Trade Center (left) in freefall on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. Cui bono? (Who benefits? Who has benefited?)

A Central Banking Cabal

Who really runs the world?

Early in humanity during primitive times, the strongest tribes were the ones who vied for power and dominance.

Fiefdom and kingdoms ensued which needed funding to keep dominance. Taxes were usually levied on landowners and peasants.

From ancient and medieval times, such entities had some kind of treasury to fund projects, wars, and the like. Though many kinds of money have existed over the centuries, gold and silver have long been seen as stable standards of wealth.

As it became somewhat cumbersome and unsafe to trade and transact using these heavy monetary metals, systems of paper money – such as those designed and used by the Chinese during the Song and Yuan dynasties – simplified accounting and trade mechanisms greatly.

Merchants from the affluent cities of Florence, Venice and Genoa were some of the first to use these kinds of systems in Europe as early as the 15^th century.

Loans were provided by powerful and rich families such as the Medicis who exerted a tremendous amount of influence and control not only over governments, but also on the Catholic Church itself who, at the time, was a very powerful institution in neighbouring Rome.

This section attempts to showcase how central banking and financing wars are intricately interwoven or joined at the hip, so to speak; for, history testifies to endless accounts which confirm their symbiotic relationship.

As there are too many such instances in history to gloss over, this section will examine some key central banks along with who established and/or owned them, and which wars they help to ~~foment~~ finance.

Hidden History: All Wars are Banker Wars

The Bank of England

The Bank of England was one of the first central banks in the world (after Genoa) and was created in 1694 by Royal Charter for the purpose of raising funds to allow the English government to wage war against France.

Charles Montagu was one of the bank’s key architects, devising a system of guaranteed government loans thus initiating never-ending national debt. It was Scottish William Paterson, however, who would be its founding member and first Director.

Following the wishes of her husband, King William III, Queen Mary II pressed for the project to move forward, despite her Privy Council’s objections which would have quashed the Bank Act.

The £1,200,000 was subscribed in just over a week with 8% set as the interest charge, spearheading a new era in British banking. This amount, adjusted for inflation, would be the equivalent of £192,341,385 in today’s currency.

Though not members of the original issue of The Bank of England, the Rothschilds (see section below The Rothschilds & Other Banking Dynasties) provided funds to the Duke of Wellington to finance his troops with gold coin in 1814 and 1815, leading up to the Battle of Waterloo, establishing the Rothchilds as a powerful financial player.

“the Bank of England could not match the capability of the Rothschild’s dynasty as (sic) this point in history. Their international network were second to none...Rothschilds is again powerful enough to assist national governments and provide the resources that the country’s own national bank could not.”

The above quote is from Intriguing History. And by “international network,” they were referring to the Rothschild’s sophisticated communication system whereby they would learn of key events such as the victor in the Battle of Waterloo, ahead of others.

Two decades later, in 1825, a run on the bank [of England] was in the cards upon which the Rothschilds obliged with 150,000 gold sovereigns to replenish its reserves, narrowly avoiding suspending payments and customer withdrawals.

On an interesting side note, though not a European Union (EU) member, The Bank of England is a member of the European Central Bank (ECB). And, coincidentally, the ECB’s headquarters are in Frankfurt am Main, Germany – the same location where Mayer Amschel Rothschild commenced his banking empire.

After the establishment of the Bank of England, many additional loans ensued in the next few hundred years, largely debasing the currency. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946.

Image Source: The Market Oracle – Sinking Fiat Currencies, Jun 27, 2008 (archived).

As most other countries have followed this central banking model, they have tragically suffered the same fate, largely impoverishing their citizens.

In order to add context and better understand some of the charts from above which show the debasement of some Western currencies, we will primarily focus on that of the United States since the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency.

The United States’ Central Bank[s]

The United States has had three central banks over the course of its relatively short history.

Prior to the current Federal Reserve which was established in 1913, there were two others: The First Bank of the United States (1791 to 1811) that had received a charter for 20 years, and The Second Bank of the United States: 1816 to 1836) headquartered in Philadelphia that had also received a 20 year charter.

There was an attempt to renew the charter for the Second Bank which was a very contentious issue during the general election of 1832 that led to an all-out clash between the banking interests and Andrew Jackson in what was fittingly referred to as the Bank War.

In the end Jackson got his way; for, the second charter was not renewed.

The debt that had been accumulated with the War of 1812 proved too monstrous and frightening to repeat as yet another folly to the young, developing, nation.

The following chart from a 2016 article titled The History of U.S. Government Spending, Revenue, and Debt (1790-2015) perfectly illustrates the extent to which a plight of debt can prove highly destructive to a nation.

Debt rose sharply from the onset of the War of 1812 (see first red area on the left), but would surpass itself sharply with the next three wars with the Civil War and WWI exceeding over 35% of GDP, and WWII an astounding 110% of GDP.

Let the reader observe how debt (as a % of GDP) had actually decreased from nearly 20% to a more modest level around 1% after the non-renewal of the private Second Bank paving the way for better economic times.

In fact, by January 8, 1835, President Andrew Jackson had paid off the entire national debt – the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished.

The debt level remained pretty stable in the following years leading up to the American Civil War (1861 to 1865); after which it blew up significantly.

The American Civil War

Incidents of the war. A harvest of death, Gettysburg, PA. Dead Federal soldiers on battlefield by Alexander Gardner, dated between 4 July 1863 and 7 July 1863. Photo source: Wikipedia. For more photographs from the American Civil War, click here.

Did Bankers Foment the “Civil War”? was published back in July of 2020 by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and former associate editor at The Wall Street Journal, in which he forwarded assertions that President Lincoln had instigated an “unconstitutional war” as an act of aggression against the south (due to high tariffs imposed on them) preventing it from seceding, rather than it being a war about slavery.

While the assertion, at prima facie, may seem a bit over the top (probably due to incomplete or inaccurate teachings on its history), it appears to carry merit when one examines some of the facts and resources referenced.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. – President Abraham Lincoln at his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861”

Firstly, as can be observed from Lincoln’s quote at his Inaugural Address, he wasn’t concerned with slavery, nor did he seem to think it was a problem at the time.

Also from same address, when referring to the 13^th Amendment (passed by Congress on March 2, 1861 – also called the Corwin Amendment), Lincoln further stated that he had “no objection to its being made express and irrevocable,” meaning that he had no intention of doing anything that would abolish or interfere with the institution of slavery.

The original 13^th Amendment reads as follows:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

As the Corwin Amendment was passed two days before Lincoln’s Inaugural Address, it appears quite evident that Lincoln wanted the South to stay in the union, pay their tariffs and the federal government would steer clear of slavery (which as a state issue, rather than a national one anyhow).

Put differently, the original 13^th Amendment was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland) to stay.

But this original 13 Amendment was never ratified (by the required number of states prior to 1865).

It was only from January 31, 1865 did the 13th Amendment to the Constitution banish slavery across the United States of America.

Prolific writer Paul Craig Roberts further posits that there existed a deeper underlying and unbeknownst cause of the war. In doing so, he refers to a thesis put forth by the lawyer and author John Remington Graham who wrote A Constitutional History of Succession (Pelican Publishing, October 31, 2002) stating that:

“bankers spent a decade fomenting hatred between North and South in order to provoke a war that would greatly increase federal debt, which the banks could acquire and use as reserves to support the issuance of money and credit.”

“Federal debt would become the reserve basis (like gold) for the expansion of the money supply. This power would give bankers control of the government,” Roberts further adds.

“Graham is factually correct about the huge increase in US national debt caused by the war. In 1860 US national debt stood at a mere $65 million. By war’s end, US national debt was $2.7 billion – 41.5 times larger,” Roberts additionally notes.

Considering inflation-adjusted figures for 2023, the 1860 debt of $65 million would be about $2.4 billion today while the 1865 debt of $2.7 billion would now be equivalent to almost $51 billion.

In an article of the same name, author Charles Burns presents the viewpoint of American abolitionist and legal theorist Lysander Spooner who penned a scathing critique – Part IV THE CONSITITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY (from No Treason) in which he sharply criticised both the American experiment and its Constitution, contending that it served as an illegal and immoral means to indebt and enslave Americans.

It is quite worthwhile to consider the testimony of someone who lived during the time of the American Civil War such as with Lysander Spooner, even if he was considered an anarchist back in the day (and may still be considered as such).

Spooner wrote No Treason in the years following the war (1867 to 1870). Here are a few selected passages from this long essay [with emphasis added]:

“In Europe, the nominal rulers, the emperors and kings and parliaments, are anything but the real rulers of their respective countries. They are little or nothing else than mere tools, employed by the wealthy to rob, enslave, and (if need be) murder those who have less wealth, or none at all.
The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents – men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest – stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.
…
These money-lenders, the Rothschilds, for example, say to themselves: If we lend a hundred millions sterling to the queen and parliament of England, it will enable them to murder twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand people in England, Ireland, or India; and the terror inspired by such wholesale slaughter, will enable them to keep the whole people of those countries in subjection for twenty, or perhaps fifty, years to come; to control all their trade and industry; and to extort from them large amounts of money, under the name of taxes; and from the wealth thus extorted from them, they (the queen and parliament) can afford to pay us a higher rate of interest for our money than we can get in any other way.”

Spooner is correct in that not only does there exist a wholesale slaughter of “expendable” souls (at least in their eyes), but it consistently does take decades for countries – meaning their citizens, or us – to pay off huge war debts to the lenders.

Wars are, therefore indeed, banker wars.

Lysander Spooner (1808 – 1887). Image source: Wikipedia.

Lysander Spooner’s lesson for the ages is a rather astute and an ominously foretelling one:

“The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay “National Debts,” so-called – that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered – so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.”

It’s incredible how this lesson still resonates today. A lesson, mind you, that sadly has yet to be learned.

For, the usurious system of central banking that has enslaved humanity for the better part of the last two centuries (if not more) and which has funnelled our sons and daughters to war fronts for the slaughter tragically remains the uncontested norm.

We’ve indeed been duped, manipulated, hoodwinked, and conned into this interminable debt-based form of financial slavery – at the profit of an international banking cabal run by rich families, their private banks and leviathanic corporations who control governments and monarchs across the globe.

Moreover, Spooner says “when they [meaning “we”] refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they [“we”] will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.”

Most people are too ignorant, insouciant, or foolish to concede that these plundering usurpers are our real masters.

Can a world without such parasites not only be imaginable, but also become a reality?

Of course it can; but, for that to happen, the undertaking of waking up millions of zombified sheep will require nothing short of an emancipatory, perhaps divinely-inspired, intellectual and physical revolution.

Two World Wars

Apart from the Great Depression which once more plunged the United States into a level of Debt nearing 40% of GDP, the two world wars added to the economic malaise of the republic.

Both wars were fuelled by numerous factors, too many to explicitly pin on merely banking and profiteering interests.

During the Second World War U.S. Debt skyrocketed to over 112% of GDP. In dollar terms, it was roughly $258 billion at the time, or the equivalent of about $4.4 trillion in today’s dollars.

Take a moment to fathom just how gigantesque $4.4 trillion is.

It’s not so much that the United States had to borrow money, but rather that it fed the Allied Forces with gargantuan amounts of arms and provisions. This was accomplished by the signing of the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 by President Roosevelt whereby more than $50 billion (at the time) was appropriated war’s end.

Image capture taken from the History.com’s What Was the Lend-Lease Act? (with the original image sourced from the National Constitution Center (archived).

The 15^th Annual Report (1^st of April 1944—31^st March 1945) of the Bank for International Settlements outlined the ramifications of Lend-Lease, not least of which included steep increases in money supplies (see table ‘Notes in Circulation’ on p. 67) as well as mammoth levels of national incomes allocated to the war effort:

Page 27 of the BIS’ 15^th Annual Report (1^st of April 1944—31^st March 1945) showing very high percentages of National Income devoted to War Expenditures from 1939 to 1944.

It is reported that it took until 2006 for Britain to settle debts from WWII.

Though some of the proceeds of Lend-Lease were to be reimbursed, a lot of it was given as aid (free of charge) which was deemed “essential for the defense of the United States.”

Ultimately, it would be the American taxpayer (and their descendents) who would foot the $50+ billion bill since the appropriation of funds by Congress would have been obtained through the issuance of bonds via the Treasury that are sold to the Federal Reserve who creates the currency out of thin air.

As the government needs to repay the debt to the banks along with interest (and a 6% dividend to the Fed’s stockholders), the national debt increases further, diluting the value of the currency and thus impoverishing citizens.

Apart from the 70 to 85 million souls that perished from the Second World War, the economic slaughter of citizens around the world that reverberated in the decades following it remains incalculable.

Quotes by American Presidents

Years ago, under the pen name Grandson Of Liberty, I wrote Restoring the Lost Republic (of the United States of America) which focused on the illegal and unconstitutional Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Income Tax. At the end that short work, I provided some quotes by American Presidents that are quite telling about how destructive credit can be to nations. Here are some of those quotes.

Apart from the aforementioned quote by Andrew Jackson and the ones immediately above, more quotes from American Presidents will be presented further below in order to provide additional clarity and historical context surrounding the criminal nature of the banking cartel.

Documentary – All Wars are Bankers’ Wars

To conclude this section, I would invite the reader to watch the following documentary film called All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars (alternative video link here) by Michael Rivero; for, it is highly accurate (with the exception of some unsubstantiated quotes) and presents the concept in a manner simplified enough to illustrate how malevolently-orchestrated wars are used as a means to enrich elite interests, at the destructive and costly expense of nations and their peoples.

The Rothschilds & Other Banking Dynasties

The quote from above is often cited (and usually with the wrong portrait), but did Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) really say it?

It is difficult to prove with absolute certainty. However, Charles Gustav Binderup did quote the infamous Rothschild banker during a speech on the floor of the House of Representative while serving in the 75^th Congress.

From the same source just cited, American greats such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson had some choice words regarding the Rothschilds and the issuance of currency by private bankers:

When Benjamin Franklin was asked how he could account for all the new found prosperity, in the Colonies he replied “That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

From the same source cited above, Franklin also stated the following about the Rothschilds and the English [in the red rectangular boxes]:

Of course, these are statements that are almost never taught in History classes across America –which is by design, it must be added.

The same text follows with the previously mentioned quote by Thomas Jefferson about the threat that banking institutions pose on liberty. His sentiment was right back then and is still right to this very day.

And the following quote by James A. Garfield expresses the same kind of sentiment:

The following excerpt from page (100) of this same work, titled NATIONAL ECONOMY AND THE BANKING SYSTEM published by former U.S. Senator Robert Latham Owen from 1939, encapsulates the brazenly arrogant sentiment of the Rothschilds money lenders:

It shows a letter written by the Rothschild Bros. Of London to a New York firm of bankers from 1863 in which they distinguish between two classes:

those in the know (who understand the credit system) who profit from the system, and
the plebs, or people “mentally incapable” of comprehending the system who are doomed to “bear its burdens without complaint” and are not suspecting of its “inimical” (i.e., harmful and malevolent) nature.

Sadly, it could be argued that the vast majority of people today remain in the latter category; for, most don’t even know that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a private corporation that has nothing to do with the government, but is merely a lender to it.

“War is profitable. The Rothschild family have funded the losers and the winners of all wars since the Napoleonic Wars of 1803 to 1815. They fund both sides so that whichever side wins, they profit. In 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte is campaigning against Wellington. Jacob Rothschild, in Paris, funds Napoleon while Nathan Rothschild, in London, funds Wellington. Soon, the family decides that it is more profitable if Britain wins the war as the British royal family is indebted to the Rothschild family: thus, Jacob limits the funds to Napoleon’s army.”

The passage above comes from author Giorgio Spagnol in his piece BANKSTERS AND WARMONGERS.

Spagnol also provides a more accurate account among the various tales of how the Rothchilds heftily profited from the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815:

“Knowing that Britain is winning the war, Nathan starts selling off his British bonds in lump sums. Other traders conclude that France must be winning and Britain losing. They also dump their British bonds in large sums. As a result, the price of the bond plummets and becomes very low. Once Nathan sees that the other traders have sold all their bonds, he begins buying them back at ridiculously low prices. When the news reaches the ordinary citizens that Britain has won the war, the value of the British bond rises so high that Nathan makes a huge profit.”

Interestingly, the Waterloo profiteering account was dramatised in Boris Karlov’s 1934 film The House of Rothschild (at the 01:20:31 mark).

Such kinds of fourberie, including provoking panics or financial crashes, were not reserved to Rothschilds alone and certainly continue to this day.

In this particular case though, it was orchestrated by one of the wealthiest and shrewdest Rothschilds of them all, namely Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836).

“Buy on the sound of cannons, sell on the sound of trumpets,” is thought to be the maxim that Nathan Mayer Rothschild coined (pardon the pun) in his day.

Such immoral treachery, some would argue, is never detached from this bankster mindset, no matter which nation they presume to serve and assist.

For instance, descendents of Mayer Amschel Rothschild – who was born in Frankfurt (Germany) and later became the personal banker of the German royals – would later betray Germany who was becoming an industrial powerhouse prior to World War I.

First though, it is important to distinguish between members of this elite banking family, for their names often get confused.

In an 1810 partnership agreement, Mayer Amschel created Mayer Amschel Rothschild & Sohne which gave each of his five sons a stake in the enterprise who were each assigned to posts across Europe in order to establish banking houses.

The following image, taken from an official source, helps to illustrate and distinguish the sons and their new operational centers:

Screenshot of the video The Rothschild Family and Waddesdon (at the 3:17 mark) showing the five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Source: Waddesdon Manor YouTube channel.

The five sons are:

The eldest son Amschel (or Anselm) Mayer (previously Meyer) Rothschild (1773-1855) – not to be confused with his father Mayer Amschel – remained in Frankfurt, Germany (M A Rothschild, Frankfurt).
Salomon Mayer Rothschild (1774-1855) was sent to Vienna, Austria in 1817 (S M von Rothschild).
Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836) was sent to London, England in 1798 (N M Rothschild & Sons).
Carl (previously Callmann) Rothschild (1788-1855) was sent to Naples, Italy in 1821 (C M de Rothschild & Figli, Naples).
James (previously Jacob) Mayer de Rothschild (1792-1868) was sent to Paris, France (de Rothschild Frères, Paris).

Getting back to Germany, the country wasn’t initially involved in World War I, as it had been started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Yet, the emerging industrial powerhouse was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain.

Propaganda posters from WWI depicting Germany as a threat. Source: Georgetown University library.

Armaments companies financed by Rothschild-controlled banks in Germany, France, England, and Austria, bankrolled all the factions.

After the war, the Treaty of Versailles (June 28, 1919) signed at the French château deprived Germany of 13.5% of its territory and imposed aggressively unreasonable reparations to be paid – 132 billion gold marks (more than $500 billion today) which took 92 years to pay off (with the last payment being made on October 3, 2010).

The Rothchilds, London, & The U.S. Federal Reserve

Who owns the Fed (the Federal Reserve central bank in the United States)?

A large part of the masses do not know that the United States central bank called the Federal Reserve is actually a private corporation.

There are many reasons for this. Firstly, the bank was designed and created to make it appear as though it was government-related. And the bank’s internet address ends with .gov which, falsely and deceptively, conveys that it is a government organisation even though it is not.

The U.S. Federal Reserve, or Fed for short became the country’s third central bank – after the First Bank of the United States (1791 to 1811) and the Second Bank of the United States (1816 to 1841) – when it was officially created through the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress on December 23, 1913.

Despite President Andrew Jackson’s warnings and strong stance against the country adopting another destructive private central bank (see quote above), the third bank (the Federal Reserve) was nevertheless structured and capitalised primarily by European elite bankers.

Through their interlocking- and cross-ownership stratagem, they maintain complete control of the central bank’s operations who is the primary lender to the United States Government.

What complicates matters additionally is that the ownership of the shares of the Federal Reserve has changed and shifted since its inception.

As a private corporation, it is difficult to obtain the complete current ownership of the Federal Reserve due to its secretive nature. This may seem odd to the layperson, as it is commonly believed that this is an institution that [purportedly] serves the interests of the American people.

Nevertheless, back in 2001, Save-a-Patriot Fellowship published a document that answers who owns the Federal Reserve (alternate links here, here, here, and this version contains some background information) which includes a series of charts outlining the labyrinthine web of interlocking and cross-ownership entities which unmasks the enigmatic entity, arguably one of the most powerful organisations in the world.

Their charts were partially produced from the original parties that set up the Federal Reserve and from “more recent” data based on an August 1976 document titled ‘Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence : Staff Report for the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Second Session’ (PDF available via the St. Louis Fed, also archived here).

It should be noted that since the charts were based on data prior to 1976, several entities therein have either gone bankrupt, become defunct, or changed names. Nevertheless, even though names have changed and acquisitions and mergers have occurred since, many of the original entities still in existence can be cross-checked with prior owners. The enterprise is one best suited for a forensic analyst or auditor, but can still be undertaken by ambitious and willing persons such as those from Save-a-Patriot Fellowship. John Titus, are you up to the task?

So, let us dive in just below the surface to see what the data reveals.

Atop the list of Chart 1 figures none other than N.M. Rothschild (of London – Bank of England fame) even though the name of the infamous banking family doesn’t even appear in the aforementioned study document:

Chart 1 (as partially shown above) nevertheless shows connections to London, the Rothschilds, and the Bank of England via various persons and financial entities:

Montagu Norman, Director of the Bank of England from 1907, Deputy Governor from 1918, and Governor from 1920 until 1944.
- Lord Montagu Norman’s paternal grandfather George Warde Norman (1793–1882), was a director of the Bank of England from 1821 to 1872.
Morgan, Grenfell & Co., was a leading London-based investment bank founded in 1838 as George Peabody & Company.
- George Peabody took Junius Spencer Morgan (father of John Pierpoint “J.P.” Morgan) as a business partner in 1854.
- On the death of Junius in 1890 Pierpont became the senior partner of the London firm (source: Morgan Grenfell 1838-1988: The Biography of a Merchant Bank on p. 51).
- Morgan reorganized in 1895 and became J.P. Morgan and Company (source: Morgan: American financier by Jean Strouse).
- By 1910 all the firm's Morgan family partners were resident in the US and to reflect this the London partnership was restructured with J. P. Morgan & Co. in the US assuming a 50% ownership of the London business which was reconstituted as Morgan Grenfell & Co. in recognition of the senior London-based partner, Edward Grenfell (source: Morgan Grenfell 1838-1988: The Biography of a Merchant Bank on p. 62).
- In August 1914, Henry P. Davison, a Morgan partner, travelled to London and made a deal with the Bank of England to make J.P. Morgan & Co. the sole underwriter of war bonds for Great Britain and France. The Bank of England became a fiscal agent of J.P. Morgan & Co. and vice versa.
- In 1990 it was acquired to become Deutsche Bank.
J.P. Morgan & Co. was founded well before the creation of the Fed.
- A National Archives’ Money Trust Diagram from February 25, 1913 shows its extensive affiliations with the National City Bank (the bank for Standard Oil at the time, now called Citibank), First National Bank (of New York), Guaranty Trust Co., and Bankers Trust Co., and ownership in large corporations such as the United States Steel Corporation.
- A few years after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the Glass-Steagall Act forced the outfit to separate its investment banking from its commercial banking operations which spawned Morgan Stanley from 1935.
- In 2000, Chase Manhattan Bank merged with J.P. Morgan & Co. to become JPMorgan Chase & Co (source: The History of JPMorgan Chase & Co. 200 Years of Leadership in Banking).
- As of now (2023), JPMorgan Chase & Co. is the largest bank in the U.S. with over $3.8 trillion in assets (Morgan Stanley is #6 on the list with 1.6 trillion in assets, and Citigroup – the owner of Citibank – is listed as #3 with $2.4 trillion in assets).
J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation was formed in New York in 1923.
- J.Henry Schroder, or Johann Heinrich Schröder to be more precise, became a partner in J.F. Schröder & Co, the London-based firm of his brother, Johann Friedrich (John Frederick), founded in 1800.
- During the American Civil War, Schroders issued £3 million in bonds in 1863 for the Confederacy (source: The Guardian: Dynasty: a tale of money and power, 18 Jan 2000).
- Today, Schroders is a British multinational asset management company headquartered in London, England with operating revenue of about £2.9 trillion (2022).

In Chapter 6 – The London Connection of Eustace Mullin’s Secrets of the Federal Reserve (PDF link here), the author remarks that the Federal Reserve System (with its 12 “regional banks”) is merely a deception – even with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York commanding its financial power as the one that sets monetary policy; for, he contends that this in itself is a fallacy since ownership in the three largest banks that own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York actually lies with London entities:

“We might believe in this autonomy if we did not know that the majority stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was purchased by three New York City banks: First National Bank, National City Bank, and the National Bank of Commerce. An examination of the principal stockholders in these banks, in 1914, and today, reveals a direct London connection.”

Mullins clarifies these London entities as “merchant banking firms of London” who “actually control the New York banks which own the controlling interest in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.”

Put simply, since the London entities own the majority of stock in the three New York banks – First National Bank, National City Bank, and the National Bank of Commerce, they are really the ones who dictate monetary policy for the Federal Reserve of New York.

What other banking families/dynasties own the Federal Reserve?

Apart from the names and entities that figure in Chart 1 above, several other prominent names figure among the wealthy elites (and their heirs and family ties) that have controlling interests in the Federal Reserve, namely:

The Lazard brothers (formerly Lazard Frères & Co.) which had operations in the U.S., Paris, and London and still operates today with investment banking, asset management, and financial services;
The Warburgs, notably Paul – the leading member of M.M. Warburg & Co. founded in 1798 (which still operates today) and the second Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Felix, and Max who was an adviser to Kaiser Wilhelm II and served as a Director of the German Reichsbank);
Kuhn & Loeb (Abraham Kuhn, Solomon and James Loeb, and Jacob Schiff) which had merged with and was succeeded by Lehman Brothers.
The Rockefellers, including but not limited to:
- John D. (of Standard Oil fame who also founded the Rockefeller Foundation with his son of the same name);
- John D. Jr.,
- Nelson (41st Vice President of the United States under Gerald Ford),
- David – who was a leading banker serving for over 20 years as CEO of Chase Manhattan bank.

Paul Warburg, born in Germany, had emigrated to the United States, married Nina J. Loeb (the daughter of Solomon Loeb), was a key member of influential bankers that met at Jekyll Island Conference in 1910 with his co-conspirators to devise the Federal Reserve, and was its second Vice-chair, as mentioned previously.

Paul Warburg was recognised as a Rothschild agent, as were August Belmont I (founder of the Belmont Stakes third leg of the Triple Crown of American Thoroughbred horse racing) and his son August Belmont II, among many others.

An entire post would be required to outline the interests and connections of the Rockefellers.

But, suffice it to say that similar to the Morgans they have enjoyed numerous controlling interests in the Federal Reserve, particularly through their interlocking relationships with the other entities that own the private central bank (see Charts 2 to 5), along with ties to the Rothschilds and other European banking clans.

It must not be forgotten that it was John D. Rockefeller Jr. Who was instrumental in the formation of the United Nations (infamous for its Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs) having donated the land along the East River in Manhattan which now serves as the location of its headquarters.

In addition, in the early 20^th century the Rockefellers showed their penchant for eugenics through the Population Council that was founded by John D. Rockefeller III.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation also demonstrated its Bill Gates-esque precognitive psychic abilities, predicting the Covid-19 Pandemic through its Lockstep Simulation.

While many would argue that the Rockefellers and their foundation have done good over the years – which it has, some of its dubious endeavours ought not to be forgotten.

For more on the Rockefellers, the reader is invited to consult the 1968 book by Emanuel M. Josephson called The Federal Reserve Conspiracy & Rockefellers, Their Gold Corner (PDF version available here).

In addition to the mentioned powerful families, others should also be considered. For this, the reader is invited to read a five-part series titled The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families by Dean Henderson.

Are the Rothschilds still as powerful and influential today?

The Rothschilds are arguably not as powerful in the 21^st century as in the former three centuries (relatively speaking), in large part due to many other financial behemoths and oligarchies commanding nation states. But, they remain formidable players not just in banking and finance, but in various industries such as mining as well as in other areas of business.

The Rothschilds of today are low-key and tend to avoid, as much as they can help it, being in the public spotlight.

They were responsible for fixing the price of gold for over a century until 2004.

Here are but a few of its key entities through which the dynasty oversees a significant amount of assets spread across the world:

Rothschild & Co (rebranded from N M Rothschild & Sons in 2011), www.rothschildandco.com
- Five Arrows (Merchant Banking / Alternative Assets in London, Luxembourg, Paris, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles)
- Rothschild Martin Maurel
Edmond de Rothschild Group based in Geneva, Switzerland with Ariane de Rothschild as its CEO, www.edmond-de-rothschild.com/en/group/presentation
- Edmond de Rothschild Foundations, www.edmondderothschildfoundations.org/en

They have controlling interests in too many corporations to name here, but include the likes of:

RIT Capital Partners (formerly Rothschild Investment Trust) in London
Rabobank in the Netherlands
The mining giant Rio Tinto
Glencore, a Swiss multinational commodity trading and mining company
A 40% stake in The Economist Group (famous for its magazine The Economist)
A 37% stake in Rockefeller Capital Management through RIT Capital.
Several Canadian corporations held by the Rothschilds are also listed near the end of this post.

The Rothschilds also have remarkable Art Collections and Properties, including many family estates and residences, country houses – including Waddesdon Manor, hotels, châteaus, and more some of which are concerned with the production of fine wines.

Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild seated next to the late David Rockefeller in 2015.

Englishman Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, former Director of Paris-based De Rothschild Frères, reminding the future King of England (then Prince of Wales) who is still The Boss in London, U.K. on March 25, 2015. Photo source: Yui Mok via Alamy.

Welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada – bought to you by the Rothschilds

Map of Canada showing Newfoundland and Labrador (in red).

Here’s one they haven’t taught us in our Canadian history classes (at least not in my schooling)...

Most people don’t know that Canada’s 12^th province, Newfoundland and Labrador (which joined the Confederation on March 31, 1949), was essentially established for exploitation by a Rothschild-led syndicate called the British Newfoundland Development Corporation (called Brinco since 1971) to undertake mineral exploration and extraction.

The concept for the British Newfoundland Development Corporation was conceived in 1952 by the province’s first Premier Joey Smallwood, influenced by none other than Sir Winston Churchill and Anthony Gustav de Rothschild (then head of the giant N M Rothschild & Sons), and realised by a consortium headed by N M Rothschild & Sons which also included British mining behemoths Anglo American PLC and Rio Tinto Company Limited, among others.

As was reported by Maclean’s magazine (the Canadian equivalent of Time magazine) on July 7, 1956, the deal was long in the making, secretive, and exploitative.

Maclean's Magazine, July 7, 1956 which features a six-page article titled ‘The Rothschild's Fabulous Stake in Canada’. A copy of this edition is currently on sale for $499.95. The entire magazine can be viewed here along with a French translation. Image source: RareNonFiction.com.

A complete French translation of the article is available online which also features a viewer to browse the entire edition.

Moreover, the following image appears on the first page of the article:

Here are some key excerpts from the long and descriptive article that provides illuminating insights into the modus operandi of the Rothschild dynasty [note: as this article seems to have been produced from a scan of a print edition, many misprints have occurred – which are left as is, and also with some emphasis added for relevancy; in addition, some author notes (in italics) and hyperlinks are inserted for additional context]:

“l.ike thousands of other Canadians who do not realize it. the members of this Arctic caravan were working for N. Ni. Rothschild & Sons. the world's most powerful private hank, which has during the past tour ears cautiously and secretly acquired a huge stake in (`anada. 1 he ore was being brought out I rom deposits owned by Oceanic Iron Ore of Canada ltd. for trans-shipment to metallurgical laboratories in Montreal after spring breakup. Oceanic is a suhsidiar'y of i'echnical NI Inc Consultants I ,ti,I., which in turn is owned by Rio Tinto Mining Co.
The Canadian empire of the Rothschilds now includes:
- An area bigger than England and Wales containing nearly till the unstaked mineral and lumber resources of Labrador and Newfoundland. Uranium deposits which could be the continent's largest have already been found in this area...
- A substantial interest in the Rio 1 into group of fifty-five Canadian mining companies with shafts and claims in seven provinces. These properties include three quarters of the Blind River district's known uranium reserves, and mills that may eventually produce one million dollars worth of uranium a day.
- A cluster of companies across Canada...
- Nine hundred acres just twenty miles west of Toronto Citv Hall on which Rothschild money is building an entire new town.
The Rothschilds do not associate their name with any of these enterprises.
Few if any of their Canadian customers are aware that they are dealing with the same family that financed Britain's purchase of the Suez Canal and underwrote Cecil Rhodes’ development of the prodigious De Beers diamond fields in South Africa.
The Rothschild invasion of Canada had its genesis four years ago [in 1952] during a luncheon in the private dining room of the family bank in London. The host was Anthony de Rothschild, the firm's senior partner. The guest of honor was [the first Premier of Newfoundland] Joseph Smallwood, who was stumping Europe for risk capita! to develop Newfoundland and Labrador. Six months of negotiation followed. Smallwood offered to close all remaining crown lands in the province to prospectors so that the Rothschilds could choose a fifty-thousand-squaremile concession out of the seventy-one thousand unstaked square miles of Labrador and half of Newfoundland's unstaked twenty thousand square miles.
All mineral, power and lumber resources of the concession (which would gradually decrease to one third the size as useless ground was explored and discarded) would belong to the Rothschilds. In return. Smallwood demanded that the Rothschilds spend five million dollars exploring the territory over a period of twenty years and pay the provincial government an eight-percent royalty on profits.
The offer granted domain over three times as much territory as is held in Labrador by the Iron Ore Co. of Canada [57% owned by Rio Tinto], which is now developing iron-ore deposits at Knob Lake. It was taken up by a syndicate made up of thirty of England's largest companies and a few Canadian investment houses, headed by N. M. Rothschild & Sons. Assets of the partners in the bold new enterprise, called British Newfoundland Corporation (and soon nicknamed “Brinco") exceeded five billion dollars—more than the Canadian government's entire annual budget. Smallwood claimed it was “the biggest real-estate deal on this continent in this century.” Sir Winston Churchill called the scheme "a grand imperial concept.”
While Malcolm Hollctt. member of Newfoundland's Progressive Conservative opposition, was still attacking passage of the bill to authorize the huge concession. Brinco was setting up exploration headquarters at North West River, a small settlement near Goose Bay. Canada's greatest game of geological hide-and-seek was under way.
Brinco crews also uncovered significant iron-ore. titanium, copper, lead. zinc, nickel, asbestos and colombium deposits, and outlined nearly twenty million cords of virgin timber—the basis of a possible pulp-and-paper industry at Goose Bay, fed by a new railroad opening up the Labrador interior.
Besides holding the huge Labrador and Newfoundland concessions, the Rothschilds have an equally significant, though quite separate, interest in the Rio Tinto Co., of London. This huge U. K. mining trust formed a partnership with Joseph Hirsh-horn’s gilded Canadian mining ventures to establish the Rio Tinto Mining Co. of Canada, a sixty-three-million-dollar group of uranium, gold, copper, silver, lead and zinc mines, with important properties in many Canadian mining districts.
Through their separate holdings in Brinco and Rio Tinto, the Rothschilds now have a major interest in nearly forty million acres of Canada’s most promising mining country.
Canadians have since 1892 been buying casualty and fire insurance from the Rothschilds through the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver branches of the Alliance Assurance Co. of London [now the iA Industrial Alliance Group of Canada], a subsidiary of their English insurance operation. While not ranking among Canada's largest insurers, the company now covers risks in Canada worth more than five hundred and fifty million dollars [author note: in 1958 dollars].
Three years ago. with other European investors and some private Canadian capital, the Rothschilds established a Montreal investment company called United North Atlantic Securities Ltd. [author note: see also The New York Times BRITISH-AMERICAN TRADE Basis for Mutual Understanding supplement sent by P.R. legend Edward Bernays to CIA Director Allen Dulles which mentions this company.]
There is speculation also that the Rothschilds may help develop a gold market in Canada. Long-standing restrictions on private gold trading were scrapped in Finance Minister Harris’ last budget and anyone can now buy, keep and sell gold. As gold-sales agents of the Bank of England (the exclusive clearing house for the South African gold output) the Rothschilds are the world’s most influential private gold dealers. They employ two hundred in their own mint at London, which can refine a million pounds’ worth of the precious metal a day [author note: adjusted for inflation, would amount to £28,811,467 per day].
All important visitors are screened by Edmund [Leopold] de Rothschild, a quick-witted, friendly financial wizard who is tremendously interested in Canada and eagerly questions businessmen from this side of the Atlantic about this country’s prospects. He visited Newfoundland in 1952 and Montreal in 1953, and has since made semi-annual inspection tours of the bank's Canadian properties.
The Rothschilds still rely on private agents they appoint in every country, ['heir chief Canadian agent is Ronald I). Smith, an intellectual walrus-mustached Englishman who runs a small Toronto brokerage house. He trades stock for the Rothschilds and their customers and reports on Canadian business trends.
Anthony, the present banking power of the Rothschilds, alone knows exactly how many ot the family s millions will eventually be committed to Canada. He is an unemotional, ultraconservative banker who seldom makes predictions. But referring to his Canadian investment through the British Newfoundland Corporation, he has said: "1 here was the De Beers diamond mine, then the loan that helped Disraeli buy the Suez Canal. Now this. This could be the biggest project of them all.””

It would be interesting to know how many billions of dollars worth of natural resources were banked by the Rothschilds and their foreign partners from these operations over the past several decades.

Apart from the excerpted passages from above that relate to Canada, the Maclean’s article is quite special in that it offers us some titillating insights into the extravagances and business acumen that characterize members of the enigmatic Rothschild family.

Here are some rare glimpses that we seldom get from present-day media publications:

“Rothschild money built most of western Europe’s railroads, their banks controlled a petroleum, diamond, mercury and copper empire of incredible proportions. They backed Cecil Rhodes when his De Beers Mines acquired most of the fabulous Kimberley diamond field. Rothschild banks were the exclusive financial agents for the Russian Empire, the Vatican. Brazil, Chile and half a dozen other countries.
Many modern financiers have tried to reconstruct the forces that inspired the unmatched money-making instinc* of the Rothschilds. Part of their success was based on the progressive methods they introduced to the primitive banking system of their day. They were the first to use widely the now-taken-for-granted procedure of remitting funds from one country to another through letters of credit, without the physical transfer of coinage.
The typical reaction of a Rothschild receiving private news likely to raise the price of a stock was to rush into the Exchange and sell all his holdings. As the news spread that Rothschild was selling, brokers quickly followed his example, sinking the issue's price. Meanwhile agents secretly employed by Rothschild bought up the shares at their ebb quotations, to resell them when the market reacted to the favorable news Rothschild knew was on the way.
( ould Napoleon lose?
The success of such manoeuvres depended on being the first to receive important business information. Because mail moves at the same speed for everyone, the Rothschilds set up their own carrier-pigeon network and operated speedy trans-Channel packets, whose captains had strict orders to convey important messages regardless of weather.
The British government had been previously informed that the French were winning. Word had leaked to the London Stock Exchange, brokers stampeded to sell. Nathan Rothschild reported Itis news to the Foreign Office, but wasn't believed. Meanwhile his brokers had bought up the securities panicked investors were throwing into the market. When news of victory was confirmed quotations sky-rocketed.
Another ingredient of Rothschild success has been the family's policy ot intermarriage. I his, according to the Rothschild creed, is good economies. You don’t have to share secrets that way —and dowries and bequests stay in the family. Besides, only a Rothschild, they claim, is really fit to bear a Rothschild. Of the fifty-eight marriages contracted during their first century of prominence, exactly half were between first cousins...“It's not that we’re clannish,” Victor, the present Lord Rothschild, once explained, ’’it's just that Rothschild men find Rothschild women irresistible.”
The family separated in 1798. While Amschel, Meyer's eldest son, stayed to look after affairs at home, Nathan went to England. Carl to Italy. James to Paris and Solomon to Vienna...Carl became financial adviser to the Pope.
The charter house at Frankfort was closed in 1901. The Viennese Rothschilds became influential but Hitler's 1938 annexation of Austria permanently closed the business.
Among the Paris family’s main achievements were construction of many French and Belgian railroads and the historic guarantee of the five-billion-franc debt to Germany after the war of 1870. After the fall of France in 1940. Baron Edouard de Rothschild, head of the French bank, arrived in New York carrying a satchel containing a million dollars’ worth of diamonds which he described as “a mere bagatelle.”
But in 1804. Nathan Meyer, the third son and genius of the family, established N. M. Rothschild & Sons in I ondon. This bank's transactions (which now also include the huge Canadian investment) first pushed the family into the highest league of international banking, and have kept up its leadership through four generations.
Nathan's initial capital consisted largely of the six hundred thousand pounds sent to England for investment by Wilhelm. the Elector of Hesse-Cassel, at the advice of his financial counselor—Nathan's father. His first major deal was the smuggling of a million pounds’ worth of gold into Spain past Napoleon’s continental blockade, to provide (at a handsome commission) the Duke of Wellington with funds to provision his troops. The House of Rothschild matured quickly, specializing in foreign loans, a then unexploited, risky but profitable business. Nathan eventually became England's richest citizen. He hired Mendelssohn to teach his daughter music and bought her a harp of pure gold.
Nathan’s son Lionel tamed the bank's functions, but demonstrated typical Rothsehildean boldness in 1875, when Prime Minister Disraeli had found out that Khedive Ismail Pasha, the debtridden ruler of Egypt, was trying to sell his 177,602 shares in the Suez Canal Company. French financiers also wanted to buy the stock. Disraeli had no time to call parliament to sanction expenditure of the necessary four million pounds. Rothschild was eating grapes in his office when Monty Corry, Disraeli's secretary, burst in to ask for the loan. Lionel ate one of the grapes, spat out the skin, and said: "You shall have it.”
Except for their charity projects, the Rothschilds did little to gain popularity...Their riches did little to ease the Rothschilds' entry into aristocratic society, which could not forgive their ghetto origin,”

Those were some enlightening excerpts and the reader is certainly invited to consult the full article from Maclean’s.

The Fed is broke!

To finish off this very long section (and post), it should be noted that technically speaking, the U.S. Federal Reserve is now broke according to its own records.

The following video produced from Matthew Kratter from Bitcoin University, illustrates how the private central banks is actually bankrupt according to its own data (from October 26, 2023):

Keep in mind that in the event of a major banking crisis, the Fed is [supposed to be] the lender of last resort. But without any actual reserves, how will they be able to replenish cash reserves should member banks come a knocking?

History of the Fed

For more on the history of the United States’ third central bank, the Federal Reserve, the reader is invited to consult the following resources:

Book: US Money vs Corporation Currency - Aldrich Plan by Alfred Owen Crozier, 1912 (also available in PDF and audio format versions, [note: Reverend Alfred Owen Crozier provides a very detailed account of the years leading up to the formation of the Fed, including numerous of his correspondences with the concerned banks, financial institutions, and politicians as well as lists of officers and directors from various banks and corporations. The book also has 30 fantastic illustrations such as the one shown below. it is, therefore, a fantastic source of information];
Book: The Federal Reserve Conspiracy & Rockefellers, Their Gold Corner, by Emanuel M. Josephson, 1968 (PDF version here);
Book: Secrets of the Federal Reserve, The London Connection Jekyll Island Edition, by Eustace Mullins, 1991 (PDF versions here, here, with an online edition here);
Book: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, by G. Edward Griffin, 1994;
Video documentary: Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve, by James Corbett, 2014 (alternate video links here, here, and here);
Video: Hidden Secrets of Money, Episode 4: The Biggest Scam in the History Of Mankind (in 7 Easy Steps), by Mike Maloney, 2013 (alternate video links here and here).

One of 30 Illustration from US Money vs Corporation Currency - Aldrich Plan by Alfred Owen Crozier.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series.

Addendum 2023-11-29:

An archivist from the Center for Legislative Archives - Washington, DC of the National Archives and Records Administration responded to my media inquiry regarding the appropriations of the initial funds requested by President Roosevelt. Here is her response which links to the March 12, 1941 Request for Lend-Lease Program Appropriations by Roosevelt to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Sam Rayburn and related records [with original links included]:

The Lend-Lease Act (1941) states that the "value of defense articles" specified was "procured from funds heretofore appropriated"; that is, funds appropriated by Congress. Historically, congressional appropriations define funds that allow an agency to incur obligations and to make payments from the U.S. Treasury for specified purposes.
This transcribed letter from the American Presidency Project details President Roosevelt's request to Speaker of the House Rayburn for appropriations for the Lend-Lease program.
The administrative records of the program are held in Record Group 169, the Records of the Foreign Economic Administration, at the National Archives in Washington, DC. You may browse these records, including the series regarding Lend-Lease, in the National Archives Catalog.

Author Note: This article is also published in Johnny Vedmore’s NEWSPASTE.

In Outro – Plea to readers for your support

As an independent journalist, I take great care and pride in providing my audience with quality investigatory work and writings.

This is the kind of work that is seldom reported on in as much detail by the mainstream media, for they also tend to avoid the subjects and sometimes controversial topics that I, myself cover.

As an independent, I get paid very little for this work, for the bulk of my revenue comes from Substack subscriptions, and I am mostly surviving and supporting my family by means of personal savings.

You can support my work by considering a paid subscription to my Substack – Dan Fournier’s Inconvenient Truths (for only $5 a month, or $50 a year). For one-time donations, you can also buy me a coffee.

If you are unable to support my work financially, it is greatly appreciated if you can share it on your social media feeds, for this brings additional exposure (and much needed eyeballs) which can lead to new paid subscribers.

Your comments are most welcome and appreciated and can be given in the Comments section below.

I sincerely thank you for your time and support.

May God bless you all.

In Peace & Liberty,

Tweet this article

Share this article on Facebook

Disclaimer:

Let it be clearly stated that this author is neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestinian, does not support nor endorse any side of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, nor feels or holds any hatred or contempt against any particular race or ethnicity. This author is anti-war and does not support any persons, groups, or organisations who contribute to any form of theft and violence – particularly those aimed towards innocent civilians with children being the most vulnerable. Care and consideration has been utilised to present information, including some that can be considered sensitive and controversial, in a thoughtful manner that presents it based on facts and data available. As a Commentary, this article does contain opinions by its author so as to offer a personalised perspective on the events and issues at hand. See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.

Dan Fournier's Inconvenient Truths

Discussion about this post