Do the Rothschilds Own all Central Banks?
July 15, 2013
Apart from the Fed, it is incorrect to state that Rothschild owns all central banks.
This is important, because getting straightforward facts like these wrong
is clearly damaging the credibility of conspiracy theorists.
- See more at: https://henrymakow.com/#sthash.tO9ZC2iO.dpuf
- See more at: https://henrymakow.com/#sthash.tO9ZC2iO.dpuf
See "Migchels caught exaggerating" below
by Anthony Migchels
Controversy continues to rage about Central Bank ownership. Most major Central Banks, except for the Fed, are publicly owned. However: this is not really important. Control is what matters and Central Banks are controlled by the Money Power, i.e. the Rothschild syndicate, whether private or publicly owned.
The shocking realization that the Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned by its member banks is one of the defining moments in any truthseeker's life. Eustace Mullins, coached by the indefatigable Ezra Pound, wrote 'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve', listing the banks owning the system. Ed Griffin then infamously plagiarized this book with his 'Creature of Jekyll Island', to push the John Birch/Libertarian Gold Standard. We're still dealing with this today, as seen in the 'End the Fed' movement.
The FED itself is now starting to move against its critics, claiming they ARE a Government institution, although partly independent. As Central Banks should be, which is today's conventional wisdom in the Mainstream.
Here's some text from the link, from the Fed itself:
"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations-possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
So while the Fed tries to downplay private ownership, it does not deny it. Its stock cannot be traded, but this is not a limitation; it's a sure way of keeping outsiders out. After all, it's a club, and we're not in it. Furthermore, a dividend of 6% per year is not bad.
On the other hand, after paying its shareholders, the Federal Reserve returns what remains to the US Government, so it's not entirely fair to say that the Fed is printing money and then has the State pay interest on it. It refunded $89 billion in interest in 2012 after taking its 6% dividend cut. The private banks do most of the money creation by far.
It becomes even more complicated when we realize that all European central banks are completely publicly owned. They are corporations with 100% government ownership. They do operate as 'independent' entities, though. Before the ECB, they set interest rates and managed the volume without Government interference. Nowadays, this is done by the ECB, which in turn is owned outright by the national Central Banks.
Before the Second World War, all European Central Banks were owned privately. But the massive upheaval caused by the Great Depression and the powerful monetary reform movements that shook the Money Power had raised awareness about private ownership of the financial systems of the West and nationalizing the Central Banks was a handy way of diverting attention. After the war all major European Central Banks became publicly owned.
Therefore, it is incorrect to state that Rothschild owns all Central Banks! This is important, because getting straightforward facts like these wrong is clearly damaging the credibility of conspiracy theorists.
CONTROL VS OWNERSHIP
Central Banks were created by the banks for the simple reason that Fractional Reserve Banking is incredibly unstable. There is an incentive for the banksters to loan out more than they can cover with fractional reserves, leading to all sorts of busts. This was hurting the Money Power's control over the money supplies of the world and central banks were created as 'lenders of the last resort.' In case of a panic, a Central Bank could keep busted banks afloat, maintaining sufficient confidence in the system.
Furthermore, they were useful tools for Sovereign borrowing. The basic contract between national governments and central banks was that the central bank would always provide the state with all the money it would ever need, in return for guaranteed interest payments through taxation.
Also important was the monopoly on national currency. In earlier days, both in Europe and the US, free banking and local Sovereign money created a diverse monetary environment, more difficult for the Money Power to control. By 'legal tender' laws their units became the sole accepted way of paying taxes, giving the banking units a massive advantage in the market place. These were the early steps in further and further monetary centralization in ever fewer units, with World Currency as the final goal.
Finally Central Banks 'regulate' banks. This is a simple trick: make regulation incredibly complex and expensive, and it becomes impossible for the vast majority of market players to comply. It's the same deal as the Pharma Mafia has with the FDA: new drugs are so incredibly expensive to test that it is impossible for low cost natural cures to go through the process. Exit competition and another excuse to keep prices artificially high for the cartel.
Public vs. Private is just another dialectic. It matters not whether money is managed privately or publicly. What matters is whether we have stable and cheap (interest-free) money. If a private interest-free mutual credit facility can provide it, grand. If Government can do it, fine. A mixture of both is probably the way forward.
Central banks are a mixture of both: they have public and private aspects. But the bottom line is that central banks do the bidding of the Money Power. It originated in Babylon and spread through the world via Jewish Supremacism. It hides within Jewry and behind other proxies, most notably Freemasonry and the Vatican. And of course the Banking Cartel, which is a global, monolithic bloc. Through banking it also controls all major industries. This power base allows them to control every Government and every Nation on the Globe and they are looking to externalize the Hierarchy in a New World Order.
Central banks are staffed by Goldman Sachs alumni. They keep competition out of the market. They prop up busted banks, maintaining some kind of 'stability'. They oversee private usurious credit creation and maintain the banks' ability to rake in trillions per year in interest. They allow the banks to create the boom/bust cycle.
It's high time for a new paradigm.
Community Currency Battles Bank of Kenya - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/the-crime-of-alleviating-_b_3519858.html
The Daily Bell: Usurious Commercial Banking is Good, Interest-Free Government Money is Tyranny
End the Fed: a Trojan Horse destroying the Truth Movement from within
Why Tom Woods is wrong about the Greenbackers
Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies
First Comment from Anders: Migchels Caught Exaggerating - Makow caught being too trusting of longtime contributor..apologies from both.
I have the following objections:
1. The Danish Central/National Bank is privately owned - and it is impossible to learn who owns its shares!
The National Bank writes in Danish
http://www.nationalbanken.dk/DNDK/opgaver.nsf/side/Kort_om_Nationalbankens_opgaver! (Denmark´s National/Central Bank is) "National Bank is a private and independent institution established by law. Independence can be traced back to its establishment in 1818 (author´s note: after Denmark´s bankruptcy due to i.a. loans from Nathan Rothschild. Unknown who finance Denmark after the bankruptcy and under what conditions). In the 1936 Act National Bank's independence is shown by the fact that the National Bank's Executive Board has the sole responsibility for setting the interest rates of monetary policy.
The principle that central banks must be independent, is also enshrined in the EU Treaty (Article 130). This stipulates that neither the European Central Bank (ECB) nor national central banks shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions, national governments, or any other body."
2. Oh, yes. It does indeed matter who prints our money
Denmark´s National debt was 487 bn DKR in 2012 -acc. to the National Bank http://www.nationalbanken.dk/DNDK/Statsgaeld.nsf/side/Statens_gaeld!OpenDocument .
Thanks to Denmark having the highest taxation pressure in the world Denmark has managed to have nearly the lowest debt in Europe per capita acc. To the National Bank. Nevertheless, this growing debt (+ mass immigration) is now killing our social state, since our taxes cannot service it .
If the state printed the money - instead of letting the private Central Bank doing it out of thin air and then lending the money to the state against interest, the rates of which the private Central bank sets itself, Denmark would not have had that debt. Our taxes would not be used to pay returns and interest to the private owners of our National Bank.
The deeper we sink into dependence of the national bank owner(s), the greater our political dependence on them. And the more austerity they impose on us for borrowing the money, we should print ourselves without these parasites, the poorer we grow.
It is worth reading the following in the discussion about the central banks being private or public/governmental.
The central banks have a supreme central bank, The bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel. It was founded by Rothschild agents Charles Dawes and Owen Young alongside with Hjalmar Schacht of the Deutsche Reichsbank. About this system Bill Clinton´s mentor, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Professor Carroll Quigley wrote in his book "Tragedy and Hope" 1975 , which was based on years of studies in the Archives of that Council:
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far reaching (plan), nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the Bank For International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland*, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.
Each central bank ... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the Country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
See Andrew Hitchcock "The History of the Money Changers", year 1930 on the timeline http://iamthewitness.com/
Yes, I've overstated the case, inadvertently. Greece's CB is also private, as is BoJ.
There are undoubtedly more. To err is human..
But the Bundesbank, The Dutch CB, the Bank of China and others are public.
So it's mixed territory and the basic issue of the facts about Rothschild owning them all and the control vs. ownership issue is still very much on target.
2. is not really so to the point: clearly I understand his point, but I was saying that the issue is not whether it's public or private, but whether it's done well or badly, including what that entails: no usury and stable.
Anders suggests that it's being done badly because it's done privately and that the State would automatically solve these problems, but this is not true. Public banking, also as proposed by Ms. Brown, is interest-bearing, although the State would have interest-free credit, which is PB's great boon.
You write: "But the Bundesbank, The Dutch CB, the Bank of China and others are public."
Could you, please, document that?
I have evidence in the opposite direction as for Germany:
From the University of Hamburg http://tinyurl.com/ptzphl9 (in German)
"The federal government establishes a monetary and Federal Reserve Bank as a bank..In the context of the European Union, its tasks and powers can be transferred to the European Central Bank that is independent... " (Basic Law, Article 88).
From the above conceptual analysis, it clearly results that the legal position of The Deutsche Bundesbank is not: partly, the Bundesbank appears in the guise of a monopoly enterprise producing bank notes, sometimes in the guise of a dealer in bank businesses and partly in the guise of an authority or in the guise of an Ltd.
After 1998, the responsibility for the German currency matters has been assigned to the European
Central Bank (ECB)."
So, the Problem is: Who own and who run the ECB?
Although the ECB is governed by European law directly and thus not by corporate law applying to private law companies, its set-up resembles that of a corporation in the sense that the ECB has shareholders and stock capital. Shares in the ECB are not transferable and cannot be used as collateral.
The owners and shareholders of the
European Central Bank are the central banks of the 27 member states of the EU (in
all probability Rothschild Banks) . http://tinyurl.com/ozcyxm3
The governing Council of the ECB consists of the central bank directors of all EU countries + Mario Draghi http://tinyurl.com/p2osljp
The Board of the ECB acc. to Bloomberg Business Week has 5 directors
Mario Draghi http://tinyurl.com/q79v74s : President of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. Mr. Draghi serves as the Chief Executive Officer of The Brookings Institution. He served as Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. - Rothschild´s main investment bank http://tinyurl.com/pzaek8h
Jens Weidemann http://tinyurl.com/obndtdv has been the Chairman of Executive Board and President for The Deutsche Bundesbank since April 30, 2011. Mr. Weidmann has been a Director
of Bank For International Settlements (Rothschild´s central bank for his central banks) since May 1, 2011.
Peter Praet http://tinyurl.com/o4g9rt3 was chief economist for the Fortis Bank (taken over by Rothschild-Partner BNP Paribas http://tinyurl.com/plpu92w) He was executive director of the National Bank of Belgium from 2000 to 2011.