Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Foreign Ownership of Amerikkka

Debunking said:
Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board.

The bank IS privately owned and the governors are appointed by the elected representatives of the people. Shall we get into the joke of an idea that the congress critters actually represent the people? So in short whoever they want to be appointed gets appointed.

Wikipedia for example said;

"Unknown by most American citizens, the Federal Reserve is NOT a US Federal government institution. In fact, it is a privately held corporation owned by its stockholders. The Federal Reserve has the sole authorization to print US currency which it then lends out at interest to member Federal Reserve Banks. By controlling key interest rates and the amount of curreny in circulation the Federal Reserve regulates the level of economic activity and the health of the American economy.

Moreover, until recently by law, the names of the owners of the Federal Reserve were kept secret due to a provision of the Federal Reserve Act, which stated that the identities of the Federal Reserve Bank Class A stockholders couldn’t be made public. It is now believed that original Federal Reserve Bank principle stockholders at the time of its founding were the ROTHSCHILD banks of London and Berlin; the LAZARD BROTHERS Banks of Paris; the ISRAEL MOSES SEIF Banks of Italy, the WARBURG Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; the LEHMAN BROTHERS Bank of New York; the GOLDMAN, Sachs Banks of New York; the KUHN, Loeb Bank of New York; and the CHASE MANHATTAN Bank of New York. These are the principle interests, which own and operate the Federal Reserve System, which has expanded to approximately three hundred stockholders. All of these interests are very well known to each other through many banking business relationships, and in fact many are related through marriage and biological decent.

The federal reserve bank proposal of 1913, which called for a central bank operated by banking industry insiders and private investors was originally presented by Nelson Aldrich, the maternal grandfather of today’s Rockefeller brothers, and was known as the Aldrich Bill. This bill was narrowly failed to pass congress, but was soon reintroduced and was passed as the Federal Reserve Act, officially known as the Owens Glass Act.

The final legislation created 12 Federal Reserve Banks that would act as central banks for all national banks and other member state institutions. In practice, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the US Federal Reserve central bank. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York controls the entire member bank system. The member banks are not federal government institutions. They are private institutions owned by the member banks and their stockholders. Currently, more than ninety of the 100 largest banks in the United States are located within the Federal Reserve District in New York.

A Federal Reserve Board was formed to oversee the system and establish policy. Chairman and other members of the Board are be appointed by the president, with consent by congress. This provides some measure of political influence over the policy actions of the governing board of the Federal Reserve. The appointed chairmen of the Federal Reserve regularly report in open session to a joint committee of the House and Senate.

Class A stockholders exercise control over the Federal Reserve System by owning stock of the largest member banks in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Fewer than a dozen international banking institutions hold a controlling interest in the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and of these only four institutions are based within the United States. The bulk of the external controlling interests are European, with the most influential of these being the Rothschild family of London.

Each of the American interests is in some way connected to the Rothschild family. Included among these are the Rockefellers who are by far the most powerful American stockholders of Federal Reserve System member banks. The Rockefeller holdings in the Federal Reserve are primarily through the Chase Manhattan Bank, which in recent decades has taken in very significant funding from Saudi royal family investors.

Through their U.S. and European agents, the Rothschilds financed the Rockefeller Standard Oil dynasty, the Carnegie Steel empire, and the Harriman railroad system. The Rockefeller clan, which later became intermarried with the Carnegies, financed many of American's leading capitalists through Chase Manhattan and Citibank.

Many of these families intermarried with the Rockefellers so that by 1937 one could trace "an almost unbroken line of biological relationships from the Rockefeller through one-half of the wealthiest sixty families in the nation."

Owing much of their wealth to the Rockefeller, these families have become loyal allies of the "family". The Rockefellers, on the other hand, owing their enormous fortune to the Rothschild banking empire, have for the most part remained true and loyal to them and to their European interest."

This is what I was commenting on, you see systems, I see people. Do you know how many people were in congress when the 1913 bill passed?



3.

I`ll respond to the rest of the private eye sample if you want but I may as well tell you now, its all word games and plain outright lies.
 
Azrael, I have posted a link what is a scholarly dismemberment of federal reserve conspiracism by a PHD Economist, you have responded with a C+Ped screed from the *user editable* Wikipedia which appears to come straight from the anti-semitic conspiracy ramblings which inspire the likes of Mullins. Now, I might have my differences with Flaherty and Chip Berlet who gives him space (although anyone branded a 'Communist' by the paranoid rightist Horowitz circle and the likes of Chris Arabia cannot be all bad!) but even your own favourite authority of choice (perhaps the book you read most recently), the Jekyll Island book chap, (G. Edward Griffin of the rather cultish "Freedom Force International" - see his website), admits that the economist whose analysis is posted on Public Eye has got the likes of right-wing Christian fundamentalist Kah and conspiracist Mullins bang to rights on their lies and distortions, he just disputes that he is coming at it from a different, ('libertarian') angle and is 'unfairly lumped together' by Flaherty with the far rightists. On the other hand, you have just dumped on U75 a steaming load of Rothschild/Rockefeller conspiracy nonsense probably culled directly from the likes of Mullins et al.
If you're gonna 'research' conspiracies, at least 'research' all sides of the argument..........;)
 
G .E. Griffin does put up a reasonable defence to Flaherty, but in doing so sinks Azrael23's main argument on this thread, and points to a systemic problem (i.e. the banking system itself, not which nations or individuals may or may not own or control it)
This is from his website -

Flaherty: Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit. Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank’s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

My reply: Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those who claim foreign control over the Fed. The real danger in this line of reasoning is that it is often coupled with the argument that, if we could only get control away from foreigners and put it into the hands of Congress or the Treasury, then everything would be all right. In truth, even if the Fed were in the hands of foreigners, placing it into the hands of American bankers and politician would make little difference. The Fed does not need to be converted into a government agency. It needs to be abolished.
 
What is my main argument then?

Because all i`m putting across is exactly what Griffin has written in his books as well as mentioning something the vice chairman of the fed said last week.

Am I a far-right loon now?
 
Azrael23 said:
Why? Because debt is control. If your in debt the banks can confiscate wealth from you, real wealth. Whereas what they lent you is credit.... nothingness.

The poorer people are, the less educated and the less able they are to progress in society and therefore air their grievances.

Its maintained by debt based currency creation by the central banks and the fractional reserve system by the corporate banks.
Do tell, how did this secret global elite keep the working classes under control back when most people didn't have bank accounts?

You don't think that the absolute control the ruling class has over the means of production has anything to do with it, do you?
 
No, I don't necessarily think you are a far-right loon, just undiscriminating and limited in your sources - sorry if I have misinterpreted you - but you seemed to be going along these lines by this -
The US economy is going down the pan but thats the whole point, its not about the USA, the USA is a vehicle (for whom?). As my first post was supposed to illustrate the USA is not run by Americans any more than Mexico is run by Mexicans. The british traders have the biggest pull in the US, The vice chairman of the fed was on the Radio last week informing us all how the MPC and other Euro-central banks help set fed. policy. Not many people realise this, hell I never used to believe it until I heard it with my own ears, straight from the horses mouth
(My emphases)

And then your posting of the Wikipedia stuff....:rolleyes:

G.E. Griffin appears to have some interesting things to say, but associating yourself with that stuff you posted off Wikipedia is not helping us to hear it, if that is what you want.
 
Azrael23 said:
· Motion picture and video industries - 64%
I'm suprised by this - all the Universals and Time/Warner and so on are US aren't they? Is 20th Centruy Fox owned by Rupert Murdoch? He's as good as American anyway...based there far as I gather
 
Azrael23 said:
What is my main argument then?

. . .

Am I a far-right loon now?

1) We've no idea, please tell us, actually, on second thoughts don't.

2) Lose the hyphenated word and the rest is spot on.
 
Azrael23 said:
blah blah

If this ends then the economy crashes before its been set up as beneficial to the elite. Now crashes are good for them but only when they have set it up so that not only do the assets move in their favour but also the emotion, the anger. You time the crash to ensure theres a war, an event, in order to shift focus. I hope you understand what I mean.

blah blah

You're absolutely out of your head. Care to expand? (I need a laugh)


Azrael23 said:
The US economy is going down the pan but thats the whole point, . . .

Er . . . . you sure about that?
 
No its the pixies.

Aside from Greenman none of you have any kind of point.

I didn`t mean that the US is run from Britain or the ECB or anything like that, I was trying paint the idea that the moneymaker class is not predominantly American but an eclectic mixture of European families most of whom are British branches of prominent bloodlines. (let me guess no one believes in bloodlines :rolleyes: )

I spent years reading the crap I was fed by bullocks like the economist, I don`t discriminate as much as you think but I admit there comes a point where I will trust a hunch, as my nan always taught me.
A hunch is not just a hunch, its your brain crrying out a calculation so complex you cannot conciously be aware of it.

So screw you all.
 
erm.......how about introdicing a socio- historical perspective to your outlook ?

Yes - Prominent British & European Bluebloods and Indiustrialists did indeed have a truly massive role inthe last couple of centuries in ameriKan history - but have a look at the migration flows into the US - the southern European type didnt migrate until late 19th Century onwards - apart from the Irish ( "Bred for export ") in the 1840s + 50's, the ties with the UK etc were well established due to the fact that the Brits & Dutch did indeed settle the place & the French were heavily involved in both Canada & Louisiana for a long time.

Of course theres going to be Rothschilds influcence the funded the entire fuckin expansion into the west pretty much - the whole gold rush would not have been possible without Rothschilds funding of the the industry itself and the periphirals such as Railways etc.

Of coursemost of the finacial institutions wwere set up by this lot - thats what they did for a long time - Who opted to take a gamble on Britain in the napolenic wars & lend them Money to bash the French ? Rothschilds.

Who decided to support the US Govt with its foray into WW1 and thus guarantee financial solvency ? JP Morgan and Chums.Theres nowt suspicious that a bunch of wealthy WASP/ Jewish bankers set up major institutions in ther USA - there was no-one else at that time capable of doing it - Certainly no-one within the late 19th Century wave of Southern European migration was up to it.

Theres no conspiracy here - theres just an assemblage of facts that are directly related to the emergence of ameriKa as a world power & the factions that took part in that development at different periods.:rolleyes:
 
Fong said:
Interestingly I saw a piece by a comedian Rob Newham talking about that, talking about how at some point awhile ago all Oil had to be bought in Dollars and this gave America a pretty much open cheque book. The idea being that if you HAVE to buy Oil in Dollars, then you HAVE to have dollars.

He was talking a lot about the fact that a few countries are now turning to the Euro which is fucking up America because now they don't want their dollars any more and are off loading them, which devalues the dollar.

He noted that each of the countries that has decided to use the Euro appear on the "Axis of Evil" list that Bush spouted awhile ago.

Oh no, not the Euro Oil bourse discussion once again:eek:
 
Yeah - altho as a whole 'History of Oil' is a good piece of standup, RN does tend to give the impression that the USD would collapse instantly if petrol trading started in Euro.
 
Fong said:
The problem is the language he uses.

Are you not at all upset that Labour keep selling off that which your parents and grandparents paid to have created?

The water utilities, the electricity, the gas and all the rest of it? Does it not upset you that the only reason our NHS is in deficit right now is because of the private companies involved taking their 'stake' for not doing a great deal?

The fact that he uses numpty language like ruling elite, instead of Labours Donators, doesn't really change what is happening or how irritating it is.
Yes it does upset me a lot - but I don't understand what the OP is saying.
 
Something to do with the jews I think, but not 100%

You shoudl all read the Proticols of the Elders of zion, its really an eye opener.. etc etc etc etc etc
 
zoltan69 said:
erm.......how about introdicing a socio- historical perspective to your outlook ?

Yes - Prominent British & European Bluebloods and Indiustrialists did indeed have a truly massive role inthe last couple of centuries in ameriKan history - but have a look at the migration flows into the US - the southern European type didnt migrate until late 19th Century onwards - apart from the Irish ( "Bred for export ") in the 1840s + 50's, the ties with the UK etc were well established due to the fact that the Brits & Dutch did indeed settle the place & the French were heavily involved in both Canada & Louisiana for a long time.

Of course theres going to be Rothschilds influcence the funded the entire fuckin expansion into the west pretty much - the whole gold rush would not have been possible without Rothschilds funding of the the industry itself and the periphirals such as Railways etc.

Of coursemost of the finacial institutions wwere set up by this lot - thats what they did for a long time - Who opted to take a gamble on Britain in the napolenic wars & lend them Money to bash the French ? Rothschilds.

Who decided to support the US Govt with its foray into WW1 and thus guarantee financial solvency ? JP Morgan and Chums.Theres nowt suspicious that a bunch of wealthy WASP/ Jewish bankers set up major institutions in ther USA - there was no-one else at that time capable of doing it - Certainly no-one within the late 19th Century wave of Southern European migration was up to it.

Theres no conspiracy here - theres just an assemblage of facts that are directly related to the emergence of ameriKa as a world power & the factions that took part in that development at different periods.:rolleyes:

Who invented the idea of credit which allowed these people to amass such power? Research.
 
Azrael23 said:
Who invented the idea of credit which allowed these people to amass such power? Research.

From your favourite c'n'p location, Wiki:

Wiki said:
Historical documents dating back to the Sumerian civilization, circa 3000 B.C., reveal that the ancient world had developed a formalized system of credit based on two major commodities, grain and silver. Before there were coins, metal loans were based on weight. Archaeologists have uncovered pieces of metal that were used in trade in Troy, Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations, Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt and Persia. Before money loans came into existence, loans of grain and silver served to facilitate trade. Silver was used in town economies, while grain was used in the country.

The collection of interest was restricted by Jewish, Christian and other religions under laws of usury (essentially a derogatory term for interest). This is still the case with Islam, which mandates no-interest Islamic finance.

Irving Fisher is largely responsible for shaping the modern concept of interest with his 1930 work, The Theory of Interest.

So it was the ancient Sumerians - which is modern day Iraq/Jordan/Iran isn't it?
 
kyser_soze said:
Yeah - altho as a whole 'History of Oil' is a good piece of standup, RN does tend to give the impression that the USD would collapse instantly if petrol trading started in Euro.
To be fair, it wouldn't be very good for the US economy.
 
True, but as Zoltan pointed out on a zArk thread some time ago, it also wouldn't be some kind of overnight, instantaeous collapse...actually, it was on a thread about the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse being denominated in Euros (to which zArk may or may not have added his witterings)...anyway, while it wouldn't be great for the US economy, it wouldn't be the overnight disaster some people seem to think it would be.
 
kyser_soze said:
From your favourite c'n'p location, Wiki:



So it was the ancient Sumerians - which is modern day Iraq/Jordan/Iran isn't it?

Their credit system was very specific and therefore restrained to local markets. I guess my question wasn`t specific enough.

Another question, what was a chit? :)
 
kyser_soze said:
True, but as Zoltan pointed out on a zArk thread some time ago, it also wouldn't be some kind of overnight, instantaeous collapse...actually, it was on a thread about the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse being denominated in Euros (to which zArk may or may not have added his witterings)...anyway, while it wouldn't be great for the US economy, it wouldn't be the overnight disaster some people seem to think it would be.
Very true, and I see what you mean about people overestimating the importance of oil to the value of the USD, but it would have a serious impact, since it would make America's current deficit completely unsustainable.
 
Back
Top Bottom