Do the Rothschilds Own all Central Banks?

July 15, 2013


CX1.jpg

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.





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.
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/#sthash.tO9ZC2iO.dpuf
"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 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.
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/#sthash.tO9ZC2iO.dpuf
"

See "Migchels caught exaggerating" below

by Anthony Migchels
(henrymakow.com)



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.

EUROPE

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.

CONCLUSION

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.
--

Related:

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/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.History.of.the.Money.Changers.htm

Migchels admits exaggerating:

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.


--

Anders replies:


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

http://tinyurl.com/qc4wfcb

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.

 

Comments for "Do the Rothschilds Own all Central Banks? "

Dick said (July 17, 2013):

"A well-reasoned and responsible article by Anthony Migchels.

By the design of the founders (who established the first National Bank of the US), money is a political fiction. If the nation lends money (buys interest-free bonds from states or even private banks) to build roads and bridges, that money is justified by the fact that wealth (stuff you can use or consume) increases in excess of the debt. Note to Austrians: you can increase the money supply without inflation if you use that money for infrastructural, industrial and agricultural production.

If, as we have it now, that credit is offered to Wall Street and London banks, bankers prosper and the real economy shrinks - that money never makes its way to the real economy, private debts mount because banks have all the leverage, and prices (including labor) deflate as debts squeeze profits out of the economy. For example, today's higher food and gas prices are related to the bankers' funny money bidding up futures contracts - NOT more money chasing less food or gas.

As Mr. Migchels asserts, the issue is CONTROL. Under effective political control, the Federal Reserve has the potential to be perfectly useful to the people. It is already effectively a not for profit national bank. The only difference is that Congress (our representatives) have no say over what it does. But they WOULD have a say if they would just pass a God-damned bill to make the Fed do something. Formal nationalization would be preferable, but isn't strictly necessary.

Take a look at the relationship between Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Fed chairman Marriner Eccles in guiding the US economy through a depression that pulled Europe much further down than it did the US. If we had quality leaders, you could force the Fed tomorrow to buy trillions in long-term, interest free bonds for infrastructure, industry, agriculture, student loans and even mortgages. The money would flood the lower levels of the economy, create full employment at high wages, drastically cut usury (by removing the interest payments from your mortgage and student loan), return to the Treasury through taxes, and produce an industrial revolution.

What's the problem? Not that the Rothschilds or someone else "owns" the bank, but that they own our politicians. The first thing we need is to know what we want, and the second thing is take back power and go get it!"
- See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/#sthash.zucsnF3s.dpuf


Dick P said (July 16, 2013):

I disagree that most central banks are publicly run. By the contracts he mentions the central banks have all the power given them by contract to privately run the money supply. What does he think the current and near past wars were about? They were about whether the government/public owned and controlled the banks. Iraq,Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea still have real government/public owned and controlled central banks. After the wars are over and the Goldman Sachs criminals take over they say the money and banks are being run and stabilized for the people. A complete lie. They portray a publicly owned image but are, in reality, privately owned and operated cash machines taking interest on every transaction with the government. The public part is that the public is responsible for the debt AND the interest.


Doug said (July 16, 2013):

The board of governors is publically known for the Fed but the board of directors is another matter. In the Grace Report these are shown as the usual suspects - Rothschild, Rockefeller, etc. Why the Fed Act was signed in such secrecy is what I would like to know. Lots of people say the Fed is private, whether it is owned privately or not is not the real issue - it is run for the benefit of a few private individuals.

Our money has only the value that we give it by earning it, yet we pay it back as if someone else lent to us - they lend us our own work and expect it to be repaid with interest. No promissory value for it exists outside of our willingness to work for it. It has no substantive value.

The central bank ownership is the first step toward realizing truth. Bigger truths are the truth about the UN and Agenda 21 (also known as Sustainable Development). But the biggest truth is the one looking back at us in the mirror.

The number of people in this movement that will pay the income tax even though they know they are being robbed and the number of people that will unquestionably buy Chinese slave labour products when slavery is against everything the West ever stood for in the minds of ordinary people shows that we need to take a serious look in the mirror.

We are getting what we deserve. Stop deserving it is what I say. God gave us a middle finger to communicate with corrupt war mongering drug dealing murderous governments.

Specifically with regard to this article - mixing public with private is a very flawed idea - its what got us into this mess. Either its all private or its all public or the private will corrupt the public - this is what crony capitalism has done to us over the past hundred years. Absolute separation of public and private is absolutely necessary. Take the cameras out of the loos and put them in congress and parliament. Money creation can be done by the public and fractional reserve banking can still be done privately. If you don't like fractional reserve banking then enjoy 30 % interest rates- fractional reserve banking does not actually create money - that created money disappears when its paid back.

No one will ever start a business under those conditions which we would have under a gold standard without fractional reserve banking. Ron Paul would be the end of us. He is the wolf in sheep's clothing.


Tony B said (July 16, 2013):

I must disagree on that statement which is:

"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."

This cannot be true because government can create money with no cost other than the cost of making the actual money, which is minimal and easily absorbed. That is why government can GIVE or SPEND money into circulation, there to remain as a boon to the people without any other cost for its use. On the other hand, private money MUST profit the creator/owner or that entity will shortly go out of business. Therefore PRIVATE MONEY WILL ALWAYS BE MORE COSTLY THAN GOVERNMENT MONEY AND THOSE USING IT WILL NEVER GET FULL VALUE FOR IT.

The "mixture of both" is fine after the money is already in circulation. No government should ever be in the banking business - this is an economic death warrant for anyone the government doesn't like for whatever reason - and was an obvious fault of Hitler's money - and no private entity should ever be allowed to create money for the reason already given but even more for the greater reason of the necessary accountability of the AMOUNT in circulation as the only true defense against inflation and deflation. For that same reason no bank should every be allowed to loan anything other than money already in circulation.

The above paragraph also shows the error in "Dick's" (and many others') mistaken call to nationalize the fed. Why nationalize a criminal institution? That would suit them fine as they would be guaranteed entrenchment forever and that is the actual object of Ellen Brown's state banks drive, which NEVER attacks the real problem, the usury. She just wants to transfer to the state the right to create money as a loan at usury. Once that is done, how do you ever get rid of it? You can bet those state banks would really amount to a Rothschild franchise just as state lotteries are most probably big time gambling franchises, the franchises getting theirs off the top with no public bookkeeping to show it. What a happy circumstance that would be to the banking racket. Just take a cut off the top with no effort of any kind.


Dan said (July 16, 2013):

Thanks to Anthony Migchels for correcting certain disinformation on the Fed Reserve, and doing it so clearly in so few words. Many began to wonder why the Griffin version has been regurgitated by so many wolves in sheep's clothing over the years. One example was the Venus Project 'Zeitgeist'. Another was Occupy Wall Street.


James Perloff said (July 16, 2013):

Ed Griffin “infamously plagiarized” The Creature from Jekyll Island from Eustace Mullins’ Secrets of the Federal Reserve? I have read both books; Griffin’s book is more than twice the length of Mullins’ and contains quite a bit of material you won’t find in the latter. Both struck me as unique works, even if there were some overlaps, as there are bound to be in treating any subject in common. As an author myself, I often rely on information various others have gathered. But there is a distinction between such reliance and plagiarism. Griffin quotes a passage from Mullins’ book with acknowledgement.

It rankles me to see a gentleman like Griffin getting lashed as dishonest, while they praise Mullins, whom I have caught red-handed, knowingly fabricating wholesale lies. They're talking about deflation, as if there were just isolated spots of inflation driven by futures markets?

Check this graph http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/sumprice.pdf

U.S prices have been rising for 100 years; it began exactly when the Fed began. Griffiin is right about fiat currency. 50 years ago, a postage stamp was 4 cents, a candy bar 5 cents, a movie ticket 50 cents, and tuition at Harvard $1,500. I didn't know there were futures markets for stamps, candy bars, movie tickets and college tuition.

Granted, we might have deflation coming up, especially if there's an economic crash, but these gentlemen can't just write off 100 years of rising prices, Protocol 6:7 said: We shall raise the rate of wages which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers, for, at the same time, we shall produce a RISE in prices of the first necessaries of life."


Rollo said (July 15, 2013):

If the Bank of Canada is publicly owned, why is there no symbol of Canada (flag etc.) on the web site?


Sandeep said (July 15, 2013):

A thought-provoking article there you just posted on the private/public dialectic of the banking system. The author seems logical in a way, though I would say that if a private entity CONTROLS a public institution it therefore transforms into a private institution, even if officially it is masqueraded as public.

Another aspect which would be interesting to know is whether the European central banks (and others) are on private property which I am not 100% certain, but would assume is so. We know the Fed is located on private property, I assume the Bank of England as well since the City is most likely 100% private anyway. The Bank for International Settlement is also on private property to my knowledge. Therefore it is more logical then to say that those institutions are in actuality private, but are being sold as public, which is what has been the public perception for most people.

I tend to go with the explanation that there is no public ownership in any regard to the banks because it doesn't make sense to me that a institution which is supposedly publicly owned sits on private property which those banks are most likely


JG said (July 15, 2013):

As evidenced by this article here the author shows us that he himself doesn't know who owns the Federal Reserve.

The trillion dollar question is has the gold in Ft. Knox been used to pay off this debt to the Fed?

Yes, it is true that the banks and the Fed are complicit because this is where the printed money is deposited and loaned.
America has had a long prosperous run with the Federal Reserve but this joy ride is about to come to an end.

Once the gold runs out the "fiat currency" printing presses stop! There is no such thing as free money.

You will never have a currency in America that will be tied to a Gold Standard again because this would demand accountability from the banks and put the "fiat" Federal Reserve out of business.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at