If you criticize big banks, the FED, or the monetary system, commentators in German public broadcasting—and probably in the rest of the mainstream media as well—consider this to be anti-Semitic. Ironically, it’s these commentators who thus spread anti-Semitic ideas. Because if you suggest that criticism of big banks or the monetary system is inherently anti-Semitic, you’re implicitly saying that you always have to link big banks like the FED to Judaism. To take this connection for granted is an expression of the anti-Semitic prejudice that Jews rule over banking. One example for such an anti-Semitic statement can be found in a commentary from Stefan Maas, who said the following on April 16th on Deutschlandfunk:
“I am , if you will, in the process of looking into this and have started to gather evidence. I would say that you can see it in the semantics. For instance, on Monday I was driving past such a demonstration in front of the Brandenburg Gate myself, and there were several signs that said ‘Against the FED.’ And I thought to myself, why do they demonstrate against the Federal Reserve, the American central bank?
But when you read in the milieu of these new Monday demonstrations and watch videos, you will always find the statement ‘the FED is responsible for all evil in the world’ and ‘the FED is a private bank,’ and from there you arrive very quickly—if you know the political verbal images—at the Jewish financial capital as the source of all evil in the world. That’s something that has already been propagated by the Nazis.
And then they invoke this other idea in speeches and on the internet, ‘we down here against them up there,’ the elites, the political elite, the media elite that wants to—and I think in this case you can say it like that—screw us. This is also a mark of populism, of right-wing populism.”
Obviously it’s sufficient to drive past a demonstration, read some texts, and watch some videos to be qualified to present your opinion about the Monday demonstrations on Deutschlandfunk. You don’t have to name sources or conduct interviews with actual demonstrators at the scene.
A similar statement like that from Stefan Maas, whose journalistic focus is on consumer and social policy, comes from Jutta Ditfurth, co-initiator of the eco-social party ÖkoLinX. In Kulturzeit on 3sat she said on April 16th:
“When for example the organizer of the peace demonstrations, Lars Mährholz, says—in a speech that you can find on YouTube—that all world wars within the last hundred years, all major problems of humanity have their roots—really all, worldwide—at the American Federal Reserve Bank, then in these circles he’s alluding to a Jewish world conspiracy.
This means that today these kinds of Nazis or anti-Semites don’t say ‘we doubt that six million Jews have been killed by the Nazis, by Germany,’ but they’re hinting and saying ‘east coast’ or they say ‘the FED is behind it.’ And on these sites you always find anti-Semitic caricatures, hate speech against the Rothschilds, and whatever.”
Interestingly, it’s Jutta Ditfurth whose political convictions have a striking resemblance to those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, as Oliver Janich pointed out. Nevertheless, it’s her who accuses the demonstrators on the Monday demonstrations of being anti-Semitic and radical right-wing—without providing solid evidence. She merely refers to the criticism of the Federal Reserve and alleged anti-Semitic caricatures on unnamed websites. It’s true that in the Third Reich criticism of banks usually went hand in hand with the demonization of Judaism, and certainly there are anti-Semites today who speak out against the Federal Reserve. However, you can easily verify that the world’s biggest alternative news sites today do not spread anti-Semitism and often mention explicitly that every form of xenophobia should not be tolerated.
Here is an excerpt from Alex Jones’s radio show—which influences alternative media around the world and is also very critical of the Federal Reserve—to give an example of the street-wise and discerning attitude of the truther scene and the majority of the people on the Monday demonstrations. In this excerpt, Alex replies to a statement from a caller who believes in a Jewish world conspiracy.
Caller: We’re in a depression, uh, our economy is crumbling, [..] Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, the Rothschilds, and other greedy and evil international Jewish bankers on Wall Street have destroyed our economy. […]
Alex: Let me ask you a question. From your perspective, should the Jews be gotten rid of?
Caller: Yes, they should. In every country…
Alex: Alright, I’m gonna stop you right there. […] I am Jewish. Now I’m not, but if you talk like that, you wanna kill the Jews, you gonna have to kill me, OK? […] And if you say that the Hispanics were the devil and have to be killed or black people […] or white people […], you gotta go through me, OK? I mean, you just said you wanna murder millions of people, unbelievable.
Neither Alex Jones nor the majority of the truth movement is anti-Semitic. The criticism of the FED and the monetary system, however, remains. The main issue here is that we currently are confronted with a state-enforced monopoly on the creation of money, while the big private banks are de facto pulling the strings. Within the framework of this system, where money is being created out of thin air and loaned out on interest, it’s mathematically inevitable that the debt around the world perpetually increases, making it impossible to pay back the debt. All the austerity measures that we can see today are thus nothing more than a racket. The profiteers of austerity are those who in times of crises buy up physical wealth for pennies on the dollar and those who consolidate their control over the populations through increasingly rigid laws and regulations.
Apart from accusations of anti-Semitism there haven’t been a lot of reactions from the mainstream to the Monday demonstrations. This is probably due to the fact that the presstitutes attached to the mainstream talking points are unable to grasp the issues that are being brought up by the demonstrators. They will probably soon start to say that the FED is not a private bank as is claimed by the demonstrators. But who owns the FED really? On the official website it says that the FED is “not ‘owned’ by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.” However, this is misleading because more than 8,000 private and central banks own stock of the FED. But what may look like a very diversified ownership is in fact rather centralized, considering how intimately connected especially the major stock owners are, as has been pointed out in a study at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich in 2011. It reveals that a core group of 147 companies owns approximately 40% of all wealth in the world. 75% of these companies are banks.
Representatives of the largest of these banks met in secret on Jeckyll Island to lay the foundation for the Federal Reserve System. Through the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed by the US Congress in 1913, the power to create money was essentially taken away from the state and given into the hands of the Federal Reserve. Frank A. Vanderlip, one of the attendees at the meeting on Jeckyll Island, would later write, “I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jeckyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. […] If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.” Publicly, many of the co-conspirators denounced the new banking bill to create the impression that it would harm the big banks and benefit the guy on the street. The bankers would also have Carter Glass and Robert Owen from the Democratic Party support the bill to make it look like the party of the working class is in favor of it.
The big banks who created the Federal Reserve don’t officially control it—in fact, legislators in the US could even abolish the FED—yet through their control of key positions within the hierarchy of the political and banking system they effectively control the creation of currency through the Federal Reserve. This also explains why certain banks are “too big to fail” and saved by the taxpayers. The fox is in charge of the hen house. Mainstream journalists will probably soon say that the US president appoints the chairman of the FED, which would prove that the Federal Reserve is not being controlled by the big banks. However, this leaves aside the fact that the president can only rule by the grace of said banks. No candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, enters any influential position if he doesn’t act according to what is being dictated by the banks. Alex Jones has proven this point impressively in his documentary The Obama Deception. The last US president who actively threatened the power monopoly of the Federal Reserve was John F. Kennedy. Less than six months after he had signed Executive Order 11110 to strip the Federal Reserve of its power he would be killed. Lee Harvey Oswald would be presented as the assassin, even though the evidence clearly contradicts this account.
The monopolistic power of the big banks behind the Federal Reserve was described in no uncertain terms by Woodrow Wilson, who served as president of the United States when the Federal Reserve was created. In The New Freedom Wilson admitted the devastating consequences of the creation of the Federal Reserve:
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.
We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”
It is not to be expected that those who control the monetary system today—whether directly or indirectly—will surrender their power voluntarily. On the contrary, during a restructuring of the financial system those forces would probably work hard to assert their influence in secret. This can only be prevented if there is a public awareness of the mechanisms behind the creation of money and if the citizens themselves are mindful that the money that they use won’t do them more harm than good in the long run. There are numerous ideas for new forms of currencies that can co-exist peacefully, which is the only realistic vision considering that it is impossible for all of humanity to voluntarily agree on just one currency. This idea of the parallel existence of currencies is not new but has been described by the Austrian School of Economy.
Regardless of what forms the currencies of the future will have, it is highly likely that only those that are being created transparently will prevail. Why would anybody want to use a currency, when he is neither granted informational access nor active influence when it comes to its creation and distribution? This is also the opinion of Karen Hudes, ex-Senior Counsel at the world bank, who said, “We’re going to have a cleaned-up financial system, that’s where it is going, but in the meantime, people who didn’t know how the system was gamed are going to find out. […] We’re going to have a different kind of international financial system. It’ll be a new kind of world where people know what’s going on—no more backroom deals; that’s not going to keep happening. We’re going to have a different kind of media if people don’t want to be dominated and controlled, which I don’t think they do.”