Video below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM8SIFNid2M
Another on BIS funding of Hitler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Nd4IBbwQ4
In order to prove that the House of Rothschild was the hidden hand behind the founding of the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland – purportedly the central bank for the central banks, pictured above – the following facts need to be sustained with compelling evidence:
1. The men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild when they founded the bank.
2. The governors of the central banks which became members of the BIS board of directors were working for or with the House of Rothschild in their financial policy-making.
3. The House of Rothschild has benefited, whether directly or indirectly, from any aspect of the business conducted by BIS.
BIS was founded by four men on 17/05/1930,: Hjalmar Schacht [Head of Reichsbank], Charles G Dawes [Chairman of City National Bank], Owen D Young [founder of RCA and chairman of General Electric] and Montague Norman [governor of the Bank of England and partner in JP Morgan].
From the founding of the bank until at least 1939, Schacht worked closely with Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs and Montague Norman, in funneling Wall Street and City of London money into Hitler’s rearmament program; as is documented in Professor Antony Sutton’s painstaking work, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler:
“In October 1931, Warburg received a letter from Hitler which he passed on to Carter at Guaranty Trust Company, and subsequently another bankers’ meeting was called at the Guaranty Trust Company offices. Opinions at this meeting were divided. “Sidney Warburg” reported that Rockefeller, Carter, and McBean were for Hitler, while the other financiers were uncertain.
Montague Norman of the Bank of England and Glean of Royal Dutch Shell argued that the $10 million already spent on Hitler was too much, that Hitler would never act. The meeting finally agreed in principle to assist Hitler further, and Warburg again undertook a courier assignment and went back to Germany.
On this trip Warburg reportedly discussed German affairs with “a Jewish banker” in Hamburg, with an industrial magnate, and other Hitler supporters.
One meeting was with banker von Heydt and a “Luetgebrunn.” The latter stated that the Nazi storm troopers were incompletely equipped and the S.S. badly needed machine guns, revolvers, and carbines.”
This evidence shows that the transfers of those funds into the accounts held in trust by BIS for Hitler’s regime were all facilitated by the Warburgs, a family which long ago assimilated itself into the House of Rothschild by marriage and without whom the Rothschild’s hand in world affairs would not have been capable of remaining hidden for so long.
It is therefore fair to deduce from this circumstantial evidence alone that the Warburgs were acting as Rothschild proxies in the financing of Hitler’s rise to power, in which they were aided and abetted by at least two of the four BIS founders, in Schacht and Norman.
Paul Warburg was also the driving force behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve, which congressman Charles Lindbergh described as: “…the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalised… The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”
Warburg’s reward for bringing into being the U.S. Federal Reserve was to be its first chairman. While speaking before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1913, he confessed that, having emigrated to America in 1902, following an extensive education in international banking in Europe, he became a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which was to become a Rothschild-controlled shareholder of the American central bank.
It is self-evident that the education Warburg received was given by the Rothschilds, just as it was given to Jacob Schiff whilst he lived at their Frankfurt home before emigrating to America.
Between the American Civil War and the beginning of the First World War, the main U.S. agents of the Rothschild Empire were JP Morgan, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Newsweek magazine published a brief history of Kuhn, Loeb & Co on February 1st 1936, which stated:
“Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb were general merchandise merchants in Lafayette, Indiana, in 1850. As usual in newly settled regions, most transactions were on credit. They soon found out that they were bankers…
In 1867, they established Kuhn, Loeb and Co., bankers, in New York City, and took in a young German immigrant, Jacob Schiff, as partner. Young Schiff had important financial connections in Europe.
After ten years, Jacob Schiff was head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Kuhn having retired. Under Schiff’s guidance, the house brought European capital into contact with American industry.”
Those European “financial connections” were the Rothschilds, in whose Frankfurt house Jacob Schiff was purportedly educated; and their German partners, the M.M. Warburg Company of Hamburg and Amsterdam, who were and remain but an extension of the same all-powerful banking house – Rothschild by anther name.
During the latter decades of the previous century, the Rothschilds provided John D. Rockefeller with enough finance to develop and dramatically expand his Standard Oil business. The mechanics of the investment were performed by the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who also financed Edward Harriman’s and Andrew Carnegie’s rail-road and steel empires; whilst JP Morgan’s empire was founded on credit extended by the Rothschild-controlled bank in New York.
It naturally follows that, on the basis that the names of Warburg, Morgan and Schiff are synonymous with that of Rothschild, the banking house is widely considered to have power, control or undue influence over every member of the Federal Reserve board, as well as the selection of its chairman.
In August 1976, the House Banking Committee Staff Report was published, detailing the history of the board members of the Federal Reserve, a portion of which can be seen below:
In the event this table is accurate [and there is no reason to believe it is not], there is not one individual or bank or investment company included that could not be considered a Rothschild interest, whether by partnership, investment, lending, commissioning or founding, at the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law.
Back in 1907, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Rothschild-controlled Kuhn Loeb chief, Jacob Schiff, warned the New York Chamber of Commerce that:
“…unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”
Not long after this speech, the Rothschilds’ agents created a financial panic on Wall Street by making margin calls on the market’s biggest borrowers, just as Nathan Rothschild did by selling government bonds low in the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, both of which resulted in an enormous transfer of wealth to the international bankers during the financial panics that ensued.
Reflecting upon the 1907 panic, Paul Warburg, when speaking to the Banking and Currency Committee, confirmed that he was a driving force behind the Aldrich Plan for the creation of a privately owned US central bank:
“In the Panic of 1907, the first suggestion I made was, “let us have a national clearing house” [Central Bank]. The Aldrich Plan [for a Central Bank] contains many things that are simply fundamental rules of banking. Your aim must be the same.”
In addition to this compelling evidence of the hidden hand of Rothschild influence and control, the Telegraph newspaper published an article on 31/07/2013, detailing the revelations contained in documents released by the Bank of England, concerning the transfer of Czech gold to the Reichsbank BIS account. The article stated:
“The documents reveal a shocking story: just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over £5.6 million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.
True purpose of BIS:
The official history of the bank, written in 1950 but posted online for the first time on Tuesday, reveals how we betrayed Czechoslovakia – not just with the infamous Munich agreement of September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, but also in London, where Montague Norman, the eccentric but ruthless governor of the Bank of England agreed to surrender gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.
The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests.
The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street.
The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.”
In more simplistic terms, Montague Norman transferred 21 tonnes of Czech gold held by BIS in a Bank of England account, to a Reichsbank account it also held in trust at the English central bank, in order that his friend and fellow central bank head Schacht could finance the final stages of the rearmament of Hitler’s Germany; in addition to transferring 27 tonnes of Czech gold into another BIS account held at the Bank of England, for purposes we can realistically suppose were of a similar criminal nature.
Before any further investigations, it is already clear that Schacht and Norman, the governors of the Reichsbank and the Bank of England respectively, turned a blind eye to a massive theft of wealth from a sovereign nation, to provide arms for the Hitler’s Reich, for whom the drums of war had been beating since 1930. This was done in their unaccountable capacities as trustees of BIS national accounts.
Whilst there is a mountain of additional evidence, for the purposes of this essay, it has already been shown that, on the balance of probabilities, two of the four men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild, on the ground that all of the money transferred to Schacht’s Reichbank was sent by Rothschild proxy, Jacob Schiff [or his agents] at Kuhn Loeb; whilst the gold transfer from the Bank of England was authorised by Schacht’s fellow BIS founder, Montague, who both must have known that Hitler’s troops had invaded Prague and that the Czech government would never have consented to gifting such a vast amount of gold to Hitler’s Reich and BIS at the time the transfer was sanctioned.
The only question remaining is whether the House of Rothschild has benefited from the operations of BIS, but the answer arises swiftly from a summary of the answers to the other two questions posed.
We have already established that Schacht and Montague co-founded BIS in 1930 and were carrying out Nazi money laundering operations for Rothschild interests, MM Warburg and Kuhn Loeb; and that Paul Warburg was appointed the first chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1914, after the Act he drafted was passed into law; so it is reasonable to assert that the House of Rothschild benefited from these events in the following ways:
1. A Rothschild agent was placed in charge of the issue of American credit, at the helm of a new privately owned US central bank, the board of which was entirely made up of the representatives of Rothschild interests. This meant that when the heads of the central banks were appointed to the BIS board of directors, Rothschild agents were guaranteed influence over the bank’s operations.
2. This sequence of events significantly increased Rothschild influence and power over both the US Government and the European nations who needed BIS to facilitate loans to their central banks in order to wage WWII; the evidence of which can still be seen today in the form of Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, who worked for Rothschild Inc for three decades, as well as Rothschild controlled President Macron of France.
3. The House of Rothschild clearly used their agents, Schacht, Montague, Warburg and Schiff, to fund both sides in WWII in order to provide the circumstances required for the creation of the Zionist state of Israel; which could not have been achieved with such efficiency and secrecy without the participation of BIS, the sovereign bank which grants the protection of immunity from criminal prosecution to any Rothschild agent appointed to the board or to act as its representative, under the terms its Headquarters Agreementwith the Swiss Federal Council. This allows Rothschild operations to be carried out above and beyond any legal jurisdiction or national government scrutiny.
There is a veritable plethora of evidence which would further substantiate the logical assertion that the Rothschilds have benefited, both directly and indirectly, from the operations of the Bank of International Settlements since its creation, but the compelling sources cited in the foregoing passages substantiate that in and of themselves.
The inescapable conclusion is therefore that BIS is and always has been a House of Rothschild interest, despite the fact that the evidence is disguised by the governors of the world’s central banks sitting on the board, every one of which is controlled in much the same way the Rothschilds control the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. A rigged system in their favour, if ever there was one.
Emmanuel Macron, the photogenic 39-years-old financier with an amazing career became the leader of the presidential race in France after Francois Fillon and Marine Le Pen faced a wave of discredits. According to opinion polls, he will reach the second round with Marine Le Pen, where he will win 66 percent of the votes.
Emmanuel Macron can be called the most unusual candidate for president of France. He has no real political experience. He has not been elected anywhere before. He is not a member of any of the leading parties and the three years (2006 to 2009) in socialist ranks can be considered a formality; Macron joined them “officially” but did not pay dues and did not attended party events.
By profession, Macron is an investment banker specializing in mergers and acquisitions and was successful in his career. He graduated from the National School of Administration, a leading university for the French elite. He worked for several years as an inspector at the Ministry of Economy. Then in 2007, a crucial year in his career, the promising 29-year-old economist was spotted and invited by Jacques Attali in his Commission for stimulating economic growth.
Jacques Attali is a very interesting person. Formally, he is a philosopher-globalist, a writer of color utopias of how all nations and states will disappear from the face of the earth during bloody conflicts, and the survivors of humanity will unite under the banner of democracy and under the control of a World Government. Moreover, for many years Attali was well received at the Elysee Palace and is one of the most influential advisers of generations of French presidents, from François Mitterrand to Francois Hollande. Local media, calling him “the true president of France” is hardly exaggerating.
It is Jacques Attali who created the link between the financial capital and the elite of the ruling Socialist Party, which he supports. He is exceptional in his ability to skillfully wrap the predatory plans of the bankers in beautiful leftist slogans.
In 2008, the Attali commission presented to President Nicolas Sarkozy “300 proposals to change France” – a plan for modernization of the economy meant to save it from the long years of stagnation. The main idea can be formulated as follows: to avoid losing its competitiveness in the global market, the country must drastically reduce the cost of labor. One way for this to happen is to increase immigration to France; low-paid recent immigrants, who will not be able to get organized in trade unions, will displace the local workers from manufacturing and services. Also, the plan is impressive with the proposal to drastically reduce government spending on health, education and pension provision. Sarkozy did not dare to accept this radical plan.
But let’s go back to Macron. During his stay at the Commission, he managed to win the sympathy of Attali, who soon introduced him to his friend, Francois Enron. Enron, in turn, is the best friend and main partner of David de Rothschild and in 2008 Macron was hired by the Rothschild’s & Co Banque where he made quick career and in four years only he grew from analyst to partner. His commissions exceed more than one million euros per year but much more valuable are the new connections in the business world and the reputation of “financial Mozart.”
The biggest deal for Macron in the bank of Rothschild is his involvement in the purchase of Nestle subsidiary for baby food of the US drug maker Pfizer’s (for $ 11.85 billion, editor’s note). At that time he met for the first time Matthew Pigasse, director of the French branch of the Lazard Brothers bank, who wanted to make the same purchase for his client, Danone, but failed. So Macron found his greatest enemy in the face of Matthew Pigasse.
In 2010, Pigasse who is a leftist banker and a friend and patron of the French socialists, planned to become an economic adviser to Francois Hollande but the ubiquitous Jacques Attali recommended Emmanuel Macron to Hollande. For several years Macron, perfectly fluent in English and German, facilitated between the top-socialist of France and the foreign financial circles. As the Guardian noted maliciously, while Hollande was shouting at rallies “My main enemy is the financial capital!” the banking officer of Rothschild, Macron, was flying to London City to assure bankers that under President Hollande everything would remain as usual.
In 2012, Hollande became president and Macron left the bank of Rothschild and was appointed deputy secretary general of the Elysee Palace. In 2014, in his position of “young reformer”, he headed the Ministry of Economy and Industry (taking the place of longtime friend and business partner of Pigasse, Arnaud Montebourg). Hollande gives him carte blanche for activities related to the modernization of the economy and Macron presents a bill with more than 300 sections, providing for the liberalization of the French market. Experts say that the nature of the law of Macron embodies all the ideas of the Attali commission. In it, embedded and encouraged are the immigration, facilities are provided for the release of employees, increased is the competition within the various professions, indirectly increased is the working day at the expense of Sundays and night shifts.
The working people in France resolutely did not approve this bill. The discussion was accompanied by massive protests. There was no chance to pass the law in parliament. Hollande then exercised his right to adopt certain bills without the approval of parliament and in August 2015 approved the “Law of Macron”. Interestingly, before becoming president, Hollande sharply criticized this presidential law and even called it “fascists”.
In 2016, when the rating of Hollande was embarrassingly low something unusual started to happen around Emmanuel Macron. Thus, out of nowhere a movement, “Youth for Macron” arose. It is difficult to even imagine the youth uniting suddenly around unpopular minister of economy in a country with depressive economy. However, several thousand people turned out to participate in the new movement.
Macron founded his own party with the vague name “Forward!” (En marche!) The rallies began to gather huge crowds and this at a time when the socialists gathered with great effort several hundred people at their events. Macron’s program was also unclear. Condemning the terrorist attacks, he has no plans to close borders or restrict immigration; promising to increase the country’s military spending he does not distance it from NATO. In fact, Macron remains the same globalist, an exemplary pupil of Jacques Attali, focusing on the slogans of European unity. He criticized both the left and right, trying to distract voters who traditionally vote for the Socialists, and also to attract those for whom the National Front of Marine Le Pen is too radical.
With his sudden appearance in politics Macron got off at an incredible rate. Journalists literally carry him in their arms. Women’s magazines call him a new sex symbol and a dream for any French woman. Influential newspapers highlight the advantages of his centrist position. Sociologists predict his victory. And no one reveals something serious to discredit him. In January, when some criticism undermined the chances of his main competitors, Marine Le Pen and Francois Fillon, Macron stayed out of any scandals.
Paradoxically – and thus potentially “lethal” for a French politician – may seem the private life of Macron but the media painted a purely romantic story out of it. The point is that the wife of the favorite in the presidential race (Brigitte Trogneux, editor’s note.) is 24 years older than him. In 2007, on his wedding day he was 29 and she was 53 years old. Macron told reporters that he fell in love with his future wife when he was 15 years old, when she taught French in his school. Meanwhile, he graduated from high school and university, travelled the world, built a career, but during all these 14 years he is faithful to his first love.
Despite its implausibility, the story appeals to journalists. Pictures of Macron, walking hand in hand with his wife, or Macron with a bottle of baby food, feeding her grandchildren were published by all the newspapers in the country. Fashion magazines proclaimed his wife for “an icon of style”. In terms of political technologies this was a good move: France is aging, and more ladies in retirement are among voters. For them now there is an abundance of movies in which young handsome men fall in love with an old lady. The family idyll of Macron is designed for them and projected on them. It is also true that the tabloids periodically run rumors that Macron’s lover is the President of Radio France, Matthew Galle, but there is no evidence.
Overall, the career of the young politician goes so successfully and the media support him so strongly that it is impossible not to become suspicious of any other influence. Once Macron announced that he enters the presidential race, the French gave him the nickname “the candidate of Rothschild.” There is no conspiracy in this: the French branch of the Rothschild family, which controls assets in the tens of billions of euros, quite naturally seeks to have its man at the Elysee Palace.
The famous family kept friendly and business relations with generations of French politicians, from Charles de Gaulle to Georges Pompidou, from Edouard Balladur to Nicolas Sarkozy. Former secretary general of the Elysee Palace, Francois Peron, as well as the Director of the Cabinet of Ministers under Prime Minister Beregovoy, Nikolas Basire have worked directly for Rothschild’s bank. Historians believe that the large-scale privatization in the mid-90s was held by Prime Minister Balladur not without the interference of Rothschild.
The main competitor in the political struggle for Rothschild appears to be the Lazard Brothers’ Bank, whose French branch is led by the biggest enemy of Marcon, Matthew Pigasse. In the Lazard Bank he plays the same role as Jacques Attali played in the bank of Rothschild. Pigasse loves punk rock and reality shows, playing guitar; he buys influential newspapers, quotes interviews with leftist philosophers and is an active companion of leftist politicians. Like the Rothschilds, Lazard successfully nurtured Socialists in 2007. Matthew Pigasse sponsored the presidential campaign of Segolene Royal while supporting Arnaud Montebourg. After his friend was forced to withdraw from the elections because of the extremely low popularity Pigasse supported Benoit Hamon. The latter promised the French unconditional basic income of 750 euros, but bankers know what is ‘left’ rhetoric in the campaign.
The media of the leftists blames Pigasse for splitting the Socialists. In fact, the banker simply cleared the way for his protégés in the party and at the same time paid back his revenge to Francois Hollande for he did not introduce him at the Elysee Palace. The latest blow on the lowest rating of Hollande is a book, compiled by journalists from Le Monde: “The president should not say this …” where cleverly selected quotations denounce the president as a hypocrite, a racist and a liar. Shortly after the publication Hollande went on television and gave up a nomination for a new term. Most of the shares of Le Monde are owned by Pigasse.
In addition to Le Monde, the French director of Lazard Bank controls several other influential media outlets. The only threat to Macron can come from them. If we see a fabrication aiming to discredit him, the first to publish it will be Matthew Pigasse.
Emmanuel Macron seems a finished product of political technologies in the presidential race. His image has been thoughtfully created: his looks, the poignant love story and the politically correct program. But in this lies its weakness – French voters may feel the artificial image of the candidate, and the lack of independence as leader of the nation. The problem is not in bankers involved in politics, in general it happens all the time; but a strong president will be able to impose his agenda on the most influential sponsors. However, the pretty face of Macron bears no resemblance to such president. This is a homunculus grown by all the rules for managing public opinion.
Today the sociologists unanimously predict a victory for Macron in the presidential elections. By the way, the sociologists in the US elections likewise unanimously promised victory for Hillary Clinton. Regardless of what the fate of Macron will be, he remains a model of how the agreement between the financial capital and the leftist parties in Europe work as well as the fact that the presidents of France change regularly, but the people who propel them to the Elysee Palace remain the same.