The Global Bankers' FDR: A Communist Fellow Traveller (part 1 of 5) MUST READ! Please Repost

Tehran Conference: Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill

 Toomas Trei

Activist Post

When the peoples of Europe who escaped to the West in advance of the communist onslaught at the close of World War II are asked the question as to ‘what happened to their people and countries at the end of the War’, an overwhelming majority will say that their nations were ‘sold out’ to the communists and Soviet dictator Premier Joseph Stalin by American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).

Today some historians recognize that this acquiescence was a tragic mistake whereby over one hundred million people and their nations in Eastern and Central Europe were left to Stalin’s mass murdering and enslaving Soviet communists, while others will state that it was the ‘cost of doing business’. However, ignored is not the question of what happened, but rather the question of whether this FDR action was just part of the continuum of the global bankers’ hidden geo-political agenda. 

This essay looks briefly at the influence these bankers had on FDR’s mentors, Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, and their continued influence on FDR’s policies and actions, including the establishment of post World War II boundaries in Europe.

Historians generally acknowledge that the post World War II fate of the Central and Eastern European peoples and nations who fell into the Soviet Union’s sphere of power was sealed when Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet dictator Stalin (Iosif Dzugashvili) at the Big Three Conferences at Tehran [November 1943] and Yalta [February 1945]. Some will sympathize with Roosevelt at Yalta because he suffered from polio, and by then was in very poor health; thus he was no match for that aggressive ‘little man of steel’ Stalin. Meanwhile, the other potential protector of Europe, Great Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill, is often portrayed as a tired man; tired of the war, representing an exhausted nation which no longer was a match for the two new superpowers of the world.

This essay sets the hypothesis that a ‘weak’ Roosevelt was not outfoxed in a situational confrontation with Stalin, but rather his seeming deference to the Soviet communists was consistent with the Democratic Party’s own collectivist approach, which accepted and promoted the totalitarian, ‘one world government’ philosophy and solutions of the global bankers. This essay looks at how FDR’s philosophical slant was harmonized with his World War II ally Stalin, and with the Soviet Union’s communists. 

POST NAPOLEONIC ERA

At the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the victors of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia, along with the loser France, drew up the post–Napoleonic era “Concert of Europe” arrangement, whereby those large powers would guide Europe's destiny for the next century. The end of the wars also saw the rise to financial dominance of the Rothschild family after they had capitalized by supporting both sides during the Wars. 

In addition, immediately after the Battle of Waterloo and Napoleon’s final defeat, Nathan Rothschild used the fortune of Hesse-Kassel Elector Wilhelm IX, (which he was holding in trust), in an opportunistic manner on the London stock exchange, first creating uncertainty that caused stock prices to fall, and then acquiring those same stocks at very low prices -- in effect buying “a giant parcel for a song”. [1]

By practicing endogamy, “the nuptial agreements which at the height of the family’s success systematically married Rothschild to Rothschild thus keeping the family’s capital united …"[2] the House of Rothschild’s financial strength was consolidated within the family, and allowed Mayer Rothschild’s five sons to secure monopolistic, central banking roles in Europe’s capitals -- London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Rome, but not in Russia.

As Rothschild ‘approved’ biographer Niall Ferguson states; “If there was a single “secret” of Rothschild success it was the system of co-operation between the five houses, which made them when considered as a whole, the largest bank in the world, while at the same time dispersing their financial influence in five major financial centers spread across Europe [3]. This must have caused a difficult paradox for the leaders of these countries, as their national interests might not necessarily have coincided with the aims of their central bankers! 

UNITED STATES

Prior to the American Civil War of 1861-65, the USA did not have a central bank, because in 1836 President Andrew Jackson had vetoed the renewal of the charter of the 2^nd Bank of the USA, which also had Rothschild influence, “under the surface … law records show that they were powers in the old Bank of the United States." [4]  (In 1835, there had been an attempt made to assassinate President Jackson).

The House of Rothschild, in an attempt to become more financially dominant in the USA, endevoured to create an opportunity for change as per the Hegelian dialectic; financing the French and English to support the South prior to and during the War [antithesis] against the North, which received support from the Tsar of Russia [thesis], hoping to change the existing order upon which they could then capitalize [synthesis]. [5] (During the Civil War, Thomas House -- father of Colonel Edward Mandell House who would later advise Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- was an important Rothschild ally running supplies to the South.[6])

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln’s government printed ‘greenback’ dollars in trust, (not backed by gold), to finance the North’s war effort. Russian Tsar Alexander II supported Lincoln and the North by sending his imperial fleet to New York and San Francisco. After the War and his re-election, Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865.

Lincoln’s ‘greenbacks’ stayed in circulation, though their value was unstable, until Congress passed the Specie Redemption Act in 1875 confirming that these ‘greenback’ dollars would be accepted at par in gold. This illustrated that the United States government was not yet controlled by a private central bank.[7]

Following the Civil War, the House of Rothschild established the Kuhn and Loeb bank in New York in 1867. This bank, which was headed by Jacob Schiff, (until his death in 1920), played the leading role for Rothschild ambitions in the United States,[8] and it also financed anti-Tsarist activities in Russia. In the 18^th century, the Schiff and Rothschild families had shared a double house in Frankfurt.[9] By the late 19^th century J.P. Morgan had also become an important House of Rothschild banking agent in America.[10]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s family roots in America extend back into the mid 17^th century when the wealthy Dutch Delano and Rosenfeldt (Roosevelt) families came to New Amsterdam (Manhattan) looking to increase their opportunities in commerce.  By the 1880s, these families were well established in New York’s financial, political and social scenes and this offered Franklin (born January 30, 1882) all of the benefits that come with being born into a patrician family: money, education, and connections. [Teddy Roosevelt (U.S.  President 1901-08) was a 2^nd cousin, and wife Eleanor was a 5^th cousin of Teddy’s, once removed.] Until 14, young Franklin was home schooled, later graduating from Harvard with ‘gentleman’s Cs’. He utilized his connections to find work as a lawyer on Wall Street in 1908, and his political ambitions first met success when he was voted Senator from New York State in 1911. Many of FDR’s supportive connections were made after October 11, 1911, when he was initiated into Freemasonry at Holland Lodge #8 in New York. [He would become a 32 degree mason and Shriner, according to Professor Johan von Leers, The Power Behind the President, Stockholm, 1941, p 148.] [11]

When Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913, he offered FDR the position of Assistant United States Secretary to the Navy which was quickly accepted, and his New York Senate seat was resigned. FDR would hold this position through World War I until the end of Wilson’s presidency, advancing objectives of the Democratic Party supporters. FDR’s connections would prove advantageous. When he was rebuked by Congress for his part in the Newport US Navy homosexual entrapment scandal in the spring of 1920, he escaped unscathed. Later that same year he was on the Democratic Party’s ticket as Vice-Presidential candidate with Presidential candidate Ohio Governor James Cox.

Stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow -- The Global Bankers' FDR: The U.S. Federal Reserve  

Notes: 

[1] Morton, F., The Rothschilds, The Curtis Publishing Co, New York, 1962, p 50

[2] Ferguson, N., The House of Rothschild: Money Prophets 1798-1848, Penguin Books, London, 2000, p 7

[3] Ferguson, N., The House of Rothschild: Money Prophets 1798-1848, Penguin Books, London, 2000,p 267

[4] Allen, G., & Abraham, L., None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Buccaneer Books, Cutchogue, NY, 1976, p 50

[5] Epperson, R. A., The Unseen Hand, Publius Press, Tucson, 1990, p 152

[6] Epperson, R. A., The Unseen Hand, Publius Press, Tucson, 1990, p 157
[7] Epperson, R. A., The Unseen Hand,  Publius Press, Tucson, 1990, p 163
[8] Mullins E., The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Bankers Research Institute, Staunton VA, 1993, p 87

[9] Allen, G., & Abraham, L., None Dare call it Conspiracy, Buccaneer Books, Cutchogue, NY, 1976, p 52

[10] Allen, G., & Abraham, L., None Dare call it Conspiracy, Buccaneer Books, Cutchogue, NY, 1976, p 51

[11] Lina, J., Under the Sign of the Scorpion, Referent Publishing, Stockholm, 1998, p 113

 

Toomas Trei was born in Sweden in 1950 to parents who escaped when the Communists occupied Estonia.His mother always said 'don't believe everything that is written about history'.

This essay originally appeared on the Activists Post, whose complete blog has since been deleted by Google, so I am re-posting it here along with the links to all 5 parts... Let's see if they delete mine too.

Part 1: The Global Bankers' FDR: A Communist Fellow Traveller

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1111/108/The_Global_Bankers_FDR:_A_Communist_Fellow_Traveller_part_1_of_5.html

Part 2: The Global Bankers' FDR: US Federal Reserve 

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1113/230/The_Global_Bankers_FDR:_US_Federal_Reserve_part_2_of_5.html

Part 3: The Global Bankers' FDR: Post WWI 

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1116/832/The_Global_Bankers_FDR:_Post_WWI_Part_3_of_5.html

Part 4: The Global Bankers' FDR: Cats and Mice 

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1122/069/The_Global_Bankers_FDR:_Cats_and_Mice_Part_4_of_5.html

Part 5: The Global Bankers' FDR: Conferences 

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1127/930/The_Global_Bankers_FDR:_Conferences_part_5_of_5.html

It's Time to Admit the Obvious: The Political Classes Deliberately Are Blocking an Economic Recovery

by William L. Anderson

These are heady times at the editorial offices of the New York Times and at the Washington, D.C., home of Sojourners. Columnist Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal cannot contain his glee, and the editors of The Nation are enraptured. College and university faculty members still are celebrating. Indeed, one would think that "Happy Days are Here Again" is playing over and over wherever there is a music box.

Barack Obama has delivered. He not only has produced a federal budget so profligate that even Paul Krugman has endorsed it, but his actions on the tax-borrow-spend front have earned the praise of none other than God Himself. That’s right, Jim Wallis, the founder and leader of the Marxist organization Sojourners, has studied the highlights of the document and declared them fit for praise from the Almighty. Thus, we finally are seeing the convergence of the atheists and those who say they believe in God: all can worship Obama.

I have scanned many writers and editorial pages and websites that make their home on the Left, and all seem consistent in their praise of the president’s new proposals. After Obama’s recent speech to Congress, Wallis gushed:

This wasn’t really a budget speech, or even a State of the Union. It was a call to rebuild a country – from its infrastructure, to its economy, to its values. Last night, Barack Obama called a new generation to a new American future. And from the "twittering" and Facebook status updates I am aware of going on last night, the new generation stayed up late to watch and got the speech they wanted – a vision for the new America they hope to raise their children in.

Lest one think that Wallis was enjoying just a momentary flash of glee, read on:

Some people don’t like strong leadership. I do. And this is the kind of leadership that calls and inspires people to act themselves and be part of the solutions we need. I like that too. And it’s a new kind of leadership that invites being held accountable to results. That’s fair.

Obama has a vision and last night offered a road map. And he invited citizens across the political spectrum to bring their own ideas but to join the journey and stop standing by the side of the road with their arms folded in critique. Disagreement comes with a responsibility to offer better ideas, says this president.

The words of Ty’Sheoma, a school girl from South Carolina, sitting in the gallery next to Michelle Obama, were lifted up by President Obama last night. She wrote the Congress to ask for help for her school but wanted them to know, "We are not quitters."

Furthermore, lest one thinks that Wallis is speaking only for himself, read these recent words from Paul Krugman:

Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

As the Obama administration continues on its legislative and political path, I think that we have to re-frame the terms of the argument. For most people, the dispute supposedly is over the way to an economic recovery. On one side, there is the Keynesian demand that we spend out way out of the crisis, and the recent Nobel Prize conferred on Krugman, who is the loudest and most prominent spokesman for this policy prescription, supposedly lends this path some legitimacy.

On the other side, there are people like Peter Schiff and the Austrian Economists and mainstream economists like Robert Barro, who say that the government’s "solution" is upside down and is making the economic crisis worse. Writes Barro:

Given our situation, it is right that radical government policies should be considered if they promise to lower the probability and likely size of a depression. However, many governmental actions – including several pursued by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression – can make things worse.

I wish I could be confident that the array of U.S. policies already in place and those likely forthcoming will be helpful. But I think it more likely that the economy will eventually recover despite these policies, rather than because of them.

As one who admires Schiff and others who have spoken out and told the truth – and I believe they are correct – I believe that it is time for us to understand a basic truth that is coming out of the new regime: There is not going to be a recovery, and that is just fine with Obama and the political classes that now have a death grip on our lives.

This is a harsh and seemingly conspiratorial statement, and people who know me know that I am extremely skeptical of "conspiracy theories," yet here I am peddling what some very well might call a "conspiracy theory." Do I believe that what Washington is doing is a diabolical plot aimed at fundamentally changing the U.S. economy in a way that economic depression will be a permanent way of life?

In a word, yes. The Obama and Democratic proposals are not simply economic documents. They are fundamentally political in nature and they reflect an understanding that few people have of the Great Depression.

When people discuss the Great Depression, it usually is in the context of whether or not the New Deal was "successful." Economists such as Robert Higgs and Murray Rothbard have argued that it was not, and Barro’s comments above add to that side of the discussion. On the other hand, we have a recent article in Salon which claimed that the New Deal produced "spectacular" economic growth, and we also have Krugman’s columns which claim that the only problem with the New Deal was that Franklin Roosevelt did not spend enough money because the "conservatives" had his ear.

Now, I go with the first group. The New Deal was an unqualified economic failure, if one judges economic "success" by things like unemployment rates, private investment, real output, and the move of people from lives of poverty to lives of plenty. Unemployment stayed in double digits throughout the decade, many people lived in poverty, and the economic output never did match what it had been during the 1920s.

However, I have to add something that most people leave out of the discussion: the New Deal was an unqualified political success, and it was successful precisely because it blocked the economic recovery. This is counter-intuitive, I realize. I have heard discussion in the halls of my university that the public will lose patience with Obama and the Democrats if they don’t deliver and "political guru" Dick Morris even predicts that further economic failure will result in the Republicans gaining political strength.

Don’t count on it. During the 1930s, the Roosevelt administration never had to worry about losing political power, and it held and added to its political majorities. Roosevelt even won a third term of office although the first eight years of his presidency had barely moved the rate of unemployment below what it had been during the worst days of the Herbert Hoover administration.

This spectacular run of political power did not come in spite of the economic crisis; it came because of it. The crisis never ended, and that provided vast opportunities for the political classes in Washington to add to their power over the lives of individuals.

We have to remember that with the exception of the U.S. entry into World War I, most Americans had little contact with governments, and especially the federal government. They lived their lives mostly employed in private business, and with their own families and private associations like churches and clubs.

The Great Depression and the New Deal changed all of that. Americans who once had held jobs that were lifting them from poverty now had to depend upon the pittance of money they received from Washington to keep them from sliding off into economic oblivion. The Works Progress Administration might have paid very little, but whatever money these people received helped to keep them alive for another month.

As James Couch and William Shughart have pointed out in their book, The Political Economy of the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration understood the political power that it had and, more important, the power that it held over the very survival of individuals and their families. In previous times, people could have ignored what was going on in Washington, but during the years of the New Deal, that no longer was possible.

Indeed, they were utterly dependent upon the political classes in Washington and that meant voting "for the right people." In his recent Christmas Day column, Krugman claimed that the Roosevelt administration was nonpolitical in its economic spending, and provided a roadmap for "good government." The meticulous research of Couch and Shughart exposes Krugman’s claim for the Big Lie that it is. Indeed, the New Deal was a vast vote-buying scheme created and maintained for one purpose: keeping Roosevelt and his party in power, and it succeeded beyond expectations.

We know that Obama and his political minions have been reading all about FDR and the New Deal, and we also know they have not been reading Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises. They know all about how FDR and the New Dealers manipulated policies and continuously blocked an economic recovery that would not come about until after Roosevelt was dead and government spending was reduced drastically.

The key to holding power, however, is blocking an economic recovery and having an economy in which double-digit unemployment is the norm. Don’t think that this would trigger a revolt from the American voters. Once the voters have come to believe that their own futures are tied to the whims of the political classes, they will vote their personal security. Furthermore, the administration and Congress will do everything possible to further empower labor unions, and we can look for huge inroads as the government simply will declare that businesses and organizations become unionized – or else. Organized labor is a political creation, and that means that every working individual is going to constantly be scrutinized for political loyalties – if that person wants to keep his or her job.

A true economic recovery would strengthen businesses and families, but it would do so at the expense of the power of the political classes. Such a state of affairs no longer is acceptable in Washington, and Obama and his friends are going to make sure that we don’t forget that either.

The key to holding power, however, is blocking an economic recovery and having an economy in which double-digit unemployment is the norm. Don’t think that this would trigger a revolt from the American voters. Once the voters have come to believe that their own futures are tied to the whims of the political classes, they will vote their personal security. Furthermore, the administration and Congress will do everything possible to further empower labor unions, and we can look for huge inroads as the government simply will declare that businesses and organizations become unionized – or else. Organized labor is a political creation, and that means that every working individual is going to constantly be scrutinized for political loyalties – if that person wants to keep his or her job.

During the 1930s, the New Dealers said that the high rates of unemployment were due to the fact that the U.S. economy was "mature." I have not heard that term used just yet, but I am sure that sooner or later, we are going to be told that double-digit unemployment is going to be the permanent state of things, and that if we want employment, we have to make sure that the "right people" are happy with us.

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson240.html

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

William Anderson Archives