[yatrahnualenu]

Many people simply underestimate infinite wisdom hidden behind Allah's open declaration of war on usury. The following article shows how devastating usury can be to the society.

####################
http://www.henrymakow.com/central_bank.html
####################

As you have a doctorate degree in economics from a great university I will touch as lightly as my verbosity allows on facts accepted by economic "science" and proceed to occult aspects of Central Banking.

Since the division of labor is the key to all human achievement and satisfaction, a system of exchange is crucial. Barter is hopelessly complicated. A command economy, in which each does and receives what he is told, is also hopelessly cumbersome and fails to take advantage of individual initiative, ability, and concrete knowledge.

A medium of exchange, money, is the obvious solution. (Even our highly centralized economies on the socialist model now enthusiastically embrace money as an indispensable simplifying tool in their economic planning.)

When left to themselves people of a given geographical area settled upon a durable luxury commodity, usually gold or silver, to use as money. Because money is a store of value as well as a medium of exchange, people saved part of their gold income rather than spending it all.

This gold was often stored in the vaults of a local goldsmith, the precursor of the modern banker, for safekeeping. The depositor received a receipt that entitled him to an equal quantity and quality of gold on demand from the goldsmith. At some point, the goldsmith realized that there was no reason he could not loan out some of the gold for interest as long as he kept gold on hand sufficient to meet the fairly predictable withdrawal rate.

After all, he simply promised to pay on demand, not hold the gold as such. Better yet, be could simply issue more receipts for gold than be had gold and the receipts, renamed notes, could circulate freely among the populace as money.

However, he soon found that there was a definite limit set on this process by reality. Not all the extra notes issued circulated forever among the public.

The rate of note redemption began to increase rapidly as the receipts passed into the hands of people unfamiliar with his reputation and especially when competitive goldsmiths, always eager for more gold reserves, came into possession of his notes.

To prevent a disastrous run on his gold reserves, note issuance had to be kept within bounds. But the spending power of over-issuance was a grave temptation.

But the spending power of over-issuance was a grave temptation. Especially relished was the power over governments, industry, and merchants that the miraculous loan power of the goldsmith could obtain. Many succumbed to temptation, overextended themselves and brought ruin to their depositors while others slowly became wealthy bankers by pursuing conservative loan policies.

At this point, according to economic "science," Central Banks are instituted to protect the public from periodic financial catastrophe at the hands of unscrupulous fractional reserve bankers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Central Banks are established to remove the limitation on over-issuance that reality places on competitive banking systems.

As early as ancient Babylon and India, Central Banking, the art of monopolizing the issuance of money, had been developed into a perfect method for looting the general public. Even today many bankers copy the traditions of the earlier exploitative priesthoods and design their banks to resemble temples! Defenses of Central Banking are simply part of the deception that lies at the heart of all power elites.

THE BIRTH OF A CENTRAL BANK

Let us look at the way a new Central Bank is created where none has existed previously. We bankers approach the Prince or ruling assembly (both of whom always want more money to fight wars or to curry favor with the people and, typically, are ignorant of economics) with a compelling proposal: "Grant our bank a national Charter to regulate private banking and to issue legal tender notes, that is, force our notes to be accepted as payment for all debts, pubic and private.

In exchange we will provide the government all the notes it prudently requires at interest rates easily payable with existing taxes. The increased government purchasing power thus created will simultaneously assure the power and prestige of the currently precarious nation and stimulate the sluggish, credit starved economy to new heights of prosperity.

Most important the violent banking panics and credit collapses caused by unscrupulous private bankers will be replaced by our even-handed, beneficent and scientific management of money and banking. Our public-spirited expertise will be at the disposal of the state while we remain independent enough of momentary political pressures to assure sound management."

For a while this system seems to work remarkably well with full employment for everyone. The government and public does not notice that we issuers of the new notes are using the notes we create out of thin air to surreptitiously build economic empires at the expense of established interests.

Because of the legal tender laws, few of the new notes issued by the Central Bank are returned for redemption in gold. In fact, private banks and even a few foreign banks may begin to use the Central Bank's notes as reserves for further issuance of credit.

Soon enough, though, prices begin to rise as the added notes increase demand relative to the quantity of goods and services. As the value of their savings decline more and more foreigners in particular begin to question the value of the Central Bank's notes and start to demand redemption in gold.

We, of course do not take responsibility for the rampant inflation when it comes. We blame inflation on evil speculators who drive up prices for personal gain, as well as the greed of organized labor and business who are promptly made subject to wage and price controls. Even the consumer can be made to feel guilty for agreeing to pay the high prices!

Mistaking symptoms for causes, the government accepts the banker's analysis of the problem and continues to give the Bank free reign in monetary policy.

DEFLATIONARY CRASH

By slowing the rate of note issuance periodically, the ultimate crisis stage is postponed until many decades after the original Central Bank Charter was granted. Before the rapidly dwindling gold reserves on which faith in our Bank depends is exhausted, we abruptly contract our loan volume to private industry and government as well.

With the contraction of the money supply, a great deflationary crash begins in earnest with all its attendant unemployment, bankruptcies, and civil strife. We do not take responsibility for the depression. We blame it on evil hoarders who are refusing to spend their money and the prophets of doom who are spoiling business confidence. The government accepts this analysis and leaves monetary policy in our hands.

If things go well, we bankers channel the fury and unrest into puppet movements and pressure groups that carry our agents into full control of the government.

Once in charge, we devalue our outstanding bank notes in terms of gold and make them nonconvertible for all but possibly foreign Central Banks and begin plans to restore a "prosperity" that will be totally ours.

When lucky, we are able to confiscate the gold of private citizens as punishment for hoarding during the climax of the depression.

Once the old order is subdued during the chaos of the crash and desperation of the Depression, the field is open for our full finance capitalist system to be realized.

If the money lords behind the Central Bank can avoid lapsing into political and economic competition among themselves, a new and lasting order can be established. A war timed for this period of consolidation provides the perfect excuse for the regimentation required to crush all opposition.

[xkQCaS4w]

#######################
http://www.henrymakow.com/260602.html
#######################

Mullins makes a convincing case that every U.S. President since Wilson has been a lackey of the bankers. J.F. Kennedy was assassinated because he started to print his own U.S. government-backed currency. This is also the transgression that led to the murders of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield.

Last year alone, the American people paid $360 billion in interest to the bankers. To maintain this massive fraud, the bankers enforce an iron grip on the political and cultural organs of the nation. According to Mullins, "The New York Times" is owned by the Kuhn Loeb while "The Washington Post" is owned by Lazard Freres. In Europe the Rothschilds own Reuters as well as the French and German news services.

I presume US publishers, TV networks and movie producers are similarly beholden. Rockefellers, Carnegies and the Fords endow the nations' libraries and universities. Journalists and professors dutifully parrot fantasies about democracy and freedom. Mind control laboratories run by the CIA and the British army (TheTavistock Institute) dream up ways to manipulate and undermine the population. The psychological sterilization of the human female ("feminism") is an example.

The "War on Terror" is part of the banking cabal's plan to consolidate its grip on humanity in a friendly (or not so friendly) fascist "New World Order." They want to secure their political, economic and social grip on the obstreperous Muslim world, as well as build up a security apparatus in case the docile populations of the West become restive.

Well, at least the cosmic battle between Good and Evil is out in the open at last!

[ChexEcodece]

##################

Central Bank, World Tyranny, Fixed Markets

http://www.henrymakow.com/central_ba...ranny_fix.html

####################

In its pristine form a Central Bank is a private monopoly of a nation's money and credit issuance supported by the coercive power of the state.

That the Central Bank be directly in our hands is vital until our new order is firmly established throughout the governmental, business, intellectual and political spheres of society.

After our order is consolidated, formal nationalization of the Central Bank with great fanfare is usually advisable in order to dispel any lingering suspicion that it is operated for private gain.

Of course only loyal agents of the dynasty are allowed to obtain high offices in the Bank and our power remains intact. Obvious private monopolies are always the targets of sharp reformist agitators. Only the most paranoid, however, can see through the public facade to the private monopoly of the nationalized or quasi-nationalized Central Bank.

The Central Bank is the primary monopoly on which all our monopoly power depends. The occult power of the Central Bank to create money out of nothing is the fountainhead that fuels our far-flung financial and political empire. I will make a quick survey of a few of the ways this secret money power is brought to bear.

Basically, the power of our Central Bank flows from its control over the points of entry into the economy of new, inflationary money which it creates out of thin air.

Ordinarily, bills of exchange, acceptances, private bonds, government bonds and other credit instruments are purchased by the Central Bank through specially privileged dealers in order to put the new money, often only checking accounting entries, into circulation.

The dealers are allowed a large profit since they are fronts operated by our agents. Our purchase of government securities pleases the government, as our purchase of private debt pleases private debtors. As a quid pro quo to assure "good management" our agents are given directorships, managerial posts, and offices in the corporations and government's so benefited.

As the addiction to the narcotic of inflationary easy credit grows and grows we demand more and more control of our dependent entourage of governments and corporations. When we finally end the easy credit to "combat inflation," the enterprises and governments either fall directly into our hands, bankrupt, or are rescued at the price of total control.

Also, we ruling bankers control the flow of money in the economy through the wide authority of the Central Bank to license, audit, and regulate private banks.

Banks that loan to interests outside the loyal entourage are "audited" by the Central Bank and found to be dangerously overextended. Just a hint of insolvency from the respected Central Bank authorities is enough to cause a run on the disobedient bank or at least dry up its vital lines of credit. Soon the banking establishment learns to follow the hints and nods of your father's agents at the Central Bank automatically.

Further, the periodic cycles of easy money and tight money that we initiate through our control of the Central Bank cause corresponding fluctuations in all markets. Our inner circle knows in advance the timing of these cycles and, therefore reaps windfall profits by speculating in commodity, stock, currency, gold, and bond markets.

Monopolistic stock and commodity Exchanges are a vital adjunct to our power made possible by our Central Bank power. We do not allow a fair auction market to exist, but make a great show of "tough" government regulation to create a false sense of confidence among small investors.

With the aid of our regulatory charade and financial power we are able to maintain Exchanges tailored to our entourage's need to manipulate stock prices at the expense of independent investors. Our privileged specialists on the floors of our Exchanges, aided by the propaganda of our financial press and brokerage houses, continually play on naivete and greed to drain the savings of the unwary into our coffers.

The stock, commodities, and securities held in trading accounts by the Exchange and brokerage houses provides us with a clout far beyond our own actual holdings with which we can manipulate prices and win proxy fights for corporate takeovers.

Little danger to our lucrative racket exists from public-spirited regulation. Our manipulations are so complex that only the most brilliant experts could comprehend them.

To most economists our Exchange operations appear to be helpful efforts to "stabilize" the market. We ruling bankers, if able to keep peace among ourselves, become richer and richer as time passes without the annoyance of exerting productive effort of benefit to others.

[TolleyBoymn]

################################
The Origins of Modern Banking

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=196

###########################

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from banks, and restored to the people.” Thomas Jefferson

Money was originally invented as a convenien alternative to barter, an alternative without which a highly developed civilisation like ours could not exist.

Imagine trying to pay the taxi driver with a bag of coal or the grocery bill with a box of spanners and a set of golf clubs. Imagine trying to carry all that around with you when you go shopping. As societies grew more complex and social roles became more specialised, the idea of money was conceived as a better and more flexible way to exchange, and thereby distribute among men, goods and services.

Money is quite simply an idea agreed upon among people that some system of tokens or symbols: discs of metal (coins) paper with symbols on it (notes) and so on, will be used by them to represent or stand proxy for goods and services and that those tokens can be exchanged for goods and services. One can then exchange the tokens rather than bags of coal, boxes of spanners or what-have-you and the tokens are easy to carry around. Its workability depends upon the participants’ confidence that those tokens are and will continue to be exchangeable for a certain amount of goods or services.

That’s all money is. It is no more complicated than that, although men may try to make it seem complex and hard to understand. The truth however, as truths tend to be, is simple; it is alterations of the truth – lies -that are complicated.

Many societies have used gold and silver coins as their tokens, then later pieces of paper to represent gold and silver coins, and later cheques and ledger entries to represent notes and coins and in modern times electronic money, the shifting and balancing of numbers in computer memories, alongside or in place of coins, notes and cheques. Thus when we receive a computer print-out of our bank statement saying we have £500 in our current account we usually visualise a stack of £l0 notes sitting in a vault somewhere, or perhaps a bag of gold coins, although in reality there is no pile of notes or bag of coins, merely the ledger-entry in an electronic memory Saying we have £500. Should we then write a cheque in order to spend £50 of it, the numbers in our ledger change to £450 and the payee’s account increases by £50, although no notes, gold or anything else move from one account to another.

Yet it works because we have confidence in it and trust it and we know we can change that £500 for real notes, real coins or real goods or services whenever we want to.

This evolution in the system of tokens we use to represent real goods and services comes about through a succession of bright ideas in the direction of making distribution and exchange more convenient, the movement of wealth between people smoother and faster. However, anything can be used for money, provided people agree to use it and have confidence in it. For instance dried yak dung was once used in Tibet, notched pieces of wood in Medieval England, leather discs in Medieval Europe and even cigarettes and tins of coffee in post-war Germany. The money in use in a country is called currency, from the word current, meaning prevalent, in circulation or in use.

Governments firm up that agreement and confidence by enshrining a particular system of tokens in law and demanding those tokens in payment of taxes. A particular system of creating, denominating, issuing and circulating money – currency – where backed by law and deemed by law the only recognised system, and which cannot be legally refused as payment of a debt, is called legal tender. Where barter is no longer practised, one has to possess those tokens in order to acquire goods and services from others. It is the medium of exchange. Tokens, be they yak dung, metal discs or numbers with the ‘£’ symbol in front of them, are exchanged back and forth between people instead of goods and exchange does now usually occur without the use of tokens or the promise of tokens on the future.

The way one acquires tokens is by producing something and then selling it to someone who has expressed his want for it by offering us some of his tokens. We do the deal and receive the tokens he has offered. Now we can go and exchange those tokens for other products that we desire, which we do not produce ourselves. Thus money enables goods and services to be exchanged among people and distribution of those goods and services to occur naturally, and according to the needs and wants of the participants.

The more of those tokens one possesses or is able to acquire through one’s production, the more one can if one wishes acquire goods and services from others. One can also store money in a safe or bank account without having to build a couple of warehouses in which to store container-loads of spare goods. Money therefore confers exchange power or spending power on he who possesses it in direct ratio to the amount of it he is able to offer up for exchange.

GOLDSMITHS

In the old days gold was minted into coins and those coins, along with silver coins, formed the nation’s currency. Goldsmiths had strongboxes and vaults in which to securely store the precious metal with which they worked. It was natural enough then that other people took to asking the goldsmith to store their gold and gold coins in his vault and to pay the goldsmith for the service. A merchant (for example) would entrust to the goldsmith £20 worth of his own gold for safekeeping. When he handed over his gold, the goldsmith would provide him with a receipt or note promising to hand back the gold (pay the bearer on demand) whenever the depositor returned and presented the note. The receipt held by the depositor was in fact as good as gold because he could exchange it for his £20 worth of gold any time he chose. But the note was easier to carry around than heavy and bulky amounts of gold and easier to conceal, so the depositor was often content to leave his gold in the goldsmith’s safekeeping for long periods. In fact when the time came to pay for some commodity with his £20 of gold, instead of returning to the goldsmith, exchanging the receipt for the gold and then using the gold to pay for his purchase, it was more convenient for him simply to hand over his receipt to the seller. The seller was happy to accept the receipt in lieu of actual gold because it was more convenient to carry around and he knew that should he present it to the goldsmith, £20 of gold would be handed over to him.

Thus those gold receipts began to circulate and became the first paper money. People were happy to exchange them back and forth rather than the cumbersome gold they represented. The receipts had value because people were confident that in the goldsmith’s vault lay the gold, which they could redeem at any time.

Eventually the goldsmiths noticed that the gold left by depositors remained in their vaults for longer and longer periods. People turned up wishing to exchange their receipts for gold less and less often, and that the receipts they had issued to depositors circulated in its stead. It seemed a shame to have that gold just sitting there doing nothing. Why not lend some of it out for a while? If it just sat there for year after year the owner, the holder of the receipt, was not going to miss it if it were loaned to someone else for a period.

As long as there was enough gold in the vaults to satisfy anyone who did turn up with a receipt, then no-one would be any the wiser. So depositor Joe would leave £20 of gold with the goldsmith for safekeeping and depart with his receipt which he would then use as money in lieu of the gold and it would circulate. It might be years before anyone turned up with that £20 note asking for £20 of gold. Meanwhile Tom would turn up at the goldsmith’s asking to borrow £20 of gold and the goldsmith would lend it to him, demanding that it be paid back after a certain period at a certain amount of interest. But instead of lending Tom actual gold, the goldsmith would draw up a £20 receipt, just like the one depositor Joe had been given. Tom was happy to take the receipt in lieu of the gold because it was more convenient to carry around and people were happy to accept such receipts in payment for things.

So Tom went off with his £20 note, content that through it he was now in temporary possession of £20 of gold. But unbeknownst to Tom, Joe also has a receipt representing that gold. In other words there are now two notes in circulation representing the same £20 of gold! Clearly the goldsmith’s issuance of two receipts for the same amount of gold is fraudulent – particularly when Tom repays the gold he believes he has borrowed in real gold. As each receipt promises to hand over the same £20 of gold on demand, the goldsmith is making a promise he knows he cannot keep.

Several things are clear at the moment the second receipt was issued and entered circulation: new money has been created out of thin air; that new money has been loaned into existence; as the loan has interest charged upon it, then a debt has been created out of nothing that is greater than the amount of new money created.

And another thing: Tom will eventually return to the goldsmith and repay his £20 loan, say at 10% interest. He will therefore hand the goldsmith, £22 in real gold. In other words, the goldsmith, in creating that bogus receipt and lending it to Tom, is creating for himself, albeit after a delay, real debt-free gold worth more than the new money he loaned into existence! It gets worse.

After a while the goldsmith, seeing that his fraud is working pretty well, thinks that if he can issue two £20 receipts against the same £20 of gold, then why not two, three or even four?

So Joe deposits £20 of gold and the goldsmith gives him his receipt. In time four other people turn up at his shop wanting to borrow that £20 of gold. The goldsmith obligingly lends it to each of them at interest, giving each a receipt purporting to represent that £20 of gold. There are now five receipts in circulation representing the same deposit of gold, one for the original depositor and one for each of the four borrowers. For that deposit of £20, £80 (4x £20) of new money is created merely by writing on a fancy piece of paper.

If(say) £2 of interest (10%) is charged on each loan, at the same time that £80 of new money is created out of thin air, a debt of £88 is also created out of thin air.

Property is held as security against these loans so if the borrower fails to repay with real gold the fraudulent piece of paper he borrowed, the goldsmith takes his property.

Each time the goldsmith lends £20 of bogus gold he charges 10% interest on the loan. By lending out £20 four times over and charging £2 interest on each loan, the goldsmith makes a whopping 40% (four times £2) in interest on the £20 “reserves” that were not even his to begin with! The goldsmith cannot lose and soon begins to amass a fortune from his fraud. It is the greatest get-rich-quick scheme ever invented. And it is, in essence, the basis of the modern banking system.

The goldsmiths of yesteryear became the bankers of today and although paper money and latterly electronic money took over from gold, essentially the same fraud is being run.

BANKERS

The business of lending pieces of paper pretending to be gold made the goldsmiths very wealthy and very influential men. Their easy wealth enabled them to move to upmarket premises. They became pillars of the community and some even became international financiers, lending money to kings and governments.

In the seventeenth century conflict between the bankers of the day and the Stuarts led the bankers to act in concert with bankers in Europe. They joined forces with those in the Netherlands to finance the invasion of England by William of Orange. William overthrew the Stuart Kings in 1688 and became King William III.

By the end of the 1600s England was in financial ruin, gold and silver supplies were running low and a costly civil war followed by costly wars with France and Holland, all in a fifty year period, had left her heavily in debt.

Government officials met with the financiers to negotiate the loans they needed. King William was £20 million in debt and he could not pay his army. Apparently it did not occur to William or anyone that if William needed to pay his army or get the economy going, all he had to do was have the government print its own money and use that to pay the troops -something that Abraham Lincoln would do successfully during the American Civil war nearly two hundred years later!

King William’s “friends”, the bankers, were willing to loan him the money he needed but the price they wanted for their “help” was high. They wanted a government-sanctioned but privately owned central bank that could; through fractional reserve lending, create money out of nothing and loan it to the government.

They got their way. In 1694 the world’s first privately owned central bank was created. It was to be called the Bank of England. The Bank’s charter included the following immortal words: “The bank hath benefit on the interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”

Instead of exercising its right to create money and spend it into the economy, the government had the bank create it, then lend it to the government so that the government could spend it into the economy, then pay the loans back later at interest. That completely unnecessary complication was to have devastating consequences for the futures of the English people.

As well as delivering extraordinary power over the nation into the hands of a privately owned business corporation, it began the National Debt, a debt that would go on increasing remorselessly over the ensuing years until it had reached around £380 billion in 1996, costs us around £30 billion a year in interest payments and is still climbing.

By the end of the 17th century, the goldsmiths’ scam had become respectable banking. The role of the banks in issuing money through lending to individuals and businesses had already become widely accepted. Thus there came to be established two routes by which money was borrowed into the economy: private and commercial borrowing on the one hand and government borrowing on the other. That combined debt in the present day has now soared to well over one trillion pounds.

In 1704, just ten years after the creation of the Bank of England, the banks’ promissory notes, on the recommendation of the bankers and financiers who advised the government, were declared legal tender.

Although the new central bank was an entirely privately owned corporation, the name chosen for it led generations of Englishmen to believe that it was part of their government, when it most certainly was not. Like any other privately owned corporation the new central bank sold shares to create its initial capital. Its investors – whose identities were never disclosed – were supposed to put up a total of £1 ¼ million in gold coin to purchase their shares. Only three quarters of a million was ever received.

Nevertheless, despite that minor technicality, the bank was chartered in 1694 and began the business of lending out several times the money it supposedly had in its reserves.

In exchange for this unique and immensely profitable privilege, the bank would very kindly lend the English, and later British, government as much money as it wanted, at interest, provided the debt was secured by direct taxation of the people.

THE MODERN INCARNATION OF FRAUD

What happens when you or I, or for that matter the government, borrow money from the bank? Prepare yourself for a surprise.

Let’s say we want to borrow a £100,000 mortgage on a house. The bank or building society does what the goldsmith did and creates £100,000 out of thin air. Instead of handing us a paper certificate, it simply credits our bank account with the £100,000 and registers that £100,000 as a debt, with (say) a further £100,000 interest over 25 years. The money is simply penned into our account without any account anywhere being debited the loaned money. New money is therefore created. Alongside it a debt (in this case £100,000 plus the roughly £100,000 of interest) is created. When we repay the debt, the interest is accounted as income for the bank. The £100,000 we originally borrowed is withdrawn from circulation and is accounted as collateral for further lending, loaned back into circulation when someone else borrows.

Our house is held as security so if we fail to keep up our repayments, the creditor takes possession of it. The repayments themselves can vary through no fault of our own, according to interest rates set by the banking industry.

After 25 years of blood sweat and tears we finally pay back the last installment of the £200,000 capital-plus-interest we owed and the house in finally ours. It is not ours until that point.

The lender, who loaned us money which did not exist until the moment he created it out of nothing, winds up with £100,000 of interest on the loan: that is real, spendable income that comes courtesy of our real work and real wealth creation. The numbers have been simplified to highlight the nature of the fraud and in practise the process is hidden under a great deal of complexity but this in essence is the process of money creation.

Each time the banks create money they create a debt that is greater than the spending power they create. One can see too that each time they are creating a debt for the borrower, they are ultimately creating debt free money for themselves.

Before the goldsmiths’ scam began, the money in circulation was hard currency – usually gold or silver minted into coins which then circulated as the tokens used to represent goods and services. That minting and circulation of coinage was usually administered by the government or king.

However as soon as the goldsmiths’ certificates became used in lieu of gold, paper money had made an appearance. As soon as the goldsmiths began issuing paper notes for gold they did not actually have, the goldsmiths were themselves creating new money and lending it into circulation.

One can see that this establishes debt as the basis of our currency. Where once, long ago, the British pound represented something -so much gold or silver – it now represents so much debt, which is not only nothing it is less than nothing.

Extracted from: Your Business Under Siege…and the reasons why. Published by the BAMR, email: BAMR@bamr.fsnet.co.uk Tel: 01342410962 (UK)

U.S. President James Garfield. A few weeks after making this statement, he was assassinated on July 12, 1818.
“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when we realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few very powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

[wmhardware]

########## Banking Racket ##########

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=30128

####################################

HAVE YOU ever wondered where the Banks get all their money from? When they grant you a loan or allow you an overdraft, where does the money come from? According to Frederick Soddy, former eminent Oxford University Professor, Banks are:

“Institutions which pretend to lend money, and do not lend it, but create it, and when it is repaid to them, de-create it and have achieved the physically impossible miracle thereby, not only of getting something for nothing but also of getting perennial interest from it.”

So the Banks create money out of nothing and charge you, the customer, over 10% interest to borrow it. And woe betide you if you default.

It is a delusion promoted by the Banks themselves that they are merely the custodians of their customers’ deposits, that they lend these same deposits, and that their profit consists of the difference in the rate of interest they pay depositors, and the interest they receive from borrowers.

The truth is that no Bank lends as much as a penny of the money deposited with it. Every Bank loan or overdraft is a creation of entirely new money (credit) and is a clear addition to the amount of money in the community. It is no more than a record in a Bank ledger or computer and is actually the creation of new money out of nothing.

When an account is drawn on by cheque and the cheque is lodged in another account at the same or another Bank, a deposit is created and the supply of money increased. Thus Bank loans create “deposits” which are not the source of loan money, but rather the other way round—they are the outcome of loans. Banks can create credit virtually without restraint. But usually sound Banking practice limits the creation of credit to nine or ten times the amount of cash or legal tender which a Bank holds.

When it is said that a particular Bank has so many million in deposits, it is erroneously believed that it actually has this amount of money to lend out. It is a complete delusion. Those deposits are not cash at all—they are nothing but an enormous superstructure of credit.

[neguoogleX]

Usury can lead to a global empire if the peope fail to understand its danger. A global empire needs a global currency which leads to a world governent. How to establish a global currency.
Here comes the plot......

##############
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=25706

##############

The national debt will not be touched and the wild spending will continue including $4 trillion to continue more wars. That means $1.5 trillion annual deficits forever. The climbing debt is 80% consumed by the Federal Reserve, which creates money out of thin air. Are we to believe that the Fed will create $2.5 trillion a year for the next three years and perhaps longer? The answer is yes, and the result will be hyperinflation, which will ruin the value of the US dollar. It is obvious the elites are not really looking for a solution; they simply want to destroy the value of the dollar to extinguish economic and financial stability, thereby forcing Americans, Brits and Europeans to accept World Government.

Europeans are finally realizing they cannot bail out six countries for more than $4 trillion without pushing themselves into insolvency. We pointed this number and possibilities out 1-1/2 years ago. There will be a Greek default followed by five other defaults, which will lead up to the end of the euro and perhaps the end of the European Union, that unnatural association. Such defaults over the next few years would wipe out most European banks and that will spread across the world. The catalyst for world financial catastrophe. The money being additionally loaned by EU sovereigns reaches Greece and does a U-turn and returns to European bankers to service debt. In the meantime via austerity Greece descends into a great dark pit. IMF funds take the same route of which almost 20% comes from US taxpayers. In addition the European bank exposure in Greece in part is covered, or insured, by American banks for $160 billion. The reason the banks do not want a default is that the US banks will have to pay off and they do not have the funds to do so. That event could trigger a world banking collapse, or another bailout via US taxpayers and the Fed. There is now no question that the euro will pass into history as another utopian nightmare. For those who were paying attention Greece and Italy should have been bailed out in 2001, not be admitted to the euro zone.

[Mmzmptvk]

The effect of riba' on the overall economy is quite strange, it ultimately causes the existence of more debts than money to pay. I once read a study of American Indians, Peter Farb's "Man's rise to Civilization", and one section tells us about the Northwest Coast Indians who build totem poles and practice usury. It was a pretty extreme case of usury and society.

They used woven blankets as currency, and borrowed and lent to each other with high interest. There were only about 500 blankets but the total debt reached millions! The author noted the system was prevented from collapsing because the tribe valued social prestige and rank, and forgiving huge debts (by destroying its record written on a sheet of copper) caused one to increase rank and prestige. It's an extreme but very interesting case.

Now I do wonder about the IMF and other banks periodically "forgiving debt" while still perpetuating usury... maybe they do it to prevent systematic collapse and increase prestige at the same time. So every time it happens, it means the system is actually teetering on the edge...

[Msrwbdas]

The effect of riba' on the overall economy is quite strange, it ultimately causes the existence of more debts than money to pay. I once read a study of American Indians, Peter Farb's "Man's rise to Civilization", and one section tells us about the Northwest Coast Indians who build totem poles and practice usury. It was a pretty extreme case of usury and society.

They used woven blankets as currency, and borrowed and lent to each other with high interest. There were only about 500 blankets but the total debt reached millions! The author noted the system was prevented from collapsing because the tribe valued social prestige and rank, and forgiving huge debts (by destroying its record written on a sheet of copper) caused one to increase rank and prestige. It's an extreme but very interesting case.

Now I do wonder about the IMF and other banks periodically "forgiving debt" while still perpetuating usury... maybe they do it to prevent systematic collapse and increase prestige at the same time. So every time it happens, it means the system is actually teetering on the edge...

The issue of abandoning debt did happen in a recent history in USA !!! Check this link.

#################
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=25707

################
Although largely forgotten by historians and by the public, repudiation of public debt is a solid part of the American tradition. The first wave of repudiation of state debt came during the 1840's, after the panics of 1837 and 1839. Those panics were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States. Riding the wave of inflationary credit, numerous state governments, largely those run by the Whigs, floated an enormous amount of debt, most of which went into wasteful public works (euphemistically called "internal improvements"), and into the creation of inflationary banks. Outstanding public debt by state governments rose from $26 million to $170 million during the decade of the 1830's. Most of these securities were financed by British and Dutch investors.
During the deflationary 1840's succeeding the panics, state governments faced repayment of their debt in dollars that were now more valuable than the ones they had borrowed. Many states, now largely in Democratic hands, met the crisis by repudiating these debts, either totally or partially by scaling down the amount in "readjustments." Specifically, of the 28 American states in the 1840's, nine were in the glorious position of having no public debt, and one (Missouri's) was negligible; of the 18 remaining, nine paid the interest on their public debt without interruption, while another nine (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida) repudiated part or all of their liabilities. Of these states, four defaulted for several years in their interest payments, whereas the other five (Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida) totally and permanently repudiated their entire outstanding public debt. As in every debt repudiation, the result was to lift a great burden from the backs of the taxpayers in the defaulting and repudiating states.
***
The next great wave of state debt repudiation came in the South after the blight of Northern occupation and Reconstruction had been lifted from them. Eight Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) proceeded, during the late 1870's and early 1880's under Democratic regimes, to repudiate the debt foisted upon their taxpayers by the corrupt and wasteful carpetbag Radical Republican governments under Reconstruction.


Economics professor Steve Keen is also calling for a debt jubilee, stating:
We should write the debt off, bankrupt the banks, nationalize the financial system, and start all over again.

We need a twenty-first century jubilee.

[We're going into] a never-ending depression unless we repudiate the debt, which never should have been extended in the first place.

If we keep the parasitic banking sector alive, the economy dies. We have to kill the parasites and give a chance to the real economy to thrive once more and stop the financial [crooks] doing what they did this time around ever again.

[ådrrraj]

################
http://www.henrymakow.com/whistleblo...ountry_in.html
################

Every country in the world is suffering terribly for the crimes of the banking syndicates.

Nothing provides more cash for them than war, and Britain has always been in some conflict since Oliver Cromwell handed over the control of Britain and allowed them to set up the Bank of England in 1694.

Shakepeare said- 'O England thou seat of Mars, this Eden demi paradise', this fortress built by nature' Mars is the god of war and astrologically rules England.

The wars Britain and the USA are involved in now are as futile as the others of the past, and are only fought for the bankers, every man woman and child in England is born owing £15,230 per head to the banks to fight the banks wars for it, and we are now told that Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, North Korea and Iran are also on their list.

During my time working in the heart of the city of London, I saw several whistle blowers speak of these banking crimes. There is a list called the X list, which means anyone who does not agree with the agenda will be fudged out of their job and never find employment again. The Murdoch press will dig into their past, tap their phones, open their mail, and vilify them round the world with smears of pedophilia theft etc,

[Hammaduersnes]

A good overview of the banking monsters.
############
beaware of pic
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=32142

##########
Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

[Penisvergroesserung]

#####################################
pic attached
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=32142

###################################
Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

[dietpillxanaxaxx]

Salam alikum,
the Germany is now to go to forgive debt to Egypt - they claim it is to support democracy in Egypt.
It is interesting what is said here in the thread, it might be it is too to give value to EUR - which seems not to be necessary - may be the loan is in USD...

[en-druzhba]

###############
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-bank...ilization.html
###############

The American poet Ezra Pound divided banks into two classes: the banks from hell that practice usury and create nightmares for nations, and the banks from paradise that don’t practice usury but instead lend money so business can function normally and great art can be created. Pound said:

“Two kinds of banks have existed: THE MONTE DEI PASCHI and the devils.

Banks built for beneficence, for reconstruction; and banks created to prey on the people.” (Pound: Selected Prose; Pg. 270).

The Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world’s longest surviving bank, was created in 1472 by the Magistrates of the Republic of Siena and it disallowed the practice of usury. It is now commonly understood in the age of the Second Western Enlightenment that usury is a tax on the people, government and business which is collected by rotten private bankers who control private central banks and create money out of nothing.

Pound said that the monopoly of credit was the base of all other monopolist operations that sink nations and deprive people of wealth, writing:

“The various monopolies which culminate in the monopoly of money itself, key to all the other monopolies were, and are, monopolies of exploiters.” (Pound: Selected Prose; Pg. 176).

What the treacherous bankers in London and New York are after is not money, but the political monopoly over history and humanity. Their great passion is power, and their greatest instrument of warfare is debt.

When bombs fall on nations the people can hear and see they are at war and demand revenge against the perpetrators of the violence. But when debt is used against a nation, the bought off politicians are silent and it takes generations before the people wake from their sleep.

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*

America was conquered by this soundless weapon called debt after the sneaky enemy seized America’s financial sovereignty in 1913. The bankers overthrew the constitutional banking system that the Founding Fathers established after the victory over the British Empire and replaced it with the ultimate bank from hell, the private Federal Reserve bank.

Pound said the banks from hell are leeches and predators that treat human beings as bodies of blood to be used up and sucked off. He wrote:

“The hell banks have, from as far as the record takes us, started as gangs of creditors, associated to strangle the last ounce of profit out of their debtors.” (Pound: Selected Prose; Pg. 270).

Other poets also cast usurious bankers in the same dark light and compare the banker to the devil. German poet Goethe distrusted the use of paper money. In his book, Scientific Studies, he said:

“But there are different sorts of money: gold, silver, and copper coins, or paper money. The coins are real to a degree; the paper money is only convention.” (Goethe: Scientific Studies. Suhrkamp Publishers. 1988. New York. Edited and Translated by Douglas Miller. Pg. 26).

Douglas Miller, the editor and English translator of Goethe’s Scientific Studies, wrote:

“Goethe’s negative views on paper money are reflected in Part II of Faust where Mephistopheles persuades the Emperor to introduce paper money based on the value of an undiscovered buried treasure. This plan later proves ruinous for the empire.” (Pg. 322).

Goethe made Mephistopheles, who is the devil character in his play Faust, the salesman of paper money. The point being made is that making money out of thin air, backing it with nothing, and lending it to people at interest is evil.

The devils of the Western banking system persuaded the Faust of America, President Woodrow Wilson, to pass the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and sign away the destiny of his country.

Since 1913, America has been under the spell of evil and driven into darkness. The era from 1913 to today should be remembered as the Age of Hell, which included two unnecessary world wars, unnecessary economic depressions, and unnecessary mass suffering.

But this long era of darkness and collective ignorance is ending. America is awake after being put to sleep for a century. The lies and deceit that serve as the foundations of the Federal Reserve System are crumbling to dust.

[GarryPaterson]

Trader Says Central Bankers Want Depression

#############
http://www.henrymakow.com/trader_say...ankers_wa.html
##############

The central banker agenda is to cause a Depression and use the turmoil to consolidate their one-world tyranny.

by Henry Makow Ph.D. "


"Governments do not rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world," independent trader Alessio Rastani, 34, told the BBC Monday morning.

He says GS and the big hedge funds know the "market is toast" and are moving their assets to "safe havens" like US Treasuries.

The clear implication is that the central bankers are precipitating a Depression, using sovereign debt (created by book entry and owed mostly to them) as an excuse to enact political change. They plan to use a Depression to consolidate their one-world tyranny.

Rastani's message is that individuals can protect themselves in the same way as Goldman Sachs by shorting the market.

"In less than 12 mos. I predict the savings of millions will be wiped out, and that's just the beginning...We forget that a lot of people made money as a result of the Great Depression."

We could dismiss this warning as a trader trying to profit from his short positions. We could dismiss him as an opportunist drumming up business for his advisory services

But I tend to see his message as prescient and sobering.

The markets surged higher Monday on talk of Tim Geithner's multi-trillion Eurobank bailout plan. But this package faces many obstacles. Germans are dead set against assuming more of the debt burden.

If Alessio is right, Geithner, a Goldman Sachs alumnus, is creating an alibi so he can say he did everything he could.

Alessio had dollar signs in his eyes. He said he had been dreaming of this opportunity for three years.

The interviewer pressed him for information on what government actions would calm the markets.

He replied that it's not his job to fix the problem or worry about the consequences for ordinary people. His job is to make money.

He's right about Goldman Sachs which is one of the eight or so Illuminati firms that own the Federal Reserve, and the world's other central banks.

The only way out of this mess is to nationalize the central banks and renounce the debt owed to them, which was created by book entries. Governments must create their own debt-free currency to inflate the world economy.

But no one is doing this because everyone in a position of influence is a creature of the central bankers.

Thus we are accomplices in our collective murder.

In Nov. 2009, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said he was "doing god's work."

This is true if we remember, his god is Lucifer. The coming Depression is part of the long-term "revolutionary" process described in the Protocols of Zion designed to anoint Lucifer as our god, and the world as his domain.

---

Related - Zero Hedge Comment

Interview with Rastani in Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilylam...ani-and-asked/

[Wmshyrga]

Interesting history of the Bank of England .

###############

http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2010/02/...f-england.html
###############

You ask the question, Who Owns The Bank Of England? to one thousand Britons, and I kid you not, all of them will say that it is owned by the Government.

They would be wrong.

The Bank Of England was originally a private bank, which contracted to lend money to the British Government in a financial crisis. It was privately owned at its foundation and remained so until the post-war Labour government nationalised it in 1946.

So it is owned by the government?

No.

[Bromymbollile]

Interesting history of the Bank of England .

###############

http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2010/02/...f-england.html
###############

You ask the question, Who Owns The Bank Of England? to one thousand Britons, and I kid you not, all of them will say that it is owned by the Government.

They would be wrong.

The Bank Of England was originally a private bank, which contracted to lend money to the British Government in a financial crisis. It was privately owned at its foundation and remained so until the post-war Labour government nationalised it in 1946.

So it is owned by the government?

No.

Salam alikum,
I am not sure if somethingwhen nationalized belongs to all - theoretically. It is very dangerous if something belongs to every one and in fact to no one. Like in communism. Who comes first - takes it...

W salam

[bortycuz]

More insight on the danger of usury.

#############
Satanic Debt Racket Exposed in Banker's Novel

http://www.henrymakow.com/pascal_roussel.html

############

It all becomes very clear. These families have been milking us for centuries. We are quite literally their "cattle" i.e. goyim.

Henry Makow Ph.D.


"Bank Crisis Set to Trigger New Credit Crunch" says the latest newspaper headline.

Belgium author Pascal Roussel, 45, is well placed to explain the financial turmoil convulsing the world. By day, he works in the Financial Risk Dept. of the European Investment Bank in Luxemburg.

No, he is not an Illuminati banker but a mere functionary. But he does not take his position lightly. For the last ten years, he has been studying the Illuminati conspiracy and has made contact with insiders. The result is a novel, "Divina Insidia - The Divine Trap," which explains the Illuminati conspiracy to the incredulous, and contains new insights and nuggets of information for old hands.

Most important, Roussel presents the conspiracy in a simple and plausible way, throwing our collective predicament into frightening relief.




"OLIGARCHIC FAMILIES"


According to Roussel, twelve "oligarchic families" have grown indescribably wealthy by lending "money" to governments at interest. These are the central bankers. Most but not all are Illuminati Jews. Their wealth is in the trillions. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are paupers in comparison.

It all becomes very clear. These families have been milking us for centuries. We are quite literally their "cattle" i.e. goyim.

The whole of modern history can be explained by their farm management practices. Wars are started to increase the debt and cull the herd. The goal is to cull the herd to 500 million and chip the remnant. These families and their henchmen own 80% of the world's wealth and do nothing useful yet believe the impoverished majority are parasites.


Roussel, (left,) explains how compound interest resulted in astronomical exponential gains year-after-year. All religions have banned lending at interest to prevent what actually has occurred: this immense wealth and power has fallen into the hands of Satanists.

The world's major banks are mere proxies for these twelve families who create the money out of nothing. (The banks get their "money" from them.) Greece is the target now but eventually the whole world will be squeezed like an lemon to get this "money" back. ("We will absorb all the wealth of the world," is how Cecil Rhodes described it to his patron Nathan Rothschild.)

They threaten depositors will lose their savings if banks fail. But, it is really these twelve families of generational Satanists who want their pound of flesh.

If our governments weren't run by their lackeys, they would protect the deposits and let the "oligarchic families" twist in the wind. Roussel doesn't name the families but obviously one is the Rothschilds.

Roussel explains that fractional reserve banking is a ponzi scheme. They lend $90 for every $100 on deposit. Those $90 are deposited somewhere else and $81 more dollars are lent. So it continues ad infinitum.

[BaselBimbooooo]

BTW, there is a BIG difference between nationalization in a nation state and state or public owned in an Islamic state.

The natural resources of the Ummah are public property and maintained by the state.
Oil, gas, water, iron ore, etc. are all maintained by the state or can be contracted to companies (but there cannot be partnership of ownership of natural resources, as oil reserves in the Muslim world are partially owned by Western companies and partially owned by Muslim govts- BP adn MobilExxon owning minority shares of various oil reserves in Arabian Pennisula, for example).

[irrawnWab]

More insight on how usury can acquire huge amount of wealth.

###########
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/the-...ule-the-world/

##########

Some people have started realizing that there are large financial groups that dominate the world. Forget the political intrigues, conflicts, revolutions and wars. It is not pure chance. Everything has been planned for a long time.

Some call it “conspiracy theories” or New World Order. Anyway, the key to understanding the current political and economic events is a restricted core of families who have accumulated more wealth and power.

We are speaking of 6, 8 or maybe 12 families who truly dominate the world. Know that it is a mystery difficult to unravel.

We will not be far from the truth by citing Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Loebs Kuh and Lehmans in New York, the Rothschilds of Paris and London, the Warburgs of Hamburg, Paris and Lazards Israel Moses Seifs Rome.

Many people have heard of the Bilderberg Group, Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission. But what are the names of the families who run the world and have control of states and international organizations like the UN, NATO or the IMF?

To try to answer this question, we can start with the easiest: inventory, the world’s largest banks, and see who the shareholders are and who make the decisions.

The world’s largest companies are now: Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Let us now review who their shareholders are.

Bank of America:
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR (Fidelity), Paulson, JP Morgan, T. Rowe, Capital World Investors, AXA, Bank of NY, Mellon.

JP Morgan:

State Street Corp., Vanguard Group, FMR, BlackRock, T. Rowe, AXA, Capital World Investor, Capital Research Global Investor, Northern Trust Corp. and Bank of Mellon.

Citigroup:
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Paulson, FMR, Capital World Investor, JP Morgan, Northern Trust Corporation, Fairhome Capital Mgmt and Bank of NY Mellon.

Wells Fargo:
Berkshire Hathaway, FMR, State Street, Vanguard Group, Capital World Investors, BlackRock, Wellington Mgmt, AXA, T. Rowe and Davis Selected Advisers.

We can see that now there appears to be a nucleus present in all banks: State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR (Fidelity). To avoid repeating them, we will now call them the “big four”

Goldman Sachs:

“The big four,” Wellington, Capital World Investors, AXA, Massachusetts Financial Service and T. Rowe.

Morgan Stanley:
“The big four,” Mitsubishi UFJ, Franklin Resources, AXA, T. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon e Jennison Associates. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon and Jennison Associates.

We can just about always verify the names of major shareholders. To go further, we can now try to find out the shareholders of these companies and shareholders of major banks worldwide.

[TOPERink]

BTW, there is a BIG difference between nationalization in a nation state and state or public owned in an Islamic state.

The natural resources of the Ummah are public property and maintained by the state.
Oil, gas, water, iron ore, etc. are all maintained by the state or can be contracted to companies (but there cannot be partnership of ownership of natural resources...).

salam alikum,
this is very interesting - as here are similarities between ummah and social state (communism for example). What are the differences? For example how should be managing and controling body be established and split in islamic state? May be those questions are not correct .... or?