คำบรรยาย YouTube:
How Central Banking Ruined The World - The Bank Of England

ไม่ต้องนั่งดูวิดีโอทั้งหมด — รับคำบรรยายฉบับเต็ม ค้นหาคีย์เวิร์ด และคัดลอกด้วยคลิกเดียว

แชร์:

AutoDub

เข้าใจวิดีโอ YouTube ภาษาต่างประเทศ

พากย์ YouTube เป็นภาษาไทยแบบอิมเมอร์ซีฟ

ทลายกำแพงภาษา เปิดรับเนื้อหาคุณภาพจากทั่วโลก

ใช้ฟรี

คำบรรยายวิดีโอ

สรุปวิดีโอ

Summary

Core Theme

This content posits that usury, or lending money with interest, has been a historical tool used by a clandestine group of financiers, primarily of Brazilian descent, to gain global power and control over governments and economies, leading to widespread societal issues.

Mind Map

คลิกเพื่อขยาย

คลิกเพื่อสำรวจ Mind Map แบบอินเตอร์แอคทีฟฉบับเต็ม

Userie, the act of lending money with

interest. It's nothing new. It's been

around whether deemed legal or illegal,

moral or immoral, for centuries.

Nowadays, it's the backbone of the

worldwide economy. An average person

might not see anything wrong with such a

state of affairs. As a matter of fact,

most people participate in it without

even considering its roots. They just

think of it as a tool, a means of

getting a loan or a mortgage, getting a

new car, new house. Most people also

will go for their entire lives cursing

for circumstances, their savings being

devalued, there being less and less work

opportunities, life being made harder by

obnoxious taxes, recessions happening

every 15 years. Little do they know that

someone is responsible for such a state

of affairs. All these individuals

responsible have a place in history.

They have worked to bring about the

exact set of circumstances that we curse

nowadays through financial conquest of

the world through userie. But how would

usury itself, a pretty narrow concept,

manage to be the vehicle for a small

group of people to achieve world

domination? Well, that's the point of

this video. Look how it actually

happened. Actually, you know what?

Forget about it. In the interest of not

getting struck down, this video is just

conspiracy theories that are, of course,

untrue. Everything in this video is

false and made up, what I'm going to be

doing is just making stuff up. And also

another important thing, I'm going to be

calling the ethnic and religious group

most responsible and known for us and

money lending Brazilians because of

course you can't call them by their real

name and not have your video removed. I

mean, if anything, it just proves my

the

England. This island that was wrought

with conflict in the early medieval due

to settling and raiding from various

postbarbarian people groups would in the

following centuries be at the center of

one of the most deceptive and nefarious

schemes to ever be devised. But for now,

let's focus on how it even came to be.

The first monetary system to be

constituted entirely within the

structures and hierarchies of England

and not be dependent on a foreign power

like the case of Roman coinage would be

created by King Offa that ruled the

Kingdom of Mercy in the 8th century

would go on to be a system based on

silver coinage on the account of gold

being scarce in the region. One notable

thing the king did was he prohibited

userie, a decision that his successor

would expand on throughout the 10th and

11th centuries, culminating in Edward

the Confessor, decreeing that any usurer

be banished for life. But why did many

European rulers, especially in the

medieval period, despise Yuzurie? Well,

one thing is that when you're a monarch

trying to consolidate power in your

hands, you don't want any aspiring

opposition that also wants that power.

Whether it's the landed nobility seeking

to tear you down or in this case a

growing merchant class, money knows no

morality and no borders. And as history

is about to show, these financiers that

sprung up from the merkantile class

would go on to in the most clandestine

and slimy ways use that money to bind

many to their credit and secure power.

This happened because money was just

like it is nowadays a shortcut to power.

And most of the medieval royalty saw

these usurers as trying to cheat the

system by trying to access power through

money without having any heritage, any

familial bonds or history with their

domains they were expanding into. They

were unlawful invaders. Keen medieval

rulers saw these money lenders as dirty

players and a genuine threat to

security. Another thing was how the

Christian church would also take a

stance against usury rooted in the

tradition of the greatest European

thinkers like Sena or Aristotle who

claimed that the act of taking interest

from money is natural and vile. The

church would generally abide by these

rules in its early years, but it would

still participate in a hard to define

gray area by, for example, investing

into a business or individual and

binding that person lawfully to pay out

a dividend back to the church officials

and as a result collecting returns that

can't really be called interest, but act

very much like it with periodic payments

of a sum higher in value than at first

invested. Apart from this, the church

would for a long time fight us and

recognize the threat it posed to

political stability, inspiring many

medieval rulers to abide by this

doctrine. The first mass arrival of

money lenders in England happened

coincidentally with the entrance of

Brazilians into the country. I cannot

possibly fathom a connection being made

between the two. But alas, one thing

that has to be noted is the fact of how

after the defeat of King Harold II by

William the Conqueror in 1066, the

victorious Norman king invited the

Brazilians to move from their Norman

domain into newly conquered England and

for the first time in centuries allowed

us to be practiced on the island under

his own protection. The source is

however limited. We could possibly maybe

just quote deduce that he might have

received funding from said money lenders

for his campaign and in return allowed

them to expand their financial operation

into England. The Brazilians for the

next few centuries would go on to be

under constant royal protection, seeking

safety under the wings of the monarch,

presumably in return for financial

favors or even as a result of straightup

financial dependency of the crown upon

her money. You cannot underestimate how

dependent on funding from the usurers

the new Norman aristocracy was as it was

seen for the longest time as a foreign

entity by the native English commoners

and nobility alike. As a matter of fact,

the money lenders in this period would

go on to issue loans with interest rates

of up to 33% per year on land mortgaged

by the nobles and up to

300% per year on tools with the laborers.

laborers.

Within just over a century since veral

arrival, they have managed to assume

ownership of around one quarter of all

English lands. By his death in the late

12th century, Aaron of Lincoln, a

financier, was supposedly the wealthiest

man in England on the basis of his

liquid assets trumping the wealth of

King Henry II. During this period, the

state would go on to become the enforcer

of the will of these usurers and would

exact payment almost in the exact same

way it exacted

taxes. The everyday operation of these

money lenders was so successful because

ever since they came into England, they

were always intertwined and incorporated

within the ruling and Norman

aristocracy. To say that with such a

hierarchy being present, the commoners,

the clergy, and the nobility alike

dislike the Brazilians would be an

understatement, culminating in violence

erupting around 1190 with many

Brazilians being slaughtered and their

bonds being burned, freeing up a lot of

population from debt. As a result, the

monarchy doubled down on exacting the

interest of money lenders and and now

each loan taken by a noble was to be

registered and its fulfillment was to be

keenly followed by the royal

authorities. As a result, many nobles

falling on hard times would lose their

lands and property that would be seized

by the king for himself. Discontent with

the worsening state of affairs, the

nobles would repeatedly revolt,

culminating with Edward I being forced

to abolish all forms of usury throughout

the 13th century and compelling the

Brazilian population of

16,511 to leave England forever. It

would be just one of the very numerous

expulsions of the Brazilians throughout

European history and would also by

complete coincidence usher in the age of

prosperity in England. From the 13th

century onwards, England experienced

what we could call a golden age. As not

only was there no state debt, but the

taxes were moderate, pay was decent, and

as a result of the many laborers having

more free time with up to 180 days in

the Europe being holidays. We saw the

construction of some of Europe's

greatest cathedrals. It is said that the

living standard of 15th century England

would only be surpassed in the 19th

century. Unfortunately, with a more

strained political situation and

complacency from the crown, such a state

of affairs would not last, and a blatant

disregard, the lessons learned in the

past would cause the island nation to

spiral and commit the mistake, the

consequences of which we can still see

to this very day.

But let's not get too ahead of

ourselves. It's the year 1492 and the

English are still enjoying a period of

relative prosperity. And this year, a

very notable population of Spanish

Brazilians and moranos, being Brazilians

that converted to Christianity

voluntarily or by force, but still

practiced for religion in secret, would

be banished from Spain. They weren't

particularly liked to say the least,

mostly as a result of being seen as

traitors because of their alliance and

cooperation with the many Muslim rulers

which had occupied the Iberian Peninsula

from the 8th to the 15th century. With

the reconquesta drawing to a successful

end, their entire population would be

banished and would start seeking new

domains to expand into. The thing is,

however, money lending was decrieded as

immoral by the church, especially when

practiced by a Christian lending money

to other Christians. It would become

increasingly popular in the highly

mercantile seafaring cities on the

European shores, even on the

overwhelmingly Catholic Mediterranean

coast. There were many European and

Brazilian banking families in Italy

being sheltered by city elites from

having to abide by the Christian moral

code. Being allowed to pay a very low

fine that rather than actually deterring

the bankers from practicing usery made

them even more entrenched by whittling

away at the smaller aspiring

competition. It is very well known that

the Vatican would borrow money often

from the 14th to the 16th century going

against its own teachings. But one thing

that might partially explain this

hypocrisy is how four of the popes

ruling from the 15th and 16th centuries

themselves came from a very influential

Italian banking family called Medici.

financiers would bribe the church with

preferable rates and donations to keep

themselves afloat and flourishing in a

highly mercantile economy. And so many

popes would shelter users under their

own wings and rely on them for financial

support. But unlike the more secular

states of Northern Europe, the

Mediterranean bankers would still be

trumped in power and reach by the

church, always being the stronger

institution and very often coming into

conflict with the Brazilian banking

families, especially when Italian

families would have so much influence

over the church as to have the pope from

their own family. The existence of such

a massive financial institution like the

Catholic Church still impeded the growth

of bankers not associated with it and

especially the Brazilian ones being of

course seen as competition and so most

Brazilians banished from Spain would

seek greener pastures elsewhere. The

church despite its size would still bend

the knee before the financiers later on

as in the 19th century would become the

domain of the Rothschilds. The bankers

didn't forget about the church which for

a long time argued against them and was

generally a thorn in versside. The

Rothschild family would become the

treasurers and financiers of the papal

state which translated into a

subjugation of the Catholic Church as

they now held the strings over the once

great institution centuries later but

they still got their revenge. Bear in

mind the Rothschild family name as they

will become of paramount importance

later down the line.

Coming back into the main timeline, the

obvious destination for the banished

Brazilians at the time was Holland in

generational conflict with the Spanish

crown that was encroaching on Dutch soil

and messing with Dutch interests. As a

result of this political tension, the

Dutch would overwhelmingly partake in

the Protestant Reformation in opposition

to the Catholic Church as it was seen as

an extension of the Spanish crown. This

anti-atholicism hailing from the

conflict and a dire need for resources

against a formidable opponent and a

strong seafaring merkantile economy made

the Netherlands a perfect home base for

any aspiring financeier and

banker. Open economies like the

Netherlands at the time were very

reliant on foreign imports to fuel

growth. So they ended up very easy to

subdue with that being an easy task. of

monopolizing the right to issue credit

to the people importing set goods by

creating private banks, which is what

the Brazilians did and still do best.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, the

Netherlands would enjoy an economic

golden age with the Iberian Brazilians,

bringing huge amounts of capital into

the country. Within a few generations,

userie and banking would flourish and

would dominate the Dutch economy for the

next few centuries. With the most

influential and wealthy people in the

whole Netherlands being the

affformentioned money lenders, the

Netherlands would go on to become for

the longest time a base of operations

for these Brazilian financeers trying to

expand their influence. And in this case

they had set their eyes on

England. In the 16th century during the

reign of Queen Elizabeth I small numbers

of Maroranos Brazilians that being

nominal converts to Christianity would

start being led into England. That time

frame coincided with the rapidly growing

financial dependency of European rulers

on money lent to them by said

usurers with interest rates on loans to

the crown or treasury exceeding 20 and

30% per year and 60 to 80% with loans

given to poor workmen despite the legal

limit at the time being only 6% per

year. Her entrance into England would

also mark the humble beginnings of

fractional reserve banking. That being a

system where the bank would provide

receipts, that being bills of exchange

of any form, without covering the full

sum of all the money owed to their

clients with reserve capital, increasing

efficiency and profits, but making the

system highly unstable and often

fraudulent. But let's focus on the

larger political state during the 16th

century upon close observation of which

we can determine a great deal of motives

that indicate a great deal of

involvement of these foreign money

lenders in English politics. First of

all in 1534 the church of England was

established as an independent entity

from the Catholic Church marking the

first crack in English religious unity.

If you wanted to, let's say, increase

your influence over the English people,

you could possibly exploit this newfound

division within the church to under the

guise of a religious war, cease control

of the government by picking or creating

a side to the conflict and making that

side entirely dependent on your funding,

and in return, they will do your

bidding. That's exactly what happened in

17th century England when the flames of

religious disunityity were fanned with

Puritans being agitated against the

Anglicans. Another important aspect to

keep in mind is how Puritan teachings

put Brazilians in a more favorable light

due to their strict focus on basing

their religious identity on the Old

Testament way more than other

denominations at the time. Israel. The

Israeli father of prime minister

Benjamin Israeli wrote that the nation

was artfully divided into sabotarians

and sabbath breakers. Soon civil war

broke out between the Anglicans and the

Puritans with the latter winning under

the command of Oliver Cromwell with his

new model army. Cromwell was known as

someone and I quote particularly well

disposed towards the Brazilians end

quote with whom he had very frequent

dealings. Cromwell because of his

strained relationship with the assembly

had to rely on funding from goldsmiths.

It is notable the influence of Amsterdam

money lenders in funding Cromwell's

military operation with names such as

Manise Ben Israel and Fernand Carvajal

having petitioned for the entrance of

Brazilians into England and directly

arranged financial favors. Cromwell's

connection to money lenders is

undeniable as a letter from him to

Ebenezer Pratt, a financeier living in

Germany, shows how much of what he did

was only possible due to the financial

support from the

Brazilians. In return for financial

support, Will advocate the admission of

Jews into England. This however

impossible. While Charles still living,

Charles cannot be executed without

trial. adequate grounds for which do not

at present exist. Therefore, advised

that Charles be assassinated, but will

have nothing to do with arrangements for

procuring an assassin, though willing to

help him in his escape. He would go on

to purge the House of Commons in order

to make a vote condemning the King

Charles to death. And when no English

lawyer was ready to draw charges against

the king, he enlisted the help of a

Dutch lawyer called Isac Dorislaus.

Reicside having taken place, Charles II,

the executed king's son, would be the

last monarch to issue banknotes entirely

within his own right, as he passed two

acts that would set in motion one of the

most profoundly important transfers of

wealth and power in human history.

Firstly in 1663 the act for the

encouragement of trade which allowed

exporting of all foreign coin or bullion

of gold or silver free of inner dict

regulation or duties of any kind. This

meant that foreigners could now

accumulate wealth with gold and silver

outside of England itself. That meant a

transfer of wealth outside the

jurisdiction of the crown and the

possibility of creating banks completely

independent of the English state. A

second act was passed in 1666 called the

act for the encouragement of coinage. It

gave private individuals in this case

bankers the right to mint coins within

the institutions of the Royal Mint which

allowed these financers to collect

senurage at being profit coming from the

difference between the production cost

of minting a coin and the perceived

market value of that coin which is

usually higher than the production cost

and which in turn and allows to take

profit from introducing coins to the

market. This basically surrendered the

control over the money supply to said

money lenders, meaning that they could

deflate and inflate the currency to their

their

liking. But let's not get too ahead of

ourselves. At the dawn of the 17th

century, the previously mentioned

Charles II had a brother, James II, who

would rule for barely three years as a

result of being overthrown by a Dutch

prince, William of Orange. At this point

in history, the fact of the Netherlands

role as a base of operations for money

lenders wanting to expand their domain

becomes very apparent. What doesn't help

their case is how John Churchill, the

Duke of Marlboro in James II's service,

deserted him after receiving a bribe

from a Dutch merchant, Solomon de

Medina, which weakened the king enough

to cause him loss to William of Orange.

This seizure of power by the Dutch

prince would be another important

element to the historical puzzle of

central banking as during his reign he

would surrender the right of the crown

to issue money free of debt and interest

to the private financeers now flooding

the country and would go on to establish

the national

debt. Let's pause for a moment. How was

it that the Brazilian bankers managed to

enact so much influence on European

rulers and politicians that they always

would find or manufacture some person

that would do their bidding? First of

all, if anything, userie is a very

profitable business. It allows to not

only sack the poor falling on hard times

trying to make ends meet, but also the

royalty in desperate need of a cash

infusion just to keep them afloat on the

political stage. Dire circumstances

don't discriminate and as a result it

allows these morally destitute enough to

leech off human misfortune and mistakes

in European history could always find a

desperate noble and extremely ambitious

aristocrat important people that need

just that one loan just one monetary

infusion to get going again. And that's

how you bind not only the poor

commoners, but the influential nobles,

all the heads of the nations to your

credit, your money, and your influence.

Second of all, why were they so

successful in subduing state by state?

Brazilian morality works different to

European morality. They did and still do

believe themselves to be superior to

outsiders. Not only that, also as a

result of that feeling of supremacy

allow for worse treatment of the

outsiders of their religion as according

to their scriptures you can cheat,

mistreat and scam any outsider to their

faith. They form extremely hermetic

societies, don't assimilate, very rarely

marry outside their societies and as a

result accumulate and retain wealth more

efficiently. Compare this to a European

Christian which was told that all people

are going to be judged equally, that to

swindle and cheat is in no case

acceptable. Christian scripture

reinforced a feeling of empathy or pity

towards non-believers, not superiority,

or didn't make much mention of the god's

particular affection towards them. More

focusing on

universalism. To better see the

difference in morality, let me ask you a

question. Have you ever seen a Brazilian

religious mission? Yeah, me neither.

They're more of a closedin religion, but

which doesn't focus on preaching to

others, but rather on keeping that

enlightenment within their own societies

in a more consolidated, familial, and

tribal structure as opposed to

Christianity, which is based on

preaching the truth to as many as

possible, trying to allow as many as

possible to have a chance at achieving

salvation. Implanting these people in a

society as a minority will in turn

amplify the majority populations hate

for hermetic non- assimilationist

superiority complexfueled attitude and

further stoke the Brazilians pride and

disdain of outsiders. It's a sort of

feedback loop where you end up with the

natives increasingly disliking the

Brazilians for who they are and vice

versa. The Brazilians had the perfect

combination of a morality based on

inroup loyalty paired with a disdain of

outsiders and a non assimilationist

attitude combined with being barred from

participating in most trades as a result

of reciprocal dislike from the natives.

They ended up dominating the banking

sector while exploiting the weaknesses

of the European people bit by bit

trapping entire nations independency to their

their

money. Now knowing the brief historical

background surrounding this transfer of

wealth and power of paramount importance

between what we could consider a largely

domestic population and the foreign and

coordinated influence. we can start

approaching the subject to which all of

this has been leading up to the creation

of a private central bank in England.

The bank of England would be open in

1694. It would lend the money at

interest to the king in order to pursue

war which would rack up further debt and

further dependency of the crown on said

institution but also expand the

moneylanders domain.

Key to understanding the nefarious

nature of the establishment of the Bank

of England is analyzing the very bill

that was passed that made the bank

operational was itself passed with only

42 members being present in the House of

Commons out of the total 514.

Such was the case because the vote was

called in the middle of the summer and

most members of the house were away in

the countryside tending to farming

duties as most of them were rural

noblemen. The title of the bill, just

like the previously mentioned acts that

laid the foundation, made little mention

of the intended establishment of the

Bank of England, as the bill itself was

called an act granting to their

majesties several rates and duties upon

tonnage of ships and vessels upon beer,

ale, and other liquors. It's interesting

why why would these people not reveal

their intentions to the general public

and instead hide and in the most

secretive ways try to take over never

revealing their real intentions. It's

almost like what we're doing is

extremely malicious and is the

equivalent of a hostile takeover with

the final goal being the total usuration

of all productivity in a society.

What made the bank so disastrous for the

English people is it was structured

around regulating the money supply. So

the issuing of money is being torn away

from the government itself and creating

a second state with an estate a central

bank. The thing is managing fiscal

policy and the treasury is basically the

best shortcut to power. You user the

only meaningful resource in the entire

government more important than the army.

more important than any treaty or

support of the people. What happened in

England was nothing short of just a

power transfer. Nothing different from

taking over the government. Except the

only thing the financeers did

differently is they didn't make any

glaring changes to the system and kept

the forms of old relevant with the

monarch being supposedly the head of the

state. This might be hard to conceive

of, but what happened is a hidden

government was imposed onto an already

existing one. When you control the

ability of the state to issue currency,

when you control the credit that the

state receives, when you manage the

state's reserves, you can basically

through this back door manage every

other aspect of the state from commerce

to foreign policy. What I'm talking

about when I mention the transfer of

wealth and power is exactly this. A

second ceiling to an already existing

government, a user patient of power from

what we can see as the head of the state

into the hands of a clandestine group of

financeers. Every time a new central

bank gets instituted by these Brazilian

financiers, what we're talking about is

at its core nothing more than a takeover

of a government, a subjugation of the

entire state apparatus. It is an

invasion, but with the difference that

it doesn't instantly remove all signs of

the old regime. It doesn't depose of old

forms of the government, but rather

stealthily implants itself into it.

Alongside indebting the crown to the

money lenders, the act also introduced

numerous new taxes that were supposed to

pay interest on all present and future

debts, including a land tax, paper tax,

fall tax, salt tax, st tax, window tax,

tax on births, marriages, deaths, and

bachelors. and most importantly an

income tax levied at 20% applying to all

sources of

revenue. But what was the real purpose

of a bank like this? As a matter of

fact, what is the purpose of any other

central bank modeled after the Bank of

England present today? Were you to

believe the mainstream narrative, you'd

be told that they provide credit, manage

currency, deal with monetary policy,

provide stability. But wait, provide

stability? Up to this point, they've

been only inciting wars and manipulating

markets. Why would the state surrender

its right to issue currency free of debt

and interest? Wouldn't that make for a

more flexible fiscal policy? Why does

issuing fiat currency carry interest?

Why are all of these central banks being

instituted by foreigners? It's almost

like they're a back door into

controlling the government. Now, that

that's crazy. That can be. As a matter

of fact, these banks only exist because

our ancestors lost the fight with this

cabal of financeers. There's no other

reason as to why. Only why is that their

chains of dependency. These banks are

like watchtowers in a prison. Their

monuments to our own subjugation. And

when you go through the history of their

establishment, were always instituted

through intrigue and force, never merit.

By 1722, majority of the bank's shares

were owned by such English sounding

family names as De Medina, Dosta, Fonca,

Enriquez, Nunes, Rodriguez, Salvador,

and Teserra Deatos. After the American

War of Independence, the national debt

soared to 176 million pounds. England

would further its debt with each war it

fought. And unsurprisingly, there would

be many wars against countries that for

a long time opposed the creation of a

central bank on their lands. Each war

would not only give an opportunity for

financial expansion for the bankers, but

would also in and of itself necessitate

increased spending and as a result would

further increase the national debt. Now

every central bank from the 18th century

through to the 20th century would be

created in the image of the bank of

England. But let's go back to the second

half of the 17th century as I want to

illustrate an interesting theory. A few

years before the bank of England was

established, there already existed a

central bank in Sweden which unlike the

English one wasn't instituted by the

same cabal of financeers but rather by a

merchant named Johan Palmstro which

wasn't much affiliated with the

Brazilian bankers of the Netherlands and

England. He was allowed by the Swedish

king to take deposits and issue loans as

he would play an important role in

financing military

expenditures. Okay, knowing that, let's

look into how if you were theoretically

in charge of a financial institution

could destroy another financial

establishment, your competition. A

so-called bank run or bank panic is when

the wider public is convinced that a

bank is going to fail due to a perceived

inability to cover the people's deposits

with real money. In simple terms, many

banks back then where and especially

going into the modern period are

fractional reserve banks, meaning that

they only hold a small reserve of actual

cash relative to the people's deposits

and loans. In any fractional reserve

bank, if every or even every other

person that has money deposited in scent

bank was to demand a payout of that

money, that bank would not have the

capital to do it as most of it is locked

in investments, bonds, securities, and

debt. So only a fraction of cash remains

as actual reserves. With normal traffic,

that system works fine as people

generally don't demand huge withdrawals.

And if they do, the bank will in due

time transfer that money into the

reserve and into the hands of the

customer. But when a rumor compelling

people of the banks financial trouble is

spread or general instability is present

indicating a possibility that of the

money that you deposited at that bank

being at risk, people will in turn

resort to as quickly as they can

withdrawing as much money as they can

from said bank as a response to save

what they can. The problem lies in the

very fact that every fractional reserve

bank won't have full cover of all

deposits and the simple rumor is enough

to cause insolveny and collapse a bank.

Now the Stockholm's banko as it was

called in its final iteration would

pioneer the use of bank notes to cover

for its small and fragile reserves. You

see, this was a fractional reserve bank,

meaning it only kept small amount of

reserves in copper, silver, and gold

relative to the amount of loans and bank

notes it was issuing. This model wasn't

particularly new at the time and would

go on to completely dominate global

banking in current times, but in the

17th century, it was still pretty

primitive and potentially very volatile

and unstable. Key to understanding the

story is remembering that the Stockholm

Banko was a largely independent

initiative and as a result would be

targeted by the English Dutch financial

establishment in a more or less directed

effort to uproot their competition.

First of all, the English Dutch

speculators would manipulate the price

of copper in Sweden, which the bank

heavily relied on for its reserves as

Sweden employed a largely copperbacked currency.

currency.

Second of all, after causing the copper

prices to fall, the speculators rushed

to get their bank nodes exchanged into

copper, which the bank didn't have

enough in its reserves due to poor risk

management combined with the

exploitation by the speculators of the

very fractional reserve nature of the

bank. This caused a liquidity crisis

when people learned about the insolveny

of the bank and even more worsened the

situation by attempting to withdraw all

their deposits at once, which even a

healthy fractional reserve bank wouldn't

be able to do and especially one being

heavily speculated against by an

organized force. This resulted in a

panic and collapsed the establishment on

the bones of which a central bank sprung

up owned and managed by individuals

associated with the English Dutch banking

banking

establishment. You want to know what

sort of political system is most

oppressive to the common man? It's one

where the masses don't even know who is

in charge. And guess what? That's

exactly the position that the bankers

have secured for themselves. Usually we

think of all sorts of absolutist

regimes, totalitarian states as the

worst when it comes to the treatment of

its people. But in such systems, the

ruler, the government or the party, it's

still vulnerable. The people know and

see clearly where their oppression is

coming from and they can focus their

anger against them. But with bankers,

they're not public personalities. They

don't show themselves at all. They

remain hidden behind the governments

they have taken over. As a result, the

oppressed people only know to blame the

government and politicians which can be

deposed as quickly as they were

instituted. The financeers can just

create another government, another

monarch, another party. This is the most

oppressive form of government because

every bout of dissatisfaction from the

masses is focused against a disposable

entity and not the real source of

suffering and injustice. The bankers as

a result can get away with ruining

people's livelihoods through recessions,

bank runs, inflationary and deflationary

spirals, revolutions, wars, supply

shocks, conflictering, speculation runs.

Because in each case, the people will be

manipulated into blaming a scapegoat

like the government or another country.

They're simply untouchable. Because how

can you fight someone you don't even

With England and Sweden now under the

financier's control, they set their

sights on two particular countries, the

US and France. Their North American

endeavors, which are probably the most

relevant ones today, are too complex to

just tack on to this video and will be

talked about in detail in the second

part. But the French episode warrants a

look into as it will set the stage for

their future world

domination. Going into the 18th century,

history of Western Europe was going to

witness an ironic sequence of events.

Remember the Norman conquest of England,

which introduced a largecale organized

user into England. Well, in a sick twist

of fate, the English, or rather the many

bankers now holding considerable power

over the crown, who try for almost a

century to establish a centralized

userious system of banking in France. An

interesting turn in the history of

European banking is the story of the

Royal Bank of France that sprung up

after the death of the infamous son King

Louis the 14th. It was established by a

Scotsman called John Law with the

permission of the state and became the

first ever central bank in France in

1718. The key factor in this scenario is

the fact that said bank most likely

didn't receive support from the English

Dutch financial establishment and most

likely was a largely independent affair

just like the Stockholm's Vanco which

also was seen by set banking

establishment as competition. What

supports this theory is the fact that

merely two years later, the bank went

under as a result of a panic being

spread around about the bank's supposed

inability to cover its bank notes with

gold and resulted with people

withdrawing their deposits and actually

causing insolveny problems. The search

for perpetrators guilty of sinking the

first central bank of France has led

many to believe that the Bank of England

was behind it. as in the coming decades

during the French Revolution, they

counterfeited French currency and caused

financial chaos, seeing any independent

bank in France as a direct threat to

their monopoly. Leading up the

revolution, almost 50% of the state

expenditures were allocated to paying

interest by the French state. Private

banks operating all throughout France

would soon have their influence curbed

by one ambitious Frenchman. Napoleon was

known as a particularly astute political

leader who would keenly observe and

fight any attempts at instituting a

foreign bank on French soil. He believed

it was imperative to keep foreign

financeers out if he want a prosperous

and strong state and instituted a bank

that he would have notable influence

over as he made himself president of the

bank. He abolished the rights of rival

private banks to issue banknotes and

supervise the creation of money and

credit. On the side note, people think

that every country that exists and is

relevant to some extent has to have

national debt. That the head of a state

being financially bound to money lenders

is just a natural course of action. The

case couldn't be any further from the

truth. There have been many countries

that went for long periods of time with

the heads of state not having to borrow

any money. This mainstream economic take

that if you want to run a politically

relevant country, you have to have an

institution of national debt makes

little historical sense as Napoleon, for

example, in order to finance his wars

all over Europe did everything to not

fall into debt. He sold Louisiana to the

United States. He subsisted off of

looting his armies did. The French

economy was also in genuinely good

shape, managing to become very

self-reliant and productive. Not to

mention the fact that having control

over your own state bank allows you to

have a very flexible fiscal policy that

weathers foreign manipulation and

subtrifuge to a large degree. Napoleon

was his own banker and financed his

campaigns almost entirely by way of

production or acquisition instead of

borrowing. If this guy drink when most

of Europe was against him still managed

to avoid unnecessary debt for the

longest time, I think it gives good

evidence that the national debt doesn't

have to be a necessary evil that exists

as some say that every aspiring country

has to participate

in. To say that the finance seers behind

the Bank of England were fuming at such

a display of financial sovereignty would

be an understatement as according to the

encyclopedia Britannica the Rothschilds

pledged£100 million pounds to the

anti-French coalition during the

Napoleonic wars after Napoleon's defeat

and subsequent comeback at Waterloo.

Nathan Rothschild financed all of the

belligerent including France herself,

skillfully indebetting all the sides and

lose. So after all of this, what's the

big thing about Yuri? Well, one thing is

that through it expressed itself a force

that went on to seize absolute power all

over the world. That's going to be the

subject of part two. But what's relevant

is the fact that nobody knows about

this. That nobody understands who holds

actual power over Western governments.

That the masses pick and choose their

leaders but have no idea that who

they're electing to power still serves

bankers first. I think it's our fault

that we got swindled like this. That's

what happens when you make mistakes. The

fact that these financers managed to

assume power like this is quite frankly

astonishing as through methodically

eroding away at the power structures of

the west they've managed to completely

ins snare it. The fact is that we can

learn from these mistakes but what's the

point of it since all of these events

have already played out. The lesson from

this video is not that usury itself is

some sort of a greatest evil as these

financiers didn't just achieve power

through money lending alone. usually was

always a stepping stone. They expanded,

they swindled, they conquered, they used

every political trick there is to get

where they are now. I don't want the

takeaway from this video or the second

part to be that usually is lay bad, but

rather that people that used it as a

means to an end are vile. If you wonder

why the world is in such a dysfunctional

state, look no further than the history

คลิกที่ข้อความหรือไทม์สแตมป์ใดก็ได้เพื่อข้ามไปยังช่วงเวลานั้นในวิดีโอ

แชร์:

คำบรรยายส่วนใหญ่พร้อมภายใน 5 วินาที

คัดลอกด้วยคลิกเดียว125+ ภาษาค้นหาเนื้อหาข้ามไปยังไทม์สแตมป์

วาง YouTube URL

ใส่ลิงก์วิดีโอ YouTube ใดก็ได้เพื่อรับคำบรรยายฉบับเต็ม

คำบรรยายส่วนใหญ่พร้อมภายใน 5 วินาที

ติดตั้ง Chrome Extension ของเรา

ดึงคำบรรยายได้ทันทีโดยไม่ต้องออกจาก YouTube ติดตั้ง Chrome Extension เพื่อเข้าถึงคำบรรยายวิดีโอใดก็ได้ด้วยคลิกเดียวบนหน้าวิดีโอโดยตรง

เพิ่มลงใน Chrome — ฟรี

รองรับ YouTube, Coursera, Udemy และแพลตฟอร์มการเรียนรู้อื่นๆ อีกมากมาย

รับคำบรรยายทันที: แก้ไขโดเมนในแถบที่อยู่ของคุณได้เลย!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

คำบรรยาย YouTubeกำลังเตรียมผลลัพธ์ให้คุณ…

คำบรรยาย YouTube:How Central Banking Ruined The World - The Bank Of England