Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
How Central Banking Ruined The World - The Bank Of England | FlightFormSyracuse | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: How Central Banking Ruined The World - The Bank Of England
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
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
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
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
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
