The Bankers Manifesto 1892


darkbeaver
#1
The Bankers Manifesto of 1892: History Repeated



Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. revealed the Bankers Manifesto of 1892 to the U.S. Congress somewhere between 1907 and 1917.

We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.
Organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.
At the coming Omaha convention to be held July 4, 1892, our men must attend and direct its movement or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome.
This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.
The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.
When, through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.
People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.
The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete actions, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.
Sounds kind of familiar doesn’t it?
 
MHz
#2


My earlier estimate of several hundred trillion being available for 'liberation' might have been a tad high.

"
Banks in the economy

[edit] Size of global banking industry

Assets of the largest 1,000 banks in the world grew by 6.8% in the 2008/2009 financial year to a record $96.4 trillion while profits declined by 85% to $115bn. Growth in assets in adverse market conditions was largely a result of recapitalisation. EU banks held the largest share of the total, 56% in 2008/2009, down from 61% in the previous year. Asian banks' share increased from 12% to 14% during the year, while the share of US banks increased from 11% to 13%. Fee revenue generated by global investment banking totalled $66.3bn in 2009, up 12% on the previous year. [8]
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank

World debt is about $60 T leaving only about $35T for liberation.
 
darkbeaver
#3
The banks are the enemy of mankind. What idiot said we had no natural predators?
 
Cliffy
#4
Their success is measured by the number of people who don't believe this or don't care.

If they did believe they would have to do something other than watch the olympics on the idiot box.
Last edited by Cliffy; Feb 16th, 2010 at 02:47 PM..
 
Avro
#5


Those who fear money are those who have none.
 
Cliffy
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post



Those who fear money are those who have none.

You don't have to fear money to see how bankers are controlling everything. Besides, money is a fictitious commodity. It has no intrinsic value and you can't eat it when it crashes.
 
SirJosephPorter
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Their success is measured by the number of people who don't believe this or don't care.

If they did believe they would have to do something other than watch the olympics on the idiot box.

Well, count me among those who don’t believe this (or don’t care), Cliffy. Rightly or wrongly, capitalistic economies are based upon banks, without hanks lending to the businesses, providing venture capital, financing mergers etc., the world economy will collapse.

It was not for no reason that Bush and Republicans so hurriedly put together stimulus package worth hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks. Many people love to hate the banks, but without the banks, most of them will be out of jobs, and world will be reduced to subsistence level society once again.

I am not saying that an economic model cannot be built without the banks, but that is not the model we currently have. Efficient, well managed banks is the fuel that runs the national economy. If banks are in bad shape, that means inevitable ruin of the country, or at least a severe meltdown (as was evident in USA).

Like it or not, developed countries cannot exist without the banks (unless you want to abolish banks, go back to substance farming society and rebuild over the next 100 years or so).
 
darkbeaver
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Well, count me among those who don’t believe this (or don’t care), Cliffy. Rightly or wrongly, capitalistic economies are based upon banks, without hanks lending to the businesses, providing venture capital, financing mergers etc., the world economy will collapse.

It was not for no reason that Bush and Republicans so hurriedly put together stimulus package worth hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks. Many people love to hate the banks, but without the banks, most of them will be out of jobs, and world will be reduced to subsistence level society once again.

I am not saying that an economic model cannot be built without the banks, but that is not the model we currently have. Efficient, well managed banks is the fuel that runs the national economy. If banks are in bad shape, that means inevitable ruin of the country, or at least a severe meltdown (as was evident in USA).

Like it or not, developed countries cannot exist without the banks (unless you want to abolish banks, go back to substance farming society and rebuild over the next 100 years or so).

You Sir are completely wrong, let me correct you. Countries cannot ever develope with private banks, private banks develope only stronger private banks. Efficient, well managed private banks are the fuel that cripples human developement. The private banks being in good shape is wholly responsible for the global depression we are presently entering. Your fear of change for the better is based in ignorance of history. The one and only reason for the continued existence of private banks, is itself ignorance of human economics. You imagine that the world wishes to undergo war and starvation in perpetuity so that the banks may remain healthy, this is insanity.
Contrary to what you believe private banks are not sacred institutions, they will be swept away and be maligned and scorned by little children as the demon bloodsucking evil they in reality are.
 
SirJosephPorter
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Contrary to what you believe private banks are not sacred institutions, they will be swept away and be maligned and scorned by little children as the demon bloodsucking evil they in reality are.

How do you really feel about the banks, darkbeaver?
 
ironsides
#10
To quote SJP: "Well, count me among those who don’t believe this (or don’t care), Cliffy. Rightly or wrongly, capitalistic economies are based upon banks, without hanks lending to the businesses, providing venture capital, financing mergers etc., the world economy will collapse."

Ditto
 
Cliffy
#11
And if we continue down this capitalistic treadmill, we will destroy our life support system and perish. You want to live in hell on earth, be my guest. You may need all the cash you have to buy your last loaf of bread.
 
ironsides
#12
Cliffy, Freebies is what got us into trouble in the first place, let everyone have a home whether they can afford it or not. I do remember hearing how 4 billion marks equaled one dollar. That will not happen in a capitalistic society again.
 
MHz
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

You Sir are completely wrong, let me correct you. Countries cannot ever develope with private banks, private banks develope only stronger private banks. Efficient, well managed private banks are the fuel that cripples human developement. The private banks being in good shape is wholly responsible for the global depression we are presently entering. Your fear of change for the better is based in ignorance of history. The one and only reason for the continued existence of private banks, is itself ignorance of human economics. You imagine that the world wishes to undergo war and starvation in perpetuity so that the banks may remain healthy, this is insanity.
Contrary to what you believe private banks are not sacred institutions, they will be swept away and be maligned and scorned by little children as the demon bloodsucking evil they in reality are.

All that has to be done is to make industry pay all the banking fees, they are the ones who 'need it' People do 6,000 transactions/ hr, businesses do 6 M/ min.
How much is $100t divided into 6b 'share-holders', =$16666.666666667/ person (hmn .... nothing ominous about that number, lol) .
That should be the bankers wage/yr. Make less than that pay no interest or service charges, make above that and you start to pay interest (which covers the banks expenses). That is the whole fix. (except the part that solves the problem of the current banking system being somewhat reluctent to let it all go (out of the goodness of their hearts).
 
Cliffy
#14
"We are the authority – both the cause and the cure. There is no one and nothing else." - Mary Croft
Spiritual Economics Now
 
gopher
+1
#15  Top Rated Post
Ezekiel 18:13

Kill all bankers!
 
MHz
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Ezekiel 18:13

Kill all bankers!

You missed a few.
Eze:18:11-12:
And that doeth not any of those duties,
but even hath eaten upon the mountains,
and defiled his neighbour's wife,
Hath oppressed the poor and needy,
hath spoiled by violence,
hath not restored the pledge,
and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols,
hath committed abomination,
 
Bar Sinister
#17
Attempting to run a modern economy without some sort of banking system would be impossible. What is needed to not the end of banks, but to properly regulate the banks so that they behave in a manner that helps society rather than hinders it. Any analysis of history reveals that banks have been critical in economic development. Given that, there is no special reason to really like banks any more than there is a reason to like lawyers.
 
china
#18
Avro

Quote:

Those who fear money are those who have none.

BINGO!
 
china
#19
Quote:

Attempting to run a modern economy without some sort of banking system would be impossible.

That is an any economy .
Quote:

What is needed to not the end of banks, but to properly regulate the banks so that they behave in a manner that helps society rather than hinders it.

Banks should be owned and strictly controlled by the federal government( that is us) .Let the government make the profits and use it for our country , not the few private individuals.The government would never be in debt ,they would always have all the money they need so there would not be any need for federal tax . That was the situation for the the first 30 years of our country . We can't allow some private individuals to be in control of our economy government and the well being of the country itself? Something should be done in this very matter. I,m coming home.
Last edited by china; Feb 17th, 2010 at 04:22 AM..
 
MHz
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Avro
BINGO!

During the crash of '29 it was formerly rich people who were jumping off the high things not people who had little money before the crash.
Another thing you two might want to explore is if the poor of today are poor because that is the way the 'rich' want it(top 5% in the world) or do the parents of the 30,000 kids that die of hunger everyday allow that to happen simple because they fear 'having money' to buy food.

Banks have a history of causing extra misery on the lowest class of people in any certain country. When England expelled all Jews back in the middle ages it was over banking. The upper management of the banks would be fleecing the whole country (via interest). Most of the bankers 'relatives' were also kicked out and their goods kept as were the ones who had no property to speak of. Just from a social standpoint, if the citizens of England rose up and threatened the King with revolt if something wasn't done about the fast increase inn the number of poor people after these (foreigners) started running the banking system. Having property to seize is an indication that they were 'not the poorest in the land' An aspect that might have been unique to their time is their arrival on the banking scene in England in the first place. It was probably a result of being expelled from another country for the same greeds. (I'll even post a link to a 1932 film about how the banking system came into being), When the King finally sent the knights the ultra rich would have had time to flee with their money (as usual) leaving the Jewish shopkeepers to face the steel. The issue was the money only.

I wouldn't call them a friend of the people.

Do Banksters and the Military Industrial Complex Rule the World ? « Socio-Economics History Blog
 
MHz
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Any analysis of history reveals that banks have been critical in economic development. Given that, there is no special reason to really like banks any more than there is a reason to like lawyers.

Did they also help settle Australia by creating a social atmosphere that would require stealing food to survive, get caught, off you go to the prison island?
 
SirJosephPorter
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Attempting to run a modern economy without some sort of banking system would be impossible. What is needed to not the end of banks, but to properly regulate the banks so that they behave in a manner that helps society rather than hinders it. .

It doesn’t work that way Bar, banks are not charities. They are for profit companies, their first responsibility is to make profit, they are responsible to share holders. Within that constraint, they should try to help the society.

But if a bank didn’t make a profit, it won’t be around to help the society. I am all for regulating banks, banks helping the society etc., as long as it is kept in mind that the primary function of a bank is to make a profit for the shareholders.
 
darkbeaver
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

It doesn’t work that way Bar, banks are not charities. They are for profit companies, their first responsibility is to make profit, they are responsible to share holders. Within that constraint, they should try to help the society.

But if a bank didn’t make a profit, it won’t be around to help the society. I am all for regulating banks, banks helping the society etc., as long as it is kept in mind that the primary function of a bank is to make a profit for the shareholders.

You, as a stakeholder, are that constraint that prevents the bank from doing the social work that they desperately want to undertake. The banks are completely innocent having only followed their natural inclinations. Do you seriously believe that there are perhaps two or three people in Canada who do not know the primary function of private banks? The studies of the last three-hundred years indicate without doubt that private banking cannot be trusted and cannot be regulated so they have to go, period. Or would you rather further regulate society to comply with private bankings primary function?
 
MHz
#24
The point about the profits being recycled would be accomplished by lower interest rates and/or a raise in who qualifies for interest free loans. All companies would be charged interest, a bank does not loan itself money at interest. Money is an essential service, everybody who uses money is a 'share-holder'. Because money can be siphoned off it is one of the main reasons the banking failures of today and in the past can happen. In bad times (poor growing season) the banking income total would be less and their wages drop would mean the ones in line for interest free loans would decrease in number. That balance should fluctuate, the bankers of today have it locked in a position that will eventually break. Through their willingness (greed) to decide who should be loaned money and who should be kept poor.
I agree with this quote below in theory but in practicality it would also be unsustainable because that would require continuous growth. The spurt during the war ( more $$ for companies) and the boom after the war (more $$$ for the people) with some changes. All countries chip in the tiny bit need for a very small army that has people from all current UN Nations as the grunts (that is all that would be needed because the money spent on more expensive weapons systems would be spent on public works projects. The Panama Canal can be used as an example, once construction started many people were employed, at the end of the construction phase, when it entered service at took far fewer employees. If everybody is still going to have a job then another project should be started or everybody gets shorter hours and the pay would be whatever it takes to keep their income the same.

CEO's shouldn't make 500 to 1 in a society that has homeless people.

If our income had kept pace with compensation distribution rates established in the early 1970s, we would all be making at least three times as much as we are currently making. How different would your life be if you were making $120,000 a year, instead of $40,000?"

"As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1."

The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going to Take to Get It Back? | | AlterNet
 
SirJosephPorter
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The studies of the last three-hundred years indicate without doubt that private banking cannot be trusted and cannot be regulated so they have to go, period. Or would you rather further regulate society to comply with private bankings primary function?

What you are advocating is nationalization of banks. It's not going to happen, even NDP is not advocating that.

In principle there is nothing wrong with government running the banks, government already runs the Bank of Canada. However, people won't accept such a move, that will be regarded as a sure sign of creeping Socialism.

While Canadians don't have the instinctive aversion to Socialism that Americans do, I don't think even Canadians will accept such a bold step toward socialization.
 
darkbeaver
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

What you are advocating is nationalization of banks. It's not going to happen, even NDP is not advocating that.

In principle there is nothing wrong with government running the banks, government already runs the Bank of Canada. However, people won't accept such a move, that will be regarded as a sure sign of creeping Socialism.

While Canadians don't have the instinctive aversion to Socialism that Americans do, I don't think even Canadians will accept such a bold step toward socialization.

Will if you're not happy with creeping socialism you can have racing socialism but you will have socialism and it will define democracy and private capital will be squeezed down to pseudo public manageablity of a sort. The Bank of Canada is a rubber stamp and a hollowed out former public institution. You don't think that but the technocrats who run the world do. You're holding gold and they're betting on plastic carbon credits,so don't you think you'll clash?
 
MHz
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

What you are advocating is nationalization of banks. It's not going to happen, even NDP is not advocating that.

In principle there is nothing wrong with government running the banks, government already runs the Bank of Canada. However, people won't accept such a move, that will be regarded as a sure sign of creeping Socialism.

While Canadians don't have the instinctive aversion to Socialism that Americans do, I don't think even Canadians will accept such a bold step toward socialization.

It was some time after WWII and in a provincial election in Alberta on party said they would cancel all personal debts (probably just moved it off the books and repaid the banks secretly). No matter what they did in the next few decades they won by a landslide. People revolt when money is being taken away, they don't revolt when they are being given a big check. The only ones in revolt would be the CEO's. Banks, Fire Dept's and Police and Mail Services, etc should not have shareholders.
 
coldstream
#28
The combination of de-regulation, and monetarism.. free trade in currency.. has de-nationlized the banking system.. creating an international banking oligarchy outside the control of national governments.. and in control of supra national organizations like the IMF and WTO. It's not a matter of IF national governments should apply supervision over its sovereign national currency and credit, that's obvious.. it's whether the can anymore.. having deeded control to a bunch of scum of the earth Wall Street banks.. and their legates.
 
Cliffy
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

The combination of de-regulation, and monetarism.. free trade in currency.. has de-nationlized the banking system.. creating an international banking oligarchy outside the control of national governments.. and in control of supra national organizations like the IMF and WTO. It's not a matter of IF national governments should apply supervision over its sovereign national currency and credit, that's obvious.. it's whether the can anymore.. having deeded control to a bunch of scum of the earth Wall Street banks.. and their legates.

Wow! I agree with you! Hell hath freezeth over!
 
SirJosephPorter
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

The combination of de-regulation, and monetarism.. free trade in currency.. has de-nationlized the banking system.. creating an international banking oligarchy outside the control of national governments.. and in control of supra national organizations like the IMF and WTO. It's not a matter of IF national governments should apply supervision over its sovereign national currency and credit, that's obvious.. it's whether the can anymore.. having deeded control to a bunch of scum of the earth Wall Street banks.. and their legates.

Quite so, supervision of banks is essential. Americans don’t believe in any supervision, any regulation, they go to the other extreme. The current meltdown was precipitated due to lack of supervision for banks, and Americans still haven’t learned their lesson.

There still is no supervision of the banks. And with Republicans ready to filibuster any attempt to regulate the banks (they have 41 senators now, enough to filibuster), any chances of bank reform are dead. Another economic meltdown is sure to follow, in a few years.

So I am all for supervision, we do supervise the banks effectively here in Canada. At the same time, it is important to remember that the primary function of the banks is to make money, to make profit. They are for profit corporations, not non profit charities.
 

Similar Threads

432
9/11 Truth Manifesto
by darkbeaver | Feb 11th, 2009
2
Diary of a Manifesto
by jellyfarm | Jul 14th, 2008
48
MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam
by Finder | Mar 7th, 2006