Ghosts in the Irish Financial Machine - NAMA: deliberate entrapment into eternal Debt-slavery

Ghost Estates in the Irish Financial Machine,
OR: deliberate entrapment into eternal Debt-slavery?
I was reading a post over at Aangirfan which contained this question:

What were the reasons for World War One?

Some people blame Imperialism.

For example, the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire clashed over Serbia; the British Empire, the German Empire and Turkish Empire had clashing interests in Iraq.

Some people blame Militaristic Nationalism. There were plenty of Germans and Englishmen who looked forward to a fight.

What role was played by Zionist bankers?

I recalled that I had made a number of comments on an Icelandic blog called Time To Think, which discussed this very subject. It all started with this comment, a reply of mine to this post by NOTSylvia on the subject of the Icelandic banking debacle.

Stop thinking of it as a take-over of your State and start thinking of it as a hostile take-over of your Company, Iceland Corp.

It’s more like Economic Terrorism. And get ready for asset-stripping . . .

It could be worse. . . . Ireland PLC’s asset-raping/economic-terrorism , called Nama, is being managed by N.M.Rothschilds.

We are SO F*%ked . .. . .

Something which caught my attention was THIS Document which shows a list of Foreign holders of U.S. Gov’t Treasury Bills.

What is interesting, or really Freaking scary depending on how awake you are, is that Ireland PLC steadily increased their holdings of these rapidly devaluing pieces of paper, from a ‘mere’ $13.9 billion in June 2008 to $50.6 billion by May 2009.

I don’t know what the hell they think they are doing, but I do know I haven’t seen a word about this in the Irish media.

Here’s a graphic:
U.S. treasury Bills. Ireland PLC holdings highlighted
here’s a link to the graphic: Link

Note that Israel, a country of similar population size and in 2006 also had a similar GDP ($129 billion according to the CIA Factbook figures for that year) and whose economy would appear to be equally if not more dependent on the US economy, had in May 2009 less than half the amount invested which Ireland PLC had (in their dubious wisdom) decided to purchase.

Also, note that Switzerland had a figure similar to that of Ireland PLC, invested in US Treasury Securities.

According to Wiki there a 3 main types of US Treasury Securites.
I do not know which types(s) Ireland PLC decided (in their wisdom) to purchase. Some are long-term some are not.

As far as I can ascertain, from the limited info available, the Federal Reserve appears to be mostly owned/controlled by Rothschilds through a series of what appear to be front-organisations.

Regarding the news that NAMA is being managed by N.M. Rothschilds: I heard Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahearn say it on the radio. He as trying to re-assure "de peepil" that NAMA was a 'good thing', and was being done in the best interests of all employees/vassals of Ireland PLC. As soon as I heard it, instead of feeling 're-assured', I felt a distinct chill run down my spine.

Ghost Estates of the Irish Property Bubble
Image taken from: Ghostestates.com


As far as I can remember what he actually said was something like

‘The gov’t is taking the best advice on this. We are being advised by N.M. Rothschilds . . .

So, me saying ‘Rothschilds is managing NAMA’ was not quite correct. Still, hopefully you can understand my reasons for hearing even MORE alarm-bells concerning the whole NAMA farce, once I’d heard that little gem of conspiracy-fodder - if not , then perhaps you should read this free on-line book: SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE By Eustace Mullins

In Mullin’s book, which he compiled mostly from US Library of Congress records, the author concludes that 4 or 5 of the original shareholdings were held by what Mullin’s concluded were Rothschild-controlled Fronts.

So in future when you hear the terms ‘the Fed’ or ‘Federal Reserve’, it might be more useful to think "Rothschild".

In the book, Mullins makes the point that one of the reasons often put forward in favour of the existence of Central Banks, is that they can help control the economy through regulation of the money supply.

Mullins claims that since the Fed was created in 1913 there has never been an ‘accidental’ recession. He also makes the claim that the Fed was ‘needed’ in order to create (from nothing) money which could then be loaned at interest (naturally) to allow the US Gov’t to finance it’s involvement in WW1. The Fed shareholders such a JP Morgan, Kuhn and Loeb etc., were busy engineering that war at the time.

He states that all economic booms and all economic recessions are simply a result of an increase or a decrease in the available money supply.

Since Central Banks regulate the money supply, it is obviously they who deliberately create the conditions for a boom or a recession.

I’m no financial expert but my in-light of what I have read in the book I came to the conclusion that the recent Wall Street Banksters-bailout was a good example of recession-creation in action.

Money that could have been circulated through the US economy providing health care or even maintaining infrastructure is hoovered out of the economy and disbursed amongst various banks who then refuse to re-lend the money as credit, thus halting the flow of credit the modern-day economy has been engineered to depend upon.

Halting the credit flow decreases the overall money supply, and at the same time the Fed is debasing the dollar through the hilariously mis-titled process economists call ‘Quantitive easing’.

Ireland appears to be dong it’s own version of that by propping-up the soon-to-useless dollar with money they can ill-afford to spare on such a dangerous ‘investment’.

At the same time, acting on ‘advice’ from none other than N.M. Rothschilds they are also preparing to bail out banks and property developers by putting, what appear to me to be, totally unrealistic valuations on now-useless property in what is an over-saturated property market. The idea that these properties will sell for anything like these values in 7 or 8 years seems to me to be a totally preposterous notion.

So again we see money which could have been used to help keep credit flowing and thus help maintain a somewhat healthy/robust economy is being directed into the pockets of the banks. There have been many reports of the Irish banks’ unwillingness to re-circulate this money back through the Irish economy.

Curiously not one Irish economist or media-outlet has drawn attention to these similarities.

But then I have come to believe that Economists are required in order to lay down a smokescreen by providing, or usually merely repeating, seemingly complex explanations (which upon closer examination usually turn out to be complete & utter pseudo-intellectual horse-excrement) for events that according to Mullins are usually relatively simple to explain.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

You really should read the book. It’s free.

The link above is an actual link to an actually free actually online actually unexpurgated actual copy of the actual book itself, NOT some link to a site trying to sell you the book.

Once you read it, you can decide for yourself.

But you should read it first.

I always prefer when people decide for themselves, once they have read the source material of course, rather than taking my word for it.

OR: you could read page 77 of The World War of 1914-1918 by Harry Elmer Barnes - another free online book.

The influence exerted by American finance upon our entry into the World War has been revealed in Ray Stannard Baker’s Life and Letters of Woodrow Wilson, in the volumes of the Nye armament investigation, and in Professor C. C. Tansill’s America Goes to War.

At the outset, the international bankers were not by any means all pro-Ally. Some, like the Morgan firm, were pro-British, and had been for years, while others, like Kuhn, Loeb and Company, manned chiefly by men of German derivation, were pro-German. But the financial interests of all the bankers soon came to be pro-Ally, for credit and loans to Germany were discouraged, while large loans were presently being made to the Allied powers.

On August 15, 1914, at the beginning of the war, Bryan declared against loans to any belligerent, on the ground that credit is the basis of all forms of contraband. President Wilson backed him up. For the time being, this position did not operate seriously against the Allies, for the balance of trade and investment was against the United States, and the Allied countries could pay for their purchases by cancelling the debts owed abroad by Americans. This situation took care of matters for a few months. But Allied war purchases became so great that, by the autumn of 1914, there was a credit crisis. The National City Bank addressed Robert Lansing, then Counsellor of the State Department, on this matter on October 23, 1914. Short-term credits to European governments were advocated. Lansing talked the matter over with President Wilson at once, and the latter agreed that the government would not interfere with such an arrangement. This information was transmitted orally to Willard Straight of J. P. Morgan & Company at the Metropolitan Club in Washington on the same night.

Shortly afterwards, H. P. Davison of the Morgan firm went to England and signed a contract to become the British purchasing agent in America. A similar contract was soon made with France.

The short-term loans sufficed for some months, but by the summer of 1915 Allied buying had become so extensive that the bankers saw that they must float loans here for the Allied countries if the latter were to continue to buy American munitions on a large scale. So they made strong representations to Colonel House and to the Secretary of the Treasury, W. G. McAdoo.

On August 21, 1915, McAdoo wrote a long letter to President Wilson, pointing out that great prosperity had come to the country as a result of the sale of munitions to the Allies, but that this prosperity could not continue unless we financed it through open loans to the Allies—i.e. selling Allied bonds in our own financial markets.

On September 6, 1915, Secretary Lansing argued similarly in a letter to President Wilson, stressing the crisis that faced American business if the earlier ruling of Bryan and the President on American loans to belligerents was not rescinded. Colonel House supported this position. McAdoo and Lansing won their point. On September 8, 1915, Wilson assented to loans and the Morgan firm was once more given oral information. Very soon, the first public loan, the $500,000,000 Anglo-French loan, was floated.

The formal loans to the Allies—over $2,500,000,000 in all—financed their purchases for a little over a year, but their buying was so heavy that even the great investment banking houses could not take care of their needs. By January, 1917, the Allies had overdrawn their credit by nearly $500,000,000. Only Uncle Sam could save the great banking houses and the Allies. And Uncle Sam could help only if the United States were at war with Germany. We could not, as a government, lend money to a belligerent, unless we were at war with its enemy.

79 THE WORLD WAR OF 1914-1918 79

Just at this time the Germans renewed their unrestricted submarine warfare. The United States could now be led into the war, and the bankers would be repaid. They were repaid to the last cent. When the war was over, Mr. Thomas W. Lamont, of J. P. Morgan and Company, stated the facts relative to the attitude of his firm toward the World War and the belligerent powers:

“At the request of certain of the foreign governments the firm of Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company undertook to co-ordinate the requirements of the Allies, and then to bring about regularity and promptness in fulfilling these requirements. Those were the days when American citizens were being urged to remain neutral in action, in word, and even in thought. But our firm had never for one moment been neutral: we didn’t know how to be. From the very start we did everything we could to contribute to the cause of the Allies. And this particular work had two effects: one in assisting the Allies in the production of goods and munitions in America necessary to the Allies’ vigorous prosecution of the war, the other in helping to develop the great and profitable export trade that our country has had.”53

Most American industrialists naturally shared the attitude of the bankers. Since England controlled the seas, our sales were mainly to the Allied powers. We wished to see the Allies continue the war and win it. Upon their purchases depended most of our sales and prosperity, and upon their success and solvency depended the prospect of their being able to pay us in the end. The trade in munitions carried us from a depression in 1914 to boom years in 1915 and 1916.54

By abandoning his neutral financial and industrial policy in favor of the Allies, President Wilson made it possible for the Entente Powers to enjoy an enormous advantage over the Central Powers in getting war supplies. The only way for the Central Powers to overcome it was to resume unlimited submarine warfare and try to sweep from the seas the ships that were carrying these supplies to the Allies.

It was our unneutral financing of the Allies that led to the resumption of German submarine warfare, and it was the resumption of

53 Manchester Guardian, January 27, 1920.


54 There has been much dispute as to whether we were forced into war by the loans and sales to the Allies or by the resumption of German submarine warfare early in 1917. In an important article in Science and Society (spring, 1939) on “Neutrality and Economic Pressures, 1914-1917″ Professor Paul Birdsall shows that the two were inseparably tied together.

80 THE WORLD WAR OF 1914-1918 80

this warfare which furnished the “incident” that enabled the war party in this country to put us into the conflict. It is, thus, perfectly clear that economic and financial pressure was the crucial factor which led us into war in 1917.

But no one need hold that President Wilson was moved primarily by any tender sentiments for the bankers. Both McAdoo and Lansing argued that it was essential to American prosperity to finance the Allies.

It was this general consideration of continued prosperity in 1915-16, and the relation of this to the prospects of the Democratic Party in the election of 1916, rather than any direct banker pressure on the White House, that bore in on Wilson’s consciousness in the late summer of 1915, when he let down the gates to financing the Allies.

Yet, it is downright silly to contend that the bankers had no influence on Wilson’s policy. If he did not listen to the bankers himself, he did listen very attentively to those who did heed banker pressure, namely, McAdoo, Lansing and House.

Remember that Rothschilds were THE major player of the London-based International finance scene. They also would have been probable creditors to much of the British aristocratic class.

So if Mullins was NOT correct then the establishment of the Federal Reserve, with it’s complete monopoly on the provision and printing of US currency, in a very underhanded way in Dec 1913, just a little over 6 months prior to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, could probably rank as one of the most lucrative instances of ‘Just Good Timing’ in the history of modern International Finance.

I however am not much of a believer in the existence of ‘just good timing’ when it comes to International Finance.

According to Mulllins the House of Morgan was little more than a Rothschild front. Morgans first job in banking was in the London offices of Rothschilds.

I keep having to remind myself that Israel is really nothing more than a Rothschild personal fiefdom. Sometimes I forget.

As far as I can make out, the backers of the Zionists see Judaism as merely a convenient cloth with which to cloak their activities. They appeared to see nothing wrong with sacrificing large numbers of apparently expendable Eastern European Jews in order to achieve their aims. It’s a pity that the diaspora and the citizens of Israel cannot see how they and their religion have been used and abused by these people all these years. Just mentioning that this might be the case will get you immediately labeled a ‘Jew-Hater’.

I totally forgot to mention the importance of the fact that the Berlin-Baghdad railway link was nearing completion at the outbreak of hostilities.

I guess the Anglo-American Axis was determined not to allow that to happen.

Imagine the effect that would have had on the oil monopoly . . .

If it had been completed the Berlin-Baghdad (and, ultimately, Basra) railway linkages would have enabled transport and trade from Germany through a port on the Persian Gulf, from which trade goods and supplies could be exchanged directly with the farthest of the German colonies, and the world. The journey home to Germany would give German industry direct supply of oil. This access to resources, with trade less affected by British control of shipping would have been beneficial to German economic interests in industry and trade,[3] and threatening to British economic dominance in colonial trade. Source:Wikipedia

Funnily enough the Berlin-Bhagdad rail link was not finally completed until 1940. Talk about coincidence!!

Some say that the real reason behind Hitler’s Drang nach Osten, Operation Barbarossa was merely to give Germany access to the oil-rich Caucasus.

Some even now say that the recent NATO Drang nach Osten, the Georgian attack on Russian forces in South Ossetia, is nothing more than Operation Barbarossa Part 2.

If the Rothschild Investment Bank(Irish Gov advisors) main business is the lending of funds to governments, then is in their best interests for the country to prosper or go bankrupt???

Obviously, it is the latter!

But it’s not so much the continuance of debt which gives the bankers their power that I find troubling but rather "What will they do with that power once they get it?" – what social and economic changes they will insist the debtor nations instigate in order to ensure continued funding?

it’s exactly the same scenario laid out by John Perkins in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Eventually EVERYTHING will be privatised. Including the Police. If you can’t afford it there will be no one to protect you, not that Police actually do much protection as it is, but in the future we will only have those ‘rights’ which we can afford to pay for.

In the future, unless we take steps to stop it now – EVERY facet of human existence, from the cradle to the grave will be fully controlled by the banking elite/Corporations