...The History of the "Money Changers"...

... The History of the “Money Changers” h2 { margin-top:2em; } h3 { text-align: center; color: #B50400; } .ref { text-align:right; font-style:italic; } AntiMatrix Antimatrix What's New?Theme of the Day Your browser does not support iframes. The French Connection Site Navigator Similar materials Notes What are you going to do about it? Sensational interview with rabbi Abe Finkelstein...

... about Jewish control of the world The History of the “Money Changers” By Andrew Hitchcock, 26 Feb 2006. He also wrote the Rothschild timeline. Here is an illustrated version of this timeline. Economists continually try and sell the public the idea that recessions or depressions are a natural part of what they call the “business cycle”. This timeline below will prove that is simply not the case...

.... Recessions and depressions only occur because the Central Bankers manipulate the money supply, to ensure more and more is in their hands and less and less is in the hands of the people. Central Bankers developed out of money changers and it is with these people we pick the story up in 48 B.C. below. 48 B.C. Julius Caesar took back from the money changers the power to coin money and then minted coins for...

... the benefit of all. With this new, plentiful supply of money, he established many massive construction projects and built great public works. By making money plentiful, Caesar won the love of the common people. But the money changers hated him for it and this is why Caesar was assassinated. Immediately after his assassination came the demise of plentiful money in Rome, taxes increased, as did...

... corruption. Eventually the Roman money supply was reduced by 90 per cent, which resulted in the common people losing their lands and homes. 30 A.D. Jesus Christ in the last year of his life uses physical force to throw the money changers out of the temple. This was the only time during the the life of his ministry in which he used physical force against anyone. When Jews came to Jerusalem to pay their...

... Temple tax, they could only pay it with a special coin, the half-shekel. This was a half-ounce of pure silver, about the size of a quarter. It was the only coin at that time which was pure silver and of assured weight, without the image of a pagan Emperor, and therefore to the Jews it was the only coin acceptable to God. Unfortunately these coins were not plentiful, the money changers had cornered the...

... market on them, and so they raised the price of them to whatever the market could bear. They used their monopoly they had on these coins to make exorbitant profits, forcing the Jews to pay whatever these money changers demanded. Jesus threw the money changers out as their monopoly on these coins totally violated the sanctity of God's house. These money changers called for his death days later. 1024 The...

... money changers had control of Medieval England's money supply and at this time were generally known as goldsmiths. Paper money started out and this was simply a receipt you would get after depositing gold with a goldsmith, in their safe rooms or vaults. This paper started being traded as it was far more convenient than carrying round a lot of heavy gold and silver coins. Over time, to simplify the...

... amounts of money by loaning out, what was essentially fraudulent receipts, as they were for gold the goldsmiths didn't even possess. As they gradually got more confident they would loan out up to 10 times the amount they had in their deposits. To simplify how they made money on this, let's give an example in which a goldsmith charges the same rate of interest to creditors and debtors. In this example a...

... goldsmith would pay interest of 6% on gold you had deposited with them, and then charge 6% interest on money, I mean fraudulent receipts, you borrowed from them. As they would lend out ten times what you had deposited with them, whilst they're paying you 6% interest, they are making 60% interest. This is on your gold. The goldsmiths also discovered that their control of this fraudulent money supply gave...

... them control over the economy and the assets of the people. They exacted their control by rowing the economy between easy money and tight money. The way they did this was to make money easy to borrow and therefore increase the amount of money in circulation, then suddenly tighten the money supply, taking it out of circulation by making loans more difficult to get or stopping offering them altogether...

..., "the business cycle," "boom and bust," "recession," and "depression," in order to confuse the population of the money changers scam. 1100 King Henry I succeeds King William II to the throne of England. During his reign he decided to take the power the money changers had over the people, and he did this by creating a completely new form of money that took the form of a stick! This stick was called, a...

... "talley stick," and ended up being the longest lasting form of currency, lasting 726 years until 1826 (even though other currencies came and went in that same period and ran alongside the talley sticks). The talley stick was a stick of polished wood into which notches were cut along one side, to indicate the denomination of money the stick represented. The stick was then split lengthwise through the...

... notches, so that both pieces had a record of the notches. The King kept one half to protect against counterfeiting and the other half was spent into the economy and circulated as money. It was also one of the most successful money systems in history, as the King demanded that all the King's taxes had to be paid in, "talley sticks," so this increased their circulation and acceptance as a legitimate form...

... of money. This system would work well in keeping the power away from the money changers in England. 1225 St. Thomas Aquinas is born, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church who argued that the charging of interest is wrong because it applies to "double charging," charging for both the money and the use of the money. This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle that taught the purpose of...

... money was to serve the members of society and to facilitate the exchange of goods needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest was contrary to reason and justice because it put an unnecessary burden on the use of money. Thus, Church law in Middle Ages Europe forbade the charging of interest on loans and even made it a crime called, "usury." 1509 King Henry VIII succeeds King Henry VII to the throne in...

... England. During his reign he relaxed the laws regarding usury, and and the money changers did not waste any time in re-asserting themselves over the population. They quickly made their gold and silver coin system plentiful again. It is interesting to note that under King Henry VIII the Church of England separated from Roman Catholicism, whose Church law prevented the charging of interest on money. 1553...

... Queen Mary I succeeds Lady Jane Grey's nine day reign to the throne in England. During her reign, Queen Mary I, a staunch Catholic, tightened the usury laws again. The money changers were not amused and in revenge they tightened the money supply by hoarding gold and silver coins and causing the economy to plummet. 1558 Queen Elizabeth I succeeds Queen Mary I, her half sister, to the throne in England...

.... During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I decided that in order to wrest control of the money supply she would have to issue her own gold and silver coins. She did this through the public treasury and successfully took control of the money supply from the money changers. 1609 The money changers in the Netherlands establish the the first central bank in history, in Amsterdam. 1642 Oliver Cromwell is financed...

... by the money changers for the purposes of fomenting a revolution in England, and allowing them to take control of the money system again. After much bloodshed, Cromwell finally purges the parliament, overthrows King Charles I and puts him to death in 1649. The money changers immediately consolidate their power and for the next few decades plunge Great Britain into a costly series of wars. They also...

... take over a square mile of property in the center of London which becomes known as the City of London. 1688 The money changers in England following a series of squabbles with the Stuart Kings, Charles II (1660 - 1685) and James II (1685 - 1688), conspire with their far more successful money changing counterparts in the Netherlands, who had already set up a central bank there. They decide to finance...

... an invasion by William of Orange of Netherlands who they sound out and establish will be more favorable to them. The invasion is successful and William of Orange ascends to the throne in England as King William III in 1689. 1694 Following a costly series of wars over the last 50 years, English Government officials go, cap in hand, to the money changers for loans necessary to pursue their political...

... purposes. The money changers agree to solve this problem in exchange for a government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money created out of nothing. This was deceptively named the, "Bank of England," for the sole purpose of duping the general public into believing it was part of the government, which it was not. Like any other private corporation the Bank of England sold shares to get...

... started. The private investors, whose names were never revealed, were supposed to put up £1,250,000 in gold coins to buy their shares in the bank, but only £750,000 was ever received. Despite that the bank was duly chartered and began loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest. Although the Bank of England's private investors were never revealed, one...

... currency for private gain, and thus any country that would fall under the control of a private bank would amount to nothing more than a plutocracy. Soon after the Bank of England was formed it attacked the talley stick system, as it was money outside of the power of the money changers, just as King Henry I had intended it to be. 1698 Following four years of the Bank of England, their plan to control the...

... money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from the initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years. That's an increase of 1,280%. Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000...

..., stage one of the plan, sends it out into the economy through loans etc, than this will reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy. This also causes...

... inflation which is the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person's money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten...

... the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan. Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the debtors to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the dollar. Inflation never effects a central bank in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they...

... can simply print more. 1757 Benjamin Franklin travels to England and would spend the next 18 years of his life there until just before the start of the American Revolution. 1760 Mayer Amschel Bauer changes him name to Mayer Amschel Rothschild and sets up the, House Of Rothschild, and soon learns that if he loans out money to Governments and Royalty then this is far more profitable than loaning to...

... individuals. This is because the loans made are bigger and backed by their nations' taxes. He trains his five sons in the art of money creation. 1764 Benjamin Franklin is asked by officials of the Bank of England to explain the prosperity of the colonies in America. He replies, "That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the...

... demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay no one." As a result of Franklin's statement, the British Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and...

... tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The viability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war." Control of America's money system will change hands 8 times since...

... 1764. 1775 April 19th, start of the revolutionary war in Lexington, Massachusetts. By this time the colonies had been drained of silver and gold coins as a result of British taxation. As a result of this, the continental government had no choice but to print money to finance the war. At the start of the revolution the American money supply stood at $12,000,000. By the end of the war it was nearly...

... $500,000,000 and as a result the currency was virtually worthless. An example of this is that a pair of shoes now sold for $5,000 dollars. This also shows the danger of printing too much money. The reason Colonial Scrip had worked was because just enough was used to facilitate trade. 1781 Towards the end of the American Revolution the Continental Congress were desperate for money, so they allowed Robert...

... Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to open a privately owned central bank, in the hope this would sort out the money problem. Morris was a wealthy man who had grown wealthier during the revolution by trading in war materials. This first central bank in America was called the Bank of North America, which was set up with a four year charter, and was closely modeled after the Bank of England. It was...

... allowed to practice the fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking, so it could create money it didn't have, then charge interest on it. The bank's charter called for private investors to put up $400,000 of initial capital, which Morris found himself unable to raise. Nevertheless he unashamedly used his political influence to have gold deposited in the bank, which had been loaned to America by...

... France. Morris then loaned the money he needed to buy this bank from this deposit of gold that belonged to the government, or rather the American people. This Bank of North America, again deceptively named so the common people would believe it was under the control of the government, was given a monopoly over the national currency. 1785 Despite the promises of Robert Morris that his privately owned...

... Bank of North America would solve the problem with the money supply, of course the economy continued to plummet, forcing the Continental Congress not to renew the bank's charter. The leader of the effort to kill this bank was William Findlay of Pennsylvania, who stated, "This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in its objective...to engross all the wealth, power...

... deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Sadly the words of wisdom of Governor Morris and Thomas Jefferson fell on deaf ears. Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris and Thomas Wyling, convinced the the bulk of the delegates to this Constitutional convention, not to give Congress the power to issue paper money. They were aware that...

... most of these delegates were still reeling from the wild inflation of the paper money during the revolution. These delegates also had short memories and didn't remember how well Colonial Scrip had worked before the war, or Benjamin Franklin's words of wisdom in 1764. As a result the Constitution was silent on the issue of paper money by the Government for the citizens, leaving a wide open door for...

... money changers in the future. 1790 Less than 3 years after the Constitution had been signed, the newly appointed First Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the Congress calling for a new privately owned central bank. Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton's first job after graduating from law school in 1782 was as an aide to Robert Morris, a man who he had written to in 1781...

... people the fact that it was privately owned. The names of the investors in this bank were never revealed, although it is now widely believed that the Rothschilds were behind it. Interestingly in 1790 when Alexander Hamilton proposed this bank in Congress, Mayer Amschel Rothschild made the following statement from his bank in Frankfurt, Germany, "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not...

... who writes the laws." 1796 The First Bank of the United States has been controlling the American money supply for 5 years. During this time the American Government has borrowed $8,200,000 from this Central Bank, and prices in the country have increased by 72%. In relation to this, Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State stated, "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our...

... constitution taking from the Federal Government their power of borrowing." 1798 Mayer Amschel Rothschild sends his son, Nathan, at the age of 21, to England with a sum of money equivalent to £20,000, to set up a money changers there. 1800 In France, the Bank of France was set up. However Napoleon decided France had to break free of the debt and he therefore never trusted this bank. He declared that...

... when a government is dependent on bankers for money, it is the bankers and not the government leaders that are in control. He stated, "The hand that gives is among the hand that takes. Money has no motherland, financiers are without patriotism and without decency, their sole object is gain." 1803 Now President Thomas Jefferson, President Jefferson struck a deal with Napoleon in France. The United...

.... A lot of these consuls were able to be converted to Bank of England stock, which is how Rothschild took over the control of the Bank of England and therefore the British money supply. Interestingly, 100 years later, the New York Times ran a story stating that Nathan Rothschild's grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book with this, what we would call today, "insider trading...

... finance both sides in a war. They do this because war is the biggest debt generator of them all. A nation will borrow any amount for victory, even though the banks have already predetermined the outcome. The ultimate loser is loaned just enough money to hold out a vain hope of victory and the ultimate winner is given enough to ensure that he does win. How do the banks ensure they will get all their...

... money back? Easy, such loans are given on the guarantee that the victor will honor the debts of the vanquished. Never mind the thousands of troops that give their lives on the pretext it is for the honor of their respective nations, when it is actually for the profits of bankers. In fact, during the period between the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo this year...

... stick is taken out of circulation in England. 1828 After 12 years during which the Second Bank of the United States, ruthlessly manipulated the American economy to the detriment of the people but to the benefit of their own money grabbing ends, the American people had unsurprisingly had enough. Opponents of this bank nominated Senator Andrew Jackson of Tennessee to run for President. To the dismay of...

... the money changers, Jackson won the Presidency and made it quite clear he intended to kill this bank at his first opportunity. He started out during his first term in office, to root out the banks many minions from government service. To illustrate how deep this cancer was rooted in government, he fired 2,000 of the 11,000 employees of the Federal Government. 1832 The Second Bank of the United...

... to brazenly admit that the bank was intending to make money scarce in order to force the hand of Congress into re-chartering the bank. He stated, "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress...Our only safety is pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and re-charter of the Bank...

...." What Biddle has done with that statement is prove to the world what central banks were really about. He made good on his word, and the Second Bank of the United States, sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to issue new ones. Naturally a financial panic ensued, followed by America being plunged into a deep depression. Biddle then unashamedly blamed President Jackson...

... openly bragged that powerful people in Europe had put him up to the task and promised to protect him if he were caught. When asked what his most important accomplishment had been in life, President Jackson stated without hesitation, "I killed the Bank!" It would take the money changers 75 years to establish the next central bank, the Federal Reserve. This time they would take no chances and use one of...

... took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government itself was not to be a substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." 1861 One month after the inauguration of President Abraham Lincoln, the American Civil War got underway at Fort Sumter...

... subsequently retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. Thus the South were being forced to pay more for goods whilst having their income slashed. This is when the money changers saw the opportunity to divide and conquer America by plunging it into Civil War. This is confirmed by Otto Von Bismarck when he was Chancellor of Germany (1871 - 1890), who stated, "The division of the United States into...

..., to New York to apply for the loans necessary to fund America's defense. The money changers had engineered the war to make the Union fail, and were not about to save it now, so they offered loans at 24% to 36% interest. President Lincoln declined this as they knew he would and returned to Washington, where he sent for Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago, who he put in charge of the problem of how he...

... the people of the United States would accept the notes, Colonel Taylor said, "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money, as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution." 1862 President Lincoln began the printing of $450,000,000 worth of new...

... Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles...the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of...

... interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity." In response to this statement, The Times of London publishes a propaganda piece obviously put out by the bankers, containing the following statement, "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own...

... money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." 1863 The bankers struck...

... back. With President Lincoln needing further congressional authority to issue more Greenbacks, Lincoln was forced into allowing the bankers to push their, "National Banking Act," through Congress. The most important part of this Act was that from now on, the entire United States money supply would be created out of debt by the National Banks buying United States Government Bonds and issuing them for...

... back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply." Later this year, Tsar Alexander II gave President Lincoln some unexpected help. The Tsar issued orders that if either England or France actively intervened in the American Civil War, and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war. To show that he wasn't messing about, he sent part of his...

... Pacific Fleet to port in San Francisco. This wasn't because the Tsar was benevolent towards America, instead he was very clever. He, like Otto Von Bismarck in Germany, could clearly see what the money changers were up to, indeed he had already refused to let them set up a Central Bank in Russia. He understood if America was to come under the control of Britain or France, then America would be under the...

... control of Central Bankers once again, and such an expansion of the bankers empire, would mean they would eventually threaten Russia. 1864 President Lincoln is re-elected on November 8th and on November 21 he wrote a friend the following, "The money power preys upon the nations in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than...

... example, silver, which was plentiful in the United States, and had been found in huge quantities with the opening of the American West. So, on April 12th, Congress went back to work at the bidding of the European central bankers. It passed the, "Contraction Act," which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to contract the money supply by retiring some of the Greenbacks in circulation. This money...

... contraction and it's disastrous results is explained by Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Walker, in their book, "The Truth In Money Book," in which they state the following, "The hard times which occurred after the Civil War could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead there were a series of money panics, what we call recessions, which put...

... pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralized control. Eventually the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23rd 1913." This is how the, "Contraction Act," passed by Congress affected America (the money supply goes down purely because currency in circulation is being withdrawn): Year In circulation Approximately per capita 1866 $1,800,000,000 $50.46 1867...

... $1,300,000,000 $44.00 1876 $600,000,000 $14.60 1886 $400,000,000 $6.67 Therefore in the twenty years since 1866 two thirds of the American money supply had been called in by the bankers, representing a 760% loss in buying power over this twenty years. The money became scarce simply because bank loans were called in and no new ones were given. 1872 Ernest Seyd is sent to America on a mission from the Rothschild...

... owned Bank of England. He is given $100,000 which he is to use to bribe as many Congressmen as necessary, for the purposes of getting silver demonetized, as it had been found in huge quantities in the American West, which would eat into Rothschild's profits. 1873 Ernest Seyd obviously spent his money wisely, as Congress pass the, "Coinage Act," which results in the minting of silver dollars being...

... demonetizing silver. It was in the interests of those I represented, the governors of the Bank Of England, to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money." 1876 Due to the manipulation of the money supply in America, one third of the workforce is unemployed and unrest is growing. There are even calls for a return to Greenback money or silver money. As a result, Congress creates the...

..., "United States Silver Commission," to investigate the problem. This commission clearly understood that the national bankers were the cause of the problem, with their deliberate contraction of the money supply. An excerpt of their report reads as follows, "The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices ...Without money, civilization could not have had a beginning, and...

... with a diminishing supply, it must languish, and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,000,000. By the end of the 15th century it had shrunk to less than $200,000,000...History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..." Despite this damning report from the commission, Congress...

... Bankers Association secretary, James Buel, even wrote a letter to the members in which he blatantly called on the banks to subvert both Congress and the press. In this letter he stated, "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as well as oppose the Greenback issue of paper money and that you will also...

... withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money.... ...To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests that we may control...

... Seyd's Coinage Act, in 1873. Gold backing of the American currency also remained. However, this Sherman Law did ensure that some money began to flow into the economy again, and coupled with the fact that the bankers now realized that they were still firmly in control, they started issuing loans again and the post Civil War depression was finally over. 1881 The American people elect the Republican...

..., James Garfield as the 20th President of the United States. This was a worry to the money changers, because as a Congressman, he had been Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and was a member of Banking and Currency. The money changers were therefore aware that President Garfield was in full knowledge of their scam on the American people. Indeed following his inauguration, President Garfield...

... stated, "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce...And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." Strangely enough within a few weeks of making that statement, President Garfield was...

... assassinated on 2nd July. 1891 The money changers spent the last decade creating economic booms followed by depressions, so that they could buy up thousands of homes and farms for pennies on the dollar. They were preparing to take the economy down again in the near future, and in a shocking memo sent out by the American Bankers Association, which would come out in the Congressional Record more than twenty...

... years later, the following is stated, "On September 1st 1894 we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgages in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price...Then the farmers will become tenants as in England...

......," 1891 American Bankers Association, as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913. 1896 The central issue in the Presidential campaign is the issue of more silver money. Senator William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska, a Democrat aged only 36, makes an emotional speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, entitled, "Crown Of Thorns And Cross Of Gold." Senator Bryan stated, "We...

... small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself." 1907 During the early 1900's, the money changers were anxious to advance their business of setting up another private Central Bank for America. Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, stated, or rather threatened...

..., “Unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.” They put Rothschild agent, J. P. Morgan at the forefront of their charge. Interestingly J. P. Morgan's father, Julius Morgan, had been America's financial agent to the British, and after Julius' death, J. P. Morgan took on a British...

... partner, Edward Grenville, who was a long time director of the Bank Of England. This year was the year of the money changers attack. J. P. Morgan and his cohorts secretly crashed the stock market. They were aware that thousands of small banks were so vastly over extended, some only had reserves of 1% under the fraudulent fractional reserve principle. Within only a few days, bank runs became commonplace...

... across the nation. Morgan then stepped up and publicly announced that he would support these failing banks. What he failed to mention is that he would do this by manufacturing money out of nothing. And then what happened, surprise, surprise, Congress let him do it! So, Morgan manufactured $200,000,000 of this completely reserveless private money, purchased goods and services with it, and sent some of...

... it to his branch banks to lend out at interest. As a result, the general public regained confidence in money, but most importantly it meant the banking power was now further consolidated into the hands of a few large banks. 1908 With the widespread financial panic over, J. P. Morgan was hailed as a hero by the then President of Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson, who even crassly or arrogantly...

... ten years of the century, 70% of corporate funding came from profits. Basically, American Industry was becoming independent of the money changers, and the money changers were not about to let that happen. There was also much discussion regarding the name of the new bank, which took place in a conference room in the Jekyll Island Club Hotel. Aldrich believed the word, "bank," should not even appear...

..., the group dispersed. This group of conspirators immediately set up an educational fund of $5,000,000 to finance Professors at top universities to endorse the new bank. The new central bank would be very similar to the old Bank Of The United States, in that it would be given a monopoly over United States currency and create that money out of nothing. Also in order to make the public think it was...

... under control of the Government, the plan called for the central bank to be run by a board of governors appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. This would not cause any undue problems for the bankers, as they knew they could use their money to buy influence over the politicians, in order to ensure the men they wanted got appointed to the board of governors. 1912 The Aldrich bill is...

... presented to Congress for debate. This was very quickly identified as a bill to benefit the bankers, or an expression for them which was coined at the time, "The Money Trust." During the debate, the Republican, Charles A. Lindbergh stated, "The Aldrich plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people...

... just what Wall Street and the big banks for twenty-five years have been striving for - private instead of public control of currency. It (the Glass-Owen bill) does this as completely as the Aldrich bill. Both measures rob the government and the people of all effective control over the public's money, and vest in the banks exclusively the dangerous power to make money among the people scarce or plenty...

... run up, essentially, an unlimited Federal debt. The only way to guarantee the payment of interest on this debt was to directly tax the people, as they had done with the Bank Of England. If the Federal Reserve had to rely on contributions from the States, they would be dealing with bigger entities, who could revolt and refuse to pay the interest on their own money, or at least bring political...

... seen, that is the idea, because these are the very people hand picked by the bankers who also finance their campaigns, ensuring loyalty to them, not the people. Let's summarize how the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing. It is a four step process: The Federal Open Market Committee approves the purchase of United States Bonds*. The bonds are purchased by the Federal Reserve. The Federal...

..., the government repays the bond, plus interest and the bond is destroyed. Let's look at an example of how this works with a Federal Reserve purchase of $1,000,000 of bonds. This then gets turned into over $10,000,000 in bank accounts. The Federal Reserve in effect creates 10% of this totally new $10,000,000 and the banks create the other 90%. To reduce the amount of money in circulation this process...

... is simply reversed. The Federal Reserve sells these bonds to the public and the money flows out of the purchaser's local bank. Loans must be reduced by ten times the amount of the sale, so a Federal Reserve sale of $1,000,000 in bonds, results in $10,000,000 less money in the economy. How does this benefit the bankers, whose representatives met at Jekyll Island? It prevented any future banking...

... reform efforts, as the Federal Reserve was to be the only producer of money. This in turn prevented a proper debt free system of government finance, like President Lincoln's Greenbacks, from making a comeback. Instead, the bond based system of government finance, forced on Lincoln after he created Greenbacks, was now cast in stone. It delegated to the bankers the right to create 90% of our money supply...

... based on a fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking and allowed them to loan out that 90% at interest. It centralized overall control of our nations money supply in the hands of and for the profits of a few men. It established a private central bank with a high degree of independence from effective political control. 1914 The start of World War I. In this war, the German Rothschilds loaned...

... money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French. One year after the passage of the Federal Reserve Bill, Representative Charles A Lindbergh Sr., outlined how The Federal Reserve created the, "business cycle," and how they manipulated that to their own advantage. He stated, "To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve...

... was] a maiden [and namely when she was] an orphan11  and [she was] seduced.12 Consequently, 'Ulla holds the view that wherever there is money [to be paid] and the punishment of lashes [to be inflicted], he pays the money and does not receive the lashes,13  Whence does 'Ulla derive this? — He derives it from [the law with regard to] one person who injures another person. Just as when...

... one person injures another person, in which case there is money to [be paid]14  and the punishment of lashes,15  he pays the money and does not receive the lashes,16  so whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. [But may it not be argued] it is different with [the case of] one person who injures another person...

... because he is liable for five things?17  And [if you will say] that [the payment of] money is lighter,18  [one can say against this] that [here it has been excepted] from its rule [and] permitted to the Court!19  But he derives it from the refuted false witnesses.20  Just as in the case of refuted false witnesses, whose transgression involves the payment of money and the punishment...

... with lashes,21  they pay the money but do not receive the lashes,22  so whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. [But it may be argued] it is different with the case of refuted false witnesses, because they do not require a warning?23  [And if you will say] that [the payment of] money is lighter, [one can say...

... against this,] that they24  have not done any deed!25  — But he derives it from both.26  The point common to both is that there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, and in either case he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. So whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. But [it may...

... be argued] the point common to both is [also] that they both have a strict side?27  And if [you will say that the payment of] money is lighter, [one can say against this] that they have both a lighter side?28 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Since he receives lashes, according to the Mishnah just quoted, he should not pay the fine, and this would be...

...; hence lashes are inflicted. Since 'Ulla explains the Mishnah Mak. 13a as dealing with a bogereth, as otherwise there would be, in his view, no lashes even if he were warned beforehand, but only the payment of the fine. V. Ex. XXI, 19. This is deduced from Deut. XXV, 3 (Rashi). V. infra 32b. He has to make five kinds of payments; v. B.K. 83b. The payment of money in this case is therefore particularly...

... heavy and other money payments cannot be compared with it. And if in this case payment of money is to be made and no lashes are to be given, the same should indeed apply to other cases. Whether the payment is greater or smaller, it is a lighter punishment than lashes, and we see here that the lighter punishment is chosen (cf. Rashi). In this case the Torah has expressly stated that the Court may...

... administer lashes (cf. Deut. XXV, 2). But the Court may prefer, and as a rule does prefer, that the person who was injured should receive money as compensation (Cf. Tosaf. s.v. htu). Therefore in this case the money is paid and no lashes are given. But in other cases, as in those of violation and seduction. the rule may be different. In these cases the giving of lashes is not mentioned explicitly in the...

... Torah, and thus its permissiveness is not stated. And when in such cases the punishment of lashes and the payment of money are due, lashes are given. And you cannot derive other cases from this case. With regard to the punishment of lashes v. Mak. 13b. Witnesses proved zomemim, v. Glos. Cf. Mak. 4a. V. infra 32b. They are subject to the lex talionis without a warning. The refuted false witnesses...

.... Their transgression consists in words and not in deeds. Therefore the money penalty is imposed and not that of lashes. But with regard to transgressions in deeds, it may be that the transgressor receives lashes! The case of one person who injures another person and the case of the refuted false witnesses. In the one case the five kinds of payment and in the other case the non-requirement of a warning...

... there3  he pays money and does not receive lashes, so wherever there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays money and does not receive the lashes. R. Johanan said: You can even say that it4  speaks of his sister who was a maiden. Only there4  it speaks of a case where they warned him,5  and here6  it speaks of a case where they did not warn him.7 ...

...; Consequently R. Johanan holds the view that wherever there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes and they warned him, he receives the lashes and does not pay the money. Whence does R. Johanan derive this? — The verse says: According to his guilt;8  [from this I infer that] you punish him because of one guilt but not because of two guilts, and immediately follow9  the words...

...: Forty stripes he may give him.10  But behold when one person injures another person, in which case there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays money and does not receive the lashes? And if you will say that this is only when they did not warn him, but when they warned him, he receives the lashes and does not pay — did not R. Ammi say in the name of R. Johanan that...

... perutah he pays the money but does not receive the lashes!13  — [It is] as R. Elai said: The Torah has expressly stated14  that the Zomemim witnesses have to pay money; so [here] also the Torah has expressly stated that the person who injures another person has to pay money. With regard to what has that [teaching] of R. Elai been said? — With regard to the following:15  'We...

... testify that So-and-so owes his fellow two hundred zuz' and they were found to be Zomemim, they receive the lashes and pay,16  for it is not the verse that imposes upon them17  the lashes18  which imposes upon them17  the payment19  [of money]. This is the view of R. Meir; and the Sages say: He who pays does not receive lashes.20  [And] let us say: he who receives lashes...

... does not pay?21  [Upon that] R. Elai said: The Torah has expressly stated that the Zomemim witnesses have to pay more money. Where has the Torah stated this? — Consider; it is written: 'Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do onto his brother'; why [is it written further,] 'hand for hand'?22  [This means] a thing that is given from hand to hand, and that is money. [And] the...

... same applies to the case of23  one person who injures another person. Consider; it is written: 'As he hath done, so shall it be done to him';24  why [is it written further] 'so shall it be rendered unto him'?25  [This means] a thing that can be rendered,26  and that is money. Why does R. Johanan not say as 'Ulla?27  — If so28  you would abolish [the prohibitory law...

...]: The nakedness of thy sister thou shalt not uncover.29 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files [H]. A deduction based on similarity of expressions — a Gezerah shawah (v. Glos.). Deut. XXII, 29. Ex. XXI, 24. The Mishnah, Mak. 13a. And he is therefore liable to the payment of money and the penalty of lashes, and the Mishnah in Mak. 13a teaches us that...

..., in that case, he receives the lashes and does not pay the money. In our Mishnah. And he is not liable to the penalty of lashes, and therefore he has to pay the money. Deut. XXV, 2. Lit., 'and next to it'. Deut. XXV, 3. This shows that when there are two guilts, or two punishments for one guilt, he receives the punishment of lashes. A small coin, v. Glos. Lit., 'in which there is not the value of a...

..., if wilfully transgressed, and after a warning, is punishable (also) with lashes. Therefore R. Johanan holds that where there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he receives the lashes and does not pay the money. Only our Mishnah speaks of a case where there was no warning, and therefore he pays the fine. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference        ...

...The History of the Money Changers...

... The History of the “Money Changers” Antimatrix Antimatrix What's New?Theme of the Day Your browser does not support iframes. The History of the "Money Changers" By Andrew Hitchcock, 26 Feb 2006. Andrew also wrote the Rothschild timeline and The Synagogue of Satan. Please go here if you prefer a non-illustrated, text only version of this essay. Site Navigator Similar materials Our god...

... interview Economists continually try and sell the public the idea that recessions or depressions are a natural part of what they call the "business cycle". This timeline below will prove that is simply not the case. Recessions and depressions only occur because the Central Bankers manipulate the money supply, to ensure more and more is in their hands and less and less is in the hands of the people...

.... Central Bankers developed out of money changers and it is with these people we pick the story up in 48 B.C. below. Notes What to do now? Sensational interview with rabbi Abe Finkelstein about Jewish control of the world 48 B.C. Julius Caesar Julius Caesar took back from the money changers the power to coin money and then minted coins for the benefit of all. With this new, plentiful supply of money, he...

... established many massive construction projects and built great public works. By making money plentiful, Caesar won the love of the common people. But the money changers hated him for it and this is why Caesar was assassinated. Immediately after his assassination came the demise of plentiful money in Rome, taxes increased, as did corruption. Eventually the Roman money supply was reduced by 90 per cent, which...

... resulted in the common people losing their lands and homes. 30 A.D. Jesus Christ Jesus Christ in the last year of his life uses physical force to throw the money changers out of the temple. This was the only time during the the life of his ministry in which he used physical force against anyone. When Jews came to Jerusalem to pay their Temple tax, they could only pay it with a special coin, the half...

...-shekel. This was a half-ounce of pure silver, about the size of a quarter. It was the only coin at that time which was pure silver and of assured weight, without the image of a pagan Emperor, and therefore to the Jews it was the only coin acceptable to God. Unfortunately these coins were not plentiful, the money changers had cornered the market on them, and so they raised the price of them to whatever...

... the market could bear. They used their monopoly they had on these coins to make exorbitant profits, forcing the Jews to pay whatever these money changers demanded. Jesus threw the money changers out as their monopoly on these coins totally violated the sanctity of God's house. These money changers called for his death days later. 1024 The money changers had control of Medieval England's money supply...

... and at this time were generally known as goldsmiths. Paper money started out and this was simply a receipt you would get after depositing gold with a goldsmith, in their safe rooms or vaults. This paper started being traded as it was far more convenient than carrying round a lot of heavy gold and silver coins. Over time, to simplify the process, the receipts were made to the bearer, rather than to...

... receipts and no one would be any the wiser. They would loan out these receipts which were not backed by the gold they had in their depositories and collect interest on them. This was the birth of the system we know today as Fractional Reserve Banking, and like this system of today this meant the goldsmiths were able to make astronomical amounts of money by loaning out, what was essentially fraudulent...

... receipts, as they were for gold the goldsmiths didn't even possess. As they gradually got more confident they would loan out up to 10 times the amount they had in their deposits. To simplify how they made money on this, let's give an example in which a goldsmith charges the same rate of interest to creditors and debtors. In this example a goldsmith would pay interest of 6% on gold you had deposited with...

... them, and then charge 6% interest on money, I mean fraudulent receipts, you borrowed from them. As they would lend out ten times what you had deposited with them, whilst they're paying you 6% interest, they are making 60% interest. This is on your gold. The goldsmiths also discovered that their control of this fraudulent money supply gave them control over the economy and the assets of the people...

.... They exacted their control by rowing the economy between easy money and tight money. The way they did this was to make money easy to borrow and therefore increase the amount of money in circulation, then suddenly tighten the money supply, taking it out of circulation by making loans more difficult to get or stopping offering them altogether. Why did they do this? Simple, because the result would be a...

...," in order to confuse the population of the money changers scam. 1100 King Henry I King Henry I succeeds King William II to the throne of England. During his reign he decided to take the power the money changers had over the people, and he did this by creating a completely new form of money that took the form of a stick! This stick was called, a "talley stick," and ended up being the longest lasting...

... form of currency, lasting 726 years until 1826 (even though other currencies came and went in that same period and ran alongside the talley sticks). The talley stick was a stick of polished wood into which notches were cut along one side, to indicate the denomination of money the stick represented. The stick was then split lengthwise through the notches, so that both pieces had a record of the...

... notches. The King kept one half to protect against counterfeiting and the other half was spent into the economy and circulated as money. It was also one of the most successful money systems in history, as the King demanded that all the King's taxes had to be paid in, "talley sticks," so this increased their circulation and acceptance as a legitimate form of money. This system would work well in keeping...

... the power away from the money changers in England. 1225 St. Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas Aquinas is born, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church who argued that the charging of interest is wrong because it applies to "double charging," charging for both the money and the use of the money. This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle that taught the purpose of money was to serve the members...

... of society and to facilitate the exchange of goods needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest was contrary to reason and justice because it put an unnecessary burden on the use of money. Thus, Church law in Middle Ages Europe forbade the charging of interest on loans and even made it a crime called, "usury." 1509 King Henry VIII King Henry VIII succeeds King Henry VII to the throne in England. During...

... his reign he relaxed the laws regarding usury, and and the money changers did not waste any time in re-asserting themselves over the population. They quickly made their gold and silver coin system plentiful again. It is interesting to note that under King Henry VIII the Church of England separated from Roman Catholicism, whose Church law prevented the charging of interest on money. 1553 Queen Mary I...

... Queen Mary I succeeds Lady Jane Grey's nine day reign to the throne in England. During her reign, Queen Mary I, a staunch Catholic, tightened the usury laws again. The money changers were not amused and in revenge they tightened the money supply by hoarding gold and silver coins and causing the economy to plummet. 1558 Queen Elizabeth I Queen Elizabeth I succeeds Queen Mary I, her half sister, to the...

... throne in England. During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I decided that in order to wrest control of the money supply she would have to issue her own gold and silver coins. She did this through the public treasury and successfully took control of the money supply from the money changers. 1609 The money changers in the Netherlands establish the the first central bank in history, in Amsterdam. 1642 Oliver...

... Cromwell Oliver Cromwell is financed by the money changers for the purposes of fomenting a revolution in England, and allowing them to take control of the money system again. After much bloodshed, Cromwell finally purges the parliament, overthrows King Charles I and puts him to death in 1649. The money changers immediately consolidate their power and for the next few decades plunge Great Britain into a...

... costly series of wars. They also take over a square mile of property in the center of London which becomes known as the City of London. 1688 William of Orange The money changers in England following a series of squabbles with the Stuart Kings, Charles II (1660 - 1685) and James II (1685 - 1688), conspire with their far more successful money changing counterparts in the Netherlands, who had already set...

... officials go, cap in hand, to the money changers for loans necessary to pursue their political purposes. The money changers agree to solve this problem in exchange for a government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money created out of nothing. This was deceptively named the, "Bank of England," for the sole purpose of duping the general public into believing it was part of the government...

..., which it was not. Like any other private corporation the Bank of England sold shares to get started. The private investors, whose names were never revealed, were supposed to put up £1,250,000 in gold coins to buy their shares in the bank, but only £750,000 was ever received. Despite that the bank was duly chartered and began loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves...

... British people. The Bank of England amounted to nothing less than the legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain, and thus any country that would fall under the control of a private bank would amount to nothing more than a plutocracy. Soon after the Bank of England was formed it attacked the talley stick system, as it was money outside of the power of the money changers, just as King...

... Henry I had intended it to be. 1698 Following four years of the Bank of England, their plan to control the money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from the initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years. That's an increase of 1,280%. Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in...

...% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy. This also causes inflation which is the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person's money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business...

... etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan. Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the debtors to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the dollar. Inflation never effects...

... a central bank in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more. 1757 Benjamin Franklin travels to England and would spend the next 18 years of his life there until just before the start of the American Revolution. 1760 Mayer Amschel Rothschild Mayer Amschel Bauer changes him name to Mayer Amschel Rothschild and sets up the...

..., House Of Rothschild, and soon learns that if he loans out money to Governments and Royalty then this is far more profitable than loaning to individuals. This is because the loans made are bigger and backed by their nations' taxes. He trains his five sons in the art of money creation. 1764 Benjamin Franklin Benjamin Franklin is asked by officials of the Bank of England to explain the prosperity of the...

... colonies in America. He replies, "That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay no one." As a result of...

... Franklin's statement, the British Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. Referring to after this act was passed, Franklin would state the following in his autobiography, "In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a...

... depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed ... The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The viability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of King...

... George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war." Control of America's money system will change hands 8 times since 1764. 1775 April 19th, start of the revolutionary war in Lexington, Massachusetts. By this time the colonies had been drained of silver and gold coins as a result of British taxation. As a result of this, the continental government had no choice but...

... to print money to finance the war. At the start of the revolution the American money supply stood at $12,000,000. By the end of the war it was nearly $500,000,000 and as a result the currency was virtually worthless. An example of this is that a pair of shoes now sold for $5,000 dollars. This also shows the danger of printing too much money. The reason Colonial Scrip had worked was because just...

... enough was used to facilitate trade. 1781 Robert Morris Towards the end of the American Revolution the Continental Congress were desperate for money, so they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to open a privately owned central bank, in the hope this would sort out the money problem. Morris was a wealthy man who had grown wealthier during the revolution by trading in war materials...

.... This first central bank in America was called the Bank of North America, which was set up with a four year charter, and was closely modeled after the Bank of England. It was allowed to practice the fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking, so it could create money it didn't have, then charge interest on it. The bank's charter called for private investors to put up $400,000 of initial capital...

..., which Morris found himself unable to raise. Nevertheless he unashamedly used his political influence to have gold deposited in the bank, which had been loaned to America by France. Morris then loaned the money he needed to buy this bank from this deposit of gold that belonged to the government, or rather the American people. This Bank of North America, again deceptively named so the common people...

... would believe it was under the control of the government, was given a monopoly over the national currency. 1785 William Findlay Despite the promises of Robert Morris that his privately owned Bank of North America would solve the problem with the money supply, of course the economy continued to plummet, forcing the Continental Congress not to renew the bank's charter. The leader of the effort to kill...

... Jefferson fell on deaf ears. Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris and Thomas Willing, convinced the the bulk of the delegates to this Constitutional convention, not to give Congress the power to issue paper money. James Madison They were aware that most of these delegates were still reeling from the wild inflation of the paper money during the revolution. These delegates also had short memories and didn't...

... remember how well Colonial Scrip had worked before the war, or Benjamin Franklin's words of wisdom in 1764. As a result the Constitution was silent on the issue of paper money by the Government for the citizens, leaving a wide open door for money changers in the future. 1790 Less than 3 years after the Constitution had been signed, the newly appointed First Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton...

... believed that the Rothschilds were behind it. Interestingly in 1790 when Alexander Hamilton proposed this bank in Congress, Mayer Amschel Rothschild made the following statement from his bank in Frankfurt, Germany, "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." 1796 The First Bank of the United States has been controlling the American money supply for 5 years. During this...

..., to England with a sum of money equivalent to £20,000, to set up a money changers there. 1800 > Napoleon In France, the Bank of France was set up. However, Napoleon decided France had to break free of the debt and he therefore never trusted this bank. He declared that when a government is dependent on bankers for money, it is the bankers and not the government leaders that are in control. He...

... stated, "The hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland, financiers are without patriotism and without decency, their sole object is gain." 1803 Thomas Jefferson Now President Thomas Jefferson, President Jefferson struck a deal with Napoleon in France. The United States would give Napoleon $3,000,000 of gold in exchange for a huge chunk of territory west of the Mississippi...

... of England stock, which is how Rothschild took over the control of the Bank of England and therefore the British money supply. Interestingly, 100 years later, the New York Times ran a story stating that Nathan Rothschild's grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book with this, what we would call today, "insider trading," story in it. The Rothschild family claimed the story was...

... biggest debt generator of them all. A nation will borrow any amount for victory, even though the banks have already predetermined the outcome. The ultimate loser is loaned just enough money to hold out a vain hope of victory and the ultimate winner is given enough to ensure that he does win. How do the banks ensure they will get all their money back? Easy, such loans are given on the guarantee that the...

... England. 1828 Andrew Jackson After 12 years during which the Second Bank of the United States, ruthlessly manipulated the American economy to the detriment of the people but to the benefit of their own money grabbing ends, the American people had unsurprisingly had enough. Opponents of this bank nominated Senator Andrew Jackson of Tennessee to run for President. To the dismay of the money changers...

... to brazenly admit that the bank was intending to make money scarce in order to force the hand of Congress into re-chartering the bank. He stated, "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress ... Our only safety is pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and re-charter of the...

... Bank." Nicholas Biddle What Biddle has done with that statement is prove to the world what central banks were really about. He made good on his word, and the Second Bank of the United States, sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to issue new ones. Naturally a financial panic ensued, followed by America being plunged into a deep depression. Biddle then unashamedly...

... guilty by reason of insanity. However, after his release he openly bragged that powerful people in Europe had put him up to the task and promised to protect him if he were caught. When asked what his most important accomplishment had been in life, President Jackson stated without hesitation, "I killed the Bank!" It would take the money changers 75 years to establish the next central bank, the Federal...

... about when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer this year, "From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government itself was not to be a substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." 1861 Abraham Lincoln One month after the...

... tariffs to prevent the Southern States from buying cheaper European goods. Europe subsequently retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. Thus the South were being forced to pay more for goods whilst having their income slashed. Otto Von Bismarck This is when the money changers saw the opportunity to divide and conquer America by plunging it into Civil War. This is confirmed by Otto Von...

... Northern border. President Lincoln knew he was in trouble, so he went with his Secretary To The Treasury, Salomon P. Chase, to New York to apply for the loans necessary to fund America's defense. The money changers had engineered the war to make the Union fail, and were not about to save it now, so they offered loans at 24% to 36% interest. President Lincoln declined this as they knew he would and...

... notes ... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also." President Lincoln asked Colonel Taylor if the people of the United States would accept the notes, Colonel Taylor said, "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money, as...

... purchase their supplies. President Lincoln would be the last President to issue debt free United States notes, and on this subject he stated, "The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government...

..., but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity." In response to this statement, The Times of London publishes a propaganda piece obviously put out by the bankers, containing the following statement, "If that mischievous financial...

... policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all...

... United States money supply would be created out of debt by the National Banks buying United States Government Bonds and issuing them for reserves for banknotes. On top of this monopoly, the National Banks were allowed to operate under a virtual tax free status. This banking scam is best explained by historian, John Kenneth Galbraith, who stated, "In numerous years following the war, the Federal...

... Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not however pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply." Tsar Alexander II Later this year, Tsar Alexander II gave President Lincoln some unexpected help. The Tsar issued orders that if either England or France actively intervened in the...

... American Civil War, and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war. To show that he wasn't messing about, he sent part of his Pacific Fleet to port in San Francisco. This wasn't because the Tsar was benevolent towards America, instead he was very clever. He, like Otto Von Bismarck in Germany, could clearly see what the money changers were up to, indeed he had already refused...

... following, "The money power preys upon the nations in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy." Salomon P Chase, now President Lincoln's Former Secretary To The Treasury, stated, "My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life...

... European central bankers. It passed the, "Contraction Act," which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to contract the money supply by retiring some of the Greenbacks in circulation. This money contraction and it's disastrous results is explained by Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Walker, in their book, "The Truth In Money Book," in which they state the following, "The hard times which occurred...

... after the Civil War could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead there were a series of money panics, what we call recessions, which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralized control. Eventually the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23rd 1913." This is how the, "Contraction Act...

...," passed by Congress affected America (the money supply goes down purely because currency in circulation is being withdrawn): Year In circulation Approximately per capita 1866 $1,800,000,000 $50.46 1867 $1,300,000,000 $44.00 1876 $600,000,000 $14.60 1886 $400,000,000 $6.67 Therefore in the twenty years since 1866 two thirds of the American money supply had been called in by the bankers, representing a...

... 760% loss in buying power over this twenty years. The money became scarce simply because bank loans were called in and no new ones were given. 1872 Ernest Seyd is sent to America on a mission from the Rothschild owned Bank of England. He is given $100,000 which he is to use to bribe as many Congressmen as necessary, for the purposes of getting silver demonetized, as it had been found in huge...

... quantities in the American West, which would eat into Rothschild's profits. 1873 Ernest Seyd obviously spent his money wisely, as Congress pass the, "Coinage Act," which results in the minting of silver dollars being abruptly stopped. Furthermore, Representative Samuel Hooper, who introduced the bill in the house, even admitted that Ernest Seyd had actually drafted the legislation. 1874 Ernest Seyd himself...

... admitted who was behind the demonetizing of silver in America, when he makes the following statement, "I went to America in the winter of 1872-1873, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interests of those I represented, the governors of the Bank Of England, to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money." 1876 Due to the...

... manipulation of the money supply in America, one third of the workforce is unemployed and unrest is growing. There are even calls for a return to Greenback money or silver money. As a result, Congress creates the, "United States Silver Commission," to investigate the problem. This commission clearly understood that the national bankers were the cause of the problem, with their deliberate contraction of the...

... money supply. An excerpt of their report reads as follows, "The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices ... Without money, civilization could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish, and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,000,000. By the end of the 15th...

... advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as well as oppose the Greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money ... ... To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation issue of money will...

... be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests that we may control legislation." 1878 James Buel's letter clearly had some effect, as although pressure mounted in Congress for change, the press tried to turn the general public away from the truth. An example...

... of silver dollars, ending the 5 year hiatus. However this did not mean that anyone who brought silver to the United States Mint could have it struck into silver dollars, free of charge, as in the period prior to Ernest Seyd's Coinage Act, in 1873. Gold backing of the American currency also remained. However, this Sherman Law did ensure that some money began to flow into the economy again, and...

... coupled with the fact that the bankers now realized that they were still firmly in control, they started issuing loans again and the post Civil War depression was finally over. 1881 James Garfield The American people elect the Republican, James Garfield as the 20th President of the United States. This was a worry to the money changers, because as a Congressman, he had been Chairman of the Appropriations...

... Committee, and was a member of Banking and Currency. The money changers were therefore aware that President Garfield was in full knowledge of their scam on the American people. Indeed following his inauguration, President Garfield stated, "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce ... And when you realize that the entire system is very easily...

... controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." Strangely enough within a few weeks of making that statement, President Garfield was assassinated on 2nd July. 1891 The money changers spent the last decade creating economic booms followed by depressions, so that they could buy up thousands of homes and farms...

... for pennies on the dollar. They were preparing to take the economy down again in the near future, and in a shocking memo sent out by the American Bankers Association, which would come out in the Congressional Record more than twenty years later, the following is stated, "On September 1st 1894 we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money. We will...

... is the issue of more silver money. Senator William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska, a Democrat aged only 36, makes an emotional speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, entitled, "Crown Of Thorns And Cross Of Gold." Senator Bryan stated, "We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall...

... During the early 1900's, the money changers were anxious to advance their business of setting up another private Central Bank for America. Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, stated, or rather threatened, "Unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and...

... far reaching money panic in its history." J. P. Morgan They put Rothschild agent, J. P. Morgan at the forefront of their charge. Interestingly J. P. Morgan's father, Julius Morgan, had been America's financial agent to the British, and after Julius' death, J. P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grenville, who was a long time director of the Bank Of England. This year was the year of the...

... money changers attack. J. P. Morgan and his cohorts secretly crashed the stock market. They were aware that thousands of small banks were so vastly over extended, some only had reserves of 1% under the fraudulent fractional reserve principle. Within only a few days, bank runs became commonplace across the nation. Morgan then stepped up and publicly announced that he would support these failing banks...

.... What he failed to mention is that he would do this by manufacturing money out of nothing. And then what happened, surprise, surprise, Congress let him do it! So, Morgan manufactured $200,000,000 of this completely reserveless private money, purchased goods and services with it, and sent some of it to his branch banks to lend out at interest. As a result, the general public regained confidence in...

... money, but most importantly it meant the banking power was now further consolidated into the hands of a few large banks. 1908 Woodrow Wilson With the widespread financial panic over, J. P. Morgan was hailed as a hero by the then President of Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson, who even crassly or arrogantly stated, "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public...

... of the century, 70% of corporate funding came from profits. Basically, American Industry was becoming independent of the money changers, and the money changers were not about to let that happen. There was also much discussion regarding the name of the new bank, which took place in a conference room in the Jekyll Island Club Hotel. Aldrich believed the word, "bank," should not even appear in the...

... dispersed. This group of conspirators immediately set up an educational fund of $5,000,000 to finance Professors at top universities to endorse the new bank. The new central bank would be very similar to the old Bank Of The United States, in that it would be given a monopoly over United States currency and create that money out of nothing. Also in order to make the public think it was under control of the...

... Government, the plan called for the central bank to be run by a board of governors appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. This would not cause any undue problems for the bankers, as they knew they could use their money to buy influence over the politicians, in order to ensure the men they wanted got appointed to the board of governors. 1912 Charles A. Lindbergh The Aldrich bill is presented...

... to Congress for debate. This was very quickly identified as a bill to benefit the bankers, or an expression for them which was coined at the time, "The Money Trust." During the debate, the Republican, Charles A. Lindbergh stated, "The Aldrich plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people...

..., and subsequently stated, "The ... bill grants just what Wall Street and the big banks for twenty-five years have been striving for - private instead of public control of currency. It (the Glass-Owen bill) does this as completely as the Aldrich bill. Both measures rob the government and the people of all effective control over the public's money, and vest in the banks exclusively the dangerous power...

... to make money among the people scarce or plenty." The debate on this bill was not going well for the banks, with many Senators intimating the bill was corrupt and deceitful, however the bill was approved through the Senate on December 22nd. How did this happen? Because most of the Senators had left town to return home for the Christmas holidays. Furthermore, these Senators had been assured by the...

... Federal Reserve was a system which would run up, essentially, an unlimited Federal debt. The only way to guarantee the payment of interest on this debt was to directly tax the people, as they had done with the Bank Of England. If the Federal Reserve had to rely on contributions from the States, they would be dealing with bigger entities, who could revolt and refuse to pay the interest on their own money...

... these appointments, but as we have seen, that is the idea, because these are the very people hand picked by the bankers who also finance their campaigns, ensuring loyalty to them, not the people. Let's summarize how the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing. It is a four step process: The Federal Open Market Committee approves the purchase of United States Bonds*. The bonds are purchased by the...

... end of the term of the bond, the government repays the bond, plus interest and the bond is destroyed. Let's look at an example of how this works with a Federal Reserve purchase of $1,000,000 of bonds. This then gets turned into over $10,000,000 in bank accounts. The Federal Reserve in effect creates 10% of this totally new $10,000,000 and the banks create the other 90%. To reduce the amount of money...

... in circulation this process is simply reversed. The Federal Reserve sells these bonds to the public and the money flows out of the purchaser's local bank. Loans must be reduced by ten times the amount of the sale, so a Federal Reserve sale of $1,000,000 in bonds, results in $10,000,000 less money in the economy. How does this benefit the bankers, whose representatives met at Jekyll Island? It...

... prevented any future banking reform efforts, as the Federal Reserve was to be the only producer of money. This in turn prevented a proper debt free system of government finance, like President Lincoln's Greenbacks, from making a comeback. Instead, the bond based system of government finance, forced on Lincoln after he created Greenbacks, was now cast in stone. It delegated to the bankers the right to...

... create 90% of our money supply based on a fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking and allowed them to loan out that 90% at interest. It centralized overall control of our nations money supply in the hands of and for the profits of a few men. It established a private central bank with a high degree of independence from effective political control. 1914 The start of World War I. In this war, the...

... German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French. One year after the passage of the Federal Reserve Bill, Representative Charles A Lindbergh Sr., outlined how The Federal Reserve created the, "business cycle," and how they manipulated that to their own advantage. He stated, "To cause high prices...

... purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance." 1915 J. P. Morgan became the sales agent for the, "War Materials Board," to both the British and the French engaged in World War I, and...

... becomes the biggest consumer on the planet, spending 10 million dollars a day. Furthermore, President Woodrow Wilson appointed banker, Bernard Baruch, to head the "War Industries Board." According to historian, James Perloff, both Bernard Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by approximately 200 million dollars during World War I. A lot of people believe the key to an effective money supply is to ensure...

... know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." 1917 The money changers never forgave the Tsars of Russia for both continually opposing their request to set up a central bank in Russia, as well as their support of President Lincoln during the Civil...

... give you a feeling of separateness from life, that idea will give you an enmity towards life, that idea will never allow you to surrender to the whole. The fifth question: Question 5: WHAT IS MONEY AND WHY ARE MOST PEOPLE DEEPLY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT IT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? It is a touchy question, because money is not what it appears. Money is more deep-rooted. Money is not just there outside in the...

... currency notes, it is something to do with your inner mind and attitudes. Money is your love of things, money is your escape from persons, money is your security against death, money is your effort to control life, money is a thousand and one things. Money is not just in the currency notes otherwise things would have been very easy. Money is your love - love of things, not of persons. The most...

... not allow anybody to possess it. People who cannot love persons start loving money because money is a means to possess things. The more money you have, the more things you can possess; and the more things you can possess, the more you can forget about persons. You will have many things but you will not have any contentment because deep contentment comes only when you love a person. The money will...

... not revolt but it cannot respond also, that is the trouble. That's why miserly people become very ugly. Nobody has responded to their love ever. How can you be beautiful without love falling on you, without love showering on you like flowers - how can you be beautiful? You become ugly. You become closed. A man who possesses money or tries to possess money, is miserly and he will always be afraid of...

... freedom because only love can give you freedom; and love can give you freedom only if you give freedom to love. People who are afraid of love become possessive about money. People who love become non- possessive, money doesn't matter much. If it is, it is okay, it can be used; If it is not, that too is okay, because love is such a kingdom that no money can purchase it. Love is such a deep fulfillment...

... that you can be a beggar on the street and you can sing if you have love in your heart. If you have loved and you have been loved, love crowns you, makes a king of you. Money simply makes you ugly. I am not against money. I am not saying: 'Go and throw it away,' because that is another extreme. That is also the last step of the miserly mind. A man who has suffered too much because of money, who has...

... clung to money and could not love anybody or become open, becomes so frustrated in the end that he throws away the money, renounces and goes to the Himalayas, enters a Tibetan monastery and becomes a lama. This man has not understood. If you understand, money can be used, but people who don't understand are either misers, they can't use the money, or they renounce the money, because in renouncing they...

... are also saving the same mind. Now there will be no difficulty in using it: you renounce all and escape. But they cannot use the money, they are afraid of using it. They can renounce, remember this. I have seen misers renouncing completely, totally. A man founded a university in Sagar in India, I was a student there. This man was a rare specimen, his name was Dr. Hari Singh Gaur. I have never come...

... in China. He was one of the best lawyers in the world. He accumulated so much money and then in the end he donated his whole life's savings. The whole university of Sagar is created by a single person's donation. It is one of the most beautiful universities. But when he donated, he donated all. You will be surprised to know that he donated so absolutely that he did not leave a single paise for his...

... children. Now they are fighting in the courts, they have nothing, they are beggars on the street. The miser remains a miser to the very end, even when he renounces. He couldn't give to his children even a single paise but he could renounce the whole. First you can accumulate money like a madman, then one day you understand that you wasted your whole life. When you understand this you become afraid, but...

... the old habit persists. You can give the whole and forget about it and escape, but you cannot share it. If a man of understanding has money he shares it because money is not for itself, it is for life. If he feels that life needs it, love needs it, he can throw it away completely, but it is not a renunciation, it is again using it. Love is the goal for him; money is never the goal, money is the...

... means. For people who are after money, money is the goal, love becomes just a means. Even their prayer is for money; even prayer becomes a means to money. Money is a very complex phenomenon. Why do people get so much into it, and so many people at that? It has a certain appeal, a magnetic appeal. Money has a hypnotic appeal in it and the appeal is that you can possess it completely. Money is very...

... docile, it becomes a slave. The ego feels very fulfilled. Love is not docile, love is rebellious. You cannot possess love. You can possess a woman, you can possess a man, but you can never possess love. If you possess a woman, the woman has become money, a thing; if you possess a man, the man has become money, a thing, an instrument. A man is a man and a woman is a woman only when they are an end unto...

... themselves, not a means to anything else. Money is the means, and to become obsessed with the means is the greatest foolishness that can occur to a man and the greatest curse. Money should not become the goal, but I am not saying at the same time that you should renounce it and become beggars - use it, it is a good means. I'm not against money, I have nothing to say against it. I am saying something about...

... you and your possessiveness, not about money. Money can be beautiful - if it is not possessed, if you don't become obsessed with it. It can be beautiful. Money is like blood circulating in the body: in the body of society money circulates, it is blood. It helps society to be enriched, to be alive - but it is like blood. You must have heard about diseases in which the blood stops and cannot circulate...

..., clots of blood come into existence and they become blocks and the blood cannot circulate in the body. Then you are paralyzed, and if the clots happen in the heart you are dead. If money circulates, moves from one hand to another, goes on moving, the more movement the better, then the blood circulates well, then life is healthy. But when a miser comes in, a clot has happened; somewhere somebody is...

... accumulating, not sharing, and that is a clot in the blood circulation. The man disturbs, he does not live himself and because of his blocking he does not allow others to live. The money has stopped circulating. Blood circulating is life, blood stopped, blocked, is death. Money circulating is life, money stopped, blocked, is death. I'm for a society where money moves fast, nobody clings to it, everybody uses...

... it, and you remember that the simple law of money is: the more you use it, the more valuable it is. For example, we are sitting here. If ten persons have a hundred rupees in their pockets, and they keep it to themselves, then ten persons have only one thousand rupees, dead. But when those rupees circulate, if they make two rounds, ten thousand have become twenty thousand; if they make three rounds...

... they have become thirty thousand; and if they make four rounds.... The more they circulate, the more money there is, because when one hundred rupees are kept by one man those hundred rupees are dead. If he uses them they go to somebody else, then they come to him again because others are also using them; now he has two hundred rupees, and again three hundred, four hundred, five hundred.... The more...

... you use it, the more money floats and circulates, and the richer society is. America is richest because America is the least miserly country in the world. Money circulates fast; everybody is using that money which he has, and even that money which he is going to have in the future, he is using it too. The country is bound to become rich. A country like India is bound to remain poor because people...

... cling. If you cling to money the country will remain poor. When nobody uses it, money becomes like clots in blood. India has two types of people: misers and renouncers. Both these types are wrong, ill, abnormal, neurotic. One should have money, earn money, produce money - and use it. One should hold it only to use and one should use it only to hold; it becomes a circle. Then a person is both, a miser...

... and a renouncer together. When you are miser and renouncer together you are neither miser nor renouncer, you simply enjoy whatsoever money can give. Money can give many things and money cannot give many things; when you use it then you know what money can give. Money can give all that is outward - things of this world, nothing is wrong in them. Nothing is wrong in having a beautiful house. Nothing...

... is wrong in having a beautiful garden - money can give it to you. But money cannot give you love, that is expecting too much from poor money. One should expect only that which can be expected, one should not move in the impossibilities..Just asking poor money to give you love - poor money cannot do it. But nothing is wrong, don't get angry with the money! Don't burn it and throw it in the river and...

... go to the Himalayas. In the first place you asked something which a man of understanding would never have asked - you are foolish, that's all. Nothing is wrong with the money. A wandering monk came to see me two or three years ago and he was very much against money. He would not even touch it - this is a neurosis. There are people who only count money the whole day, and in the night also, in their...

... minds, they go on counting. They touch only money with a loving hand, they never touch anybody else with a loving hand. When they look at their currency notes, watch their eyes - they sparkle. They are hypnotized. These are neurotic people. Then there are other neurotics... This wandering monk came to me, he would not touch money. So I said: Then it must be very difficult for you. How did you come to...

... Bombay to see me? He said: There is nothing difficult. He showed two other men, his disciples: they could touch, they were not such evolved beings. What foolishness! They could purchase the ticket and they could keep the money, but for him, he said: I don't touch, I have gone far beyond it. I said: But what is the point? Now you are not only using money, you are using two other persons as your pockets...

.... You have reduced two persons, alive persons, to pockets; you have murdered. What was wrong in keeping it in your own pocket? And the man said: So it seems you are in favour of money? What can money give? Can money give love? Can money give God? I said: You are foolish if you ask love and God from poor money, your expectations are false. Money never promised them to you, but whatsoever money promises...

... it can give. It never promises that it can give you love. If you expect it you are idiotic. These people who have been expecting too much from money one day become enemies of money. Then they escape, then they don't touch money. Even Vinoba closes his eyes if you bring money to him, he will not see it. What nonsense! What is wrong in money? Something still seems to be miserly inside, something...

... still seems to be like a wound, otherwise why close your eyes? What is wrong in a currency note? It is just paper, and these spiritual people go on saying that it is just paper. If you put ordinary paper in their hands, they touch it, but when you put a currency note there they throw it away as if it is a scorpion or very deadly disease. Neurosis can move from one extreme to another. Use money. Money...

..., ordinary, and just create more understanding so that you can see. Money can be used, should be used, it can give you a beautiful world. Otherwise, sooner or later, if you are against money you will create a dirty country like India: everything is dirty - but they think they are great spiritualists. Everything has gone ugly but they think they are great spiritualists because they have renounced. That's...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 46         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 46a then he may say. 'Let it [sc. the produce] be redeemed for the money I have at home.'1  Hence it is because he has no money with him;2  but if he had money in his hand he should rather give possession...

... thereof to his friend through meshikah,3  who would then redeem [the tithe], which is a preferable [procedure], since he would then be a [real] stranger.4  But if you say that coin may be acquired through barter, let him [the tithe-owner] give possession of the money [he has at home] to his friend by means of a scarf, and then let the latter redeem it!5  — The latter has no scarf...

... — retracted, as we find that R. Papa had thirteen thousand denarii at Be-Huzae,10  which he transferred to R. Samuel b. Aha along with the threshold of his house.11  When he [R. Samuel b. Aha] came [with the money], he [R. Papa] went forth to meet him up to Tauak.12 [To revert to the original discussion:] And 'Ulla said likewise: Coin cannot effect a barter; and R. Assi said likewise...

...: Coin cannot effect a barter; and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said likewise in R. Johanan's name: Coin cannot effect a barter. R. Abba raised an objection against 'Ulla: If his carters or labourers demanded [their wages] from a man in the market place, and he said to a money-changer, 'Give me copper coins for a denar, and I will pay them,13  whilst I will return you a denar's worth14  and a...

... tressis15  Out of the coins which I have at home:' then if he has money at home, it is permitted; otherwise, it is forbidden.16  Now, should you think that coin cannot effect a barter, it is a loan, and hence forbidden!17  Thereupon he was silent. Said he to him: Perhaps both18  refer to uncoined metal which bear no imprint.19  so that they rank as produce, and therefore may be...

... is why the Tanna recommends that particular procedure, explicitly stating that it is to be followed when the tithe owner has no money with him. V. Glos. I.e., if he gave the money to his neighbour, whilst retaining the produce himself, his friend would actually be redeeming a tithe that is not his own! That is not such a glaring evasion as when a person gives the produce to his neighbour and then...

... redeems it himself, and therefore is preferable; and the Tanna obviously permits the other procedure only because the latter is impossible, since the tithe owner has not the money with him. Instead of his gifting the produce to him, let his friend give him a scarf or handkerchief as halifin (v. supra p. 30. n. 3), for the money, and then redeem the tithe with this money (which need not actually be in...

... his hand for the purpose of redemption), since the Tanna prefers this procedure. Hence it follows that money cannot be acquired through barter. I.e., the tithe owner should have given him a piece of soil, in virtue of which his friend could acquire the money too, it being a general principle that movables may be acquired by dint of real estate (Kid. 26a). — This is not an objection against the...

... view that money can be acquired through barter, but is a difficulty that arises in this Mishnah itself. Rashi recognises it as such, and though Tosaf. attempts to shew that it is indeed an objection against the opinion just mentioned, the reasoning is not very plausible. It is quite possible that this passage bearing on the acquisition of money by dint of real estate is a later editorial...

... interpolation. V. Kaplan. Redaction of the Talmud. Ch. XIII. But merely rented. This reverts to the objection that his friend should have acquired the money through barter, to which the answer was given that he had no scarf wherewith to effect the barter. This of course must mean that he had nothing at all, since any object can be used for the purpose, and so the Talmud objects further: surely the Tanna did...

... purpose in transferring the money was that R Samuel b. Aba should bring it to him from Be-Huzae; without such transference, the bailee might have refused to let it out of his possession, as he would then have to bear the risks of the road. V.B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 310 and nn. Lit., 'supply them'. The Heb. expression is very peculiar, [H]. At this stage, this was thought to be the equivalent of [H] a good...

..., I.e., current denar. A coin worth three issars. The text has [H], an incorrect form of [H] (Jast.). It was assumed that the reason is this: If he has money at home, immediately he takes possession of the coins the money-changer acquires the ownership of the money at home by the process of barter; hence there is no usury, since theoretically the banker does not wait for his money. But this cannot...

... operate if he has no money, in which case it is a pure loan upon which the tressis is interest. V. preceding note; the reasoning there is possible only on the assumption that coin can effect a barter. Sc. that which is given by the banker, and that which is returned. Uncoined pieces of metal were used as small change. V. p. 274. n. 6. V. infra 75a. The preceding discussion has assumed that the only...

... so'?-It means this: Money sometimes ranks as [an object of] barter. How so? If one bartered the money of an ox for a cow, or the money of an ass for an ox.4  What is R. Nahman's reason?5  He agrees with R. Johanan, who said: Biblically Speaking, [the delivery of] money effects a title. Why then was it said that only meshikah gives possession? As a precautionary measure, lest he say to him...

... a barter, whilst money does not effect a title [at all], how can he explain it?9 — You are forced to assume that he explains it as R. Shesheth. We learnt: ALL MOVABLES ACQUIRE EACH OTHER, whereon Resh Lakish said: Even a purse full of money [when bartered] for a purse full of money.10 — R. Aha interpreted it as referring to the Bithynian and Ancyrean11  denarii, one of...

... which was cancelled by the State, and one by local authorities.12  And both are necessary. For if we were taught this of State cancellation,13  that is because such coins have no [official] currency at all; but in the case of local repeal, since these coins circulate in another province, I might regard them as money, which cannot be acquired through barter. Whilst if it were stated in...

... Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., anything but money. which needs no assessment. I.e., why is an instance given which does not illustrate the use of money as barter? Heb. [H] whilst this term is generally applicable only to objects of the vegetable kingdom, it may also be used, as here, to denote the animal kingdom too, in contradistinction to [H...

...], articles or utensils of use. E.g. A sold an ox to B for a certain sum of money, and B took possession, thereby becoming indebted to A for the purchase price. Then B said, 'I have a cow which I can give you for the purchase price of the ox,' to which A agreed. Now, notwithstanding that this is theoretically a fresh transaction, viz., B sells a cow to A, the money owing by B for the ox being regarded as...

... though delivered to him by A for the cow, and it is a principle that the delivery of money alone does not consummate a purchase, it does so in this case, and neither can retract; i.e., it is barter, not payment. Why in fact should it be regarded as barter here, though normally money does not effect a title? V. infra 47b. I.e., such a transaction as the one under discussion is unusual; consequently, the...

... Biblical law operates. Hence the delivery of the money effects a title, and neither can withdraw. The Mishnah under discussion. For, as we have seen, it involves either that produce can effect a barter, or that money should effect a title. This proves that money can effect a barter. Bithynia, a district in Asia Minor; Ancyra, a city of Galatia in Asia Minor (Jast.). [Zuckermann, Munzen, p. 33, on basis...

... consummated, and neither can retract, though normally the delivery of money does not effect a title. The Talmud proceeds to discuss the reason for this. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                                                       ...

...Jewish Power and America's Money Famine...

... Jewish Power and America's Money Famine Jewish Power and America's Money Famine The International Jew, by Henry Ford   The international Jewish banker who has no country but plays them all against one another, and the International Jewish proletariat that roams from land to land in search of a peculiar type of economic opportunity, are not figments of the imagination except to the non-Jew...

... who prefers a lazy laxity of mind. Of these classes of Jews, one or both are at the heart of the problems that disturb the world today. The immigration problem is Jewish. The money question is Jewish. The tie-up of world politics is Jewish. The terms of the Peace Treaty are Jewish. The diplomacy of the world is Jewish. The moral question in movies and theaters is Jewish. The mystery of the illicit...

... are, and as no doubt most are not. To say that the money question is Jewish does not mean that Jews must get out of finance; it means that they must rid finance of the Jewish idea, which has always been to use money to get a strangle-hold on men and business concerns, instead of using finance to help general business. To say that the tie-up of world politics is Jewish does not mean that Jews, as...

...." A nation is being hamstrung by artificial exchange rates; another by the sucking of money out of its channels of trade; what of it to the international banker? — he has his own game to play. Hard times bring more plums tumbling off the tree into the baskets of the international bankers than does any other kind of times. Wars and panics are the Jewish international bankers' harvests...

... deliberately organized and stimulated among the people. That phase over, and money disappeared. Is there any more tragic joke than that diligently disseminated in this country — "The United States has more gold than any other country in the world"? Where is it? How long since you have seen a piece of gold? Where is all this gold — is it locked up in the Treasury of the United States...

... small loans, are wondering where all this money is. Furthermore, Europe, suffering from every possible lack, is looking to us and wondering where the money is. This dispatch in a London paper may throw light on the matter: (italics are ours) "It is learned today that new gold shipments aggregating $2,800,000 are consigned to Kuhn, Loeb & Company, New York, making nearly $129,000,000 imported...

... to Norway, is not devoid of light on the question — Where is the money? The Jewish international banking system may be easily described. First, there is the international Jewish headquarters. This was in Germany. It had ramifications in Russia, Italy, France, Great Britain and the South American states. (South American Jewry is very menacing.) Germany and Russia were the two countries...

... of the same System. Mr. Warburg, whose name was so prominently connected with the advertisement of the glory of the System, must also stand being mentioned in connection with the criticism. Whatever money we are said to have as the per capita in the United States, it is a false statement. The money per capita should always be figured on the basis of money in circulation. The statistical "per...

... capita" is not always in circulation. Less than half of it, as a rule. The rest is being juggled. Whatever the gold in the country, the wealth is still greater. There is more wealth in the United States than there is gold in the world. One year's products of the farms of the United States exceeds in money value all the gold in the world. Yet, under our present system, the burgeoning bulk of the...

... country's wealth must pass through the narrow neck of Money. And the Money must pass through the still narrower neck of Gold. And the controller of the Gold, under our present system, controls the world. There is more wealth than there is money; there is more money than there is gold; money exists at the pleasure of gold; wealth moves at the pleasure of money. Whoever sits at the neck of money, opening or...

... on, only the final one being cleared in money. It is a device which has its dangers, in spite of the efforts of apologists to exploit its advantages. But one thing the system of Credit indubitably does — it allows the money masters to hang on to the Cash. When the world is caught, it is caught with paper, not with Cash. The Cash is always in the hands of those who extol the advantage of the...

... Credit System. Who holds money holds power, and will hold it, until real barter or real money comes in fashion again. In 1919-1920, according to one of the best monetary authorities in the United States, the total shrinkage in values of the products of our fields, mines, factories, mills and forests represented a sum greater than the total gold supply of the world. It runs as high as the total amount...

... of Liberty Bonds outstanding. People say, "Well, the prices were too high." Certainly they were too high, but who and what made them too high? It was the generosity with which money was supplied by the private Federal Reserve System. There was plenty of money. People say, "Well, the shrinkage is only in paper values; the real value of the product is still there." Certainly, but...

... when you live under a system in which "real" value and "money" value are so intimately intertwined that it affects your bread and butter, the tenure of your farm, and the steadiness of your job, it is pretty hard to separate the two. Moreover, when your prosperity was due to the readiness of a group of men to let out money, and your adversity is due to the unwillingness of the...

... same group, and your own welfare and your country's welfare is thus see-sawed up and down without any reference to natural law but solely upon determinations taken in committee rooms, you naturally inquire, "Who is doing this? Where is all the money gone? Who is holding it? Here is the wealth of the country; here is the need of the country; where is the money to transfer the wealth to the need...

...? Every condition remains as it was, except money." We have a Federal Reserve System which still is benefiting by the assistance of its perfector and director, Paul M . Warburg. And what is the condition in the United States? Some of the biggest industrial institutions in the country now in the hands of creditors' committees. Farmers being sold out by the hundreds, their horses bringing about $3...

... each. Cotton and wool enough to clothe the nation, spoiling in the hands of the men who raised it and cannot dispose of it. Every line of business, railroading, newspaper publishing, store-keeping, manufacturing, agriculture, building, in depression. Why? For lack of money. Where is the money? This is a country that is supposed to be the financial center of the world — where is the money? It is...

... in New York. The Federal Reserve System, which Mr. Warburg desired to head up in one central bank, has just about turned out that way. The money is in New York. Here is the charge made to the governor of the Federal Reserve Board by a responsible public official who knows: While there is a scarcity of money for the producing sections of the West and Northwest, the South and Southwest, "we find...

... Bank more than the Richmond Reserve Bank would lend to all its member banks in Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina and the larger part of West Virginia. That is the situation. The twelve regional banks, which were supposed to make money serve all parts of the country equally, have apparently been "overcome in an administrative way" to such an extent that the New York Federal...

... Reserve Bank is to all intents and purposes the Central Bank of the United States and serves the speculative part of the country with millions, while the productive part of the country is permitted to wilt with paltry thousands. When it can occur that four New York banks can borrow from the New York Federal Reserve Bank as much money as the banks of 21 states were able to borrow from the five Federal...

... Reserve Banks of St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Dallas and Richmond — there would seem to be need of explanation somewhere. Where did this money loaned in New York come from? It came from those parts of the country where money was scarcest. In May, 1920, the word went out over telephones — "The tie-up will come on the 15th." And it came. Credit was stopped. Payment was...

... pressed. A stream of money, literally squeezed out of the producing sections of the country, began to roll toward New York. Otherwise those giant loans just recorded would have been impossible. It was pressure, Federal Reserve pressure, politely known as deflation, and that is the way it worked. The banks of the West were squeezed dry that the banks of New York might overflow. "The money was...

... withdrawn from legitimate business in various parts of the country to be loaned at fancy rates in Wall Street," says the official referred to above. The speculative banks, it has been discovered, were able to borrow money at six percent, which money they loaned at as high as 20, 25, and 30 percent. Federal Reserve deflation created a scarcity which speculative banks utilized. The Federal Reserve...

... policy took the money out; New York banks borrowed the money taken out and loaned it at tremendous rates — rates which people paid to stave off the ruin caused by the moneyless condition which the ill-measured deflation process brought on. And all this time the Federal Reserve System was in the best financial condition of its whole career. In December, 1920, it had 45 percent of its reserves...

..., which was a higher reserve than it had in December, 1919. But at this writing (July, 1921) the reserve has reached 60 percent. The money is in New York. Go out through the agricultural states, and you will not find it. Go into the districts of silent factories and you will not find it. It is in New York. The Warburg Federal Reserve has deflated the country. A System that was intended to equalize the...

... ups and downs of financial weather has been used "in an administrative" way to deplete the country of money. The Federal Reserve Idea was doubtless right; if it had not been, it could not have been established. But it has been manipulated. It has not been a "federal" reserve; it has been a private reserve. It has been operated in the interest of bankers and not of everyone in...

... general. Capable of being used to carry the country gradually back to a natural flow of business and to a natural level of prices, it was used to bludgeon business at a critical time and to bludgeon it in such a way that money-lenders profited when producers suffered. If that is the fact, there is no American banker but will say that the method was wrong; economically wrong, logically wrong...

..., commercially wrong, if not criminally wrong. Today the Federal Reserve boasts of its own reserve as if that were a sign of national economic health. With the country struggling to live, the Federal Reserve ought to be low, not high. The height which the reserve has reached is a measure of the depth of the country's depression. If the Federal Reserve would let out a part of that flood of money — a high...

... financial authority suggests that less than 10 percent would do it — it would be like an infusion of blood into the nation's veins. Kuhn, Loeb & Company, the Speyers and the other Jewish money-lenders have money for Mexico, Norway, Germany, and all sorts of commercial companies being organized to do business overseas, and it is American money. The Warburg Federal Reserve System has been badly...

... misused, badly manipulated, and the country is suffering from it. Still, the people know not what to do. Money is still a mystery. Banking is still sacrosanct. What would be perfectly apparent if done in ordinary business intercourse with a $5 bill, is exceedingly complicated when the sum is five millions and the parties are (1) country banks, (2) Federal Reserve banks and (3) Wall Street speculative...

... NAZIRITESHIP.9  BUT A WOMAN CANNOT DO SO. WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, A MAN'S FATHER HAD BEEN A NAZIRITE, AND HAS SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR [THE SACRIFICES OF] HIS NAZIRITESHIP AND DIED AND [THE SON THEN] SAID, 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE ON CONDITION THAT I MAY POLL WITH MY FATHER'S MONEY. R. JOSE SAID THAT THESE MONEYS ARE TO BE USED FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS AND THAT SUCH A MAN CANNOT POLL AT THE...

... EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP. WHO CAN DO SO? HE WHO WAS A NAZIRITE TOGETHER WITH HIS FATHER, AND WHOSE FATHER HAD SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR HIS NAZIRITE [SACRIFICES] AND DIED. [ONLY] SUCH A MAN CAN POLL AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP.10 GEMARA. Why [cannot a woman poll with her father's money]? — R. Johanan said: It is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite...

... is a long way off. I.e., how do you account for the acceptance by Rabban Gamaliel of the double vow without further ado, since R. Hanina might reach manhood during the naziriteship. If the boy does not wish to be examined. I.e., observe a naziriteship of sixty days, instead of thirty, so that all contingencies are covered. I.e., may purchase the sacrifices due on polling with money set apart for...

... his father's sacrifices. Many MSS. (v. Tosaf.) reverse these two examples, making R. Jose permit him to poll if he becomes a nazirite afterwards, but not if he is a nazirite together with his father. In the parallel passage Tosef. Naz. III, there is the same MS. confusion. Cf. also supra 17b, and infra 30b, No justification is therefore needed. And so she could not obtain the money. For the rules of...

... subsequent clause also?2  Come and hear: In what circumstances was it said that a man may poll at the expense of his father's naziriteship? Where his father who had been a nazirite set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, and [the son then] said, 'I declare myself a nazirite on condition that I may poll with my father's money,' he [the son] is permitted to poll with his...

... father's money. But where both he and his father were nazirites together, and his father set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, the money is to be used for freewill-offerings. The above is the opinion of R. Jose.3  R. Eliezer,4  R. Meir and R. Judah said: Just such a one may poll with his father's money.5 Rabbah raised the problem: Suppose [the nazirite] has two sons...

..., both nazirites,6  what is the law? Did the tradition state [simply] that there is a halachah,7  so that the one who was first [to become a nazirite] may poll, or did it state [that the son may use the money because it is his] inheritance and so they divide it? Raba raised the problem: Suppose [the sons were] the firstborn8  and another, what would the law be? Was the tradition received...

... as a halachah and [the first-born] is therefore not entitled to receive for polling the same proportion as he receives [of the rest of the estate], or is [the money for the nazirite sacrifices, part of his] inheritance, and just as he takes a double portion there, so also is it with the [money for] polling? Should it be decided that [the money for the nazirite sacrifices is part of] the inheritance...

..., so that [the first-born] receives for polling in proportion to what he receives [of the rest of the estate], does [the first-born] receive a double portion only when [the money] is profane, but not when it becomes sacred,9  or is there no difference, seeing that he has acquired [a double portion] for polling?10 Suppose his father was a life-nazirite11  and he an ordinary nazirite, or his...

.... Eleazar b. Shamua, the colleague of the other Rabbis mentioned. Tosef. Naz. III. 9. Hence, (a) these Rabbis differ from R. Jose. (b) the difference covers both cases, for the 'Just such a one' is emphatic. So Rashi. Tosaf., Maim. Yad. (Neziruth VIII, 15), and most other commentators, however, consider that in the opinion of these Rabbis he may use his father's money under all circumstances. And then...

... dies, leaving money for sacrifices. A ruling. Viz.: that it is possible for the son to use the money left by his father for his own naziriteship, no reason being given as to why he may do so. Who is entitled to a double portion of the heritage. V. Deut. XXI, 17. I.e., he receives two thirds of the money left towards his own nazirite sacrifices, but after the animals have been slaughtered and...

... sacrificed he must return part of the sacred meat to his brother, so that each obtains just half of the meat which is to be eaten. — This question is raised because except for unslaughtered peace-offerings a first-born does not obtain a double portion of the sacred animals left at his father's death. And so he will also keep a double portion of the meat. And he put aside money for his naziriteship...

... and died. I.e., may the son use the money for his own naziriteship or not? And he may not use the money. And he may use the money. Of the father and of the son. And there is no distinction between the kind of naziriteship undertaken. And he had set aside money to buy the sacrifices required for purification (v. Hum. VI, 10), and then died. I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices he...

... must offer on completing his naziriteship. And he had set aside money for the sacrifices and then died. I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices of an unclean nazirite. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                                                  ...

... comes in an unnatural form. First it is difficult to recognize it - that it is sex. A person too greedy for money - can you think that this greed for money can have anything to do with suppressed sex? It is so far-fetched it needs a Sigmund Freud to see it. An ordinary person will not be able to connect them at all. How? - money and sex seem to be so far away. They are not so far away. If you repress...

... rich man. He was a bachelor and he had no interest in women at all. His only interest was money - day in, day out he was working for money - but because I was living in his house, somehow he became interested in my ideas. He had a big house and he was alone; his father and mother were dead. He was unmarried with no children - just servants. I liked the place because there was no disturbance, no...

... children, no old people in the house, and no fighting because he had no wife. It was really quiet, and the servants would go in the night, and it was such a big house that we two were almost alone. He was not interested in anything except money. So he would close the doors of his room - there was nobody except me, but he would lock his room from inside and start working: counting how much he had gained...

... with this money? You are not extravagant, you are a miser. You don't have any children for whom you are going to leave the money. You are not so generous that you give it to your friends or to those who are in need. You are not in any way parting from a single pai. What are you going to do? Are you going to take it with you when you die? What is the purpose of this money?" Because money really...

... is meaningless if you don't use it; its whole meaning is in its use. You may have the same amount of money as I have but you can use it in such a way that you are richer than me. The value of the money is in its use. Certainly those who know how to use money use it a thousandfold more than those who don't know. They have the same amount of money, but they are poor. Now this man was a poor man...

.... Money was in the safe, money was in the banks, money was in shares - but he was a poor man. I asked him, "There seems to be no reason for you now to go on earning; you have enough. If you live even two hundred years, it will do. The miserly way you are living, it will do for two thousand years... two hundred I am saying, if you live like me; otherwise two thousand, and still you may not be able...

... to spend it all. You may go on living just on the interest from it forever. Why are you so worried?you cannot sleep well, you don't have any time for anything - and have you ever thought about how this disease happened to you, where you got this cancer?" He said, "I have never thought about it, but you are right. I have enough money, and I can live.... Certainly I am not going to live for...

... two thousand years - even seventy or eighty will be enough. My father died at seventy, his father died at seventy, so I cannot live more than seventy or perhaps eighty years. Yes," he said, "this makes sense. But can you tell me why I am doing this?" I said, "For a simple reason: you have avoided women in your life." He said, "But what have women and money to do with...

... problem. Seeing the situation of his grandfather, uncle, father, neighbors and then listening to the Jaina monks, it became a decided thing in his mind that he was not going to get involved in this constant headache. I told him, "That's from where your interest in money arises. The energy needs some object, some infatuation." And I told him, "You may feel hurt, but I have to say it: I...

... me - even the notes of other people. For example, sometimes he would come into my room and if there was some money on the table - because that was the only place for me to keep it - the first thing he would do was count it, and I would tell him, "This is simply foolish. That is not your money, why are you counting it?" He said, "I simply enjoy it... it is not so important to whom it...

... belongs." Can you see the point? If you become interested in somebody else's wife, do you think of who she belongs to? There is no question of whom she belongs to - she looks beautiful, that's all, so you are interested. Whomsoever she belongs to is not your business. Exactly this was the case with him: money is money, it is nobody's really. And just to touch it, to count it, to play with it.... I...

... told him, "If you want to get rid of this infatuation with money, which is absolutely idiotic...." I am not against money, I am against the infatuation. The man who is infatuated with money cannot use it. He is really destroying the money, its very purpose. In every language, in all the languages of the world money's other name is currency - that is significant. Money needs to be a current...

... gets it immediately uses it - so it passes through one hundred hands - then it is one hundred dollars multiplied by one hundred; then that much money is here in this room. The miser is really anti-money. He is destroying its utility because he is stopping it being a "currency". I told him, "You do one thing: become interested in a woman." He said, "What!" I said, "...

..., "Why?" I said, "Because of all the money! She is not going to be interested in you, she is going to be interested in your money. And once you become interested in the woman, you will start spending money; you will relax. The energy that has become perverted will start moving in the natural way. And you can't find anybody better than a woman to finish your money. You will not need to...

... live two thousand years; long before that the money will be gone. And once you become interested in a woman, your infatuation with money will drop to its natural state." He said, "I will have to think it over." I said, "You can think it over, but don't waste too much time because right now you are almost forty- five. Once you are over sixty, then it will be difficult even for me...

... to make an arrangement. So don't waste fifteen years. Think about it tonight and tomorrow morning when we meet, you tell me." He could not sleep the whole night. He thought about it again and again, and slowly the thing became clear to him: "Yes, deep down it is women, and I am constantly keeping myself occupied with money in order to avoid women, because if there is no space, no time...

..., then from where can the woman enter? And why I am so infatuated now makes sense. It is a substitute woman." So this greed for money, this greed for power, this greed for fame... sex can take any form, it will depend on the type of person. You will be aware of the fact that although poets continually write poetry about women, most of the poets have remained away from women. Most of the great...

..., why should poets write about women? - they don't have much experience, they are almost monks. Why do painters go on painting nude women? Why do sculptors go on making marble statues of nude women? For what? This is all perversion! It is better than collecting money or going into politics, but still it is a perversion. They are satisfying their natural instinct in an unnatural way. So on the one hand...

... to open the door, and that will be their fall. I told this friend, "You just try - there is no harm. The women who come to me are not poor and they will not ask for money or any costly present from you. And I will be introducing you only as a friend, just so that you can have a little acquaintance with women." Next morning he said, "I am ready. And perhaps you are right, I will lose...

... my interest in money. The whole night I thought about it, weighed it up: what should I do? But finally I thought that perhaps it is right, that what I am gathering is rubbish." I introduced him to a woman to whom he got married within six months - and I finished his career! He was thinking of becoming the richest man in the city... but then the woman started using his money. Every day he would...

... see me, and he would say, "You have got me into trouble, there is no end to her demands. And I have lost interest in money, so I am no longer after it as madly as you have known me to be. If it comes it is okay, if it doesn't come I don't bother; but she is continually spending. Now, two hundred years or eighty years... I think she will finish me nearabout sixty or before. But you were right...

...." I said, "Now there is a possibility; before that, there was no possibility. If you had renounced money, you would have been renouncing something which is not at all a natural instinct in you. You would have been renouncing only a path of perversion without knowing that it was a perversion, and the perversion would have taken another path. You may not have been after money, you may have got...

... involved in politics - then power would have become the same problem. But now you are on natural ground. "Any transformation can happen only when you are a natural human being." The philosophy of renunciation is that you renounce money.... I know - because money is an artificial thing, man-made - that even renouncing it is not going to lead you anywhere. These people will say, "Renounce...

... through the window. A beggar came and told me that his mother had just died and he needed some money for her funeral rituals, so I gave him one rupee. He could not believe it, because he must have been begging his whole life and nobody gives one rupee. He looked at me. I said, "I have given it to you knowingly. Your mother is dead. You go home and do something." The man thought, "This man...

... would I get money? So this was the arrangement: one of my students used to take my car and park it in the same place where I would normally park it. The car was always parked there; that was a symbol that I was in the university. I told him, "So park the car there at two o'clock and at four o'clock take it away - just two hours. Everybody should know it is there because that is the rush hour...

... him to come." He said, "You don't understand - I have renounced money." I said, "You are making it more and more of a puzzle! You have renounced money, perfectly good, but what has that to do with this man and his engagement tomorrow morning, and your coming to my meditation group?" He said, "Are you not aware of a simple thing: "I cannot touch money, so he keeps...

... the money for me. And in Bombay you have to go in a taxi - then who will pay? I cannot touch money, I have renounced it. He keeps the money: he pays out the money and if somebody donates money to me, he receives it. I am completely out of it; I have nothing to do with money." I said, "Good arrangement! You have nothing to do with money, then what have you to do with this man? You will go...

... to heaven and this man will go to hell, and he, poor man, is simply serving you continually, following you everywhere - and yet he is going to hell! If you have renounced money, then live without money, then suffer without money. Why send this man to hell? You will be responsible for sending this man to hell. You will fall into a deeper hell than this man." People can find strange ways because...

... they have not understood what they are doing; they are simply following a dead creed, a dead dogma. Because for centuries money has been condemned by the religious people, they are renouncing it. I said, "But it is becoming more complicated. It would have been simple to put your hand in your own pocket; now you have to put it in somebody else's pocket. That is pickpocketing." I said, "...

...;You are also a thief What are you doing? And you are a bigger pickpocket than others because at least they use their hand - you use his hand, picking up money from his pocket. His pocket, his hand, and you are completely above it - superior." I said to the disciple, "You escape right now, leave this man here. I will not allow him to go with you. Just escape as far as you can, where he...

... cannot find you again, because he is managing and arranging for your hell. And whatever money you have, it is yours, because he has renounced money. He cannot claim it." He said, "Is it so - all the money?" I said, "What do you mean by'all the money'?" He said, "Right now when we go somewhere, I keep just two or three hundred rupees in my pocket - but at our temple we have...

... thousands." I said, "All that money is yours. You simply go. I will keep this man here, so you take all that money and escape. And if this man leaves here I will give him to the police because he has renounced money. He cannot even report to the police that his money is stolen." The monk said, "What! I came here to learn meditation." I said, "I am teaching you what...

... Babylonian Talmud: Nazir 26         Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir Folio 26a who set aside money for this purpose and then desire to use it to provide an animal1  as sin-offering, or as burnt-offering can do so. Should such a one die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be used to provide freewill...

...-offerings'?2  — He mentions the nazirite, meaning also [to include] those required to offer birds whose case is similar,3  but excluding [the following case]. For it has been taught: If a man, under an obligation to offer a sin-offering, says, 'I undertake to provide a burnt-offering,' and sets aside money saying, 'This is for my obligation,' should he then desire to provide from it either...

... a sin-offering or a burnt-offering he must not do so.4  Should he die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be taken to the Dead Sea.5 R. Ashi said: In the statement6  that moneys earmarked must not be used [for freewill-offerings], you should not presume [the meaning to be] that he said, 'This [portion] is for my sin-offering, this for my burnt-offering, and this for my peace-offering...

...,' for even if he says simply, '[All] this is for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering,' it counts as earmarked money.7  Others say that R. Ashi said, Do not presume that he must say, '[All] this is for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering,' for even if he says, '[All] this is for my obligation,' it is regarded as earmarked money.8 Raba said: Though we have said that a...

... lump sum of money is to be used for freewill-offerings, yet if the money for the sin-offering becomes separated from the rest,9  all is regarded as earmarked. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files If they become more affluent. Thus the ruling applies to these as well as to the nazirite. Since their obligation to provide both a sin-offering and a burnt...

...-offering springs from a single source, and they are not separate obligations. Here the obligations are separate. What he must do is to add more money and buy both animals at the same time (Tosaf.). The traditional ruling does not apply here, and there is now no remedy since a sin-offering cannot be brought after death. Tosef. Me'il. I, 5. In the various texts quoted above. And must not be used for...

...-offering and the remainder for the rest of my nazirite obligations,' [and then dies,] the money for the sinoffering is to be cast into the Dead Sea, and the rest is to be used, half to provide a burnt-offering, and half, a peace-offering.1  The law of malappropriation applies to the whole of it,2  but not to any separate part of it.3  [If he says,] 'This is for my burnt-offering and the...

... remainder for the rest of my nazirite obligations,' [and then dies,] the money for the burnt-offering is to be used for a burnt-offering and it can suffer malappropriation, whilst the rest is to be used to provide freewill-offerings and can suffer malappropriation.4 Rab Huna, citing Rab, said that [our rule]5  applies only to money, but animals would be regarded as earmarked.6  R. Nahman added...

... these Rabbis?11  Is it that they interpret money',12  as meaning neither animals, nor bars of silver, nor piles of timber [as the case may be]? For if so, they should also say money' but not birds.13  Should you reply that they do make this distinction too, how comes R. Hisda to say that birds14  do not become earmarked except [when earmarked] by the owner at their purchase, or by...

... the priest at their preparation,15  seeing that our tradition is that only money [is regarded as unspecified]? — - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files In agreement with Raba. Since the money for the burnt-offering can suffer malappropriation. Since the money for the peace-offering may be in the part used, and a peace-offering does not suffer...

... malappropriation. Adopting an emendation of the Wilna Gaon after the text of Tosef. Me'il. I, 5. Our texts read: 'The law of malappropriation applies to the whole of it, but not to any part of it.' This cannot be the case since all the rest is to be used for freewill burnt-offerings which suffer malappropriation. Regarding the disposition of a lump sum of money. Even if they were not the animals that a nazirite...

... must bring (v. Tosaf. and Asheri for various explanations of the distinctions). Possibly the reason is that it can be assumed that he intended to exchange each one for one of the animals suitable for his sacrifice. He would have to sell these first in order to purchase others, and would not think of them In terms of animals but in terms of money. He would not sell the silver to buy animals, in order...

... not to lose on the two transactions, but would await his opportunity to barter for animals. They are easily convertible into money at a very small loss, and would therefore naturally be thought of in terms of money. Which would not be sold, in order to avoid loss, but bartered for animals. Rab, R. Nahman and R. Nahman b. Isaac. In the phrase, 'money in a lump sum,' occurring in our Mishnah and the...

... other texts. I.e., they should regard birds as specified. Lit., 'nests', i.e., the pair of birds brought as offerings; cf. e.g., Lev. XII, 8. But not by the mere purchase. Hence if the owner dies, the pair is indeterminate and becomes a freewill-offering in the cases considered, contrary to the assumption that this is true only of money. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference      ...

... seller's creditor who has written evidence as to his claim is that the writing of the document ensures publicity, which should prevent people from advancing money on such property. A trial in Court has the same effect as regards publicity and the consequent warning to would-be mortgagees. How could it be said with certainty that cases would arise where a person who acquired a field wrongfully would be...

... field from a robber and has to return it to the rightful owner cannot claim compensation for the improvement he made in it? The robber repays with land, not with money, and therefore the additional amount paid for the improvement does not appear as usury given for borrowed money; cf. supra 24b. This is not permitted, as any advance in the price of corn would increase the value of the returned measure...

... has to refund to the buyer, who spent his money on improving the field before the creditor seized it. The buyer cannot claim from the creditor the excess of his expenditure over the actual value of the improvement, and he loses this amount. According to which the rightful owner of the field, designated 'creditor', has to pay for the improvement. As it is laid down in both parts of the Baraitha that...

...;4  the other is [a case] where [the creditor] claims from him [the seller] an amount equal to the value of the land alone, in which case the creditor compensates him [the buyer] for [the value of] his improvement and dismisses him. [But, it is asked:] This is right and proper according to the view of him who says5  that when the buyer has money [to pay the seller's debt] he cannot...

... dismiss the creditor [by paying him the money].6  But according to the view of him who says that when the buyer has money [to pay the seller's debt] he can dismiss the creditor [by paying him the money], let him7  say unto him [the creditor]: 'If I had money I would have kept you away from the whole field [by paying the amount due to you] — now that I have no money give me a piece8 ...

... purchase-price10  but not to the [value of the] improvement.11  But Samuel says: He is not entitled even to the purchase-price. Wherein do they differ? Rab is of the opinion that a person, knowing that [the seller] has no land, will make up his mind and give him [the money] as a deposit.12  But then he should say to him that it is to be regarded as a deposit? He is afraid that he [the...

... seller] will not accept it [as such].13  But Samuel is of the opinion that a person, knowing that [the seller] has no land, will make up his mind and give him [the money] as a present. But then he should say to him that it is to be regarded as a present? He [the recipient] might be bashful.14  But has not this difference of opinion [between Rab and Samuel] been expressed once already? Has it...

... not been stated:15  'If a man betrothed his sister to himself [by giving her money],16  Rab says: The money has to be given back. But Samuel says: The money is to be regarded as a present. Rab says that the money has to be given back, [because he is of the opinion that] a person, knowing that one's betrothal to one's sister is not valid, will make up his mind and give [her the money] as a...

... deposit. But then he should say to her that it is to be regarded as a deposit? He is afraid that she will not accept it [as such]. But Samuel says that the money is to be regarded as a present, [because he is of the opinion that] a person, knowing that one's betrothal to one's sister is not valid, will make up his mind and give [her the money] as a present. But then he should say to her that it is to be...

... regarded as a present? She might feel bashful? — It is necessary [to have the difference of opinion recorded in both cases]. For if it were taught [only] in that case17  [we might think that only] in such a case does Rab say [that the money is to be returned],18  because people do not usually give presents to strangers, but as regards a sister [we might think that] he agrees with Samuel...

.... And if it were taught [only] in this case,19  [we might think that only] in such a case does Samuel say [that the money is not to be returned],20  but as regards the other case21  [we might think] that he agrees with Rab.22  [Therefore] it is necessary [to state both cases]. [Now, behold,] both according to Rab, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a deposit, and...

... according to Samuel, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a present — how does [the person who has given the money] go down [to the field] and how does he eat the fruit [thereof]?23  He thinks, 'I shall go down to the field and work [in it] and shall eat [the fruit] thereof,24  just as he [who acquired it wrongfully] would have done, and when the [rightful] owner of the field...

... will come [and claim it] my money will be [treated] as a deposit, according to Rab, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a deposit, and as a gift, according to Samuel, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a gift.' Said Raba: The law [in regard to the above controversy] is that he [the buyer] is entitled to the purchase-price as well as to the [value of the] improvement, even if the improvement...

... the debt due to him from the seller. Cf. infra 110b; B.K. 96a. The creditor cannot be prevented from seizing the land, if he prefers it to the money offered him by the buyer in settlement of his debt, as the creditor has a prior claim to the land. Let the buyer, in the case dealt with in our Baraitha, say to the creditor, who claims the field with the improvement: 'As I am entitled to keep the land...

... the seller's debt, and that the creditor is entitled to seize the field. The buyer is entitled to demand the return of the money he paid the seller for the field which the rightful owner has reclaimed. The fact that the buyer knew that the sale was illegal does not deprive him of the right to reclaim his money from the seller. As the sale of the field was illegal, the buyer never really acquired the...

... field, and as he knew this to be the case he has only himself to blame for the loss he incurred in improving a field which was not his own. For safe keeping — to be demanded back in due course. He will not undertake to look after somebody else's money. It will make the recipient feel bashful of accepting the gift. Git. 45a; 'Ar. 30a; cf. Kid. 46b. Cf. Kid. 2a. Where the buyer knew that the field...

... did not belong to the seller. In view of the fact that the money is regarded as a deposit, according to Rab. I.e., the case of a brother giving money to his sister for the purpose of betrothing her to him. In view of the fact that the money is regarded as a present, according to Samuel, and one is apt to give a present to a sister. Where a person pays money to a stranger for a field which he knows...

... to have been wrongfully acquired. That the money is not to be regarded as a gift, and must be returned. How can it be said that the reason why Rab says that the money is to be returned is that it has to be regarded as a deposit, and that the reason why Samuel says that the money is not to be returned is that it has to be regarded as a gift, seeing that in either case the person who handed over the...

... money would not have deemed himself entitled to take possession of the field and to use its produce. If he did so, it would show that he meant to buy the field with the money, and that, not being familiar with the law, he deemed the sale valid. Rab and Samuel must therefore have given their decisions for reasons other than those stated above. I.e., he knows that it is not a sale, and the money was not...

... handed over as purchase-money. He only intended to take possession of the field and use its produce until the rightful owner reclaimed it, and the money was to be treated as a deposit (in the view of Rab) or as a gift (in the view of Samuel). Samuel's view that the scribe must consult the seller regarding the inclusion of 'improvement' in the indemnity clause, and that non-inclusion is not regarded as...