Chapter 10 - The Nature of the Beast

Question:  “What was the nature of the London-based creature which
came into existence at the end of the Seven Years War in 1763?”

Answer:  “A global oligarchical Empire based on usury, financial speculation,
slavery, drug-trafficking, private central banking, and permanent war.”

    Discussing the British Empire with people today is a fascinating experience. When the issue of that Empire’s crimes against humanity comes up, not untypical responses are either denial, disbelief, or a desire to change the subject. The fact that the British Empire was the world’s leading slave trader, leading drug trafficker, and killed far, far more people than Adolph Hitler, is all a matter of irrefutable public record. It was all done out in the open, over a period of more than two centuries. The fact that that same Empire is based on axiomatic principles hostile to the American Republic, and has been the mortal enemy of the United States down to the present day, may be a little more difficult for people to see, but not that much more difficult. The problem is not a lack of evidence; it is simply an hysterical unwillingness to just face the facts.

This seeming inability to accept the irrefutable charges against the British Empire is a perfect example of the success of the oligarchy in getting many people to believe -- in the words of Bertrand Russell -- that “snow is black.” However, even if 99 percent of the population is willing to swear under oath that “snow is black,” that doesn’t alter the truth that snow is white.

    Consider this: In recent years there has been a demand, put forward by some, that the United States government apologize for slavery. Have the British ever apologized for being the leading slave trader in the world for almost two centuries? Recently, the Roman Catholic Church apologized for its history of anti-semitism. Have the British ever apologized about their history of racist colonialism, about the millions they killed in India, about their forced addiction of tens of millions in China to narcotics? Have the British ever formally or informally apologized for any of their crimes? Far from it. They’re proud of their record. In their view, theirs has been an almost heroic saga of spreading civilization to the rest of humanity. Try selling that crap to their victims.

    Then there is the claim that all of these crimes are a thing of the past, that the Empire is merely a memory. The answer to that charge is simply, “You’re still calling snow black.” The truth is that after 1945 the British (and the Dutch) did everything in their power to hang onto their colonies, until they were forced to give most of them up in the years leading up to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Since 1971, under the guise of “globalization,” London has been engaged in creating a new form of colonialism -- utilizing banks not bullets -- which is actually far more pernicious and murderous than their previous methods.

    For now, lets look at the charges leveled against the Anglo-Dutch Empire in the above Q & A...


    Slavery pre-dates the modern Anglo-Dutch Empire, but it does not pre-date Empire. It is the very essence of Empire. The relegation of the vast majority of the human race to the category of “sub-human property” is at the heart of the Olympian oligarchical world-view. The imperial use of slavery goes back, at least, to the days of Babylon. It is defended openly in the writings of Aristotle. All of Roman Law is explicit on the property rights of slave owners, and the Roman empire was built and maintained on slave labor.1

    By the 12th and 13th centuries, the slave trade was one of the biggest businesses in the Mediterranean, and the dominant player was the Venetian Empire. Venice was the slave market of the world. In the years following the Council of Florence, the first systematic legal defense of slavery is to be found in the writings of the Salamancans, whose job was to justify the massive expansion of slavery by the Spanish Empire. Later, those arguments would be repeated by Grotius and John Locke in their defenses of the practices of the Dutch and British Empires.

    At the same time, the economic subjugation of populations defines the essence of human slavery just as much as the legal institution of slavery itself. After the collapse of Rome, the feudal system of Diocletian condemned the population of medieval Europe to an hereditary bondage, perhaps even worse than legal slavery. In the 19th century, the American patriot Henry Carey dissected the colonial economic policies of the British in Ireland and India, and proved conclusively that this was de facto, if not de jure, the slavery of tens of millions.2

    The institution of slavery is not something that existed at one “stage” of man’s history, a “stage” we have now outgrown. It does not represent a part of human culture that we have now recognized as evil. It was never part of human culture. It was a principle of Empire. The degradation of large numbers of people to legal or de facto slavery is a necessary practice of Empire. Slavery is, in fact, probably the the most basic axiom of the Empire outlook.

    Consider the following:

    The Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and British empires were all built and maintained by slave labor. Only 11 years after Christopher Columbus’ first voyage, a Spanish royal decree legalized the slave trade and the importation of slaves into the new world. Between 1500 and 1650 Spain and Portugal dominated the slave traffic, initially with most slaves going to the gold and silver mines of Mexico and South America. By 1600 the vast majority were going to the sugar, indigo, tobacco, and rice plantations of Brazil and the Caribbean.

    The first official Dutch slave ship sailed in 1606, five years after the founding of the VOC. In 1621 the Dutch West India Company was founded, with its main purpose being to challenge Spain and Portugal’s control over the African slave trade. This was accomplished by mid-century, as the Dutch seized most of the Spanish and Portuguese slave fortresses in West Africa.3 The Dutch were also given the Asiento de Negros by the Spanish Crown. This was a legal monopoly over the right to import slaves into Spain’s colonies, which were the biggest market for slaves in the world. The Dutch would hold the Asiento until 1713, when it was given to the British at the Treaty of Utrecht. By 1676 the Dutch were selling 15,000 slaves per year in the Americas.

    The vast Dutch Empire in Asia was also based on slavery. The Dutch East India Company took slaves by the tens of thousands from East Africa, Madagascar, New Guinea, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. By 1700, the population of the VOC capital at Batavia was 52 percent slaves. In Capetown it was 42 percent, Colombo - 53 percent, and Makassar - 66 percent. A global empire... built on slavery.

    After 1713, the new London-based Empire would next demonstrate what amateurs their predecessors had been. According to most sources, 70 percent of all the slaves taken from Africa between 1500 and 1850, were shipped between 1700 and 1800. This was the pinnacle of the global slave system. It was also the period when the British had a near monopoly on the trade. The record was set in 1768, when a staggering 110,000 human beings were taken from Africa and sold into slavery. And of course it was the British who brought slavery into their North American colonies. Under Paolo Sarpi’s friend Edwin Sandys, the Virginia Company brought the first slaves into Jamestown in 1618, and the first public slave auction was conducted in 1638. By 1715, twenty-four percent of Virginia’s population were slaves.

    Between 1450 and 1850 at least 20 million Africans were either taken as slaves, or killed as a result of the slave trade. According to the historian W.E.B. Du Bois, between 1600 and 1800, about 12 million slaves were brought into the Americas, totaling about 60 percent (i.e. a majority) of all trans-Atlantic emigration. This is the legacy of Empire. This is what British aristocrats call the benevolent “spreading of civilization.”

Genocide & War

    From the 17th through the 19th century, there were many, many wars fought among the European powers, but, for our present purpose, it is more useful to look at the so-called colonial wars waged throughout that period, because those wars both define something essential about the nature of Empire, and they are also the model for the financial oligarchy’s plans for the 21st century. Beginning with the Operation Desert Storm of Margaret Thatcher and President George Bush, we have now entered the era of rapid-deployment-force types of regional and local wars, designed to crush all opposition to the economic looting of globalization. As current Vice President Dick Cheney has made clear, in discussing the “War on Terror,” this is designed to be an open-ended regime of permanent global warfare. Empires may fight big wars if they have no choice, but it is the policy of continuous permanent war against targeted populations which is the basis for the looting, enforced backwardness, and subjugation of people all over the world.

    Beginning with the attempt by the British to crush the American colonists in 1775, and continuing well into the 20th century, the British Empire engaged in what can only be called permanent colonial war. As one historian has described it:

"There was not a single year in Queen Victoria's long reign in which somewhere in the world her
soldiers were not fighting for her and her empire. From 1837 until 1901, in Asia, Africa, Arabia,
 and elsewhere, British troops were engaged in almost constant combat

    A few of the more notable examples of the carnage unleashed by the British, include the Sikh Wars in India from 1845 to 1850, the Flagstaff War and related campaigns, which lasted for decades in New Zealand, the 1879 Zulu War in Africa, the 1856 Anglo-Persian War, the 1854-55 Crimean War, the Boer Wars, beginning in 1880, and the Indian Sepoy Rebellion in 1857, at the conclusion of which tens of thousands of Indians were butchered in cold blood.

    These are only a few examples, and they don’t even begin to tell the story of the genocide perpetrated by the British Empire. It is also crucial to grasp that the tens (or hundreds) of thousands killed in the Empire’s military campaigns were a tiny fraction of the total victims of the economic rape imposed by the Empire on its victims.

    British mass murder in India was so horrific and blatant, that even at the time it was perpetrated, members of the British Parliament denounced the crimes of their nation. Henry Carey quotes the words of British Parliamentarian George Thompson, who described these scenes during the 1838 famine in British India:

Go with me into the north-western provinces of the Bengal presidency, and I will show you the
bleaching skeletons of five hundred thousand human beings, who perished of hunger in the space
of a few short months. Yes, died of hunger... The air for miles was poisoned by the effluvia emitted
from the putrefying bodies of the dead. The rivers were choked with the corpses thrown into their
channels... Jackals and vultures approached, and fastened upon the bodies of men, women, and
children, before life was extinct. Madness, disease, despair stalked abroad, and no human power
present to arrest their progress. It was the carnival of death! And this occurred in British India—in
the reign of Victoria the First! Nor was the event extraordinary and unforeseen. Far from it: 1835-36
witnessed a famine in the northern provinces; 1833 beheld one to the eastward; 1822-23 saw one
in the Deccan. They have continued to increase in frequency and extent under our sway for more
than half a centur

    Carey goes on to show, that far from an act of God, the famines and mass starvation in India were the direct and intended effect of the British economic policies which had destroyed the native economy and agriculture of India.5 He also documents how, at the height of the 1838 famine, the British were exporting more than 151 million pounds of rice out of India, as a cash crop, in order to pay foreign debts and taxes. This, of course, is the same thing that the World Trade Organization is telling the nations of Africa, Asia, and South America to do today. After detailing the total subjugation and impoverishment of the Indian people, Carey concludes, “This is slavery, and under such a system how could the wretched people be other than slaves?

    It is estimated that the Indian famines between 1822 and 1838 killed as many as 29 million people.6 Hitler took 12 years to kill 6 million Jews. In 16 years the British managed to kill five times that number. And it didn’t stop in 1838. During the famine in the Deccan plateau region, in 1876, there was a surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the British Viceroy insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. At the height of the famine, a record 320,000 tons of wheat were exported, while hundreds of thousands of Indians died.

    The genocide against the people of Ireland was almost identical in method to that in India. After centuries of British rule, more than 75 percent of the Irish were tenant farmers in 1845, i.e. they were the equivalent of feudal serfs and, in real terms, owned by their aristocratic Lords. They were, in effect, slaves. They were the poorest people in Europe, whose normal condition was one step ahead of starvation. They ate no meat and very little of anything else. Meanwhile, almost all of the oats, corn, wheat, and barley grown in Ireland were exported as cash crops by British landlords, acting in collusion with London financiers. In addition to stealing Ireland’s agricultural bounty, the British also extracted millions of pounds yearly in rents and taxes from the island.

    In 1845 a potato blight wiped out three-quarters of the island’s production of potatoes, the main staple in the diet of the destitute Irish, and a second, worse, blight hit the following year’s crop as well. In 1846, as people were dying by the tens of thousands, British officials exported from Ireland enough wheat, barley, oats, butter, pigs, and eggs to feed the entire population, and those record levels of “cash crop” exports continued through 1847-1849, as hundreds of thousands starved to death. By the time it was all over, more than 2 million Irish were dead. In 1844 the population of Ireland was over 8 million. It is still lower than that today.

    British rule in Ireland and India may rise to the level of Hitlerean crimes, but the experiences of those two nations is not unique. Literally millions were killed across the globe, especially in Africa. Consider this description of British activities in Kenya, in the 1950s, as they desperately tried to hold on to their colony:

Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organize against
colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps.
Most of the remainder — more than a million — were held in ‘enclosed villages.’ Prisoners were
questioned with the help of ‘slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring
paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes.’ The
soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked ‘provided they were black.’ The evidence
suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and starvation in the


    The story of the Britain’s Opium Wars against China is well known. What is less well known, except by some experts, is the open British control of world narcotics traffic all the way up until World War II, and that, today, it is the unregulated financial institutions in British Crown colonies, such as the Caymen Islands, which continue to finance the bulk of international drug production and trafficking. Thirty years ago the authors of Dope, Inc.8 demonstrated that narcotics trafficking is the biggest business in the world, and that major financial institutions, like the Hong-Kong & Shanghai Bank, control the drug trade, through their control over the money. Narcotics trafficking, like slavery, is a necessary activity of the modern Anglo-Dutch Empire. That Empire has played a controlling role in the drug trafficking since its inception, and it continues to play that role today. On the one hand, it is a business which makes hundreds of billions of dollars. On the other hand, it is an indispensable method -- as was seen in China, and as we have seen in the United States and Europe since 1963 -- of destroying the moral and political capabilities of populations to resist Imperial rule.9

    As soon as the British East India Company consolidated its rule over the Indian province of Bengal in 1757, they began turning whole sections of the countryside into opium plantations. This involved taking land out of food production, with the murderous results discussed above. The British were not the first to do this; the Dutch had begun even earlier, with the pacifying of the Indonesian population through mass opium addiction as early as 1659, but the British would go way beyond anything the Dutch had attempted. The first East India Company shipments of opium into China began in 1781, and the volume of the trafficking increased steadily into the second and third decades of the 19th century.

    By the 1830s there were more than 10 million drug addicts in China, and when the Chinese government acted in 1838 to wipe out the drug trade, the British responded by going to war. They sent a fleet of 16 warships to China which bombarded the cities, killed tens of thousands, and threatened the Chinese capital. The Chinese government was forced to capitulate in 1842, but even then, facing the gunboats of the Empire, the Chinese Emperor refused to accept the British demand for the total legalization of opium trafficking. Not satisfied with these heinous actions, the British launched a second war against China in 1856, this time forcing the complete surrender of the Chinese government, and the formal legalization of all drug trafficking. By 1880 there were 40 million opium addicts in China, all supplied with opium produced by the British in India, brought into China by British ships, and financed by British banks.

    How did the British defend these actions? Simple, they didn’t. Their claim was that the wars against China had nothing to do with drugs(!), but that it was justified by the Chinese protectionist measures which were injurious to the British democratic policies of Free Trade ̶ the exact same argument used by Francisco di Vitoria to justify Spain’s extermination of the American Indians 300 years earlier. After the British Crown took over the governing of India from the East India Company and Queen Victoria was named the Empress of India in 1876, all of the narcotics going into China were trafficked under her personal authority.

    In the early 20th century, against fierce British and Dutch opposition, the United States initiated legal and diplomatic efforts to halt opium (and by now heroin) trafficking. One of America’s first acts after the Spanish-American War, was to outlaw opium production in the Philippines and shut down the drug plantations. Between 1909 and 1914, four international conferences were held, all at American insistence, aimed at curbing the drug trade. All failed due to British opposition. After the founding of the League of Nations in 1920, a renewed effort was undertaken to curtail the global trade in opium and heroin. Cooperation in this effort was almost universal except for the British Empire. In 1923 an American proposal was brought before the League of Nations to reduce worldwide opium production by 90 percent. It was killed by the British delegation. The League of Nations held two conferences in Geneva in 1925, with similar outcome.

    During this period, the British were actually expanding their drug pushing. In 1927 official British government figures showed that in many of Britain’s Asian colonies, including Malaysia, Borneo, and Sarawak, profits from the drug trade accounted for over 30-50 percent of the government’s revenues. In India, during the same period, Mahatma Gandhi was leading demonstrations against Britain’s plans to expand opium production. In 1931 the League of Nations held three more conferences aimed at increasing the restrictions and penalties for drug production and trafficking. The U.S. Government refused to sign the final agreement, because it did not go far enough and contained loopholes inserted by the British. Throughout this whole period, all the way up to the outbreak of war in 1939, the minutes of the Advisory Committee of the League’s Opium Commission, document the British Government’s continued role in the trafficking and distribution of opium and heroin.

    These drug-pushing activities of the British Empire were also mimicked by their Dutch partners. Between 1895 and 1904 the cultivation of opium in Indonesia by privately held farms was replaced by a policy known as the regie system, whereby the Dutch colonial government took effective control of all opium production.10 During the the next ten years opium production and consumption increased dramatically, and, under Dutch colonial control, new strains of opium were developed which increased the morphine content of the opium by up to 30 percent. This official Dutch drug production continued up until the Japanese invasion during World War II.

    Narcotics trafficking is not merely a business. For more than three centuries, its purpose has been to enslave and subjugate populations. Global drug trafficking was created by the Dutch and British empires, and today, it is the agents of our current Empire of globalization, such as George Soros, who continue to organize for an expansion of drug use and legalization.

    Since the 1960s, several generations of American and European youth have been brainwashed into the idea of “recreational drug use” as a human right. This tragedy acutely demonstrates the intended success of the Empire in destroying the moral and mental strength of the younger generations. The heart-rending picture of Baby Boomers, Tweeners, and Generation X youth demanding drug legalization is nothing less than an African native walking up to British slave-traders and begging to have the chains and shackles put on.

    Look at the accompanying photograph of Richard Grasso, the President of the New York Stock Exchange embracing Raul Reyes of the narco-terrorist FARC, in the jungles of Colombia in 1999. Think of the lives destroyed by crack cocaine in cities across the United States, and consider what that photograph actually means.

    Consider also the role of the offshore banks and hedge funds in the British Caymen Islands and the Dutch Antilles in financing this evil. This is British Free Trade. This is globalization. This is the continuing modern face of Empire.

Central Banking

    To return to a basic theme of this work, the 1582-1763 Venice-Amsterdam-London creation of modern private Central Banking was, in its nature, axiomatically, the opposite of the Renaissance concept of the Commonwealth. These two different approaches to ordering human affairs are not only incompatible, they are eternal antagonists. The one is based on a supremacy of money, where governments are deployed as servants of private financial interests; the other is built on a foundation of national sovereignty, and a commitment to the General Welfare of all of the people. What we today call European Central Banking derives from those institutions created in Venice, Amsterdam and London. How we went from there to a global System of Central Banking is the next part of the story.

    This System was created almost exclusively in two locations – the European continent, and the colonies of the British Empire. The creation of this system took place in two stages, the first following the 1815 treaty of Vienna, and the second after 1876, as the British Empire moved to stop the spread of the American System of Economics to Asia and continental Europe. Two of the major contributing factors which made these developments possible were the total subjugation of France after the Napoleonic Wars, and the creation of the British global Gold Standard.

    The way to understand the British gold standard is to keep in the forefront of your mind the word "subjugation." Today, no one except denizens of the neo-con fringe would propose a return to a pre-1931 hard gold standard. What most people fail to realize, is that even in the 19th century, it was generally recognized that the gold standard was sheer lunacy from an economic standpoint. It was not an economic policy; it was a geopolitical policy, intended to insure British domination. Britain's control over world gold markets gave London enormous influence over foreign banks and governments. In the 1830s, for example, huge amounts of American securities were held in London, and many American banks were completely dependent on the Bank of England for financing. Britain blackmailed nations into joining the gold standard, and then imposed central banks on them to manage their balance of payments.

    In the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain forced a weakened Spain to hand over all of the Spanish gold and silver mines in South America. Then, in 1819, the British Parliament voted to adopt a strict monetary gold standard. This went into effect in 1821, and would last until 1931. This original gold standard was further extended and codified by the 1842 Bank Charter Act, which tied the issuance of all new currency to a one-to-one ratio of gold and silver on deposit. Any increase in bank-note issuance was tied directly to an increase in specie reserves, thus creating probably the most rigid deflationary gold standard in human history. Britain itself experienced great difficulty in managing this policy, even with her vast gold reserves. For other nations, the gold standard was an economic death sentence which made impossible any serious physical economic development.

    With the domination of world trade and finance by the British Empire during the 19th century, London was able to blackmail, threaten, and bankrupt nations almost at will. Almost total British control over the Bank of France during this period served to augment their financial and monetary power. These were also the years when the British did everything in their power to destroy the emergence of National Banking and the American System of Economics in the United States.11

    The real threat to the Empire came in the years following the Union victory over the British-created Confederacy in the American Civil War. The industrial transformation of the United States, together with the spread of American System economic policies to Germany, Russia, Japan, and China, created a profound crisis for the maritime British Empire. Their response was to prepare the way for World War One.12 Their additional response was to counter the spread of American economic policies by creating a System of Central Banks under British control. Between 1876 and 1914, central banks, based explicitly on the British model, were established in Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, and other nations. In some cases there were intense battles in these nations over whether to adopt an American-style National Bank, or British private Central Banking. The British were in a war against the American System and, in the process, they were attempting to establish the Amsterdam-London model as the international banking paradigm. Lets take a look at what happened in some of these nations:

– the German Reichsbank was founded 1875, and then given greater powers in the banking “reform” of 1909. The Reichsbank was wholly owned by private investors, yet it ran all the monetary functions of the government. From very early on the Reichsbank assumed the full role of a Central Bank, issuing notes, regulating the financial system, and clearing commercial paper. In 1900 the Directors of Reichsbank published a pamphlet in which they stated "the most important and likewise the most difficult task of the bank is to bring about the greatest possible equalization of fluctuations in money demands and to be at all times in a position to redeem its notes and to meet its other liabilities." The two paramount priorities set by the bank were to maintain the gold standard and to foster the well-being of the financial system.

Switzerland – the Swiss National Bank was founded 1905, modeled on the Reichsbank. Earlier, in 1891 a proposal had been debated to create a state-owned bank, with a monopoly on note issuance. This proposal was killed by opponents who wanted a completely private bank. The charter of the 1905 bank stated that "The National Bank has for its principal objects to regulate the money market of the country, and to facilitate payments and transfers of money," and also "The purpose of the Bank is to regulate the Swiss monetary system."

Sweden – the famous Riksbank claims to be one of the oldest Central Banks in the world, dating from 1668, but actually its modern charter was adopted in 1897, at which point it was recreated on the British model, and given a monopoly on the issuance of (gold-backed) notes.

Denmark – another older bank that was overhauled in this period was the Danish National Bank, which was given a new charter in 1908, which included all the features of a modern central bank.

Italy – possessed several regional “banks of issuance.” However, in 1893 the Bank d'Italia was created, for the purpose of regulating and protecting the activities of the private local banks.

Austria – again a “reformed” older bank. Austria had been on the silver standard, but after the British-manipulated crash of 1873, they were forced to shift into gold. The Austro-Hungarian Bank was given a new charter, with most of the features of a private central bank, with its main responsibility being to maintain the gold exchange rate.

Belgium – following several financial crises in the 1830s, one of which forced the Bank of Belgium to suspend gold convertibility, a new National Bank of Belgium was founded in 1850. Like many of the other European banks, it too, in 1900, was given a new charter, with a monopoly on the issuance of currency and other Central Banking responsibilities.

Japan – Japan was a battleground. After the Meji restoration in 1866, and through the influence of Henry Carey’s disciple, E. Peshine Smith, there was an attempt to establish a National Bank explicitly on the American model, but according to a report written by Baron Sakatani, the former Japanese Minister of Finance, "It was found, however that such a national bank system did not work well on account of its being unsuitable to national conditions, and the regulations were amended in 1876 and 1882, when the central bank system was adopted."
    Actually the fledgling national banking system was sabotaged between 1866 and 1876 by repeated demands by bank note holders for specie redemption of their national bank notes. In 1883, a new private Central Bank, the Bank of Japan was given the monopoly over note issuance. In 1888 gold convertibility resumed, and in 1897 Japan officially joined the gold standard.

France – France has a long banking history, but the modern Banque de France was created in 1800, totally under the control of private shareholders. A revealing quote from a French banker in 1870 gives the thinking behind this bank: "The foreign enemy could not, because of the private character of the bank, consider its wealth as spoils of war, without trampling underfoot international law.13 The case would have been entirely different had the Bank been a state bank. This is an advantage not to be neglected."
    During the 19th century, the Banque de France maintained an incestuous relationship with the large private banks, i.e., Rothschild, Davillier, Mallet, Hottinguer, etc.. However, its primary role was as an asset of the Bank of England. Because of its large gold reserves (second in the world only to the Bank of England), the French bank was frequently tapped by the British for specie and other financial assistance. During several financial crises, including those of 1825, 1836-39, 1890, and 1906-07, the role Banque de France was crucial to Britain’s ability to maintain the international gold standard.

    During the 20th century the Central Banking System was extended further. First, after World War I, the British installed central banks in the new nations created by the Versailles Treaty, including Austria in 1923, Hungary in 1924, and Czechoslovakia in 1926. At the same time, either central banks, or subsidiaries of the Bank of England, were established in British colonies, including the Bank of Adelaide, the Bank of New South Wales, the Queensland National Bank (all 3 in Australia), the Bank of New Zealand, the Imperial Bank of India, the Bank of Ireland, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, and other banks in Scotland and Canada. In 1911 the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was established with limited Central Bank functions. In addition, other British-dominated banks were established in non-Empire countries, such as the Banco de Brazil, the Bank Melli (Iran), and the National Bank of Egypt.

    Since 1971, this Central Banking monstrosity has gone much, much further, in attempting to destroy all national economic sovereignty and to impose rule by a global elite. More will be said on this in the final chapter, but for now, just consider the fate of Europe. As of 2008, not only have the nations of Europe surrendered most of their sovereignty, but even the Central Banks mentioned above, have become little more than servants of the new European Central Bank, created in 1998 by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty, This private bank, under the control of the Anglo-Dutch faction, is completely independent from any European national government or institution. It has the power to dictate monetary, budgetary and credit policies, both to it’s individual member banks, as well as to all of the “nations” of the European Union. If the recently proposed Lisbon Treaty were to be adopted, it would extend those powers even further, to the point that national sovereignty in Europe would cease to exist altogether.

    There are two final points to make on this subject. The first is to keep in mind that this global System of private Central Banking is a recent creation. Most of these institutions were established in a 55 year period from 1876 to 1931,14 Empire may be the ancient enemy of humanity, but the global Central Banking System is not a centuries-old institution. It is also not an axiomatic pre-existing feature of human culture. It is a creation, and a very modern creation at that, whose existence is becoming more and more tenuous every day.

    The final point to be made concerns the anti-human outlook or philosophy of this System. In his piece The Truth About Temporal Eternity,15 Lyndon LaRouche demonstrates that the post-1763 oligarchical outlook of the British Empire, as expressed in the writings of Adam Smith and, later, Jeremy Bentham,16 goes even beyond the prescriptions of John Locke, or the earlier French, Dutch, and Scottish Calvinists. Many of the 17th century oligarchical “legal theorists,” discussed above in Chapter 7, stressed custom and “common law” as a philosophical justification for oligarchical rule. LaRouche makes the point that with Adam Smith and his followers, all concerns for custom, or even human culture itself, vanishes. By the 19th century, an outright satanic empiricism is dominant. Money reigns supreme; avarice is the law of the land; and military force is deployed to defend this system.

    Consider the charters of the Central Banks discussed above, where they proclaim as priorities "to regulate the money market of the country, and to facilitate payments and transfers of money," and "to bring about the greatest possible equalization of fluctuations in money demands." This is a global system based on individual greed and the "supremacy of money," as if money somehow pre-dated human existence.

    Now consider the following quote from the Frame of the Government of Pennsylvania (1682), written by William Penn: "When the great and wise God had made the world, of all his creatures, it pleased him to chuse man his Deputy to rule it: and to fit him for so great a charge and trust, he did not only qualify him with skill and power, but with integrity to use them justly..."

    Where in the universe of central banking does such a concept have a place? They don’t even recognize Penn’s concept of Man as relevant. Adam Smith would have us all enslaved to our greed and passions, living like beasts in an atomistic universe. This is real naked evil, which you will see, if you are willing to open up your eyes and look at it.

1 Many of the Roman Law arguments defending slavery were copied directly by Di Vitoria, Grotius, Locke, et al.

2 The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign: Why it Exists, and How it May Be Extinguished, by Henry C. Carey, 1853

3 There were 42 slave fortresses in western Africa, the most important of which was Elmina (Sao Jorge da Mina). It was built by the Portuguese in 1481, and held by them until the Dutch captured it in 1637. By the 18th century, 30,000 slaves per year passed through Elmina on route to the Americas.

4 Queen Victoria’s Little Wars, by Byron Farwell, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, 1985

5 See Carey, The Slave Trade Domestic and Foreign

6 Late Victorian Holocausts, by Mike Davis, Verso Books, 2001

7 Imperial Reckoning: the Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya, by Caroline Elkins, Henry Holt Publishers, 2006

8 Dope, Inc. - Britain’s Opium War Against the United States, by Kalimtgis, Goldman, and Steinberg, New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, 1978

9 Consider the role of mega-speculator and London agent, George Soros, in financing multiple efforts for drug legalization in the United States

10 The Role of Government Policy in Increasing Drug Use: Java, 1875-1914, by Siddharth Chandra

11 Treason in America, by Anton Chaitkin

12 See the video, “1932,” at

13 Since oligarchical “International Law” protects private property rights, but not defeated nation states (RDI)

14 In 1931, the power of the global Central Banking System was greatly enhanced with the founding of the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements.

15 The Truth About Temporal Eternity, by Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., Fidelio Magazine, Summer 1994 (Vol. III, No. 2)

16 See Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments & Bentham’s In Defense of Usury