Jewish Women Exposed Satanic Pizza Parties on National Television

I threw ‘Satanic’ party for my daughter’s first birthday with goat demon and she loved it

Show more

A MUM who was furiously accused of throwing a "Satanic" first birthday bash for her daughter complete with a horned goat demon, has hit back at trolls.

Janeth Zapata shocked social media users with the eerie bash for her toddler - which featured black decorations, a pentagram cake and images of goats associated with the devil.

The video shows moments from a birthday that has an unusual theme, the tot can be seen tucking into a birthday cake topped with a pentagram.

The video shows moments from a birthday that has an unusual theme, the tot can be seen tucking into a birthday cake topped with a pentagram.Credit: @janethzapata31/CEN

The young mum posted videos of the event on her TikTok in August, which has since gone viral with thousands of comments.

She captioned the footage, which showed a still of her daughter grinning widely: "Rumours say I had the best outfit for my first birthday."

Social media user Susely Cardenas wrote: "That wasn't a birthday party, that was a sacrifice."

The clip caused a stir, with another viewer Lorena Salazar commenting: "I don't think it's a party or colour for a little girl. I really don't know what went through the mum's mind."

Gardeners warned against ‘dangerous’ TikTok Lawn hack which could cause injury
LAWN & ORDER Gardeners warned against ‘dangerous’ TikTok Lawn hack which could cause injury

Zapata's daughter's name Lilith, fits with the party-theme, referring to the Biblical character of Adam's first wife.

Viewers also noted the birthday girl shared the same first name as the female demonic figure of Jewish folklore.

The images show the toddler dressed in black next to a piñata resembling Baphomet, a goat-headed deity used in Satanic rituals.

The tot can also be seen tucking into a birthday cake topped with a pentagram - a symbol of modern occultism - in icing.

Hotel worker found naked & dumped wrapped in a plastic on Brit hols island
MURDER HORROR Hotel worker found naked & dumped wrapped in a plastic on Brit hols island

Girl, 5, bundled into suitcase & kidnapped from hotel as she played in Italy
HORROR SNATCH Girl, 5, bundled into suitcase & kidnapped from hotel as she played in Italy

The comments prompted Janeth into issuing a clarification after a big backlash.

The young mum explained: "I see there are many news sites that put out my daughter's party with lies.

"1. We're not Satanists. 2. There were guests. 3. The party didn't have anything Satanic. 4. The piñata isn't Satan, nor the Devil, it's Baphomet. 5. The pentagram isn't inverted because it's not Satanic."

Another birthday party that gained attention for an unusual reason was that of a six-year-old who was left traumatised after her parents hired a Bigfoot character when plans for Elsa fell through.

Some mums have spoken out about the pressure of social media and how they feel it is ruining first birthday parties.

New research has revealed a fifth of parents think the demands of Insta, Facebook and Twitter puts pressure on people to make the big day perfect.

=================
=================

It's 20 years since Iran's religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie for 'insulting' Islam with his novel The Satanic Verses. The repercussions were profound - and are still being felt. Andrew Anthony traces the course of the affair, from book-burnings and firebombings to the dramatic impact it had on freedom of expression in a multicultural society

The phrase "literary London" is usually employed to nebulous effect but it accurately describes the gathering that took place at the Greek Orthodox church in Bayswater on 14 February, a clear blue St Valentine's Day, in 1989. The occasion was Bruce Chatwin's memorial service, and it was attended by a large contingent of what was and remains an exceptional generation of British or British-based writers. Among them were Martin Amis, Paul Theroux and Salman Rushdie.

According to Theroux, Chatwin's funeral "was the high watermark of that decade's creative activity". For Amis, Chatwin, a recent convert to Greek Orthodoxy, had played a last joke on his friends by subjecting them to "a religion that no one he knew could understand or respond to". If so, it was a joke destined to be overshadowed by a very different kind of theological offering that was far more of a challenge to understand or respond to.

That same morning Rushdie had been informed of the fatwa issued by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, calling for his execution for the crime of writing a novel, The Satanic Verses.

Word of the death sentence had spread among the mourners. Thinking the fatwa was little more than the empty threat of a faraway tyrant, Theroux called out to Rushdie: "Next week we'll be back here for you!" But Khomeini's pronouncements in such matters were seldom without consequence. As far back as 1947, when merely a cleric, he had ordered the death of an Iranian education minister who within days was shot dead.

And thereafter countless other political and intellectual opponents were to lose their lives on Khomeini's command. Chatwin's memorial service was to be Rushdie's last public appearance for some time.

He spent the remainder of that day searching for his son, Zafar, then he went into hiding.

The headline of the London evening paper read:

EXECUTE RUSHDIE, ORDERS THE AYATOLLAH. "Salman had disappeared into the world of block caps," wrote Amis. "He had vanished into the front page." In fact he had moved with a Special Branch protection team to the Lygon Arms hotel in the Cotswolds. Apparently a tabloid reporter happened to be in the next room, conducting an adulterous affair, and missed the biggest story of the year.

That same evening Channel 4 broadcast a pre-recorded interview with Rushdie on The Bandung File. "It's very simple in this country," said the author, when asked about the demands that his book be withdrawn from shops. "If you don't want to read a book, you don't have to read it. It's very hard to be offended by The Satanic Verses - it requires a long period of intense reading. It's a quarter of a million words."

Four days after Rushdie received his "unfunny Valentine", he issued an apology: "I profoundly regret the distress that publication has occasioned to sincere followers of Islam." At first the apology was rejected then accepted in Iran, before Khomeini stated that even if Rushdie repented and "became the most pious man of all time" it was still incumbent on every Muslim to "employ everything he has got" to kill him. So much for the spirit of forgiveness.

What the mixed responses pointed to was that, right from the start, The Satanic Verses affair was less a theological dispute than an opportunity to exert political leverage. The background to the controversy was the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran to be the standard bearer of global Islam. The Saudis had spent a great deal of money exporting the fundamentalist or Salafi version of Sunni Islam, while Shiite Iran, still smarting from a calamitous war and humiliating armistice with Iraq, was keen to reassert its credentials as the vanguard of the Islamic revolution. Both the Saudis and Iranians saw a new constituency, ripe for exploitation, in the small British protest groups that initially responded to The Satanic Verses with book-burning demonstrations. But in fact the protesters who took to the streets in Bradford and other mill towns were themselves the offspring of other far-off theocratic politics in the subcontinent.

The Satanic Verses was published on 26 September 1988 and, after pressure from the Janata party, banned in India by Rajiv Gandhi's government nine days later. Flushed with this success, Indians working for the Saudi-financed Islamic Foundation of Leicester suggested trying to get the book banned in Britain. According to Malise Ruthven, author of A Satanic Affair, the campaign was then orchestrated by Jamaat-i-Islami, the party founded in Pakistan by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi. A journalist-cum-theologian, Maududi preached that "for the entire human race, there is only one way of life which is Right in the eyes of God and that is al-Islam".

Nevertheless it was the Saudis who funded the United Kingdom Action Committee on Islamic Affairs, the protest body set up to maximise pressure on The Satanic Verses. It featured Islamists like Iqbal Sacranie, the future head of the Muslim Council of Britain. (Sacranie famously opined that "death, perhaps, is a bit too easy" for Rushdie. He was later knighted for services to community relations.) And it was the Saudi clerics who were planning a trial of Rushdie in absentia.

In keeping with most Muslim countries, Iran did not ban The Satanic Verses. It was even reviewed in an Iranian newspaper. But noticing the protests in India and Britain, a delegation of mullahs from the holy city of Qum read a section of the book to Khomeini, including the part featuring a mad imam in exile, which was an obvious caricature of Khomeini. As one British diplomat in Iran said: "It was designed to send the old boy incandescent." So it was that the Iranians delivered the fatwa, thus winning the competition to be the greatest haters of Rushdie, and therefore the West, and all that entailed.

As Khomeini put it in a speech nine days after the fatwa, The Satanic Verses was very important to what he called the "world devourers" because they had mobilised the "entire Zionism and arrogance behind it". The book, he went on, was a "calculated" attack by "colonialism" on the greatness and honour of the clergy. It's worth noting here that the book, written by an arch anti-colonialist, was indeed in part an attack, or at least satire, on the role of the clergy, the caste of priests that has no Qur'anic authority. In this newspaper, just before the fatwa, Rushdie had written: "A powerful tribe of clerics has taken over Islam. These are the contemporary Thought Police."

The next decade was a dangerous and isolating time for Rushdie. He was shadowed round-the-clock by bodyguards, and moved each time the security services became aware of one of the series of plots to kill him. Because there were British hostages held by Islamic extremists in Lebanon, Rushdie was advised by the authorities not to say or do anything that might antagonise their captors. Politicians remained at a safe public distance from him. Travel, once the driver of his imagination, had become a logistical and administrative nightmare. The subcontinent was ruled out. British Airways told him not to fly with them because it might endanger their staff. And when he did manage to go abroad, staying with friends was a cramped affair. As Christopher Hitchens, an old friend and staunch advocate, recently recalled of a Rushdie visit to Washington DC: "When he was staying at my house back at Thanksgiving of 1993, so were about a dozen heavily armed members of the United States's finest anti-terrorist forces." In contemplating these sorts of details, it's hard to keep in mind that the person at the centre of them was just a writer. "I said somewhere," he told me last year, "that it was like a bad Salman Rushdie novel."

The years following the fatwa were also a damaging and sometimes lethal period for many of those associated with The Satanic Verses, few of whom had any protection. In April 1989 Collets, the left-wing bookshop, and Dillons were firebombed for stocking the Rushdie novel. A month later there were explosions in High Wycombe and London's King's Road. There was a bomb in the Liberty department store which housed a Penguin Bookshop (Penguin was the publisher of The Satanic Verses) and at the York Penguin bookshop. Unexploded devices were also discovered at the Nottingham, Guildford and Peterborough branches of the store.

In August the same year Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh accidentally blew himself up in a Paddington hotel room while priming a bomb intended to kill Rushdie. Meanwhile Rushdie's marriage to the American author Marianne Wiggins did not long survive the pressures of life in hiding. Rushdie was at a low ebb and writing very little. Amis wrote: "I often tell him that if the Rushdie Affair were, for instance, the Amis Affair, then I would, by now, be a tearful and tranquillised 300-pounder, with no eyelashes or nostril hairs, and covered in blotches and burns from various misadventures with the syringe and the crackpipe."

Rushdie sought another way out. On Christmas Eve 1990 he issued a statement bearing witness that "there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his last prophet". Claiming to have renewed his faith in Islam, he said he did not agree with any character in The Satanic Verses who "casts aspersions... upon the authenticity of the holy Qur'an, or who rejects the divinity of Allah". He also said he would not release a paperback of the book. That evening he was so disgusted with himself that he was physically sick. The playwright Arnold Wesker, a Rushdie supporter, said: "The religious terrorists have won." Hitchens recalls: "I told Salman that it didn't make any difference to my support for him but that I didn't think it would 'work' and that I didn't think it was dignified. I think he felt much better after he re-apostasised: it was a sort of Gethsemane - if you will forgive the expression - after which he was determined to see the whole thing through." Years later Rushdie would publicly say it was the biggest mistake of his life, a "deranged" moment when he had hit rock bottom. In the event, it made no difference. Though Khomeini was now dead, the Iranian clergy confirmed that Rushdie still had to be killed. The following year Hitoshi Igarashi, Rushdie's Japanese translator, was stabbed to death and Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, seriously injured in another knife attack. In 1993 William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, was shot and injured, and Aziz Nesin, the Turkish translator, was the target of the Silvas massacre in Turkey that left 37 dead in an arson attack on a hotel.

For years the novel was withdrawn from display in shops around the world but it still became a bestseller in several countries, including America, and was published, despite all the demands and threats, in paperback. Moreover, Rushdie has gone on to enjoy a successful career, writing seven more novels and several other books, and he has also attained a measure of normalised liberty since the Iranian government effectively withdrew its backing from the fatwa in 1998. To this extent, Khomeini's edict and the murderous campaign it engendered failed abysmally. But Rushdie and The Satanic Verses, it should be remembered, was not the only target of the fatwa. In his original statement, broadcast on Iranian radio, Khomeini not only called for the death of all those consciously associated with the book but also said they should be executed "so that no one will dare to insult the Islamic sanctity". In this respect, and several others, Khomeini's terror has proved far more effective.

Who would dare to write a book like The Satanic Verses nowadays? And if some brave or reckless author did dare, who would publish it? The signs in both cases are that no such writer or publisher is likely to appear, and for two reasons. The first and most obvious is fear. The Satanic Verses is a rich and complex literary novel, by turns ironic, fantastical and satirical. Despite what is often said, mostly by those who haven't read it, the book does not take direct aim at Islam or its prophet. Those sections that have caused the greatest controversy are contained within the dreams or nightmares of a character who is in the grip of psychosis. Which is to say that, even buried in the fevered subconscious of a disturbed character inside a work of fiction - a work of magical realism fiction! - there is no escape from literalist tyranny. Any sentence might turn out to be a death sentence. And few if any of even the boldest and most iconoclastic artists wish to run that risk.

The recent case of The Jewel of Medina, a work by Sherry Jones which is neither bold nor iconoclastic, exemplifies the problem. In 2007 the American publishers Random House bought the rights to this historical novel about the prophet Muhammad's wife Aisha. By all accounts the book is something of a cheesy romance. Jones herself believes it is a circumspect fiction which "portrays the prophet Muhammad as a gentle, compassionate, wise leader and man respectful toward women and his wives". But a professor of Middle Eastern studies named Denise Spellberg advised Random House that it might provoke violence. The publishers duly cancelled the publication.

"We stand firmly by our responsibility to support our authors and the free discussion of ideas, even those that may be construed as offensive by some," Random House explained in a statement. "However, a publisher must weigh that responsibility against others that it also bears, and in this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."

This has become a familiar conceit in recent years: we defend the right of freedom of expression but prefer not to exercise it in situations that might endanger us. Random House publish Rushdie, and he was angered by what he saw as a capitulation to the threat of Islamic reprisals. "This is censorship by fear, and it sets a very bad precedent indeed," he said.

In Britain the book was taken up by the independent publisher, Gibson Square. But on 27 September last year the London home of Martin Rynja, Gibson Square's publisher, was firebombed. As things stand, the book's British publication is indefinitely postponed.

Nor is this self-censorship restricted to literature. Ramin Gray, associate director of the Royal Court Theatre, recently admitted that he would be reluctant to stage a play that was critical of Islam. "You would think twice," he said. "You'd have to take the play on its merits but given the time we're in, it's very hard because you'd worry that if you cause offence then the whole enterprise would become buried in a sea of controversy. It does make you tread carefully."

The Royal Court cancelled a new version of Aristophanes's Lysistrata last year because the play is set in Muslim paradise. The Barbican cut out sections of Tamburlaine the Great for similar reasons, and in 2006 Berlin's Deutsche Oper dropped a production of Mozart's Idomeneo because it depicted Muhammad. In 2005 Tate Britain removed God is Great, John Latham's sculpture featuring copies of a Bible, a Qur'an and a Talmud, because, according to a gallery statement, it was not "appropriate" in the sensitive post-7/7 climate. As Kenan Malik, author of the forthcoming book From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and Its Legacy, has written: "The fatwa has in effect become internalised".

Fear is not the only explanation why a global religion which, rightly or wrongly, is invoked as the inspiration for terror has become a non-subject for critical (or uncritical) works of art. The other reason is sympathy. And here Khomeini has proved prescient. Back in 1989, only the most conspiracy-minded Islamists took seriously Khomeini's claims that The Satanic Verses was part of a Zionist-imperialist plot to persecute Muslims.

The world has since changed. Following the events of 11 September 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the idea that the West is engaged in a military and cultural war with Islam is now far more widely entertained. A conflation has taken place in which the war in Iraq and the plight of the Palestinians has become somehow indivisible from the situation of Muslims in Britain. So that to be opposed to the war is to be, if not actively in favour of Islamism at home (the position of much of the far left), then at least not against it. And by extension, open criticism of Islamism, religious censorship and violence is often automatically viewed as an expression of "neocon" or "imperialist" politics.

Although there were exceptions at the time - among them Germaine Greer, John Berger and John Le Carré - many prominent cultural figures on the left extended Rushdie their support both here and abroad. Even a critic of The Satanic Verses, the Egyptian novelist and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz, who felt the book was insulting to Islam, signed a petition stating that "no blasphemy harms Islam and Muslims so much as the call for murdering a writer". Five years later Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck by Islamic extremists.

In the years since the fatwa there have been many more flashpoints in which artists and writers have been threatened, attacked or killed for criticising Islam, and not all have been Muslims. Hitchens thinks this is a development that has been overlooked. "Salman was raised as a Muslim," he says, "so in theory he's within the jurisdiction. He can be sentenced as an apostate, and the same can be done to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Taslima Nasreen [the Bangladeshi novelist under threat of decapitation who has just been offered refuge in Paris]. But what people haven't noticed sufficiently is that now people who are not Muslims, like the Danish cartoonists, have been threatened with violence for criticising Islam. That's sort of new, and ought to be more controversial than it is."

Yet few of those who have found themselves targeted by Islamic extremists in the wake of the Rushdie fatwa received wholehearted support from the liberal community. Quite the opposite. Theo Van Gogh, slaughtered on a busy street in Amsterdam; his co-filmmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali, threatened with death and placed under police protection; the Danish cartoonists who responded to Jyllands-Posten's commission to draw the prophet Muhammad and were forced into hiding: in each of these high-profile cases, the victims of intimidation were castigated and shunned by a wide swathe of progressive opinion.

"Right wing", "provocateurs", "reactionaries" and "racist" are some of the more restrained epithets aimed at the above names by their liberal critics. (Incidentally, surely the defining example of the absurdity of self-censorship is that the Danish cartoon that did not feature an image of the prophet but instead the legend "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs" was also deemed too dangerous to publish by every newspaper in Britain.)

The word, though, that is most frequently launched at the heirs of Rushdie is Islamophobic. Almost any criticism of Islam or any of its adherents is likely to trigger accusations of Islamophobia. For example, in 2007 the Channel 4 documentary Undercover Mosque exposed various preachers making hateful and violent statements regarding women, Jews, homosexuals and infidels. By any journalistic measure it was a compelling and revelatory documentary. But in the media storm that followed it was not the inflammatory preachers but the programme-makers who found themselves subject to an inquisition. The police tried to prosecute them for broadcasting "material likely to stir up racial hatred". And when that failed they referred the film to Ofcom for censure. It took nine months before the film-makers were fully vindicated and their professional reputations restored.

Of course, very few people sympathised with the preachers shown in the documentary but many did want to express their sympathy with Muslims in general, whom they saw, not without reason, as an embattled minority. And to the well-intentioned, the best way of doing this was to condemn anyone who criticised any Muslim, regardless of their extremism. As the playwright David Edgar put it: "Whether they like it or not, the current defectors [his term for those liberals who criticise extremist Islamic leaders] are seeking to provide a vocabulary for the progressive intelligentsia to abandon the poor."

Muslims in all their myriad variety and differences have morphed, or been corralled, into a unitary socio-economic-cultural block. To take vocal exception to one aspect of Islam or one particular leader or sect is, almost by definition, to be an opponent of all Muslims. The Satanic Verses affair was the first test case in Britain of Muslimhood - many were to follow - in which the mark of a true Muslim was to be in favour of banning the novel, and the distinction of an even truer Muslim was to be in favour of killing Rushdie. Inayat Bunglawala, spokesperson for the Jamaat-i-Islami-influenced Muslim Council of Britain, probably the most-often cited Islamic organisation in the country, passed both tests with flying colours. He was, in his own words, "elated" when Khomeini delivered the fatwa. "It was a very welcome reminder that British Muslims did not have to regard themselves just as a small, vulnerable minority; they were part of a truly global and powerful movement." Nowadays he accepts that book-banning is wrong, though he looks back with gratitude on the protests. "It was a seminal moment in British Muslim history," he told me. "It brought Muslims together. Before that they had been identified as ethnic communities but The Satanic Verses brought them together and helped develop a British Muslim identity, which I'm sure infuriates Salman Rushdie."

One reason for Rushdie's fury could be that an identity forged on terrorising a fiction writer, with its direct associations of violence and censorship, is not a fair one to hang on two million Britons. Kenan Malik suggests that it is a myth that "all Muslims were offended by The Satanic Verses. In fact, most Muslims were little concerned about it." But as with most political arguments, in this particular identity parade apathy never got a look in. Instead the most outspoken "community leaders" claimed, and were duly assigned, the mantle of authentic representatives of Muslim Britain.

Yet again Khomeini was onto something. The expressed intention of his fatwa was to defend and strengthen the clergy, and one of its effects in Britain has been to create a kind of pseudo-clergy, a class of Islamist intellectuals and militants who presume to speak not just for their co-religionists in Britain but 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. At the same time, in the late 80s and early 90s, another clergy of fundamentalist preachers, often refugees from despotic Middle Eastern regimes, began to attract a disaffected constituency that had been radicalised by The Satanic Verses protests. As Hirsi Ali put it to me: "The paradox in the UK with regard to freedom of expression is that most of the radical literature and most of the radical mosques moved from Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and established themselves in the liberal West, where there is freedom of religion and expression, with the bizarre purpose of destroying those freedoms."

In the 20 years since the fatwa, the parameters of cultural debate in Britain and elsewhere have undoubtedly narrowed. If the Islam of Khomeini and other fundamentalists has played a key role in redefining what is and is not acceptable, then it is not the only factor. Other religions have also got in on the censorship act. In 2004 the play Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled at the Birmingham Rep after a riot by Sikh protesters on the opening night. Christian groups too have taken to organising more intimidating protests - though with less success - against shows and productions they deem offensive.

Taken together they are all part of a multicultural accommodation that has come to determine the terms of public discourse. In hindsight, The Satanic Verses was published at a turning point in progressive politics. Throughout much of the 20th century a battle had been waged against discriminating on the basis of race (The Satanic Verses itself was avowedly anti-racist) and class. In other words, those aspects of humanity that are biologically inherited or socially imposed. For a variety of reasons, including the fall of the Berlin Wall later on in 1989 and the emergence of minority group activism, a new identity politics emerged. Class and race were replaced or trumped by culture.

The emphasis moved to combating cultural discrimination. All cultures were deemed equal, and therefore all components of culture - religion, tradition, beliefs - had to be protected from critical appraisal. Obviously culture is socially inherited, but in a free society it is also a matter of freedom of choice. The liberty to change your beliefs, reject your traditions and question your religion is what distinguishes individuals from members of an enforced collective. Such liberty necessitates the discussion and expression of ideas that may be unpalatable to others. Increasingly, therefore, this has become a process that is actively discouraged.

Respecting culture has come to mean restricting debate. Malik quotes the sociologist Tariq Modood on this issue: "If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each other's fundamental beliefs to criticism."

To some extent this sensitivity has been achieved by coercion - the fatwa model. But there has also been a more voluntary adoption of multicultural manners, chief among which is the duty not to offend. And where that has failed, the government has shown itself all too willing to step in with proscriptive legislation. Three years ago we came within a single parliamentary vote of being saddled with a law (the Religious Hatred Act) that meant you or I could be imprisoned for seven years for using insulting language, even if the insult was unintentional and referred to an established truth.

Furthermore, under draconian anti-terror laws, it is now illegal to be in possession of a whole range of reading material. This is one of the terrible ironies of the conflict with reactionary Islam, previewed in the attempt to censor (and kill) Rushdie. In 1989 the British government defended freedom of expression against Islamic extremists. By 2009 Islamic extremists could accuse the British government of withdrawing freedom of expression. That the extremists dream of a far more extensive (and violent) censorship is no comfort or excuse.

Rushdie has now moved on, figuratively and geographically, from the fatwa years. Back from the front pages, he has once again relocated, having lived in Mumbai and London, to New York (he is not alone in noting that all three cities have suffered Islamic terror attacks). But The Satanic Verses remains a book about the struggles of migration and the frictions of cultural exchange. It pokes fun at all manner of targets, not least America and Britain. Above all, perhaps, it dramatises the conviction that there is nothing more sacred than the freedom to question what is sacred. Twenty years on, it's a principle that urgently needs to be remembered.

The Federal Reserve – A Jewish Monetary "System" & Jewish Bankers

Benjamin H. Freedman in his tome “Common Sense” said that the public at large, and Christians in particular, have been duped into believing a wholesale lie about who Jews are, where they came from, and their "historical lineage". Quoting Freedman:

“Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon. This ‘big lie’ technique is brainwashing United States Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was “King of the Jews”, in the sense that so-called ‘Jews’ today call themselves ‘Jews’. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so-called Jews highjacked the word ‘Jew’ in the 18th century A.D. to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so-called ‘Jews’ of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable.”

“American Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty-four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their curricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so-called “Jews” of historic Khazar ancestry. Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect.

Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called “Jews” throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom.

For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges."...Benjamin H. Freedman

As noted by Makow, and mentioned on our British Israel page, the Zionist manipulators of today who embrace the teachings and proscriptions of the Talmud are the same Pharisees who Christ had so strongly rebuked for their terrible endeavors and serpent-like ways. The boys at the top of the Jewish Illuminated pyramid are satanists who murder babies in satanic rituals and drink their blood, believing that such practices bring them power and longevity. We need to focus on the individuals resposnsible for the enslavement agenda and not resort to simplistic scapegoating. ....Ken Adachi].

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/federalreservesystem28mar09.shtml
March 28, 2009

The Federal Reserve "System" & Jewish Bankers (Mar. 28, 2009)

http://www.rense.com/general85/feddrec.htm

The Federal Reserve - Jewish Private Bankers

JEWS CONTROL THE MONEY IN AMERICA. Period. End of story.

Jews own and run the Federal Reserve Bank that the US government continually borrows from...and is in debt to.

Napoleon said: When a government is dependent for money upon the bankers, they and not the government leaders control the nation. This is because the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Financiers are without patriotism and without decency.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of 9 Jewish-owned & associated banks with the Rothschilds at the head:

$1. Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin.

$2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

$3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

$4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

$5. Lehman Brothers of NY.

$6. Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (Now Shearson American Express).

$7. Goldman, Sachs of NY.

$8. National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (J. P. Morgan Bank - Equitable Life - Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders).

$9. Hanover Trust of NY (William and David Rockefeller & Chase National Bank NY are principal shareholders).

TIME LINE OF THE JEW-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

1791-1811: Rothschilds' First Bank of the United States.

1816-1836: Rothschilds' Second Bank of the United States.

1837-1862: Free Banking Era - no formal Central Bank through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.

1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.

1913-Current: Federal Reserve Act effects a consortium of privately held Jewish & associated banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank are the Rothschilds of London holding 57% of the stock which is not available for public trading.

On May 23 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought impeachment charges against the members of the Federal Reserve Bank. A smear campaign against McFadden ensued and he was poisoned 3 years later.

JEWS RUN THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

Here are the Jews that control the government of America:

1) Ben Shalom Bernanke: Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2020.

2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2016.

3) Randall S. Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.

4) Frederic S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2014.

5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Recent Chairman.

HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK WORKS

JEWISH BANKERS PRINT MONEY at heavily-armed & guarded Federal Reserve Bank buildings throughout the US. Then these Jewish bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank *loan* the money to the US government at *interest.*

Since the Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (and all the others) is listed in Dun & Bradstreet. But according to Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, only Congress has the right to issue money and regulate its value.

Thus it is *illegal* for private interests to issue US money. But because influential Jews like Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff bribed into enactment the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank were to be kept a secret. Only recently have the Jewish stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank come to light.

International cooperation with the Jew-owned Federal Reserve Bank has been intense to coordinate currency. In 1985, officials from the JP Morgan Bank of NY met with the Credit Lyonnais Bank of France. They established the European Currency Unit Banking Association (ECUBA) to get world cooperation for a unified currency.

In October 1987, the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe (AMUE), secretly met and recommended that the ECU (European Currency Unit) replace existing national currencies and that all European Central Banks be combined into one and issue the ECU as the official unified currency. This occurred in 1999 with the issuing of the Euro.

The plan of the international Jewish banking cabal is to have only 3 central banks in the world: The Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank, and the Central Bank of Japan. All of these banks are headed by the Rothschilds.

And Next To Come Will Be The One World Government Run By Anti-Christian Jews.

Read the source article from Real Jew News with links here.
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=177

Related Articles

Pick-Pocketing the People: The ruling elite planned the global economic downturn. They timed the implementation and orchestration while controlling media coverage of it.
http://thomaspainereturns.blogspot.com/2009/03/pick-pocketing-people.html

The Takeover of America, Republic Becomes Oligarchy: America has become an oligarchy (a government ruled by a powerful few) versus a Republic (a government limited by law) as the banking and Wall Street Masters of the Universe continue their tyranny.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2009/03/23.html

P.S. Hey, we have to be slaves and not complain about it. Otherwise we'd be "anti-Semitic." It's "anti-Semitic" to notice what's happening and who's in charge, and it's "anti-Semitic" to complain about it. The FEMA camps will be full of "anti-Semites" otherwise known as "terrorists."

http://josministries.prophpbb.com/post26011.html

There are new videos that go with this sermon:

https://www.youtube.com/user/iknowthetruth88

How would you feel if this common thread, the money we all work so hard for, not only came unraveled, but worse yet was a total Fraud?!

The Jewish Race has been trying for the past 2000 years to gain complete and total control over Every Gentile Race. They could not have conquered entire Gentile nations, nor could they have enslaved entire races of Gentiles without us willingly being submissive to them – giving up our rights. They have obtained their power through Manipulation, Deceit, Lies, Thievery and Trickery! They have no power of their own.

Ever since the Emperor Constantine bowed his head in submission to the jewish Lie of xianity- giving up his Pagan beliefs – Gentile Humanity has been suffering. This is how the jews first get Gentiles to submit to them. They have had us bowing down to and worshiping THEIR so-called “god” ever since!
This has already been covered in another sermon on this channel titled:

The Holy Bible: A Book of Jewish Witchcraft

If you haven’t already done so, you should take the time to watch the series.

The jewish monetary systems of the world are centered around giving the jews total control over every economy they lend money to, with the end result of us Gentiles becoming their slaves, while they sit on their thrones – fat and happy- enjoying the fruits of Our Hard Labor – their land of milk and honey. This is what their so-called “god” promised them it their bible.

The proof of this is in their jewish talmud:

Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: “When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.”

Who do you think Pays for the jews to have their prosperity and power? We Do! Each and every Gentile listening to the sound of my voice – YOU are the ones who have to pay for the jews to have their prosperity. It is from the sweat off your backs that they prosper!

Before I go further into this you need to understand that the Rothschild family is a Jewish by Race and Blood! They are the wealthiest family in the world – They are Trillionaires. To give you an idea of just how Big a Trillion is… a Trillion a 1 followed by 12 zero’s – It takes a Thousand Billions to equal one Trillion. And the Rothschild family’s net worth well over 100 Trillion! That’s More than our Total National Debt.

There are some interesting quotes I would like to share with you:

“Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not for who writes it’s laws.”
-Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

“They (meaning the jews) work more effectively against us than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties than the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.” – President George Washington
From: Maxims of George Washington by A.A. Appleton & Co, 1894

“I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have built up a state within a state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

For over 1700 hundred years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But, gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires.

They cannot live only amongst themselves. They must subsist on other people not of their race. If you do not exclude them from these United States in the Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land, and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance, and jeopardized our liberty.

If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.” –Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.

The founding fathers of the United States knew how evil the jews were and how this most serious threat should not be taken lightly. They are a Very Dishonest Race, though to your face they will LIE and profess the opposite.

The jews who practice judaism are the worst! Look in your local phone book or on the internet and see how many jewish synagogues you have in your local area. There are probably a few.

Those same jews who go to those synagogues, might be standing in line next to you at the supermarket, or maybe one of them is even the manager at your workplace.

They are everywhere. They make many business deals and are heavily involved in politics. NO WONDER MOST POLITITIONS DO NOT KEEP THEIR WORD! Most of Washington D.C. is Run by jews, either Racially and/ or by religion.

As jews, they feel that they are somehow above the oaths to which they have previously sworn. In the fall of each year they swear an Oath of Dishonesty and Disloyalty before their so-called god- to be taken against every Gentile that they come into contact with.

It’s called the Kol Nidre prayer:

“All vows, obligations, and oaths, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next, we do repent; May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.”

This “day of atonement” or Yom Kippur as they call it for 2014 begins on the evening of October 3rd thru the evening of October 4th. This is when the jews say their Kol Nidre prayer. You can expect any promises they have made to be broken then.

So these jews go to their local synagogues on Yom Kippur and make a solemn oath before their god to break Every Promise they make to Gentiles for the entire year.

Meanwhile xians are in church on Sunday morning with fearful tears running down their faces, Begging that non-existent jewish god for forgiveness because they weren’t completely obedient to it in every way.

Xians have to be sorry for every little thing. They live in FEAR of loosing that eternal paradise in heaven, forever chasing that carrot dangling in front of them. It’s all a LIE- to deceive you and get you to submit to the jews, Wake Up before you become a slave to jewish communism!!

The Federal Reserve Bank is also the Central Bank of the United States. There is an article linked below, a downloadable PDF file, that all of you should have a look at, which further explains in detail some the information I am about to give to you.

This all began in 1791 when the jew Alexander Hamilton, who happened to be in President Washington’s cabinet, and also an agent of the Rothschild’s – established the legal grounds for what would one day become the central bank of the united states.

A 20 year charter was given for the First bank of the united states. In 1811, when the charter had ended, in ruthless mob like fashion, Nathan Meyer Amschel Rothschild threatened the America government with this direct statement:

“Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”

The American government refuses to bow to the threat and the vote remained.

Nathan Rothschild upon hearing the news made the statement:
“Teach those impudent Americans a lesson; bring them back to colonial status!”
The war of 1812 began. By the time it was over, American financial capital burned to the ground. The aim of the war was for America to create such a massive war debt in defending itself, that they would be forced to renew the charter.

The plan succeeded in 1816. The American government was forced by the terrorist tactics of the Jews to create a new 20-year charter for the Rothschild’s “Second Bank of America.”

In 1832, President Jackson ran for his second term in office on the platform of “Jackson and No Bank!” Jackson openly declared the jew bankers as Crooks and vowed to route them out.

Not long after, on January 30 1835, there was an assassination attempt on President Jackson’s life. He was saved because both of the assassins’ pistols misfired.

“I am one of those who do not believe the national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic, inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.” —Andrew Jackson, Letter to L. H. Coleman of Warrenton, N.C., 29 April 1824

Later in 1841, President Tyler also vetoed the act to renew the charter for Rothschild’s bank. In response, he was threatened with assassination from many “anonymous” sources.

President Lincoln refused to take out loans from the Rothschild banks to fund the Civil War. Instead he decided to print what later became known as the “Green Back”.
“We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they have ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.” – President Lincoln

Rothschild had this to say in response: “It will not do to Allow the Greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money for any length of time, as we cannot control that.”
Thus the order of the Rothschild’s was clear, “Capitalists will see to it that a Debt is made out of the war.”

It is through a nations Debt that the jewish bankers control a nation!
In 1865, President Lincoln stated, “I have two great enemies; the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is my greatest foe.” That same year on April 14, Lincoln was assassinated by a Jew named John Wilkes Booth.

Bismarck knew the truth and revealed it in 1876 to a German, Conrad Siem, who published it in ‘La Vieille France,’ N-216, March 1921]. Bismarck said:
“The Jew will not hesitate to plunge the entire world into wars and chaos, in order that ‘the earth should become the inheritance of Israel.”

President Garfield stated in 1881, two weeks before he was also assassinated by a Jew named Charles J. Guiteau: “Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…. And when you realize 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.”

In 1910, a secret meeting was held at a J.P. Morgan estate on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. It was there that the central banking bill called the Federal Reserve Act was written. This legislation was written by the Jewish bankers, not lawmakers. After this bill was constructed, it was then handed over to their political front man, Senator Nelson Aldrich, to push through Congress.

The Jewish families behind creating this system of control were:
the Rothschild’s; the Rockefeller’s; the Morgan’s and the Warburg’s.

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson, who was backed by the Jewish bankers, was
elected President upon the promise that in return for their financial support he would sign the Federal Reserve Act into law. At the time, the act was thwarted in Congress from passing. The Jews then made an underhanded move, two days before Christmas when most of the Congressmen were at home with their families, the Federal Reserve Act was voted in. President Wilson was true to his treasonous word and made it into law.

The Federal Reserve Act literally handed the America economy over to a handful of powerful Jewish banking families.

Each and every one of us, who goes to work, must pay our taxes. Most of us have money taken out of our paychecks each week for it. Where does this money go? 6% of your taxes goes to pay the Interest owed on the National Debt- A debt that the jewish banking families originate their wealth from!

“When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A superstate controlled by Jewish international bankers and industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is— the Fed has usurped the government.” (Congressman Louis McFadden, upon the passage of the Federal Reserve bill. The Unseen Hand, p. 182.)

Unlike other Privately Owned Companies in the United States, who must open its books to the IRS during an audit, who are also subject to the penalty of law if they should refuse…. The Federal Reserve Bank does whatever it wants to! No one questions them!

I want to also add something else here. A new law goes into effect on July 1, 2014. It was an amendment to H.R. 2847 also known as FACTA. Under FACTA every financial institution in the world is required to open their internal books to the IRS for Audit.

Additionally, they are required to report Every American Citizen or green card holder who has an account with them to the IRS. And if their account balance is more than $50,000 they will be Required to claim it on their taxes and Pay long-overdue Taxes on that money.

Of course this will more than likely cause them to be Audited by the IRS for Tax Fraud, which in turn has the potential of making them face criminal prosecution for Tax Evasion.

They are trying to catch everyone who has been hiding their monies in foreign accounts. Again…. Where does this money go? It eventually makes it way into the pockets of the jewish bankers that control the Federal Reserve Bank!

President Wilson brought America into the WW1 for the sake of the jews, after being elected on the promise of keeping America out of the war.

Another important reason the jews wanted America involved in World War I, was so that that the jews would control of the American money supply via the Federal Reserve.

America’s entry into the war would require the United States to take out massive war loans, just like in 1812, indebting the nation to the Jewish banks much faster and at a substantially increased pace.

Benjamin Freedman, the Jewish defector who was later murdered by the
Mossad, stated:

“I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.”

At that time the Zionists in London had sent message to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying:

“Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.”

That’s how the United States got into WW1.

We had no interest in it. There we were suckered into it so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine.

That is something that the people of the United States have never been told.

While that was occurring, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet, and they said: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

They made that promise in October of 1916. Shortly thereafter, the
United States, which was almost totally pro-German, because like today, at that time the newspapers were being controlled by Jews, and those jews wanted to see Germany defeat the Czar in Russia.

The jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win the war.
Now those same jews, when they became aware of the possibility of obtaining Palestine, went to England and made that deal.

At that time, everything changed, the newspapers which had once been pro-German, started printing the opposite, that the Germans were no good.

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, they are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” –Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom [1913], Doubleday

“Our present money system is a debt money system. Before a dollar can circulate, a debt must be created. Such a system assumes that you can borrow yourself out of debt.” –Willis A. Overholser, A short review and analysis of the history of money in the United States, with an introduction to the current money problem [1936], p. 56

Every dollar that is created has Interest owed on it. That interest is a Debt. How are you doing to pay this debt that you owe?

With what? The same currency they already gave to you through your jobs? Impossible, you must pay it with something else.

“Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created, as the present panic is the first scientifically created one, and is worked out as we work out a mathematical equation.” – Congressman Lindbergh, regarding the crash of 1929.

A few weeks before the stock market crash of 1929, the jewish bankers such as Rockefeller and others quietly withdrew from the market – out the backdoor.
On Oct 24 1929, the Margin loans are called in mass waves.

Everyone began selling their stocks all at once, 16,000 banks were wiped out in the process. Then the jews swooped in and bought up the remaining stock at a pennies on the dollar. This put them in control of numerous corporations across the board and the entire economic system in general.

The jews then purposely shrank the money supply, increasing the depression to the point it is remembered to this day as “The Great Depression.”

“It was a carefully contrived occurrence, International Bankers sought to bring conditions of despair so they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”
–Congressman McFadden, on the truth of the Great Depression

The Removal of Money:

The Rothschild’s took power through mob style manipulation to gain control over every single one of us! How? They took the Gold and other precious metals out of circulation. Even the silver in the quarters is completely gone. Every coin minted is nearly worthless in its melt value.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States of America, 1933-1945, was partly of Dutch-Jewish ancestry. It is no wonder he stood behind the jewish bankers here in the united states and supported rebuilding of the bandit state of israel. He was a jew, and had jewish interests in mind.

FDR was in full support of the Destruction of Germany and the extermination of the German People.

FDR sent more than 500 US bombers to MURDER 300,000 Germans at Dresden. It was an Act of Genocide carried out by the jewish governments of the United States and Great Britain!

This was covered in greater detail in the videos series titled:

What the Jews have Done: Dresden an Act of Genocide Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-iw0dBQveY

Guess who was Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury during WW2. Henry Morgenthau Jr. He also was a presidential adviser to FDR. Henry Morgenthau Jr. was jewish by blood and father of the Morgenthau Plan to re-structure Germany/ Europe after WW2. FDR was Dead 3 months after the bombing of Dresden, although many of the Murderers were never brought to Justice!

The Removal of Wealth:

On April 5th 1933, jewish President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law Executive Order 6102: “forbidding the Hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States”. Failure to hand over your gold was punishable by a fine of $10,000 and or 10 Years in Prison.

With Americans now stripped of their Gold, as if that wasn’t bad enough, the US Mint decided to remove all of the Silver from Every US coin minted after 1964.

The Coinage Act of 1965 enforced the removal of all Silver from the Quarter and the Dime.

They wanted to scrape up ALL of the Precious Metals from the general public so that the Money you work for has no real value to it.

Sure, there are still thousands of these coins in the hands of private collectors, but they aren’t giving them up, as is the entire point of collecting. But even ALL of that doesn’t add up to much True Wealth!

Through 1964 the US Quarter and the Dime were both comprised of 90 percent Silver and 10 percent Copper.

If you have ever held one of these in your hand you can feel the difference in weight and can hear the difference if you drop it compared to any of the Clad coins we have today. The last time the Nickel had any Silver in it was before and during WW2.
The half dollar was also reduced from 90 percent Silver down to 40 percent Silver in 1965, and then the Silver was completely removed by 1971.

Today US coins are mostly comprised of Copper, Zinc, Nickel, and Tin. These metals do still have melt value but a very low price. You would need a whole truck load of them to have any significant value.

Every penny has its origin in the Fed. Every dollar they make is a debt placed upon you and me to be paid by our descendants. You could never repay it, only through Communism and Slavery, with YOU becoming the Property that the jews Own. Do you remember what the talmud said about the jews owning Gentiles as their slaves?

Even if you gave back every single dollar you have ever earned, and all of your possessions to the jewish bankers who own and operate the Federal Reserve, you STILL OWE THEM!

Can you tell me how you pay for a debt after you are cold and destitute on the street? You guessed it!

WITH HARD LABOR! Do you Remember what the Bolsheviks did in Russia? You don’t want to have to live through that.

Since we are going to be talking about Currency I want to ask you something…. What is Real Money? We are always told that this paper stuff is Money, even though most of it is Electronic, which is another issue…. They say this stuff is money but I don’t believe them…. As far as I can tell it says right here that:
“This Note is Legal Tender for all Debts Public and Private”.

Before the Great Depression of 1928 and until 1934 most US currency was redeemable in either Gold or Silver. It was backed by Real Money. That means you could walk into any Federal Reserve Bank and trade in your paper currency for Real Gold or Silver coins. These bank notes are the Last of the Valuable paper money ever to be printed in the United States! Even still, these notes were issued under a Fractional Reserve Banking System. Every Central Bank in the world uses this type of banking. The bank is only required to retain 10% of the original deposit in its vault. The other 90% is then loaned to another bank. This process then continues until there is nothing left of the original loan. This form of banking resembles the Margin Loan that when called in caused the Great Depression.

I remember during the Recession of 2008, some banks had to refuse customers their cash, and reduce the amount that could be withdrawn on a single day. Even if you do have, let’s say, $100,000 in the bank. You can’t just walk into your bank with a briefcase and ask take it all out. You have to make a special request to do that and then wait for a number of days to get your cash. Most banks, IF you are lucky will let you take out $7,000 in a single day, but usually they have the limit set much lower between $5,000 or $3,000. Once it is in the bank, that money is no longer yours unless they CHOOSE to give it to you. And if they close their doors then – Game Over!

See the Zeitgeist movies linked here for more information.

What is Real Money? THIS Ladies and Gentlemen is REAL MONEY! Gold and Silver Dollars, Coins with Real Value. Gold and Silver do not depreciate over time, they only go up in value. Why is that? Is there less and less Gold and Silver in the world today then there was yesterday? No. Companies are mi

Show less