Banks are Now in Control of Eurozone

Anselm Rothschild famously said, “Give me the power to issue a nation’s money; then I do not care who makes the law.”  It looks like the bankers are taking control of the Eurozone with their latest bailout plan to “inject” printed money directly into the banks.  I guess this is one of the main reasons why Howard Buffett (Warren’s dad) said this decades ago: “The gold standard acted as a silent watchdog to prevent ‘unlimited public spending.Our finances will never be brought in order until Congress is compelled to do so. Making our money redeemable in gold will create this compulsion.” ” When you recall that one of the first moves by Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler was to outlaw individual ownership of gold, you begin to sense that there may be some connection between money, redeemable in gold, and the rare prize known as human liberty. Also, when you find that Lenin declared and demonstrated that a sure way to overturn the existing social order and bring about communism was by printing press paper money, then again you are impressed with the possibility of a relationship between a gold-backed money and human freedom.”  REP. HOWARD BUFFETT 

Ellen Brown of has written an excellent post on what is really taking place in the ongoing banking bailout of the Eurozone.  Get this, the bankers over there have given themselves immunity from just about every law that can be broken.  This is outrageous!!  She is today’s guest writer on  As usual, Brown uses excellent sourcing to back up what she says.  Please enjoy– Greg Hunter



Government by the Banks, for the Banks:

The ESM Coup D’Etat in Europe

By Ellen Brown, Guest writer for 

On Friday, June 29th, German Chancellor Angela Merkel acquiesced to changes to a permanent Eurozone bailout fund—“before the ink was dry,” as critics complained.  Besides easing the conditions under which bailouts would be given, the concessions included an agreement that

funds intended for indebted governments could be funneled  directly to stressed banks.


According to Gavin Hewitt, Europe editor for BBC News, the concessions mean that:


[T]he eurozone’s bailout fund (backed by taxpayers’ money) will be taking a stake in failed banks.

Risk has been increased. German taxpayers have increased their liabilities. In future a bank crash will no longer fall on the shoulders of national treasuries but on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), a fund to which Germany contributes the most.

In the short term, these measures will ease pressure in the markets. However there is currently only 500bn euros assigned to the ESM. That may get swallowed up quickly and the markets may demand more. It is still unclear just how deep the holes in the eurozone’s banks are.

The ESM is now a permanent bailout fund for private banks, a sort of permanent “welfare for the rich.”  There is no ceiling set on the obligations to be underwritten by the taxpayers, no room to negotiate, and no recourse in court. Its daunting provisions were summarized in a December 2011 youtube video originally posted in German, titled “The shocking truth of the pending EU collapse!:


The treaty establishes a new intergovernmental organization to which we are required to transfer unlimited assets within seven days if it so requests, an organization that can sue us but is immune from all forms of prosecution and whose managers enjoy the same immunity.  There are no independent reviewers and no existing laws apply.  Governments cannot take action against it.  Europe’s national budgets [are] in the hands of one single unelected intergovernmental organization.      


Here are some of the ESM’s key provisions:


[Article 8]  “The authorised capital stock shall be EUR 700 000 [700 billion Euros].”


[Article 9]:  “ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them . . . such demand to be paid within seven days of receipt.” 


[Article 10]: “The Board of Governors . . . may decide to change the authorised capital and amend Article 8 . . . accordingly.” 


[Article 32, paragraph 3]: “The ESM, its property, funding, and assets . . . shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process . . . .” 


[Article 32, paragraph 4]: “The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall . . . be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.” 


[Article 30]:  “ . . . Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, as well as the Managing Director and other staff members shall be immune from legal proceedings with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents.”  


And that was before Merkel’s recent concessions, which allow this open-ended indebtedness to be funneled directly to the banks. 

Why Did Merkel Cave?

“Reactions back home were devastating,” reported der Spiegel.  “[T]he impression was that [Merkel] had been out-maneuvered by Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and Spanish Prime Minster Mariano Rajoy.”

As of June 21, 13 of 17 countries still had not ratified the ESM; and the most important ratification needed was Germany’s, the largest economy in the Eurozone.  Earlier, Angela Merkel had opposed using the bailout fund to pump money directly into struggling European banks.  But at the EU summit that began on Thursday and dragged on well into the night, she finally relented.  Late Friday evening, German lawmakers voted 493-106 in favor of the €700 billion ($890 billion) permanent bailout fund.

What caused Merkel to back down?  According to an article in The Economist, the late night was “filled with bluff and bluster,” in which 

Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister . . . , along with Italy’s Mario Monti, had threatened to block any agreement at the summit unless their demands were met. Mr Rajoy obtained satisfaction, but the same is not quite true of Mr Monti, who had been the most adamant of the two.

Mr Monti declared himself satisfied, but caused considerable irritation to partners. Among the deals he had blocked was the “growth pact”, a mixture of stimulus measures.

What Monti achieved by this maneuver was not clear:

“Who needs the growth pact? Not Germany,” said one bemused participant. The euro zone’s fiscal hawks say the bond-buying mechanism will be little different from the existing system. “Mario Monti raised a gun to his head and threatened to shoot himself. In the end he wounded himself in the shoulder,” said one scornful diplomat.

Maybe.  Or maybe the bond-buying mechanism was not what he was really after. 


The Italian Coup D’Etat


There is reason to suspect that “Super Mario” Monti may be representing interests other than those of his country.  He rose to power in Italy last November in what critics called a “‘coup d’etat’ engineered by bankers and the European Union.”  He was not elected but stepped in after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi resigned under duress.

Monti is not only an “international advisor” to Goldman Sachs, one of the most powerful financial firms in the world, but a leader in the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.  In an article in The New American, Alex Newman calls these clandestine groups “two of the most influential cabals in existence today.”  Monti is listed as a member of the steering committee on the official Bilderberg website and as the European Group chairman on the Trilateral Commission website. 


The Trilateral Commission was co-founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, also Bilderberger attendees.  The Trilateral Commission grew from the thesis in Brzezinski’s 1970 piece Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era that a coordinated policy among developed nations was necessary in order to counter global instability erupting from increasing economic inequality. He wrote in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard that it would be difficult to get a consensus on these issues “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Naomi Klein calls it “the shock doctrine”—an induced disaster forcing austerity measures on sovereign nations.  In desperation, they would come to heel, relinquishing the sovereign right of governments to an unelected body of technocrats.  And that is what the ESM seems to achieve.

Rockefeller notoriously wrote in his 2002 autobiography, “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will.  If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Implementing the Shock Doctrine

In another bankers’ coup last November, former Goldman Sachs executive Mario Draghi replaced Jean-Claude Trichet as head of the European Central Bank.  The European Stability Mechanism quickly followed.  It was a permanent rescue facility intended to replace certain temporary facilities as soon as the member states had ratified it, slated to occur by July 1, 2012.  The ESM came to an initial vote in January 2012, when it was passed in the dead of night with barely a mention in the press. 

The recent modifications were also agreed to in the dead of night, ostensibly because Italy and Spain were afflicted with onerously high interest rates.  But there are other ways to bring down interest rates on sovereign debt besides forcing whole countries into open-ended pacts to bail out private banks for unlimited sums in perpetuity, in the hope that the banks might bail the governments out in return. 

The U.S. 2012 budget deficit is significantly worse than either Italy’s or Spain’s, yet somehow the U.S. has managed to keep interest rates on its debt at record lows.  How has it pulled this off? 

One theory is that JPMorgan’s $57 trillion in interest rate swaps have something to do with it.  Another explanation, however, is that the Fed has simply stepped in as lender of last resort and bought up any debt not sold at the low rate set by the Treasury, using “quantitative easing” (money created on a computer screen).  Between December 2008 and June 2011, the Fed bought a whopping $2.3 trillion of U.S. bonds in two rounds of quantitative easing.  Why can’t the European Central Bank do the same thing?  The answer is that there are rules against it, but rules are just arbitrary agreements.  They can be changed by agreement—and often have been, to save the banks. 

As the cynic quoted in The Economist article above observed, the bond-buying mechanism for countries under the ESM will be little different from the existing system.  Mario Monti said the plan will support government bond prices only in countries that comply with fiscal targets, and that it will act as an incentive for governments to follow virtuous policies.  That means avoiding deficits, even if it requires further austerity measures and selling of assets.  On the public level, that could mean national treasures like the Acropolis.  On the private level, The New York Times reported Friday that some desperate out-of-work Europeans were going so far as to sell their kidneys to pay household bills. The shock doctrine, it seems, has come to the doorsteps of privileged Westerners.

The German diplomats negotiating the ESM did leave open some escape hatches, including a request by Germany’s highest court to the country’s president not to sign the treaties into law until a legal review can be completed.  At least 12,000 complaints are expected to be filed with the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the ESM and the fiscal pact. The legal review could well conclude that the ESM illegally hijacks taxpayer funds for private bank profit. 

It is one thing to pool national resources to bail out other sovereign governments, quite another to write a blank check to bail out the profligate private banks that precipitated the global downturn.  Europe has a strong tradition of publicly-owned banks.  If the people must bear the costs, the people should own the banks and reap the benefits. 


Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute,  In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are and

Please Support Our Direct Sponsors Below
Who Support The Truth Tellers

Discount Gold and Silver Trading Free Report

Satellite Phone Store

Dry Element

Ready Made Resources

Weston Scientific
Stay Connected
  1. Jan

    I agree with the conclusion “if the people must bear the cost, the people should own the banks.” Every nation should follow Iceland’s example, bust the bankers and nationalize the banks. There will be pain, but there will be a light at the end of the tunnel.

  2. Jim H

    Thanks Greg
    Ellen as always is informative, interesting and able to bring lofty ideas down to laymen level. Her writing along with that of many others is based on what we have for all of our lives believed and been taught were the rules of business and economics. Today I’m not so sure these rules (if there ever really were any) apply to anything other than to keep the casino open and multibillion dollar gated communities safe from the unwashed. If the rules truly applied, gold value would be at least double what it is. Global Investors want everything more consolidated or to quote Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. “a new world order”. It is clear, the powers that be will have their cashless society along with huge new ant beds called cities. We will work harder for less and fear will continue to be their tool. Or we can stop believing in these bogus rules that only apply to the 99% and ignore them. State banks and restoring states rights are a good beginning.

  3. PatriotRider

    Nothing less than coordinated worldwide corruption legalized and sanctioned by governments and bankers.

  4. JILL

    Great article. The end is nearing or at least the begining of the end

    • Greg

      I think you are spot on.

  5. AndyB

    What Hitler couldn’t do militarily, the banksters will do financially. The agenda has always been the abrogation of individual sovereignty, with bought and paid for puppets installed in either or (preferably) both executive and legislative branches.

  6. Edward Ulysses Cate

    Now that you’ve brought up the Rockefeller name, isn’t it interesting that with David at 91, the Rothschilds want to make sure control stays within THEIR empire. In other words, Rockefeller was only an agent.

    “Two of the best known business dynasties in Europe and the US will come together after Lord Jacob Rothschild’s listed investment trust and Rockefeller Financial Services agreed to form a strategic partnership.” (‘Rockefellers and Rothschilds Unite’ – Financial Times May 30, 2012)

  7. Edward Ulysses Cate

    One more thing: Perhaps now folks will understand why chills ran through me when I first perused the 1889 Great Red Dragon book in a Detroit antique book store. The Maastricht Treaty had just been ratified. That was in 1992. Now we know that was the beginning of all this nonsense. I waited until my youngest had turned 18 and out of the house before starting to publish that information on my website in 2006. There is no joy in being right. One needs only to read the old first chapter to get those chills even today. How did the writer know in 1889? I never found out. Actually it doesn’t matter. He tried to warn us.

  8. jay

    Its hard for a GOD fearing man to kill over his money/livelyhood.
    We know at some piont his GODliness is be replaced with anger…Then he is cappable of anything. How long will it take for people to get full of anger…I hope we in america never reach that piont.

  9. g.johnson


    it appears that you have at least looked down the rabbit hole. i have gained a new respect for you.

    you said rather adamantly, some time ago, that you are a capitalist. i still don’t believe that. i think, like many, you are simply getting capitalism confused with enterprise.

    the difference lies in:

    if you do it for love (entrepreneur) the money will come.
    if you do it for money (capitalist) love will disappear.

    keep up the great research greg. it is apparent that you are working diligently.

    • Greg

      G. Johnson,
      I am not confused about what capitalism is. I think if you put out a good product or service in an honest ethical way you should be able to make all the money you want whether you like what you are doing or not. (It does help if you like what you are doing.) But true capitalism has a process for failure and that is bankruptcy. That is what should have happened in 2008. It would have been much cheaper to only cover the depositors (approx. $6 trillion) of the TBTF banks and we would be in a true recovery by now. Thank you for all your comments and most importantly for your support!!!

  10. g.johnson


    this is semantics, no doubt. but in today’s world, words come out of the mainstream media that, over time, change meanings depending on the ocntext of the paradigm.

    the word “capitalist” has become synonymous with those who pursue the new world battle cry: “it’s all about money”. those who could give a rat’s hindquarters about things like quality, craftsmanship, fair play or the fate of the customer, etc..

    our founding fathers did not much use the word capitalism, and surely did not use it to describe the system they were attempting to put in place. free market enterprise.

    “the customer is always right!” whatever happened to that noble sentiment? capitalism happened to it. monetize, monetize, monetize. when you have the mark in your grasp, squeeze the mark dray. if he complains, let him talk to someone in india about it.

    so basically greg, would you sell your children if the price was right, or not?

    i don’t think so. ergo, in my book, you are an entrepeneur.

  11. Brandon

    Greg you’re the man and your saving lives with this information to the public. No doubt about it! God bless you brother!

    The systemic greed will come at a very heavy cost. It’s gonna get rough soon and that’s something my college football (Rutgers Football go knights!) love wont be able to solve in the fall. Lets just prepare for worldwide financial collapse, world war 3, and solar flares that will turn this entire world upside down before years end. Don’t forget to praise god and his son if your on your way out in the future. I’m living proof as he saved me with my final words asking for help as I was about to die from a heart attack and on my way to hell. Real talk. God bless.

    • Greg

      Thank you brandon!!

Leave A Reply

Please Note: All comments are moderated and manually reviewed for spam. In turn, your comment may take up to 24 hours to be posted. also reserves the right to edit comments for grammar and spelling errors.