I agree with much of what you have said. Looking at the banking community I can see where the "Globalist" idea originated.

My starter for banking is to consider what I call a "Lone Ranger Bank." If one appeared at the start of an episode of the '50s TV series of that name we knew that it was going to get robbed and the Lone Ranger and Tonto would, eventually, catch the robbers. Things were much simpler back then!

The bank would be two rooms: one for the customers and one for the safe. I imagine that the safe would have different compartments for everyone's valuables.

The next step is to move a level higher up and see things from the bank's standpoint. They had a safe full of dollars that remained relatively constant over time so why not hire some of those dollars out for cash? Bank loans were just invented.

Now move up another layer. All the separate banks would be in competition so why not join forces to remove that pressure to concentrate on exploiting the customers. I believe that is what the Jekyll Island meeting did.

Up again: Now the banks have joined forces they can propose a central bank, which they would control, and would provide a way into government funds. Now we have The Fed, Bank of England etc.

Up yet again: WW1 resulted in reparations that needed to be managed across national borders so we need the Bank of International Settlement.

Finally, we have the Breton Woods agreement and they create the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

So the whole Global system was grown from the bottom up by bankers for the benefit of the bankers.

As for "printing money" causing inflation, that is a bit too simplistic. Yes, if the banks all agree to lend money for, say, housing then that will cause house prices to rise and that will be inflationary. In fact, the banks can cause housing crashes that way and then they can step in afterwards and buy up lots of cheap real estate. Not that they would ever do such a thing ...

However, they could decide to lend money to entrepreneurs who would create something new. That extra cash would be spent on the new things and that would not be inflationary.

If I were a bank and I could convert all my currency into some form of inflation hedge, then I would welcome inflation because that would be a source of money for me. For instance, I put $1,000 into the bank. Inflation is 5%. Next year I take out my $1,000. Meanwhile, the bank possibly bought gold with that $1,000. They just sold it for $1,050, gave me my $1,000 and pocketed the $50. When you can do that with the entire world's savings then you are talking serious money.

There are some interesting videos on YouTube that discuss what was discovered in Antarctica during the early explorations. I can’t vouch for their truthfulness, but they were interesting.

Jon Levy is really good.

These are very good points. Has anyone ever come up with an answer?