| This is chapter 3 from: NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY / by Gary Allen, 1971 From <<http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297676/conspiracy-Gary-Allen-None-Dare-Call-it-Conspiracy-english-rarereactor>> See all 8 chapters and the covers at that URL. You can also find some artwork at that URL which we are not showing here.
This is very well written -- although that does not mean we agree with all of his arguments.
The author first concedes that he is trying to prove his theory. He then lays out his case in
relatively simple, non-inflamatory language. I think this is a good piece of writing that fairly shows the truth as perceived by the author --
we can expect no more than that from any writing. (mrc)
Chapter 3 - The Money Manipulators
Many college history professors tell their charges that the books they will be using in
the class are "objective." But stop and ask yourself: Is it possible to write a history
book without a particular point of view? There are billions of events which take place
in the world each day. To think of writing a complete history of a nation covering
even a year is absolutely incredible.
Not only is a historian's ability to write an "objective" history limited by the sheer
volume of happenings but by the fact that many of the most important happenings
never appear in the papers or even in somebody's memoirs. The decisions reached by
the "Big Boys" in the smoke-filled rooms are not reported even in the New York
Times which ostensibly reports all the news that is fit to print. ("All the news that fits"
is a more accurate description.)
In order to build his case, a historian must select a miniscule number of facts from the
limited number that are known. If he does not have a "theory," how does he separate
important facts from unimportant ones? As Professor Stuart Crane has pointed out,
this is why every book "proves" the author's thesis. But no book is objective. No book
can be objective; and this book is not objective. (Liberal reviewers should have a ball
quoting that out of context.) The information in it is true, but the book is not
objective. We have carefully selected the facts to prove our case. We believe that
most other historians have focused on the landscape, and ignored that which is most
important: the cart, boy and donkey.
Most of the facts which we bring out are readily verifiable at any large library. But
our contention is that we have arranged these facts in the order which most accurately
reveals their true significance in history. These are the facts the Establishment does
not want you to know.
Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie two-thirds of the
way through? Confusing wasn't it? All the evidence made it look as if the butler were
the murderer, but in the final scenes you find out, surprisingly, that it was the man's
wife all along. You have to stay and see the beginning of the film. Then as all the
pieces fall into place, the story makes sense.
This situation is very similar to the one in which millions of Americans find
themselves today. They are confused by current happenings in the nation. They have
come in as the movie, so to speak, is going into its conclusion. The earlier portion of
the mystery is needed to make the whole thing understandable. (Actually, we are not
really starting at the beginning, but we are going back far enough to give meaning to
today's happenings.)
In order to understand the conspiracy it is necessary to have some rudimentary
knowledge of banking and, particularly, of international bankers. While it would be
an over-simplification to ascribe the entire conspiracy to international bankers, they
nevertheless have played a key role. Think of the conspiracy as a hand with one finger
labelled "international banking," others "foundations," "the anti-religion movement"
"Fabian Socialism," and "Communism." But it was the international bankers of whom
Professor Quigley was speaking when we quoted him earlier as stating that their aim
was nothing less than control of the world through finance.
Where do governments get the enormous amounts of money they need? Most, of
course, comes from taxation; but governments often spend more than they are willing
to tax from their citizens and so are forced to borrow. Our national debt is now $455
billion-every cent of it borrowed at interest from somewhere.
The public is led to believe that our government borrows from "the people" through
savings bonds. Actually, only the smallest percentage of the national debt is held by
individuals in this form. Most government bonds, except those owned by the
government itself through its trust funds, are held by vast banking firms known as
international banks.
For centuries there has been big money to be made by international bankers in the
financing of governments and kings. Such operators are faced, however, with certain
thorny problems. We know that smaller banking operations protect themselves by
taking collateral, but what kind of collateral can you get from a government or a king?
What if the banker comes to collect and the king says, "Off with his head"? The
process through which one collects a debt from a government or a monarch is not a
subject taught in the business schools of our universities, and most of us-never having
been in the business of financing kings-have not given the problem much thought. But
there is a king-financing business and to those who can ensure collection it is lucrative
indeed.
Economics Professor Stuart Crane notes that there are two means used to collateralize
loans to governments and kings. Whenever a business firm borrows big money its
creditor obtains a voice in management to protect his investment. Like a business, no
government can borrow big money unless willing to surrender to the creditor some
measure of sovereignty as collateral. Certainly international bankers who have loaned
hundreds of billions of dollars to governments around the world command
considerable influence in the policies of such governments.
But the ultimate advantage the creditor has over the king or president is that if the
ruler gets out of line the banker can finance his enemy or rival. Therefore, if you want
to stay in the lucrative king-financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or rival
waiting in the wings to unseat every king or president to whom you lend. If the king
doesn't have an enemy, you must create one.
Preeminent in playing this game was the famous House of Rothschild. Its founder,
Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany, kept one of his five
sons at home to run the Frankfurt bank and sent the others to London, Paris, Vienna
and Naples. The Rothschilds became incredibly wealthy during the nineteenth century
by financing governments to fight each other. According to Professor Stuart Crane:
"If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will
see that they always ended with the establishment of a 'balance of power.' With every
re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of
Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king
got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the
financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually
indicate who was to be punished."
In describing the characteristics of the Rothschilds and other major international
bankers, Dr. Quigley tells us that they remained different from ordinary bankers in
several ways: they were cosmopolitan and international; they were close to
governments and were particularly concerned with government debts, including
foreign government debts; these bankers came to be called "international bankers."
(Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 52)
One major reason for the historical blackout on the role of the international bankers in
political history is that the Rothschilds were Jewish. Anti-Semites have played into
the hands of the conspiracy by trying to portray the entire conspiracy as Jewish.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The traditionally Anglo-Saxon J. P. Morgan
and Rockefeller international banking institutions have played a key role in the
conspiracy. But there is no denying the importance of the Rothschilds and their
satellites. However, it is just as unreasonable and immoral to blame all Jews for the
crimes of the Rothschilds as it is to hold all Baptists accountable for the crimes of the
Rockefellers.
The Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an organization called the Anti-
Defamation League as an instrument to try to convince everyone that any mention of
the Rothschilds or their allies is an attack on all Jews. In this way they have stifled
almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and made the subject taboo
within universities.
Any individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by hundreds of
A.D.L. committees all over the country. The A.D.L. has never let truth or logic
interfere with its highly professional smear jobs. When no evidence is apparent, the
A.D.L., which staunchly opposed so-called "McCarthyism," accuses people of being
"latent anti-Semites." Can you imagine how they would yowl and scream if someone
accused them of being "latent" Communists?
Actually, nobody has a right to be more angry at the Rothschild clique than their
fellow Jews. The Warburgs, part of the Rothschild empire, helped finance Adolph
Hitler. There were few if any Rothschilds or Warburgs in the Nazi prison camps!
They sat out the war in luxurious hotels in Paris or emigrated to the United States or
England. As a group, Jews have suffered most at the hands of these power seekers. A
Rothschild has much more in common with a Rockefeller than he does with a tailor
from Budapest or the Bronx.
Since the keystone of the international banking empires has been government bonds,
it has been in the interest of these international bankers to encourage government
debt. The higher the debt the more the interest. Nothing drives government deeply
into debt like a war; and it has not been an uncommon practice among international
bankers to finance both sides of the bloodiest military conflicts. For example, during
our Civil War the North was financed by the Rothschilds through their American
agent, August Belmont, and the American South through the Erlangers, Rothschild
relatives.
But while wars and revolutions have been useful to international bankers in gaining or
increasing control over governments, the key to such control has always been control
of money. You can control a government if you have it in your debt; a creditor is in a
position to demand the privileges of monopoly from the sovereign. Money-seeking
governments have granted monopolies in state banking, natural resources, oil
concessions and transportation. However, the monopoly which the international
financiers most covet is control over a nation's money.
Eventually these international bankers actually owned as private corporations the
central banks of the various European nations. The Bank of England, Bank of France
and Bank of Germany were not owned by their respective governments, as almost
everyone imagines, but were privately owned monopolies granted by the heads of
state, usually in return for loans. Under this system, observed Reginald McKenna,
President of the Midlands Bank of England: "Those that create and issue the money
and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the
people." Once the government is in debt to the bankers it is at their mercy. A
frightening example was cited by the London Financial Times of September 26, 1921,
which revealed that even at that time: "Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five
Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from
renewing Treasury Bills."
All those who have sought dictatorial control over modern nations have understood
the necessity of a central bank. When the League of Just Men hired a hack
revolutionary named Karl Marx to write a blueprint for conquest called The
Communist Manifesto, the fifth plank read: "Centralization of credit in the hands of
the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
Lenin later said that the establishment of a central bank was ninety percent of
communizing a country. Such conspirators knew that you cannot take control of a
nation without military force unless that nation has a central bank through which you
can control its economy. The anarchist Bakunin sarcastically remarked about the
followers of Karl Marx: "They have one foot in the bank and one foot in the socialist
movement."
The international financiers set up their own front man in charge of each of Europe's
central banks. Professor Quigley reports:
"It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves
substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians
and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised
them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial
powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called
'international' or 'merchants' bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their
own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international
cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and
more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. ..." (Quigley, op. cit., pp.
326-7.)
Dr. Quigley also reveals that the international bankers who owned and controlled the
Banks of England and France maintained their power even after those Banks were
theoretically socialized.
Naturally those who controlled the central banks of Europe were eager from the start
to fasten a similar establishment on the United States. From the earliest days, the
Founding Fathers had been conscious of attempts to control America through money
manipulation, and they carried on a running battle with the international bankers.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams: "... I sincerely believe, with you, that
banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. ..."
But, even though America did not have a central bank after President Jackson
abolished it in 1836, the European financiers and their American agents managed to
obtain a great deal of control over our monetary system. Gustavus Myers, in Ms
History of The Great American Fortunes, reveals:
"Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating
American financial laws. The law records show that they were powers in the old Bank
of the United States [abolished by Andrew Jackson]."
During the nineteenth century the leading financiers of the metropolitan East often cut
one another's financial throats, but as their Western and rural victims started to
organize politically, the "robber barons" saw that they had a "community of interest"
toward which they must work together to protect themselves from thousands of irate
farmers and up and coming competitors. This diffusion of economic power was one of
the main factors stimulating the demands for a central bank by would-be business and
financial monopolists.
In "Years of Plunder", Proctor Hansl writes of this era:
"Among the Morgans, Kuhn-Loebs and other similar pillars of the industrial order
there was less disposition to become involved in disagreements that led to financial
dislocation. A community of interest came into being, with results that were highly
beneficial. ..."
But aside from the major Eastern centers, most American bankers and their customers
still distrusted the whole concept.
In order to show the hinterlands that they were going to need a central hanking
system, the international bankers created a series of panics as a demonstration of their
power-a warning of what would happen unless the rest of the bankers got into line.
The man in charge of conducting these lessons was J. Pierpont Morgan, American-
born but educated in England and Germany. Morgan is referred to by many, including
Congressman Louis McFadden, (a banker who for ten years headed the House
Banking and Currency Committee), as the top American agent of the English
Rothschilds.
By the turn of the century J. P. Morgan was already an old hand at creating artificial
panics. Such affairs were well co-ordinated. Senator Robert Owen, a co-author of the
Federal Reserve Act, (who later deeply regretted his role), testified before a
Congressional Committee that the bank he owned received from the National
Bankers' Association what came to be known as the "Panic Circular of 1893.' It
stated: "You will at once retire one-third of your circulation and call in one-half of
your loans. ..."
Historian Frederick Lewis Allen tells in Life magazine of April 25, 1949, of Morgan's
role in spreading rumors about the insolvency of the Knickerbocker Bank and The
Trust Company of America, which rumors triggered the 1907 panic. In answer to the
question: "Did Morgan precipitate the panic?" Allen reports:
"Oakleigh Thome, the president of that particular trust company, testified later before
a congressional committee that his bank had been subjected to only moderate
withdrawals ... that he had not applied for help, and that it was the [Morgan's] 'sore
point' statement alone that had caused the run on his bank. From this testimony, plus
the disciplinary measures taken by the Clearing House against the Heinze, Morse and
Thomas banks, plus other fragments of supposedly pertinent evidence, certain
chroniclers have arrived at the ingenious conclusion that the Morgan interests took
advantage of the unsettled conditions during the autumn of 1907 to precipitate the
panic, guiding it shrewdly as it progressed so that it would kill off rival banks and
consolidate the preeminence of the banks within the Morgan orbit."
The "panic" which Morgan had created, he proceeded to end almost single-handedly.
He had made his point. Frederick Allen explains:
"The lesson of the Panic of 1907 was clear, though not for some six years was it
destined to be embodied in legislation: the United States gravely needed a central
banking system. ..."
The man who was to play the most significant part in providing America with that
central bank was Paul Warburg, who along with his brother Felix had immigrated to
the United States from Germany in 1902. (See Chart 4.) They left brother Max (later a
major financier of the Russian Revolution) at home in Frankfurt to run the family
bank (M. N. Warburg & Company).
Paul Warburg married Nina Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb of Kuhn, Loeb and
Company, America's most powerful international banking firm. Brother Felix married
Frieda Schiff, daughter of Jacob Schiff, the ruling power behind Kuhn, Loeb. Stephen
Birmingham writes in his authoritative Our Crowd: "In the eighteenth century the
Schiffs and Rothschilds shared a double house" in Frankfurt. Schiff reportedly bought
his partnership in Kuhn, Loeb with Rothschild money.
Both Paul and Felix Warburg became partners in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.
In 1907, the year of the Morgan-precipitated panic, Paul Warburg began spending
almost all of his time writing and lecturing on the need for "bank reform." Kuhn,
Loeb and Company was sufficiently public spirited about the matter to keep him on
salary at $500,000 per year while for the next six years he donated his time to "the
public good."
Working with Warburg in promoting this "banking reform" was Nelson Aldrich,
known as "Morgan's floor broker in the Senate." Aldrich's daughter Abby married
John D. Rockefeller Jr. (the current Governor of New York is named for his maternal
grandfather).
Chart 4 - Federal Reserve (not shown at this website)
After the Panic of 1907, Aldrich was appointed by the Senate to head the National
Monetary Commission. Although he had no technical knowledge of banking, Aldrich
and his entourage spent nearly two years and $300,000 of the taxpayers' money being
wined and dined by the owners of Europe's central banks as they toured the Continent
"studying" central banking. When the Commission returned from its luxurious junket
it held no meetings and made no report for nearly two years. But Senator Aldrich was
busy "arranging" things. Together with Paul Warburg and other international bankers,
he staged one of the most important secret meetings in the history of the United
States. Rockefeller agent Frank Vanderlip admitted many years later in his memoirs:
"Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of
corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive-
indeed as furtive-as any conspirator .... I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of
our secret expedition to Jekyl Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what
eventually became the Federal Reserve System."
The secrecy was well warranted. At stake was control over the entire economy.
Senator Aldrich had issued confidential invitations to Henry P. Davison of J. P.
Morgan & Company; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of the Rockefeller-owned
National City Bank; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Benjamin
Strong of Morgan's Bankers Trust Company; and Paul Warburg. They were all to
accompany him to Jekyl Island, Georgia, to write the final recommendations of the
National Monetary Commission report.
At Jekyl Island, writes B. C. Forbes in his Men Who Are Making America:
"After a general discussion it was decided to draw up certain broad principles on
which all could agree. Every member of the group voted for a central bank as being
the ideal cornerstone for any banking system." (Page 399)
Warburg stressed that the name "central bank" must be avoided at all costs. It was
decided to promote the scheme as a "regional reserve" system with four (later twelve)
branches in different sections of the country. The conspirators knew that the New
York bank would dominate the rest, which would be marble "white elephants" to
deceive the public.
Out of the Jekyl Island meeting came the completion of the Monetary Commission
Report and the Aldrich Bill. Warburg had proposed the bill be designated the "Federal
Reserve System," but Aldrich insisted his own name was already associated in the
public's mind with banking reform and that it would arouse suspicion if a bill were
introduced which did not bear his name. However, Aldrich's name attached to the bill
proved to be the kiss of death, since any law bearing his name was so obviously a
project of the international bankers.
When the Aldrich Bill could not be pushed through Congress, a new strategy had to
be devised. The Republican Party was too closely connected with Wall Street. The
only hope for a central bank was to disguise it and have it put through by the
Democrats as a measure to strip Wall Street of its power. The opportunity to do this
came with the approach of the 1912 Presidential election. Republican President
William Howard Taft, who had turned against the Aldrich Bill, seemed a sure-fire bet
for reelection until Taft's predecessor, fellow Republican Teddy Roosevelt, agreed to
run on the ticket of the Progressive Party. In America's 60 Families, Ferdinand
Lundberg acknowledges:
"As soon as Roosevelt signified that he would again challenge Taft the President's
defeat was inevitable. Throughout the three-cornered fight [Taft-Roosevelt-Wilson]
Roosevelt had [Morgan agents Frank] Munsey and [George] Perkins constantly at his
heels, supplying money, going over his speeches, bringing people from Wall Street in
to help, and, in general, carrying the entire burden of the campaign against Taft. . . .
Perkins and J. P. Morgan and Company were the substance of the Progressive Party;
everything else was trimming. . . .
In short, most of Roosevelt's campaign fund was supplied by the two Morgan hatchet
men who were seeking Taft's scalp." (Pp. 110-112)
The Democrat candidate, Woodrow Wilson, was equally the property of Morgan. Dr.
Gabriel Kolko in his The Triumph of Conservatism, reports: "In late 1907 he [Wilson]
supported the Aldrich Bill on banking, and was full of praise for Morgan's role in
American society." (Page 205) According to Lundberg: "For nearly twenty years
before his nomination Woodrow Wilson had moved in the shadow of Wall Street."
(Page 112)
Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt proceeded to whistle-stop the country trying
to out-do each other in florid (and hypocritical) denunciations of the Wall Street
"money trust"-the same group of Insiders which was financing the campaigns of both.
Dr. Kolko goes on to tell us that, at the beginning of 1912, banking reform "seemed a
dead issue. ... The banking reform movement had neatly isolated itself." Wilson
resurrected the issue and promised the country a money system free from domination
by the international bankers of Wall Street. Moreover, the Democrat platform
expressly stated: "We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank." But the
'"Big Boys" knew who they had bought. Among the international financiers who
contributed heavily to the Wilson campaign, in addition to those already named, were
Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Thomas Fortune Ryan, and New
York Times publisher Adolph Ochs.
The Insiders' sheepdog who controlled Wilson and guided the program through
Congress was the mysterious "Colonel" Edward Mandel House, the British-educated
son of a representative of England's financial interests in the American South. The
title was honorary; House never served in the military. He was strictly a behind-the-
scenes wire-puller and is regarded by many historians as the real President of the
United States during the Wilson years. House authored a book, Philip Dru:
Administrator, in which he wrote of establishing "Socialism as dreamed by Karl
Marx." As steps toward his goal, House, both in his book and in real life, called for
passage of a graduated income tax and a central bank providing "a flexible [inflatable
paper] currency." The graduated income tax and a central bank are two of the ten
planks of The Communist Manifesto.
In his The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Professor Charles Seymour refers to the
"Colonel" as the "unseen guardian angel" of the Federal Reserve Act. Seymour's work
contains numerous documents and records showing constant contact between House
and Paul Warburg while the Federal Reserve Act was being prepared and steered
through Congress. Biographer George Viereck assures us that "The Schiffs, the
Warburgs, the Kahns, the Rockefellers, and the Morgans put their faith in House. ..."
Their faith was amply rewarded.
In order to support the fiction that the Federal Reserve Act was "a people's bill," the
Insider financiers put up a smoke-screen of opposition to it. It was strictly a case of
Br'er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch. Both Aldrich and
Vanderlip denounced what in actuality was their own bill. Nearly twenty-five years
later Frank Vanderlip admitted: "Now although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was
defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all
contained in the plan that finally was adopted."
Taking advantage of Congress' desire to adjourn for Christmas, the Federal Reserve
Act was passed on December 22, 1913 by a vote of 298 to 60 in the House, and in the
Senate by a majority of 43 to 25. Wilson had fulfilled to the Insiders the pledge he had
made in order to become President. Warburg told House, "Well, it hasn't got quite
everything we want, but the lack can be adjusted later by administrative process."
There was genuine opposition to the Act, but it could not match the power of the bill's
advocates. Conservative Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. proclaimed with great foresight, "The
bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of currency. ... I do not
like to think that any law can be passed which will make it possible to submerge the
gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency." {Congressional Record,
June 10, 1932.) After the vote, Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., father of the
famous aviator, told Congress:
"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. ... When the President signs this
act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust
investigation, will be legalized. ...
This is the Aldrich Bill in disguise. ...
The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. ...
The Federal Reserve Act was, and still is, hailed as a victory of "democracy" over the
"money trust." Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The whole central bank concept was engineered by the very group it was supposed to
strip of power. The myth that the "money trust" had been defrocked should have been
exploded when Paul Warburg was appointed to the first Federal Reserve Board-a
board which was hand-picked by "Colonel" House. Paul Warburg relinquished his
$500,000 a year job as a Kuhn, Loeb partner to take a $12,000 a year job with the
Federal Reserve. The "accidentalists" who teach in our universities would have you
believe that he did it because he was a "public spirited citizen." And the man who
served as Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank during its early critical
years was the same Benjamin Strong of the Morgan interests, who accompanied
Warburg, Davison, Vanderlip et al. to Jekyl Island, Georgia, to draft the Aldrich Bill.
How powerful is our "central bank?" The Federal Reserve controls our money supply
and interest rates, and thereby manipulates the entire economy-creating inflation or
deflation, recession or boom, and sending the stock market up or down at whim. The
Federal Reserve is so powerful that Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the
House Banking Committee, maintains:
"In the United States today we have in effect two governments. ... We have the duly
constituted Government. ... Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and
uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money
powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
Prof. Carroll Quigley of Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown Universities wrote (a) book
disclosing international bankers' plan to control the world from behind the political
and financial scenes. Quigley revealed plans of billionaires to establish dictatorship
of the super-rich disguised as workers' democracies.
J.P. Morgan created artificial panic used as excuse to pass Federal Reserve Act.
Morgan was instrumental in pushing U.S. into WWl to protect his loans to British
government. He financed Socialist groups to create an all-powerful centralized
government which international bankers would control at the apex from behind the
scenes. After his death, his partners helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia.
Neither Presidents, Congressmen nor Secretaries of the Treasury direct the Federal
Reserve! In the matters of money, the Federal Reserve directs them! Th uncontrolled
power of the "Fed" was admitted by Secretary of the Treasury David M. Kennedy in
an interview for the May 5, 1969, issue of U.S. News & World Report:
"Q. Do you approve of the latest credit-tightening moves?
A. It's not my job to approve or disapprove. It is the action of the Federal Reserve."
And, curiously enough, the Federal Reserve System has never been audited and has
firmly resisted all attempts by House Banking Committee Chairman Wright Patman
to have it audited. (N. Y. Times, Sept. 14, 1967.)
How successful has the Federal Reserve System been? It depends on your point of
view. Since Woodrow Wilson took his oath of office, the national debt has risen from
$1 billion to $455 billion. The total amount of interest paid since then to the
international bankers holding that debt is staggering, with interest having become the
third largest item in the federal budget. Interest on the national debt is now $22 billion
every year, and climbing steeply as inflation pushes up the interest rate on
government bonds. Meanwhile, our gold is mortgaged to European central banks, and
our silver has all been sold. With economic catastrophe imminent, only a blind
disciple of the "accidental theory of history" could believe that all of this has occurred
by coincidence.
When the Federal Reserve System was foisted on an unsuspecting American public,
there were absolute guarantees that there would be no more boom and bust economic
cycles. The men who, behind the scenes, were pushing the central bank concept for
the international bankers faithfully promised that from then on there would be only
steady growth and perpetual prosperity. However, Congressman Charles A. Lindberg
Sr. accurately proclaimed: "From now on depressions will be scientifically created."
Using a central bank to create alternate periods of inflation and deflation, and thus
whipsawing the public for vast profits, had been worked out by the international
bankers to an exact science.
Having built the Federal Reserve as a tool to consolidate and control wealth, the
international bankers were now ready to make a major killing. Between 1923 and
1929, the Federal Reserve expanded (inflated) the money supply by sixty-two percent.
Much of this new money was used to bid the stock market up to dizzying heights.
At the same time that enormous amounts of credit money were being made available,
the mass media began to ballyhoo tales of the instant riches to be made in the stock
market. According to Ferdinand Lundberg:
"For profits to be made on these funds the public had to be induced to speculate, and
it was so induced by misleading newspaper accounts, many of them bought and paid
for by the brokers that operated the pools. ..."
The House Hearings on Stabilization of the Purchasing Power of the Dollar disclosed
evidence in 1928 that the Federal Reserve Board was working closely with the heads
of European central banks. The Committee warned that a major crash had been
planned in 1927. At a secret luncheon of the Federal Reserve Board and heads of the
European central banks, the committee warned, the international bankers were
tightening the noose.
Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, came to Washington on
February 6, 1929, to confer with Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. On
November 11, 1927, the Wall Street Journal described Mr. Norman as "the currency
dictator of Europe." Professor Carroll Quigley notes that Norman, a close confidant of
J. P. Morgan, admitted: "I hold the hegemony of the world." Immediately after this
mysterious visit, the Federal Reserve Board reversed its easy-money policy and began
raising the discount rate. The balloon which had been inflated constantly for nearly
seven years was about to be exploded.
On October 24, the feathers hit the fan. Writing in The United States' Unresolved
Monetary and Political Problems, William Bryan describes what happened:
"When everything was ready, the New York financiers started calling 24 hour broker
call loans. This meant that the stock brokers and the customers had to dump their
stock on the market in order to pay the loans. This naturally collapsed the stock
market and brought a banking collapse all over the country because the banks not
owned by the oligarchy were heavily involved in broker call claims at this time, and
bank runs soon exhausted their coin and currency and they had to close. The Federal
Reserve System would not come to their aid, although they were instructed under the
law to maintain an elastic currency."
The investing public, including most stock brokers and bankers, took a horrendous
blow in the crash, but not the Insiders. They were either out of the market or had sold
"short" so that they made enormous profits as the Dow Jones plummeted. For those
who knew the score, a comment by Paul Warburg had provided the warning to sell.
That signal came on March 9, 1929, when the Financial Chronical quoted Warburg as
giving this sound advice:
"If orgies of unrestricted speculation are permitted to spread too far ... the ultimate
collapse is certain ... to bring about a general depression involving the whole
country."
Sharpies were later able to buy back these stocks at a ninety percent discount from
their former highs.
To think that the scientifically engineered Crash of '29 was an accident or the result of
stupidity defies all logic. The international bankers who promoted the inflationary
policies and pushed the propaganda which pumped up the -stock market represented
too many generations of accumulated expertise to have blundered into "the great
depression."
Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency
Committee, commented:
"It [the depression] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. ... The
international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they
might emerge as the rulers of us all."
Although we have not had another depression of the magnitude of that which
followed 1929, we have since suffered regular recessions. Each of these has followed
a period in which the Federal Reserve tromped down hard on the money accelerator
and then slammed on the brakes. Since 1929 the following recessions have been
created by such manipulation:
1936-1937 - Stock Prices fell fifty percent;
1948 - Stock prices dropped sixteen percent;
1953 - Stock declined thirteen percent;
1956-1957 - The market dipped thirteen percent;
1957 - Late in the year the market plunged nineteen percent;
1960 - The market was off seventeen percent;
1966 - Stock prices plummeted twenty-five percent;
1970 - The market plunged over twenty-five percent.
Chart 5, (not reproduced here -- see the URL at the beginning of this piece) based on one appearing in the highly respected financial publication, Indicator Digest of June 24, 1969, shows the effects on the Dow-Jones Industrial Average of Federal Reserve policies of expanding or restricting the monetary supply. This is how the stock market is manipulated and how depressions or recessions are scientifically created. If you have inside knowledge as to which way the Federal Reserve policy is going to go, you can make a ton of money.
The members of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed by the President for
fourteen year terms. Since these positions control the entire economy of the country
they are far more important than cabinet positions, but who has ever heard of any of
them except possibly Chairman Arthur Burns? These appointments which should be
extensively debated by the Senate are routinely approved. But, here, as in Europe,
these men are mere figureheads, put in their positions at the behest of the international
bankers who finance the Presidential campaigns of both political parties.
And, Professor Quigley reveals that these international bankers who owned and
controlled the Banks of England and France maintained their power even after those
banks were theoretically socialized. The American system is slightly different, but the
net effect is the same--everincreasing debt" requiring ever-increasing interest
payments, inflation and periodic scientifically created depressions and recessions.
The end result, if the Insiders have their way, will be the dream of Montagu Norman
of the Bank of England "that the Hegemony of World Finance should reign supreme
over everyone, everywhere, as one whole supernadonal control mechanism."
(Montagu Norman by John Hargrave, Greystone Press, N.Y., 1942.)
The following quotes were attributed to this book -- but were not at the URL This act (the Federal Reserve Act) establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth...
When the President signs this act, the invisible government by the money power,
proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized... The new law
will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation...â / Congressman Charles
A. Lindbergh Sr. / December, 1913 âIN THE UNITED STATES TODAY WE HAVE IN EFFECT TWO GOVERNMENTS...
We have the duly constituted government... Then we have an independent,
uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System,
operating the money powers reserved to Congress by the Constitution.â /
Congressman Wright Patman, (former) Chairman of the House Banking
Committee
âThose that create and issue the money and credit direct the policies of government
and hold in their hands the destiny of the people.â / Reginald McKenna, / (former)
president of the Midlands Bank of England. |