NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
Gary Allen
VIEW THE PDF AT:
http://www.captaincanadacrusades
.ca/articles/none-dare-call-it-
*******************************
THE FOLLOWNG IS CHAPTER THREE OF THIS DOCUMENT
NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
by Gary Allen, 1971
_____________________
Originally published by Concord Press
P.O. BOX 2686
Seal Beach, Calif. 90740
...
........
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..."
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.
December, 1913
"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
reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
- Congressman Wright Patman,
(former) Chairman of the House Banking Committee
........
"Those that create and issue the money and credit
direct the policies of government
and hold in their hands
the destiny of the people."
Reginald McKenna,
(former) president of the Midlands Bank of England.
.......
...
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 that take
place in the world each day. To think of writing a complete
history of a nation covering even a year is to entertain a
fantastic conceit.
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 in even the
New York Times, which ostensibly reports all the news that's fit
to print. ("All the news that fits" is a more accurate
desription.)
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" its author's theory. But no book is
objective. No book can be objective and this book (NDCC) is not
objective. The information in it is true, but the book is not
objective. We have carefully selected the facts to prove our
case...
Most of the facts that we bring out are readily verifiable at
any large library. But our contention is that we have arranged
these facts in the order that most accurately reflects their true
significance in history. These are the facts as the Establishment
does not want you to know them.
Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie
two-thirds of the way through? Confusing, was'nt it? All the
evidence made it look as though the butler were the murderer, but
in the final scenes you find out that, surprisingly, 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 similar to one millions of Americans find
themselves in 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 (to usurp the
constitutional right of governments to coin money so as to force
these governments to borrow money with usury [interest]), it is
neccesary 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 the
international bankers, they nevertheless have played the key role.
Think of the (world) conspiracy as a hand with one finger labeled
"international banking", others labelled "charity foundations"
(i.e. Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller Foundations, etc.), the "anti-
religion movement", "Fabian Socialism", and "Communism". But it
was the International Bankers of whom Professor Carroll Quigly (of
the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University) was speaking
when we quoted him earlier (in this book) as stating that THEIR
AIM IS NOTHING LESS THAN CONTROL OF THE WORLD THROUGH FINANCE.
(Professor Quigly does not see anything harmful in this(!), only
objects to the secrecy with which these aims are cloaked. Hence
his book, a 1300 hundred page, 8 pound tome, Tragedy and Hope.)
Where do governments get the enormous amount 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 (U.S.) debt is now (1974) 455
billion dollars - 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, however, only a
small percentage of the national debt is held by individuals in
this form. Most government bonds, except those held 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, however, are faced 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 - having never been in the business of lending money to 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 goverments.
But the ultimate advantage that the creditor has over the
government or ruler is the threat that if the borrower steps out
of line the banker can finance an enemy or rival and can even
create an enemy by such means. Therefore, if you want to stay in
the king-financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or a
rival waiting in the wings to unseat every ruler to whom you lend.
If the king does'nt have an enemy, you must create one.
Pre-eminent in playing this game was the famous House of
Rothschild (German for Redshield, a name adopted by this family
for the red shield over the front door of their house). 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 Paris, London, Vienna and Naples. The
Rothschilds became incredibly wealthy during the nineteenth
century by financing governments to war with one another.
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 stepped 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, Professor Quigly 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 debt,
including foreign government debts; these bankers came to be
called "international bankers". (Quigly,Tragedy and Hope, p.52)
A 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 conspiracy as a Jewish
conspiracy to rule the world. Nothing could be further from the
truth! The traditionally Anglo-Saxon J.P.Morgan and the Baptist
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 the Jewish people for the crimes
of the Rothschilds as it is to hold Baptists accountable for the
crimes of the Rockefellers. (Other authorities, however, trace the
Rockefellers' Jewish roots and hold their adoption of the Baptist
faith and their church-going a sham. -editor.)
The Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an organization
called the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.) as an instrument to try
to convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds or their
allies is an attack on the Jewish people. In this way they have
stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and
made the subject taboo in the 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... But actually, nobody has more of a
right than the Jewish people to take just vengeance on the
Rothschilds and their clique. The Jewish Warburgs (bankers), part
of the Rothschild empire, helped finance Adolph Hitler. There were
few, if any, Rothschilds or Warburgs in the Nazi concentration
camps! They sat out the war in luxurious hotels in Paris or
emigrated to the United States or England. As a group, the Jewish
people have suffered most at the hands of these power-seekers. A
Rothschild has much more in common with a Rockefeller than with a
Jewish 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 FINANCIERS TO ENCOURAGE GOVERNMENT DEBT. The higher
the debt, the more the interest on the debt. Nothing drives
government deeply into debt like a war (in 1935, before the out-
break of World War Two, total U.S. public debt was $28 billion 708
million, or $225.55 per capita. In 1940, before the attack on
Pearl Harbour, the public debt was $42 billion 968 million, or
$325.23 per capita. But, by 1945, with the cessation of
hostilities, it was $258 billion 682 million, or $1,848.60 per
capita! -ed.); and it has not been an uncommon practice among the
international bankers to finance both sides of the bloodiest
military conflicts! For example, during the American Civil War the
North was financed by the Rothchilds through their American agent,
August Belmont, and the American South through the Erlangers,
Rothschild relatives.
But while wars and revolutions have been useful to the
international financiers 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,
transportation, medicine, and others. However, the monopoly the
international financiers have most coveted is control over a
nation's money.
Eventually, these 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 the
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 blue-print 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 was later to write 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 of 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 men in
charge of each of Europe's central banks. Professor Quigly
reports:
It must not be felt that the 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 dominent investment
bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up,
and who 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 "mercantile" 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..." (Quigly, op.cit.,
pp.326-7)
Dr. Quigly 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 thruogh 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 gain a great deal of control
over (the American) money system. Gustavus Meyers, in his 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" towards 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, Khun-Loebs (bankers) 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 to
themselves ..."
But, aside from the major Eastern centers, most American bankers
and their customers distrusted the whole concept.
In order to show the hinterlands that they were going to need a
central banking 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
put 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 coordinated.
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
Banker's 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 us in Life magazine of
April 25, 1949, of Morgan's role in spreading rumours about the
insolvency of the Knickerbocker Bank and the Trust Company of
America, which rumours triggered the 1907 panic. In answer to the
question: "Did Morgan precipitate the panic?" Alan reports:
"Oakly Thorne, 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) 'sore point' statement
alone that had caused the run on his bank. From this
evidence, plus other fragments of other supposedly
pertinent evidence, certain chroniclers have come to the
ingenious conclusion that the Morgan interests took
advantage of the unsettled conditions during the autumn
of 1907 to preciitate the panic, guiding it slowly as it
progressed so that it would kill off rival banks and
consolidate the pre-eminence 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 badly needed a central
banking system."
The man who was to play the most significant part in foisting
onto America that central bank was Paul Warburg, who along with
his brother Felix had immigrated to the United States from Germany
in 1902. They left brother Max (later a major bankroller of the
Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution) at home in Frankfurt to run the
family bank (M.N.Warburg & Co.).
Paul Warburg married Nina Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb of
Khun, Loeb & Company, America's most powerful international
banking firm. Brother Felix married Frieda Schiff, daughter of
Jacob Schiff, the ruling power behind Kuhn,Loeb & Co.. 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 Khun,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 almost all of his time writing and lecturing on "the need
for banking reform". Kuhn, Loeb & Company was sufficiently public-
spirited about the matter to keep him on salary at $500,000 a 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 Aldridge, known as "Morgan's floor broker in the Senate".
Aldridge's daughter Abbie married John D. Rockefeller Jr. (the
late Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon's Vice-President and long-
time Governor of New York, was named for his maternal
grandfather).
After the panic of 1907, Aldridge was appointed by the Senate to
head the National Monetary Commission. Although he had no
technical knowledge of banking, Aldridge and his entourage spent
nearly two years and $300,000 of the tax-payers' 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 luxuriuos 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 admiited 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 (Georgia) as the
occasion of the actual conception of what eventually
became the Federal Reserve System."
www.kamron.com/none_dare_call_it_conspiracy.htm