Britannia Radio

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."