TRAGEDY AND HOPE Chapter 1&2 Analysis
* Turmel analysis has indented paragraphs, Quigley's text does not. * R&R = Rothschilds and Rockefellers
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION: WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN ITS WORLD SETTING
Page 3 Each civilization is born in some inexplicable fashion and, after a slow start, enters a period of vigorous expansion, increasing its size and power, both internally and at the expense of its neighbors, until gradually a crisis of organization appears. It becomes stabilized and eventually stagnant. After a Golden Age of peace and prosperity, internal crises again arise. At this point, there appears for the first time, a moral and physical weakness. JCT: I think it is interesting that Quigley has civilizations arising "in some inexplicable fashion" whereas Astle suggests they arise when a money system develops to allow the allocation of saved surpluses among citizens. I have to agree that civilization cannot arise without such a monetary mechanism though societies which barter their surpluses may also be called civilizations though not what I'd call an advanced civilization. So I accept Astle's suggestion that a money system for allocation of surpluses is a necessary mechanism for any advanced civilization to arise. I find Quigley's assumption interesting that a crisis of organization must inevitably appear. It is true that according to David Astle, there have been many stabilized civilizations which were unstabilized once usury and moneylending were introduced. Since most of unrecorded history comprises those stables societies and since most of recorded history comprises those unstable societies, it's understandable that Quigley's studies of recorded history would think these unstable effects are inevitable by-products of civilization. I suggest that they are inevitable by-products of usury which creates a death-gamble mortgage between its citizens and out of the death by poverty of its citizens comes the inevitable crises. I also accept that all civilizations which arise on all planets in the universe will inevitably develop money systems and inevitably be infected with usury which arises logically out of periods of scarcity.
Page 5 The passage from the Age of Expansion to the Age of Conflict is the most complex, most interesting and most critical of all periods of the life cycle of a civilization. It is marked by four chief characteristics: it is a period: a) of declining rate of expansion; b) of growing tensions and class conflicts; c) of increasingly frequent and violent imperialist wars; d) of growing irrationality. JCT: See, class conflicts only arise when there exists the usury function to separate citizens into the two classes, those who have abundance and get even more and those who have no abundance and have it taken away. That such a system is irrational is a given though its irrationality is unseen by the great majority of its victims. One need only study my Essence of Money debates with Professor Flaherty at my web site to see how supposedly intelligent people can be reduced to blathering contradicters who don't even realize they are contradicting themselves. I don't think there's an easier proof of this growing irrationality than to have people who don't realize, according to Orwell's doublethink, can believe to contradictory points of view at the same time. I honestly do believe that the brain has to be damaged in order that two contradictory points of view can both be held as true and those debates show quite clearly that the study of Economics does indeed damage their brains of their students. It's not for nothing Christ said that when it comes to usury, "they will forever be hearing without hearing and seeing without seeing or understanding," while Mohammed said that those who devour usury are as as stands one whom the Evil One by his touch hath driven to madness." One might think that Christ and Mohammed were using hyperbole when saying that money-lovers have been driven to madness but I have no doubt that historians will use Professor Flaherty's contradictions to demonstrate the madness incurred from studying Economics and learning to love money.
Page 8 When we consider the untold numbers of other societies, simpler than civilizations, which Western Civilization has destroyed or is now destroying, the full frightening power of Western Civilization becomes obvious. JCT: But note that Western Civilization usually destroyed these other civilizations in the quest for gold after being tricked into usurious debt by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of their day. I don't think destroying neighbor civilizations is an inevitable function of humanity though it is an inevitable function of a humanity which must always expand to pay its expanding debt.
This shift from an Age of Conflict to an Age of Expansion is marked by a resumption of the investment of capital and the accumulation of capital on a large scale. JCT: So all it takes is for the money-lenders to loosen the purse strings and resume investment to permit an Age of expansion. If the world-owners choose not to resume investment, the nations of the world remain in a condition of conflict in the death-gamble fight to survive bank foreclosure.
In the new Western civilization, a small number of men, equipped and trained to fight, received dues and services from the overwhelming majority of men who were expected to till the soil. From this inequitable but effective defensive system emerged an inequitable distribution of political power and, in turn, an inequitable distribution of the social economic income. This, in time, resulted in an accumulation of capital, which, by giving rise to demand for luxury goods of remote origin, began to shift the whole economic emphasis of the society from its earlier organization in self-sufficient agrarian units to commercial interchange, economic specialization, and, a bourgeois class. JCT: Notice that a "defensive system" was necessary for this need for an professional army to arise. It's fair to assume that usury was well installed to necessitate such defences from their neighbors.
Page 9 At the end of the first period of expansion of Western Civilization covering the years 970-1270, the organization of society was becoming a petrified collection of vested interests and entered the Age of Conflict from 1270-1420. In the new Age of Expansion, frequently called the period of commercial capitalism from 1440 to 1680, the real impetus to economic expansion came from efforts to obtain profits by the interchange of goods, especially semi-luxury or luxury goods, over long distances. In time, profits were sought by imposing restrictions on the production or interchange of goods rather than by encouraging these activities. JCT: So the real push in the new Age of Expansion came from the growth of middlemen profits who sought not to increase production but to decrease it while they sought a monopoly.
Page 10 The social organization of this third Age of Expansion from 1770-1929 following upon the second Age of Conflict of 1690-1815 might be called "industrial capitalism." In the last of the nineteenth century, it began to become a structure of vested interests to which we might give the name "monopoly capitalism." We shall undoubtedly get a Universal Empire in which the United States will rule most of the Western Civilization. This will be followed, as in other civilizations, by a period of decay and ultimately, as the civilizations grows weaker, by invasions and the total destruction of Western culture. JCT: Too bad he doesn't say where this decay arises. He simply asks to assume such decay as a given.
EUROPE'S SHIFT TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY Page 24 The belief in the innate goodness of man had its roots in the eighteenth century when it appeared to many that man was born good and free but was everywhere distorted, corrupted, and enslaved by bad institutions and conventions. As Rousseau said, "Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains." Obviously, if man is is innately good and needs but to be freed from social restrictions, he is capable of tremendous achievements in this world of time, and does not need to postpone his hopes of personal salvation into eternity. JCT: I think this philosophy makes the most sense. I think the wish for power of one's fellow man is purely a function of insecurity.
Page 25 To the nineteenth century mind, evil, or sin, was a negative conception. It merely indicated a lack or, at most, a distortion of good. Any idea of sin or evil as a malignant force opposed to good, and capable of existing by its own nature, was completely lacking in the typical nineteenth century mind. The only evil was frustration and the only sin, repression. Just as the negative idea of the nature of evil flowed from the belief that human nature was good, so the idea of liberalism flowed from the belief that society was bad. For, if society was bad,the state, which was the organized coercive power of society, was doubly bad, and if man was good, he should be freed, above all, from the coercive power of the state. JCT: Of course, this is only when the state is front man for loansharks' oppression. When the state was not in thrall to loansharks and did not have to oppress its citizens with oppressive taxes to service debt, there would be no reason for citizens to feel this way nor would there be any reason for the state not to pass laws in favor of the good life of its citizens.
"No government in business" was commonly called "laissez faire" and would have left society with little power beyond that required to prevent the strong from physically oppressing the weak. This strange, and unexamined, belief held that there really existed, in the long run, a "community of interests" between the members of a society. It maintained that, in the long run, what was good for one was bad for all. It believed that there did exist a possible social pattern in which each member would be secure, free and prosperous. JCT: Capitalistic laissez-faire would actually work for the benefit of all if it weren't for some enjoying loanshark privileges. How anyone could call capitalism where everyone has to pay a vicious rake-off for the use of the currency "laissez-faire" or "free trade" is quite a joke. True laissez-faire or true free trade can only be so when the usurious shackles are abolished.
Page 26 Capitalism was an economic system in which the motivating force was the desire for private profit as determined in a price system with the seeking of aggrandization of profits for each individual. JCT: I see nothing wrong with this in a "free market" which an interest-based system is not.
Nationalism served to bind persons of the same nationality together into a tight, emotionally satisfying, unit. On the other side, it served to divide persons of different nationalities into antagonistic groups, often to the injury of their real mutual political, economic or cultural advantages. JCT: Having a tight satisfying unit does not necessarily injure your neighbors. This only occurs when people's are engaged in death- gambles.
The event which destroyed the pretty dream world of 1919-1929 were the stock market crash, the world depression, the world financial crisis. JCT: The stock market crash, the depression and the world financial crisis are not causes which destroyed the pretty "real" world of Roaring Twenties. Why he'd call their real potential "dream" escapes me though he confusing the symptoms with the cause could explain it. It was a reduction in currency which brought stagnation to a formerly vibrant world economy. The International Bankers had but to reduce the amount of money in circulation to watch mankind sit down in front of their trees with their hammers and chainsaws not unable to house themselves. Let us remember that during the Great Depression, the number of plants, the number of machines, the number of skilled workers did not disappear, only the number of dollars disappeared.
Page 28 The twentieth century came to believe that human nature is, if not innately bad, at least capable of being very evil. Left to himself, man falls very easily to the level of the jungle or even lower and this result can be prevent only by the coercive power of society. JCT: When man is forced to play financial death-gamble where the losers are left with insufficient life-support tickets to survive, is there any wonder that once the bankers have insisted on a "kill or be killed" system that man falls to the level of the law of the jungle?
Along with this change from good men and bad society to bad men and good society has appeared a reaction from optimism to pessimism. The horrors of Hitler's concentration camps and Stalin's slave-labor units are chiefly responsible for this change. JCT: This is silly. None of these things would have happened had all nations not been faced with impossible debts. Just because the bankers have organized a deathgamble for mankind to play is no reason to label the depths man has fallen to as a naturally occurring trait. Yet, we do see that even good men go bad in a bad society. And when it comes to mass murder, Hitler and Stalin's numbers pale beside the hundreds of millions murdered by poverty that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers can be held accountable for. And let us never forget that Hitler and Stalin were financed by corporations controlled by R&R and could never have been elevated to power without their support. I think Anthony Sutton's books "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler," and "Wall Street and the Rise of Bolshevism" (I'm not sure of the second title) explain pretty clearly how Wall Street financiers were the main supporters of both Hitler and Stalin. So we can lay their victims at the feet of the International bankers too. I guess by now, you must realize my abhorrence of these parasitic families who can be likened to those who would take food from starving children which they have done by the millions. Can anyone think of anyone more odious than someone who would take the life-support tickets away from a starving child. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers have and even though many will want to have them punished after the upcoming LETS financial revolution, my policy is to forgive and forget because if the Lord can say that when the wicked cease their evil ways, all their sins will be forgotten, who are we to do differently. So though it's true that the thought of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers make me want to puke, I'm prepared to leave them be as we enter a millennium of peace and prosperity. And remember that in my advocacy of "Amnesty, Anonymity, Security," or "Forgive, Forget, Have some interest-free LETS credit," you'll notice the anonymity section which will permit the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and other usurer families to change their names so no one even knows that they were related to the monsters who enslaved and murdered so many with their exponential debt. If anyone thinks this is hyperbole, just remember that the the first word in the name of their business, "mort-gage," translates into "death." And can there be any other reason that the usurers are the only ones who were physically attacked by Christ in the temple? So we are seeking an end to the death inflicted on mankind by R&R's death-gambles which should see an almost instantaneous dawn of a wonderful new age of peace and prosperity from the current deadly jungle.
CHAPTER II: WESTERN CIVILIZATION TO 1914
WESTERN CIVILIZATION TO 1914 Page 39 The financial capitalist sought profits from the manipulation of claims on money; and the monopoly capitalist sought profits from manipulation of the market to make the market price and the amount sold such that his profits would be maximized. JCT: To the detriment of consumers since manipulating the value of money and manipulating the market price does not aim at maximizing production.
Page 41 Karl Marx,about 1850, formed his ideas of an inevitable class struggle in which the groups of owners would become fewer and fewer and richer and richer while the mass of workers became poorer and poorer but more and more numerous. JCT: Score a point for Marx in his analysis of the capitalist malaise. As capitalist countries play "mortgage," it is inevitable that more and more people are thrust into foreclosure and less and less survive to be richer and richer owners.
Mass production required less labor. But mass production required mass consumption. JCT: And as long as robot paychecks go to only a few people and not to the majority, especially of people who were replaced by those robots, this dislocation will persist. Think of it as everyone owning a robot slave to do one's work. No one would complain about losing their job once their robot started doing it as long as they got their usual paycheck.
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 42 Investments in railroads, steel mills and so on could not be financed from the profits and private fortunes of individual proprietors. New instruments for financing industry came into existence in the form of limited-liability corporations and investment banks. These were soon in a position to control the chief parts of the industrial system since they provided the capital to it. This gave rise to financial capitalism. JCT: Of course, King Henry's tally system of issuing currency for large projects from the national treasury had been forgotten and corporations and investment banks were the only way that it could still be done while guaranteeing a large profit to the nation's rich.
Page 43 Great industrial units, working together either directly or through cartels and trade associations, were in a position to exploit the majority of the people. The result was a great economic crisis which soon developed into a struggle for control of the state - the minority hoping to use the state to defend their privileged position, the majority hoping to use the state to curtail the power and privileges of the minority. JCT: So what's new? In every nation on Earth today, the minority use the state to defend their privileged positions while the majority have no luck at all in curtailing their power and privileges.
Capitalism, because it seems profits as its primary goal, is never primarily seeking to achieve prosperity, high production, high consumption, political power, patriotic improvement, or moral uplift. JCT: And since that's what R&R want, it's want R&R get. Large profits for the banking elite with little prosperity, never full production unless in time of war, never high consumption and certainly no moral uplift. I think Christ described a world ruled by Rothschild and Rockefeller moneylenders as "like heaven but an alley where men weep and gnash their teeth." Heck of a tribute to their control, isn't it. What could have been a heaven for mankind in Eden has been turned into a cesspool of misery by these banking families.
Page 44 Goods moved from low-price areas to high-price areas and money moved from high-price areas to low-price areas because goods were more valuable where prices were high and money was more valuable where prices were low. Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is non-wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. JCT: I've never heard it described like this anywhere in Economics or Accounting. As long as the cashier's cage is holding the requisite amount of collateral for every token issued, there's nothing wrong with treating the claim on wealth as wealth though once economists have divorced money from collateral, problems do arise.
Page 45 In time, some merchants turned their attention from exchange of goods to the monetary side of the exchange. They became concerned with the lending of money to merchants to finance their ships and their activities, advancing money for both, at high interest rates, secured by claims on ships or goods as collateral for repayment and made it possible for people to concentrate on one portion of the process and, by maximizing that portion, to jeopardize the rest. JCT: And jeopardize the rest they have. This should be R&R's epitaph: they concentrated on the process while jeopardizing the rest.
Page 46 Three parts of the system, production, transfer, and consumption of goods were concrete and clearly visible so that almost anyone could grasp them simply examining them while the operations of banking and finance were concealed, scattered, and abstract so that they appeared to many to be difficult. To add to this, bankers themselves did everything they could to make their activities more secret and more esoteric. Their activities were reflected in mysterious marks in ledgers which were never opened to the curious outsider. JCT: David Astle repeatedly makes the same point. There's something about bankers' operations that necessitate people not finding out how it works. Still, given how the process has been confused in the study of banking by economists, one has to wonder what there was to hide. With professional economists leading the confusion, today's world is in no better shape that societies in antiquity. Still, the main goal was to hide the fact that people were in fact borrowing new credit money and not someone else's savings. Though you might accept paying interest for the use of someone's deferred savings, it's hard to rationalize paying interest for no one's deferred savings. This is the reason Economics spends so much time instilling the infamous doublethink that loans are depositors' funds while admitting that new money is also created. So the mystery is over. Bankers do not lend out their depositors' funds, no one is deferring their current consumption and no one needs be rewarded with interest for that deferred consumption. Bankers lend out new funds and scam the borrowers into paying interest on the false belief that they're getting it from depositors who are deferring consumption.
Changes of prices, whether inflationary or deflationary, have been major forces in history for the last six centuries at least. JCT: Probably for the last six millennia if we can believe Astle's research. Still it's nice to have a major historian admit that the financial manipulations of international bankers have been the major forces of history. We'll see how over and over.
Page 47 Hundreds of years ago, bankers began to specialize, with richer and more influential ones associated increasingly with foreign trade and foreign-exchange transactions. Since these were richer and more cosmopolitan and increasingly concerned with questions of political significance, such as stability and debasement of currencies, war and peace, dynastic marriages, and worldwide trading monopolies, they became financiers and financial advisers of governments. Moreover, they were always obsessed with the stability of monetary exchanges and used their power and influence to do two things: 1) to get all money and debts expressed in terms of strictly limited commodity - ultimately gold; and JCT: And we'll read over and over how their concern over the buying power of their gold superseded the well-being of the peoples every time. The standard argument is that money given a high value by scarcity was good for the people since their money bought them more. The fact that this was great for those who had most of the money seems to have dwarfed the realization that this was not great for the majority who had little money.
2) to get all monetary matters out of the control of governments and political authority, on the ground that they would be handled better by private banking interests in terms of such a stable value of gold. JCT: You'll hear this argument ad nauseam, that governments are too irresponsible to be left in charge of the money system which should be left to experts like bankers and economists. Given their track records, I doubt this was such a great idea and I can't imagine how any government could have caused as much calamity as these private bankers have done with their control of the money. And if you're going to genocide millions of people by poverty, shouldn't it at least be a government doing the genocide rather than a few private families? The problem is that governments usually get blamed for the genocide of the poor by withdrawal of life-support tickets even though they are not even in control; though they should be.
INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM, 1770-1850 Page 48 Britain's victories had many causes such as its ability to control the sea and its ability to present itself to the world as the defender of the freedoms and rights of small nations and of diverse social and religious groups. Also, financially, England had discovered the secret of credit and economically, it had embarked on the Industrial Revolution. JCT: England had discovered the secret of credit? I think it had been discovered millennia ago though it was certainly kept secret as best they could.
Credit had been known to the Italians and Netherlanders long before it became one of the instruments of English world supremacy. Nevertheless, the founding of the Bank of England by William Paterson and his friends in 1694 is one of the great dates in world history. For generations, men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. Today, we call such pieces of paper gold certificates which entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands. It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to be presented for payment; accordingly, the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing, a volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment of demands against them. such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes. JCT: Once again we run into an explanation of the goldsmith scam to explain how credit is just as valid a currency as actual commodity tokens are.
In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. JCT: Of course, Economics professors Flaherty and Simms are still teaching their students that bankers lend out their depositors' funds. I'm sure most other Economics professors are teaching this false belief too. Of course, that they were creating credit out of thin air was one of the things bankers worked to hard at keeping secret and it seems is still quite unknown to the majority of Economics teachers.
The same thing could be done in another way, not by note-issuing banks but by deposit banks. Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to third persons were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money (gold, certificates and notes) no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans and if these loans were made by creating a deposit for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such "created deposits" or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value. Such created deposits also were a creation of money out of nothing, although bankers usually refused to express their actions, either note issuing or deposit lending, in these terms. William Paterson, on obtaining the charter of the Bank of England, said "the Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys it creates out of nothing." This is generally admitted today. JCT: Again, such "created deposits" or "loans" were the creation of money out of nothing even though Flaherty and Simms violently disagree. They still think that piggy banks create money though I've challenged them to explain where the piggy bank got the new money and they've never been able to answer.
This organizational structure for creating means of payment out of nothing, which we call credit, was not invented by England but was developed by her to become one of her chief weapons in the victory over Napoleon in 1815. The emperor, could not see money in any but concrete terms, and was convinced that his efforts to fight wars on the basis of "sound money" by avoiding the creation of credit, would ultimately win him a victory by bankrupting England. He was wrong although the lesson has had to be relearned by modern financiers in the twentieth century. JCT: Boy, did he ever blow it. Of course, LETS shows that pure credit works as currency just fine and if Napeleon restricted his money to metal base, then he was under the control of the bullion brokers as every king of antiquity mentioned by Astle.
FINANCIAL CAPITALISM 1850-1931 Page 50 The third stage of capitalism is of such overwhelming significance in the history of the twentieth century, and its ramifications and influences have been so subterranean and even occult, that we may be excused if we devote considerate attention to this organization and methods. JCT: Banking as subterranean and even occult? Why not? Given the International bankers were planning the murder by war and famines of millions, could be anything but subterranean and occult. I've always said that such people would have to have an almost "alien" mentality in order to calmly inflict poverty and starvation on millions of people without any qualms. When I watch the X-Files' suggestions of alien conspiracies, I'd have no problem believing that if aliens were here and controlling the planet, they would inevitably be international bankers in order to control human activity and given their obvious lack of care for the well-being of the humanoid population, I would have no trouble at all with the hypothesis that the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are alien life forms. I can't believe that humanoids could so callously have condemned so many humans to death by poverty. Of course, they're probably just humans who have become monsters due to the inbreeding among the elite banking families. I find it hard to believe that they belong to any part of a caring human race.
Essentially, what it did was to take the old disorganized and localized methods of handling money and credit and organize them into an integrated system, on an international basis, which worked with incredible and well-oiled facility for many decades. The center of that system was in London, with major offshoots in New York and Paris and it has left, as its greatest achievement, an integrated banking system and a heavily capitalized - if now largely obsolescent - framework of heavy industry, reflected in railroads, steel mills, coal mines and electrical utilities. JCT: And of course, those who believe in the accidental theory of history pooh-pooh the thought that these men would use their organized integrated system for their own benefit to the murderous detriment of the rest of humanity. Fortunately, the facts show that such an accidental view of history is quite silly and leaves us with the only conclusion that they in fact did use their control of the world's money to manipulate the world's peoples into war after war and depression after depression.
This system had its center in London for four chief reasons. First was the great volume of savings in England. Second was England's oligarchic social structure which provided a very inequitable distribution of incomes with large surpluses coming to the control of a small, energetic upper class. Third was that this upper class was aristocratic but not noble, quite willing to recruit both money and ability from lower levels and even from outside the country, welcoming American heiresses and central-European Jews to its ranks almost as willingly as it welcomed monied, able and conformist recruits from the lower classes of Englishmen. Fourth (and by no means last) in significance was the skill in financial manipulation, especially on the international scene, which the small group of merchant bankers of London had acquired. JCT: So the knowledge of credit creation was still a secret but these men knew about it, and how to use it to their advantage.
In time, they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers as well as insurance companies to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. JCT: So the Rothschilds and Rockefellers controlled both governments and industries. It does explain why so many policies which starved so many people paid off so handsomely for them. Even though they always acted behind the scenes, it's pretty obvious that Quigley places the control for world events in their hands. And of course, had they chosen to finance food production instead of war production, there would have been no wars possible. Certainly not the large, well- financed productions they did organize for humankind.
The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers. The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) whose male descendants for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschilds five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples and Paris as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled. JCT: And even though his five sons were lauded for their support of each countries war efforts, the point is that they financed all sides of those wars and without their support for all sides of those wars, there wouldn't have been any wars. I find it funny how Quigley will later say that they were forces for peace but we do find that he often lauds these men who would steal food tickets from starving children.
In concentrating, as we must, on the financial or economic activities of international bankers, we must not totally ignore their other attributes. They were cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic; they were a constant, if weakening, influence for peace, a pattern established in 1830 and 1840 when the Rothschilds threw their whole tremendous influence successfully against European wars. JCT: This is the joke about them being forces for peace I was referring to. The guys who financed all the wars and without whose financing there could have been no wars, are forces for peace. How amusing.
They were usually highly civilized, cultured gentlemen, patrons of education and of the arts, so that today, colleges, professorships, opera companies, symphonies, libraries, and museum collections still reflect their munificence. For these purposes they set a pattern of endowed foundations which still surround us today. JCT: Being patrons of the arts and giving gave back a bit of what they'd stolen from the starving children doesn't make them saints in my books. The fact is that they did not earn their ill-gotten gain and the fact they gave some back doesn't change my impression of them in the least.
The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should be more so. They include Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould and above all Rothschild and Morgan. JCT: Names that will live in infamy. But once we've installed our Global LETS, their descendants will all be allowed to change their names though the history books will certainly treat the names of these monsters accordingly.
Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry by the emergence of financial capitalism, they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: 1) they were cosmopolitan and international; JCT: Which accounts for their great power and the inability of any national governments to control them. Rather control worked the other way around.
2) they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts, including foreign government debts, even in areas which seemed, at first glance, poor risks, like Egypt, Persia, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial China and Latin America; JCT: Nothing better than having a government license your creation of money and then getting in line so you can loanshark it to them. In this way, governments are responsible for the tax collections to pay the loansharks which certainly beats them having to do their collections themselves.
3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods since they admired "liquidity"; JCT: So their major interests did absolutely no good for the people who were more interested in goods than bonds.
4) they were fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called "sound" money from its close association with high interest rates and a high value of money) and of the gold standard; JCT: And the fact that millions of people who had no money suffered so the owners of the bulk of the money could benefit by such deflationary policies was of no concern to them. We'll read over and over about how these deflationary policies cause misery and death among the poor but continue to be pursued relentlessly by these non- human monsters.
5) they were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life. These bankers came to be called "international bankers" and were known as "merchant bankers" in England, "private bankers" in France and "investment bankers" in the United States. JCT: I wouldn't want the general population to be aware of the misery I'd caused them either and I can understand why they'd want their activities to be couched in secrecy.
Everywhere, they were sharply distinguishable from other, more obvious, kinds of banks, such as savings banks or commercial banks. One of their less obvious characteristics was that they remained as private unincorporated firms offering no shares, no reports, and usually no advertising to the public until modern inheritance taxes made it essential to surround such family wealth with the immortality of corporate status for tax-avoidance purposes. This persistence as private firms continued because it ensured the maximum of anonymity and secrecy to persons of tremendous public power who dreaded public knowledge of their activities as an evil almost as great as inflation. JCT: And if people realised what phenomenal profits they made from the sufferings of the general population, they might rise up against the bankers rather than their front governments for a change. Notice that Christ's only incident of physical violence was not against the Roman or Jewish government but against the money-lenders who probably controlled the government as they do today. He wasn't fooled into blaming the government when he knew that the ones responsible for his generation's debt enslavement were the financiers just as they are today.
Page 53 Firms like Morgan, like others of the international banking fraternity, constantly operated through corporations and governments, yet remained itself an obscure private partnership. JCT: That way, the sheeple would blame the government for their misfortunes rather than the moneylenders who actually were responsible for their misery.
The influence of financial capitalism and the international bankers who created it was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have neither if it had not been able to persuade both these to accept two "axioms" of its own ideology. Both of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary public pressures to be trusted with control of the money system; accordingly, the soundness of money must be protected in two ways: by basing the value of money on gold and by allowing bankers to control the money supply. To do this it was necessary to conceal, even mislead, both governments and people about the nature of money and its methods of operation. JCT: How well put. And we hear the same rationale today. Yet, considering their track record, I'd have rather had government control it. Especially considering the track records of government which actually did control their money, examples of which I have already detailed. Roman copper money, English tallies, Lincoln Greenbacks were all Treasury currencies which benefited their citizens. Unfortunately, these have been erased from economic histories being taught in every Economics faculty in the world. Please do not think that these omissions are accidental. It's just part of the secrecy they need to keep the people ignorant of how money works. Of course, with professional economists leading the confusion, it actually is a feat of intellectual prowess to defeat the brainwashing and find out about and understand how these interest-free models did work.
Page 54 Since it is quite impossible to understand the history of the twentieth century without some understanding of the role played by money in domestic affairs and in foreign affairs, as well as the role played by bankers in economic life and in political life, we must take a least a glance at each of these four subjects: JCT: And yet, Quigley's is the only orthodox history I've ever read which makes any mention at all of the effects of money in manipulating human affairs.
DOMESTIC FINANCIAL PRACTICES In each country, the supply of money took the form of an inverted pyramid or cone balanced on its point. In the point was the supply of gold and its equivalent certificates; on the intermediate levels was a much larger supply of notes; and at the top, with an open and expandable upper surface, was an even greater supply of deposits. Each level used the levels below it as its reserves and these lower levels had smaller quantities of money, they were "sounder." Notes were issued by "banks of emission" or "banks of issue" and were secured by reserves of gold or certificates held in some central reserve. The fraction held in reserve depended upon banking regulations or statute law. Such banks, even central banks, were private institutions, owned by shareholders who profited by their operations. Deposits on the upper level of the pyramid were called by this name, with typical bankers' ambiguity, in spite of the fact that they consisted of two utterly different kinds of relationships: 1) "lodged deposits" which were real claims left by a depositor in a bank on which a depositor might receive interest; and 2) "created deposits" which were claims created by the bank out of nothing as loans from the bank to "depositors" who had to pay interest on them. Both form part of the money supply. Lodged deposits as a form of savings are deflationary while created deposits, being an addition to the money supply, are inflationary. JCT: Pretty good explanation of how the world's money system works though, like every economist, the idea of linking the issuance of new chips to an increase in pledge collateral cannot be grasped. If deposits are created at the pledging of new collateral, then it is not inflationary. Every good casino cashier understands the link between the increase in money matching the increase in collateral though very few economists can understand this link.
Page 55 The volume of deposits banks can create, like the amount of notes they can issue, depends upon the volume of reserves available to pay whatever fraction of checks are cashed rather than deposited. In the United States, deposits were traditionally limited to ten times reserves notes and gold. In Britain it was usually nearer twenty times such reserves. In most countries, the central bank was surrounded closely by the almost invisible private investment banking firms. These, like the planet Mercury, could hardly be seen in the dazzle emitted by the central bank, which they, in fact, often dominated. Yet a lost observer could hardly fail to notice the close private associations between these private, international bankers and the central bank itself. In France, in 1936, the Board of the Bank of France was still dominated by the names of the families who had originally set it up in 1800. JCT: So even though most people think that the Bank of Canada, the Bank of France, the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve are controlled by government for the good of the people, they are actually all controlled by the private bankers for the good of the private bankers and the detriment of the people in general.
In England, a somewhat similar situation existed. In a secondary ring are the "joint stock banks." Outside this secondary ring are the savings banks, insurance firms, and trust companies. In France and England the private bankers exercised their powers through the central bank and had much more influence on the government and foreign policy and less on industry. In the United States, much industry was financed by investment bankers directly and the power of these both on industry and government was very great. JCT: The point is that government had no control over financial policies which hurt so many people and helped so few bankers.
Page 57 The various parts of the pyramid of money were but loosely related to each other. Much of this looseness arose from the fact that the controls were compulsive in a deflationary direction and were only permissive in an inflationary direction. This last point can be seen in the fact that the supply of gold could be decreased but could hardly be increased. If an ounce of gold was added to the point of the pyramid, it could permit an increase in deposits equivalent to $2067 on the uppermost level. If such an ounce of gold were withdrawn from a fully expanded pyramid of money, this would compel a reduction of deposits by at least this amount, probably by a refusal to renew loans. JCT: So the guys who owned the gold could force the banks to call in their loans and precipitate credit crunches just by moving gold around. David Astle keeps pointing out how currencies based on gold or silver are subject to this same control.
Throughout modern history, the influence of the gold standard has been deflationary, because the natural output of gold each year, except in extraordinary times, has not kept pace with the increase in the output of goods. Only new supplies of gold or the development of new kinds of money have saved our civilization over the last couple of centuries. The three great periods of war ended with an extreme deflationary crisis (1819, 1873, 1921) as the influential Money Power persuaded governments to re-establish a deflationary monetary unit with a high gold content. JCT: Money Power persuaded governments to get back on gold which subjected the people to poverty and death while profiting the bankers to high interest rates. The usual bankers' prescription for financial ills.
The obsession of the Money Power with deflation was partly a result of their concern with money rather than with goods but was also founded on other factors, one of which was paradoxical. The paradox arose from the fact that the basic economic conditions of the nineteenth century were deflationary, with a monetary system based on gold and an industrial system pouring out increasing supplies of goods but in spite of falling prices, the interest rate tended to fall rather than rise. Moreover, merchant banking continued to emphasize bonds rather than equity securities (stocks), to favor government issues rather than private offerings. JCT: Is it any wonder that the guys who own all the money and control the creation of new money would want their money to buy them more and more even though those who have no money end up with less and less?
Another paradox of banking practice arose from the fact that bankers, who loved deflation, often acted in an inflationary fashion from their eagerness to lend money at interest. Since they make money out of loans, they are eager to increase the amounts of bank credit on loan. But this is inflationary. JCT: It's only inflationary when they don't demand collateral for the loan. And how many bankers don't demand collateral? So usually, the creation of new money is not inflationary though a large injection of new money, such as a gold strike, would certainly be inflationary.
The conflict between the deflationary ideas and inflationary practices of bankers had profound repercussions on business. The bankers made loans to business so that the volume of money increased faster than the increase of goods. The result was inflation. When this became clearly noticeable, the bankers would flee to notes or specie by curtailing credit and raising discount rates. This was beneficial to the bankers in the short run (since it allowed them to foreclose on collateral for loans) but it could be disastrous to them in the long run (by forcing the value of the collateral below the amount of the loans it secured). But such bankers' deflation was destructive to business and industry in the short run as well as the long run. JCT: It was never disastrous to the bankers at all. When times were good, they got large interest and large fees and when times were bad, they got the foreclosed collateral for a song, even if its value was less than the original value of the loan.
Page 59 The resulting fluctuation in the supply of money, chiefly deposits, was a prominent aspect of the "business cycle." The quantity of money could be changed by changing reserve requirements or discount (interest) rates. Central banks can usually vary the amount of money in circulation by "open market operations" or by influencing the discount rates of lesser banks. In open market operations, a central bank buys or sells government bonds in the open market. If it buys, it releases money into the economic system; it if sells it reduces the amount of money in the community. If the Federal Reserve Bank buys, it pays for these by checks which are soon deposited in a bank. It thus increases this bank's reserves with the Federal Reserve Bank. Since banks are permitted to issue loans for several times the value of their reserves with the FED, such a transaction permits them to issue loans for a much larger sum. JCT: Actually, here he repeats the same old Socred canard that the banks can issue more in loans than their reserves. If they can issue only 90% of the deposits, it is never possible to issue more than the reserves. I explained this just recently. The loan must be deposited before a new loan can be issued to cause another deposit to permit a new loan to cause another deposit, etc. See my http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm for a fuller treatment.
Central banks can also change the quantity of money by raising the discount rate which forces the lesser banks to raise their discount rates; such a raise in interest rates tends to reduce the demand for credit and thus the amount of deposits (money). Lowering the discount rate permits an opposite result. JCT: If one believes that inflation is an increase in the money supply, then restricting the growth in the money by raising interest rates is the solution Shift A inflation. If one believes today's inflation is a decrease in the goods supply being purchased by the money created, then reducing the unpurchasable portion by lowering interest rates is the solution to Shift B inflation. The fact that a large injection of new local bond currency issued by Argentina provinces in the mid 1980s lowered inflation is persuasive proof that we are suffering inflation due to failure caused by interest rate rather than inflation due to too much money.
It is noted that the control of the central bank over the credit policies of local banks are permissive in one direction and compulsive in the other. They can compel these local banks to curtail credit and can only permit them to increase credit. This means that they have control powers against inflation and not deflation - a reflection of the old banking idea that inflation was bad and deflation was good. JCT: Yes, this is a very interesting point. They can always compel a depression while they can only permit a boom.
Page 60 The powers of governments over the quantity of money are: a) control over a central bank; JCT: What a joke. No government in the world controls its central bank. The private banks do.
b) control over public taxation; c) control over public spending; JCT: Neither of these who controls the money supply, they only shuffle money from our accounts to the governments or vice versa. What governments really need to do is go the Third Way which is not even mentioned here: Cut debt service.
Since most central banks have been (technically) private institutions, this control is frequently based on custom rather than on law. JCT: Very few people know this and very few economists accept it. For instance, though it's not of major importance, the Federal Reserve of the United States, though its directors are appointed by the President, is not a government body but a purely private one. It has never been audited by the government and it is not even listed with the other government agencies in the telephone book. It is listed with all other private corporations in the white pages. This is not a major point given that the Bank of Canada is a government agency which also acts independently of government. So even when part of the government, they are left independent to further the aims of the private bankers in their orbit.
Taxation tends to reduce the amount of money in a community and is usually a deflationary force. Government spending is usually an inflationary force. JCT: As if the government takes money out of circulation via taxes and doesn't spend it back. Considering that most governments operate on deficits, this implies that every dollar taken in in taxes is spent so there is no deflationary effect.
On the whole, in the period up to 1931, bankers, especially the Money Power controlled by the international investment bankers, were able to dominate both business and government. They could dominate business because investment bankers had the ability to supply or refuse to supply such capital. Thus Rothschild interests came to dominate many of the railroads of Europe, while Morgan dominated at least 26,000 miles of American railroads. Such bankers took seats on the boards of directors of industrial firms, as they had already done on commercial banks, savings banks, insurance firms, and finance companies. From these lesser institutions, they funneled capital to enterprises which yielded control and away from those who resisted. These firms were controlled through interlocking directorships, holding companies, and lesser banks. JCT: People tend to undervalue this power to deny loans of new money to their enemies while authorizing loans to their friends so they can buy the less-favored enterprises at auction after foreclosure. As Astle points out, such power is too great for private individuals and should be restricted to the rulers who, hopefully, will be issuing such loans for the benefit of their citizens.
Page 61 As early as 1909, Walter Rathenau said, "Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves." JCT: These are the men responsible for the millions of deaths by poverty and war in those times.
The power of investment bankers over governments rests on the need of governments to issue short-term treasury bills as well as long-term government bonds. Just as businessmen go to commercial banks for current capital advances, so a government has to go to merchant bankers to tide over the shallow places caused by irregular tax receipts. JCT: Of course, such power is only over governments stupid enough to have taken the power to create money from their own Treasuries and given it to private banks. Only the idiot government are in such a ridiculous position. Unfortunately, this comprises all the governments of today's world except for the Island of Guernsey and perhaps some of the Argentinian provinces. Otherwise, all governments have given the power to create money to private bankers and are in line with all their citizens trying to borrow that money.
As experts in government bonds, the international bankers provided advice to government officials and, on many occasions, placed their own members in official posts. This was so widely accepted even today, that in 1961 a Republican investment banker became Secretary of the Treasury in a Democratic administration in Washington without significant comment from any direction. JCT: So the bankers have advised the governments to give them the power to create the money and advised them to get into debt to them and advised them to tax everyone to pay them interest.
Naturally, the influence of bankers over governments during the age of financial capitalism (roughly 1850-1931) was not something about which anyone talked about freely, but it has been admitted freely enough by those on the inside, especially in England. In 1842, Gladstone, chancellor of the Exchequer, declared "The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be the substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." On Sept. 26, 1921, the Financial Times wrote, "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." In 1924, Sir Drummond Fraser, vice-president of the Institute of Bankers, stated, "The Governor of the Bank of England must be the autocrat who dictates the terms upon which alone the Government can obtain borrowed money." JCT: So these few men can be held responsible for the state of the world in those years. He leaves no doubt that the international bankers were in control just as Astle leaves no doubt that they were in control in antiquity.
Page 62 In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures. Since most government officials felt ignorant of finance, they sought advice from bankers whom they considered experts in the field. The history of the last century shows that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen and the people generally. JCT: Actually, genocidal for the people generally. The results of their actions qualify these bankers as monsters in anyone's book.
Such advice could be enforced if necessary by manipulation of exchanges, gold flows, discount rates, and even levels of business activity. Thus Morgan dominated Cleveland's second administration by gold withdrawals, and in 1936-13 French foreign exchange manipulators paralyzed the Popular Front governments. The powers of these international bankers reached their peak in 1919-1931 when Montagu Norman and J.P. Morgan dominated not only the financial world but international relations and other matters as well. On Nov. 11, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman "the currency dictator of Europe." This was admitted by Mr. Norman who said, "I hold the hegemony of the world." JCT: International bankers admitted they ruled the world.
The conflict of interests between bankers and industrialists has resulted in the subordination of the bankers (after 1931) to the latter by the adoption of "unorthodox financial policies" - that is, financial policies not in accordance with the short-run interests of the bankers. JCT: Interesting that "unorthodox financial policies" which were in the interest of the people and not in the interests of the bankers are not explained, only mentioned. As I've pointed out, these unorthodox financial practices were the policies of the Roman Empire with their Treasury's copper money, King Henry I with his Treasury's wooden "tally money" and Abe Lincoln with his paper "Treasury notes" which have disappeared down the economics history memory holes.
THE UNITED STATES TO 1917 Page 71 The civil service reform began in the federal government with the Pendleton Bill of 1883. As a result, the government was controlled with varying degrees of completeness by the forces of investment banking and heavy industry from 1884 to 1933. Popularly known as "Society," or the "400," they lived a life of dazzling splendor. JCT: The bankers lived on their ill-gotten unearned interest income while the rest of the population suffered in poverty. I wonder what kind of Hell God has in store for them?
Page 72 The structure of financial control created by the tycoons of "Big Banking" and "Big Business" in the period 1880-1933 was of extraordinary complexity, one business fief being built upon another, both being allied with semi-independent associates, the whole rearing upward into two pinnacles of economic and financial power, of which one, centered in New York, was headed by J.P. Morgan and Company, and the other, in Ohio, was headed by the Rockefeller family. When these two cooperated, as they generally did, they could influence the economic life of the country to a large degree and could almost control its political life, at least on the federal level. The influence of these business leaders was so great that the Morgan and Rockefeller groups acting together, or even Morgan acting alone, could have wrecked the economic system of the country merely by throwing securities on the stock market for sale, and having precipitated a stock market panic, could then have bought back the securities they had sold but at a lower price. Naturally, they were not so foolish as to do this, although Morgan came very close to it in precipitating the "panic of 1907," but they did not hesitate to wreck individual corporations, at the expense of holders of common stock, by driving them to bankruptcy. In this way, Morgan wrecked the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad before 1914 and William Rockefeller wrecked the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad before 1925. JCT: Seems pretty clear that the bankers controlled the US in these years as they still do today. Of course, accidentalists will argue that these pillars of power were never used and if used, their genocidal results were accidental given their benign intentions. After all, didn't these men donate some of the money to set up libraries?
Page 73 The discovery by financial capitalists that they made money out of issuing and selling securities rather than out of production, distribution and consumption of goods accordingly led them to the point where they discovered that the exploiting of an operating company by excessive issuance of securities or the issuance of bonds rather than equity securities not only was profitable to them but made it possible for them to increase their profits by bankruptcy of the firm, providing fees and commission of reorganization as well as the opportunity to issue new securities. When the business interests pushed through the first installment of the civil service reform in 1881, they expected to control both political parties equally. Some intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence by politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice. JCT: Such control continues today. Most of the influential politicians of both the Democrats and Republicans belong to the Council on Foreign Relations, a Rockefeller control group.
The inability of the investment bankers to control the Democratic Party Convention of 1896 was a result of the agrarian discontent of the period 1868-1896. This discontent was based very largely on the monetary tactics of the banking oligarchy. The bankers were wedded to the gold standard and at the end of the Civil War, persuaded the Grant administration to curb the postwar inflation and go back on the gold standard (crash of 1873 and resumption of specie payment in 1875). JCT: So, going back on the gold standard to please the owners of gold caused the crash of 1873 to the detriment of the majority of Americans. We'll see this theme over and over in our studies.
Page 74 This gave the bankers a control of the supply of money which they did not hesitate to use for their own purposes. JCT: No kidding. Still, how will the accidentalists account for all these benefits to their purposes?
The bankers' affection for low prices was not shared by farmers, since each time prices of farm products went down, the burden of farmers' debts became greater. As farmers could not reduce their costs or modify their production plans, the result was a systematic exploitation of the agrarian sectors of the community by the financial and industrial sectors. This exploitation took the form of high industrial prices and discriminatory railroad rates, high interest charges, low farm prices and very low level of farm services. JCT: Every time we hear of deflationary policies, we're talking about higher interest rates for the owners of money, more foreclosure for their debtors, and misery for the population in general. I've had much experience helping people who were losing their homes fight their foreclosures and there's nothing as heart-breaking to behold. Having fought dozens of foreclosures, I feel eminently qualified to call the men responsible for these policies in olden times or today as monsters whose souls I hope will burn in Hell.
Unable to resist by economic weapons, the farmers turned to political relief. They tried to work on the state political level through local legislation (so-called Granger Laws) and set up third-party movements (like the Greenback Party of 1878 or the Populist Party in 1892). JCT: In the early 1980s, I contemplated calling my party a Greenback party and they have a rousing history of political revolt against their oppressors though they had no chance against Big Money who could influence the majority of the booboisie.
By 1896, the capture of the Democratic Party by the forces of discontent under William Jennings Bryant who was determined to obtain higher prices by increasing the supply of money on a bimetallic rather than a gold basis, presented the electorate with an election on a social and economic issue for the first time in a generation. Though the forces of high finance were in a state of near panic, by a mighty effort involving very large-scale spending they were successful in electing McKinley. JCT: And things went on as usual though I'm not sure Astle would agree that adding silver as a secondary base for the creation of new money would be much of an improvement. Of course, any new source of money with which to sell their products and pay their debts would have been a help.
Though the plutocracy were unable to control the Democratic Party as they controlled the Republican Party, they did not cease their efforts to control both and in 1904 and 1924, Morgan was able to sit back with a feeling of satisfaction to watch presidential elections in which the candidates of both parties were in his sphere of influence. JCT: Just as Rockefeller has controlled both parties for the last 50 years through his Council on Foreign Relations.
Page 75 The agrarian discontent, the growth of monopolies, the oppression of labor, and the excesses of Wall Street financiers made the country very restless between 1890-1900. All this could have been alleviated merely by increasing the supply of money sufficiently to raise prices somewhat, but the financiers were determined to defend the gold standard no matter what happened. JCT: What happened was wave after wave of foreclosures, suicides, hunger and misery, all the things that bankers thrive upon.
In looking for some issue to distract public discontent from domestic issues, what better solution than a crisis in foreign affairs? Cleveland had stumbled upon this alternative in 1895 when he stirred up controversy with England over Venezuela. The great opportunity came with the Cuban revolt against Spain in 1895. While the "yellow press" roused public opinion, Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt plotted how they could best get the United States into the fracas. They got the excuse they needed when the American battleship Maine was sunk by a mysterious explosion in Havana Harbor in 1898. In two months, the United States declared war on Spain to fight for Cuban independence. The resulting victory revealed the United States as a world naval power, established it as an imperialist power with possession of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. America's entrance upon the stage as a world power continued with the annexation of Hawaii in 1898, the intervention in the Boxer uprising in 1900, the seizure of the Panama canal in 1903, the diplomatic intervention in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, the military occupation of Nicaragua in 1912, the military intervention in Mexico in 1916. JCT: It still works today too. It seems nothing gets a population to rally around the leader better than killing a few foreigners. I think Bill Clinton's use of Iraqi bombing at a propitious moment during his problems certainly gained him a great measure of approval. Though people love seeing their smart V2 bombs taking out targets on TV, I think they would be well served to also see some television coverage of the funerals that resulted.
Page 76 As an example of the more idealistic impulse we might mention the creation of various Carnegie foundations to work for universal peace. JCT: Again, I can't help snickering when I think of monsters with the blood of millions of innocent debtors on their hands "working for universal peace." I can believe that the only peace they really are working for is the peace provided when they've achieved universal bondage by debts.
As an example of the more practical point of view, we might mention the founding of "The New Republic," a liberal weekly paper, by an agent of Morgan financed with Whitney money (1914). The combined forces of the liberal East and the agrarian West were able to capture the Presidency under Woodrow Wilson in 1912. JCT: The Agrarian West didn't capture the presidency under Wilson. Wilson was a banker's all the way who will be most remembering for his campaign pledge not to send their sons to any foreign wars while he was planning to send their sons to foreign wars.
Wilson roused a good deal of popular enthusiasm with his talk of "New Freedom" and the rights of the underdog, but his program amounted to little more than an amateur attempt to establish on a federal basis those reforms which agrarian and labor discontent had been seeking on a state basis for many years. JCT: As are most bankers agents, he was all talk and no action. It might be called an amateurish attempt if it were an honest attempt but considering it was probably not an honest attempt, I think it would be better to have called his attempt to help the poor "fraudulent."
Wilson was by no means a radical and there was a good deal of unconscious hypocrisy in many of his resounding public speeches. JCT: The most successful politicians are always the most hypocritical liars. He was a great one leading voters to believe he had their interests at heart while having Wall Street's interest truly at heart.
His political and administrative reforms were a good deal more effective than his economic or social reforms. JCT: That's because political and administrative reforms don't really help the debt slaves very much. That they have better ways of being organized doesn't reduce their slavery as economic reforms would. Bankers will always allow their paid mouthpieces to orate useless reforms while the substantive never see the light of day.
The establishment of an income tax and the Federal Reserve System justified the support which Progressives had given to Wilson. JCT: And I'm sure that American are still cheering with Quigley the establishment of the Federal Reserve System to promote interest debt service on the government's debt and the establishment of an Income tax to collect the interest payable on that national debt. Not.
Wilson did much to extend equality of opportunity to wider groups of American people. JCT: After enslaving them with government debt and a new tax system to collect the debt service, he extended equality of opportunity to pay it wider groups of American people. Considering Quigley can laud monster usurers because they build a few libraries with some of their unearned income, is it any wonder he'd laud the guy who gave us the Fed and Income Taxes? Again, I must point out that when I talk of bankes committing genocide by poverty, it is not hyperbole. I have pushed 6 different genocide charges against bankers right to the Supreme Court of Canada and have initiated dozens, perhaps hundreds more appearances on the same charges at various court levels. See: http://turmelpress.com/scc3.htm .
Send a comment to John Turmel