TRAGEDY AND HOPE Chapter 7 & 8 Analysis
* Turmel analysis has indented paragraphs, Quigley's text does not.
* R&R = Rothschilds and Rockefellers
* to mort = to murder by poverty of life-support tickets
JCT: I'm going coin a new verb for our discussions: to "mort"
from the word "mort-gage." This would mean to cut off someone's life-
support tickets (money) until they were pushed to starvation or
revolt. So instead of saying that Rothschilds and Rockefellers
committed genocide by poverty on 15 million children last year, I'd
say that R&R "morted" 15 million last year or 15 million were morted
by R&R last year. In discussing recent history, there is just so much
genocide of the poor by financial policies that we such action does
need its own word.
CHAPTER VII: FINANCE, COMMERCIAL POLICY, AND BUSINESS POLICY 1897-1947
REFLATION AND INFLATION 1897-1925
page 315
A real understanding of the economic history of twentieth century
Europe is imperative to any understanding of the events of the period.
Such an understanding will require a study of the history of finance.
JCT: That we can't find any other recent historians to say this
indicates how important Quigley is to finding out about real history.
Page 316
The outbreak of war in 1914 showed these financial capitalists in
their worst, narrow in outlook, ignorant and selfish, while
proclaiming, as usual, their total devotion to the social good. They
generally agreed that war could not go on for more than six to ten
months because of the "limited financial resources" of the
belligerents (by which they meant gold reserves). This idea reveals
the fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and of money on the
part of the very persons who were reputed to be experts on the
subject. Wars are not fought with gold or even with money but by
proper organization of real resources.
JCT: Gee, because they didn't understand how credit could work to
finance a war that would last 5 years, we accidentally stumbled into a
war that profited them over 5 years. Though this could be true of the
Professor Flahertys of the world who teach these falsehoods to their
students while actually believing them themselves, it can't be true
for the few higher bankers who understand the banking system as well
as we who understand that once the gold runs out, the credit can
finance everything even better than the gold ever could.
We find that Quigley often repeats the theme of international
bankers stumbling into such profitable wars accidentally, the only
serious errors I've found in his work. If he were right that history
if mostly accidental, then one would expect that the half the
accidents might benefit us. Yet, that all the accidents always benefit
the bankers must indicate that these are not accidental policies at
all.
The attitudes of bankers were revealed most clearly in England, where
every move was dictated by efforts to protect their own position and
to profit from it rather than by considerations of economic
mobilization for war or the welfare of the British people.
War found the British banking system insolvent in the sense that its
funds, created by the banking system for profit and rented out to the
economic system to permit it to operate, could not be covered by the
existing volume of gold reserves or collateral which could be
liquidated rapidly.
JCT: So we know that Quigley understands that money is created by
the banking system for profit and rented out to the economic system to
permit it to operate implying that they could choose not to permit the
economic system to operate, as they often have done.
Accordingly,the bankers secretly devised a scheme by which their
obligations could be met by fiat money (so-called Treasury Notes),
but as soon as the crisis was over, they then insisted that the
government must pay for the war without recourse to fiat money (which
was always damned by the bankers as immoral) but by taxation and by
borrowing at high interest rates from the bankers.
JCT: Only in times of crisis, usually war or deprivation severe
enough for the population to revolt, would the bankers not object too
much to "Treasury Notes" interest-free which they call fiat money but
then would insist that it be paid for with money created by the
bankers and borrowed at high interest.
What's interesting is that bankers' money is also "fiat money"
though they never all it so. Just like Abraham Lincoln's Treasury
Notes are created by the Treasury money plates and borrowed by the
government interest-free to cover expenses, Bankers' Notes are created
by bankers money plates and borrowed by the government at interest to
cover those same expenses.
There is no difference between the fiat money created by a
government Treasury and the fiat money created by a group of private
bankers except that in the case of government money, taxation need
only recuperate the original principal of the loan while in the case
of banker money, taxation needs to recuperate both the original
principal of the loan and interest to pay private bankers.
I've always felt that my four minute Plates poem taken from my
Poem to the Queen in the Crucial Information section of my web site
best explains the disadvantages of using bankers' fiat money compared
to using government fiat money:
When you were little, did you ever dream of printing cash?
Of filling up your wallet with some money in a flash?
Creating money accurately means TO HAVE THE PLATES,
The stamping of some paper into notes best demonstrates;
Or stamping metal into coins; or blips computerized,
Into your bank account deposits, checks now authorized.
So whether paper, metal, volts of electricity,
TO HAVE THE PLATES is printing money absolutely free.
Now if you printed to spend, the others would bewail,
They'd call it counterfeiting and send you off to jail.
But what if Crown would let you merely print it up to lend?
With only what you could collect in interest to spend?
If you could print and lend a thousand out at ten percent,
You'd make a hundred interest on printing that you lent.
But if you could print up and lend a million out you'd get,
An extra hundred thousand dollars for your fee on debt!
If Crown stops using its own money plates and comes to you,
A billion printed nets a hundred million revenue!!
With everybody being taxed to pay you interest,
Of all the scams in history, TO HAVE THE PLATES is best!!!
Though never spending, only lending, riches do await,
To all who with the plates become the loan-sharks to the state.
And though to join the few who thusly profit, one might dream,
Wake up to see we're all the victims of their greedy scheme.
While Crowns of old had ruled that "Treasury run money plates,"
Without the interest to middle-men at rip-off rates,
Today most governments to banking industry have lost,
Control of money plates so interest is now a cost.
To service debt in ninety four, Canada's request,
A hundred'n eighty billion dollars paid in interest.
We're taxed over five hundred dollars each per month to pay,
For interest to holders of our plates they gave away!!!
We now see the unjustly cost that makes our tax inflate,
And only usury is what we must eliminate.
We Abolitionists would get the plates back from the banks,
Have Treasury create the money for printing charge and thanks.
JCT: And there you have the difference between what Quigley calls
"orthodox finance" and "unorthodox finance." Orthodox finance which is
lauded by the bankers is having the bankers create the fiat money and
borrowing it from them and taxing everyone to pay them interest while
unorthodox finance which is decried as inflationary by bankers is
having the Treasury create the fiat money and borrowing it without
having to tax anyone to pay interest.
Of course, bankers eternally decry the inflationary impacts of
Treasury fiat money while ignoring the impact of taxation for debt
service while never decrying the same impacts of bank created fiat
money giving rise to taxation for debt service. A great scam for those
who can get the plates and be part of it.
So whenever Quigley speaks of orthodox financial methods, he's
talking about government borrowing interest-bearing fiat money from
private plate-holders and when he speaks of unorthodox financial
methods, he's talking about government borrowing interest-free fiat
money from the public plate-holder.
Though history is replete with examples of such interest-free
unorthodox financing to permit full employment with debt service, the
most recent example of unorthodox finance was the Argentinian
provinces who, instead of taking their bonds to the bankers to borrow
private fiat money to spend and then tax out with interest, printed up
small denomination bonds to spend and tax out without interest. See
http://turmelpress.com/np2.htm
The decision to use Treasury Notes to fulfill the bankers'
liabilities was made on July 25, 1915 by Sir John Bradbury. The first
Treasury Notes were run off the presses at Waterloo and Sons on July
28th. It was announced that the Treasury Notes, instead of gold,
would be used for bank payments. The discount rate was raised at the
Bank of England from 3% to 10% to prevent inflation, a figure taken
merely because the traditional rule of the bank stated that a 10%
bank rate would draw gold out of the ground itself.
JCT: Notice that there were never any inflationary fears while
bankers created the fiat money to put into circulation at interest
and such fears were only raised when the Treasury did it to put into
circulation interest-free. For those of you who have a copy of
Pauline's first UK Trip report, you'll find a photocopy of a
"Bradbury" provided by the Christian council for Monetary Justice in
1994 which wrote:
"On the other side of this sheet is an enlarged copy of the famous
BRADBURY, one of #500 million Treasury Notes issued by Lloyd George as
Chancellor at the outbreak of war in 1914 in order to prevent the
banks and the currency from collapse. Why has no subsequent Government
made similar use of its full power to create credit instead of letting
the banks exercise this as a private monopoly for which they demand
punitive interest from borrowers including national and local
government? We are repeatedly told that the Treasury must obtain
credit for Britain's social policies by either increasing taxes or
borrowing at interest; but this is not so. Treasury Minister Anthony
Nelson M.P. stated in a Treasury letter 47a/2dst.vd. of 22nd Feb 1993
to the Campaign for Monetary Reform that:
"the Government can and does finance itself to a small extent by the
issue of non-interest-bearing money; this is the aggregate known as
M.0 (i.e. Cash), the stock of which is currently some #19.5 billion.
The size of this stock is limited only by the demand for this form of
money."
This can be done on a reasonable yet far more significant scale to
meet the human demand of the people for a proper social structure. Let
the nation control the City of London, and not the City the Nation.
Below is a copy of a Liverpool Corporation Promissory Note of 1793
also issued when there was a run on the banks. Its existence shows
that stable credit has been successfully created by local as well as
national governments and it should be again.
JCT: Who knows how many other examples of government interest-
free notes have been erased from economists' history books too? Every
single instance, as far as I can tell. Other than Quigley, which is
more a history book than an Economics book, can anyone cite any
Economics books which mentions any unorthodox financial system? Funny
that such an economic notion as unorthodox finance is only found in a
history text and no economics texts, isn't it? It's these kind of 100%
omissions that convince me of the existence of an invisible conspiracy
of bankers no matter who wants laugh at the notion.
Page 317
At the outbreak of war, most of the belligerent countries suspended
gold payments and accepted their bankers' advice that the proper way
to pay for the war was by a combination of bank loans and taxation of
consumption. The governments paid for the war by taxation, by fiat
money, by borrowing from banks (which created credit for the purpose)
and by borrowing from the people by selling them war bonds.
Each of these methods had a different effect upon the two
consequences of the war: inflation and public debt.
a) Taxation gives no inflation and no debt.
b) Fiat money gives inflation and no debt.
JCT: Of course, Quigley has no idea about Inflation Shift B and
doesn't seem to understand that fiat chips issued in exchange for new
collateral does not cause inflation. Ask any casino cashier.
c) Bank credit gives inflation and debt.
JCT: Even bank credit, if issued in exchange for collateral, does
not cause inflation though the interest on the debt does cause
inflation Shift B. So its' true we'll get inflation from bank credit,
it's not due to the increase in money, inflation shift A, it's due to
the interest on the debt, inflation shift B. But of course, since
inflation does occur, we can understand why he'd attribute it to the
increase in money since the shift B decrease in purchasable collateral
was unknown to him and to today's economists.
d) Sales of bonds give no inflation but give debt.
JCT: And the interest on such debt would cause inflation shift B
so here, he's off base but this is not something that he has been able
to empirically show, it only makes sense to him. Since there was no
inflation shift A, increased money, he concludes there won't be any
inflation, such conclusion not taking into account inflation shift B
from the interest.
It would appear from this table that the best way to pay for the
war would be by taxation and the worst way would be by bank credit.
Probably the best way to finance war is a combination of the four
methods.
JCT: Actually, the best way is the way they were all forced to
go when orthodox methods failed. Fiat money from the Treasury.
Canada's Committee On Monetary & Economic Reform, COMER, continually
harps on the fact that during the war, the Treasury created half the
money and the banks the other half. Today, the Treasury creates 1%
and the banks 99%. They want the Treasury to create more but not
necessarily 100%. I don't care if banks or the Treasury create it as
long as it is positive-feedback-free.
Page 318
In the period 1914-1918, the various belligerents used a mixture
of these four methods but it was a mixture dictated by expediency and
false theories so that at the end of the war all countries found
themselves with both public debts and inflation.
While the prices in most countries rose 200 to 300 percent and public
debts rose 1000%, the financial leaders tried to keep up the pretense
that the money was as valuable as it had ever been. For this reason,
they did not openly abandon the gold standard. Instead, they
suspended certain attributes of the gold standard. In most countries,
payments in gold and export of gold were suspended but every effort
was made to keep gold reserves up to a respectable percentage of
notes. These attributes were achieved in some cases by deceptive
methods. In Britain, the gold reserves against notes fell from 52% to
18% in the month of July 1914; then the situation was concealed,
partly by moving assets of local banks into the Bank of England and
using them as reserves for both, partly by issuing a new kind of notes
(Currency Notes) which had no real reserve and little gold backing.
JCT: With little consequence since the backing by gold is
not what makes money valuable, it's the labor of people that you can
buy with your money that is the true backing.
Page 320
As soon as the war was over, governments began to turn their
attention to restoring the prewar financial system. Since the
essential element was believed to be the gold standard, this movement
was called "stabilization."
JCT: Remember this word. Stabilizing meant making the gold of
those who had gold worth more by taking more from the people who had
no gold. It often turned into out-and-out death for the poor,
henceforth to be called "morting."
Productive capacity in both agriculture and industry had been
increased by the artificial demand of the war period to a degree far
beyond the ability of normal domestic demand to buy the products.
JCT: Food production had increased far beyond the ability to buy
the products but not to eat them. Thus the famous Social Credit
expression "Poverty amidst plenty." Lots of food but no money to buy
it with.
The backwards areas had increased their outputs of raw materials
and food so greatly that the total could hardly have been sold.
JCT: Again, the limitation was on the sale, not on the
availability. Thus the real tragedy of the 20th century where it is
admitted that early on in the century, we already had the potential
for life-support to provide abundance for all yet such abundance was
denied the citizenry by creating a shortage of the tokens to buy it
with. Earth could have been paradise of abundance for the past hundred
years and yet the bankers kept it an alley where men weep and gnash
their teeth just for the fun and profit they made out of morting
people with debt.
The result was as situation where all countries were eager to sell
and reluctant to buy. The only sensible solution to this problem of
excessive productive capacity would have been a substantial rise in
domestic standards of living but this would have required a
fundamental reapportionment of the national income so that claims to
this product of the excess capacity would go to those masses eager to
consume, rather than continue to go to the minority desiring to save.
Such reform was rejected by the ruling groups in both "advanced" and
"backwards" countries so that this solution was reached only to a
small degree in a relatively few countries (chiefly US and Germany in
1925-1929).
JCT: I think this would make a great part of the indictment of
the moneylenders who kept heaven away from earthlings over the past
century. Ruling groups, and we know that that has always been those
who finance the politicians, decided that the abundance would be kept
unbuyable bought by the masses, such ruling groups having thereby
morted many of those masses by insufficiency in a land of plenty.
We should start a topic where we assume that we're finally all in
Heaven and we get to be the prosecutors of the Rothschilds and
Rockefellers before God who draw up the indictment.
It would have great therapeutic value for those of us who feel
the heartache of knowing that it didn't have to be this way. I'm sure
that those of us who understand how the bankers have done it to us
feel a special pain that the sheeple who think it's just nature's way
will never understand. So why don't we pretend that we're finally at
he Judgment day and let's lay out the indictment for genocide of
the poor against the bankers.
Now that I think of it, I'm probably the only person on Earth who
has already had that soul-satisfying moment of accusing the bankers of
genocide of the poor in the public eye before my nation's highest
court. Three times personally and three times having made the
arguments for others. So, I've had the thrill of making the case
against the bankers of genocide to their faces. I really enjoyed it.
We'd simply have to pick various examples of where bankers'
policies resulted in death. I can pick up my newspaper and come up
with half a dozen in only a few moments.
Bankers committed genocide when their funding cuts reduced the
number of ambulances and someone died.
Bankers committed genocide when their funding cuts reduced the
number of hospital beds and someone died.
Bankers committed genocide when their funding cuts reduced
welfare and someone died of a malnutrition disease.
Bankers committed genocide when their funding cuts reduced
welfare and someone died of attempted robbery or trying to stop one.
Bankers committed genocide when their funding cuts caused a gang
of kids to kill another for his sneakers despite stores full of
sneakers.
The ways that bankers' funding cuts have killed people are just
too numerous to count. Virtually every crime on every crime drama on
television can be laid to the poverty motive: "I did it for the
money." Other than a few insanities, 90% of the death on the planet,
assuming 10% die calmly and naturally, can be laid on the banking
conspiracy.
And believe me, to call these pillars of the community "morters"
in public affords a great feeling to anyone who has been frustrated by
the knowledge that we've always been a short step away from heaven and
have been kept in hell by these men nevertheless.
And I wouldn't worry too much about Rothschild and Rockefeller
sending their henchmen to get you. The LETS computer revolution
changing the face of banking is just too big to be stopped and once
LETS is global, they, like the lowliest torturer, will be forgiven,
allowed to change their names and fade from the scene knowing they
will eventually get their promised judgment day on the other side. But
not on this side.
So contemplate how you'd indict them for their usury "mort-gage."
Make your case and enjoy the therapeutic feeling arguing for such
justice gives. Because, as Quigley explains, the needless agonies they
have inflicted will get clearer and clearer as we go on.
Page 324
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim,
nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in
private hands able to dominate the political system of each country
and the economy of the world as a whole.
JCT: Remember that Quigley is one of them. He's one of their
professors. He's one of the slave-drivers, not one of the slaves.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the
central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements
arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of
the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle,
Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's
central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each
central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to
control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence
the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence
cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the
business world.
JCT: And they've pulled it off.
In each country, the power of the central bank rested largely on its
control of credit and money supply. In the world as a whole the power
of the central bankers rested very largely on their control of loans
and the gold flows. They made agreements on all the major financial
problems of the world, as well as on many of the economic and
political problems, especially in reference to loans, payments, and
the economic future of the chief areas of the globe.
JCT: So it's fair to say that the state of the world is their
responsibility.
The Bank of International Settlements, B.I.S. is generally regarded
as the apex of the structure of financial capitalism whose remote
origins go back to the creation of the Bank of England in 1694.
JCT: Only as far as Quigley sees. Astle points out that they had
an international banking cartel, a Bank of International
Settlements, several millennia ago and it's difficult to believe given
our continual history of agony and war that they took a break from
control for a millennium or two. No, it's just that this historian
couldn't have known what history had been erased from his books to
know. That's why we have such a great debt of gratitude to Astle for
having dug up and processed so much almost-erased information.
Page 325
It was set up to be the world cartel of every-growing national
financial powers by assembling the nominal heads of these national
financial centers.
The commander in Chief of the world system of banking control was
Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who was built up by
the private bankers to a position where he was regarded as an oracle
in all matters of government and business. In government, the power of
the Bank of England was a considerable restriction on political action
as early as 1819 but an effort to break this power by a modification
of the bank's charter in 1844 failed. In 1852, Gladstone, then
chancellor of the Exchequer and later Prime Minister, declared,
"The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was
not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave
the Money Power supreme and unquestioned."
JCT: This is the Prime Minister saying that the most important
function of an economy was to be left to the profitable control of
private elements. Sure, many economists will argue that there is
government control because the President gets to nominate which
bankers serve on the Federal Reserve Board but it fails to note that
they're still all bankers and that picking one or two of them to their
14 year term is about the only control at all.
This power of the Bank of England was admitted in 1924 by Reginald
McKenna, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he, as
Chairman, told the stockholders of the Midland bank, "I am afraid
the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and
do, create money. And they who control the credit of a nation direct
the policy if Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the
destiny of the people." In that same year, Sir Drummond Fraser, vice-
president of the Institute of Bankers stated, "The Governor must be
the autocrat who dictates the terms upon which alone the Government
can obtain borrowed money." On Sep. 26, 1921, Vincent Vickers,
director of the bank, the Financial Times wrote, "Half a dozen meant
the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of
government by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills."
JCT: These quotes have been cited by most monetary reformers and
the fact that Quigley does too is testament to the honesty with which
he is dealing with these issues.
Page 326
Norman had no use for governments and feared democracy. Both of these
seemed to him to be threats to private banking and thus to all that
was proper and precious to human life. He viewed his life as a kind
of cloak-and-dagger struggle with the forces of unsound money which
were in league with anarchy and Communism. When he rebuilt the Bank
of England, he constructed it as a fortress prepared to defend itself
against any popular revolt. For much of his life, he rushed about the
world under the assumed name of "Professor Skinner."
JCT: Interesting that he worried that people would someday blame
the bankers and not the government but as long as most people thought
that the government ran the central bank and not the other way around,
he didn't have too much to worry. The the Bank of England was picketed
by some Social Credit Greenshirts during the Depression and me in 1997
but other than those protests, it's been pretty successful at having
the blame for its policies laid at the doorstep of the government.
Norman had a devoted colleague in Benjamin Strong, the first governor
of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Strong owed his career to
the favor of the Morgan bank.
In the 1920s, they were determined to use the financial power of
Britain and the US to force all the major countries of the world to
go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free
from all political control, with all questions of international
finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without
interference from governments.
JCT: I consider the money system as the brain of the economic
machinery. Money decides what will be produced. Bankers have decided
that funds to farm production will be kept to a minimum and funds to
war production will be kept to a maximum and that's what gets done.
The engineers who would be just as happy building tractors find
that the only paychecks available are for building tanks and guess
what engineers end up building? Those who control the allocation of
funds control what gets done no matter what governments or people
want. Is it any wonder that bankers want no interference from
governments in their running of the world? But having had no such
interference, we can now safely lay the results at their feet for
explanation.
Page 327
It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central
banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were
not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant
investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and
were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive
financial powers of the world were in the hands of investment bankers
(also called "international" or "merchant" bankers) who remained
largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks.
JCT: These are the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, et al,
whose psychological profiles will be of such interest to future
historians and students. Finding out what made the kind of person who
could condemn hundreds of millions to agonizing lives and deaths tick
will surely occupy more time than any other interest. I'd like to know
how they rationalize what they've done and how they live with
themselves. Of course, if they really are just evil aliens who
consider themselves superior to the human race and feed off us as
nonchalantly as we feed off cattle, then I'll understand. But if it's
found that these great banking families, the parasite royalty, are
actually human, then I'd bet that the study of what made them do and
think what they did will most fascinate future generations. I wonder
sometimes wonder if they'll find that they had a malevolent gene or
was it all the inbreeding to keep their fortunes in the same small
group over millennia? I hope these questions get answered in my
lifetime. But I'd be most pleased to find out that they were actually
aliens and no real human could sink as low as a Rothschild or
Rockefeller could.
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. This dominance of
investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of
credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the
world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of
their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds
through bank loans,the discount rate,the rediscounting of commercial
debts; they could dominate governments by their control over current
government loans and the play of the international exchanges.
Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and
prestige men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring
off successful financial coups, to keep their word, to remain cool in
a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their
associates.
In this system, the Rothschilds had been pre-eminent during much
of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were
being replaced by J.P. Morgan in New York.
JCT: J.P. Morgan was nothing but a stooge for Rothschild and
Rockefeller. He died leaving no appreciable estate so any power he
wielded as front man was really the power of the men behind the scenes
who had the money Morgan did not.
CHAPTER VII: FINANCE, COMMERCIAL POLICY, AND BUSINESS POLICY 1897-1947
Page 327
At the present stage, we must follow the efforts of the central
bankers to compel the world to return to the gold standard of 1914.
JCT: And count up the corpses as this group compels the world.
Page 328
The problem of public debts arose from the fact that as money
(credit) was created, it was usually made in such a way that it was
not in the control of the state but was in the control of private
financial institutions which demanded real wealth at some future date
for the creation of claims on wealth in the present. The problem of
public debt could have been met in one or more of several fashions:
a) by increasing the amount of real wealth...
b) by devaluation...
c) by repudiation...
d) by taxation...
e) by the issuance of fiat money and the payment of the debt by such
money.
JCT: I don't like a) because the bankers end up with all the
profits of production; b) is unnecessary; c) is only proper for the
repudiation of the interest component of the debt but never the
original principal for which value was received unless they'd like to
make the case they shouldn't have to pay for the weapons and chains
bought by their dictator to keep them enslaved; d) taxation is silly
since the problem is already not enough money; I like e) which
converts interesting-bearing debt whose principal grows and grows
exponentially into interest-free debt so the principal can be reduced
with each payment.
Page 329
Efforts to pay the public debt by fiat money would have made the
inflation problem worse. Orthodox theory rejected fiat money as
solutions to the problem.
JCT: Unfortunately, this would seem so to someone who doesn't
understand that replacing interest-bearing debt money with interest-
free debt money changes nothing but the debt service. No new money is
added for which old money is not erased. If a hundred billion old
interest-bearing dollars are replaced by a hundred billion interest-
free dollars, why should there be inflation? So the fact he believes
in inflation shift A and has not conceived of inflation shift B isn't
even key here. It's a straight replacement. No inflation shift A.
Page 332
In Britain, the currency notes which had been used to supplement bank
notes were retired and credit was curtailed by raising the discount
rate to panic level. The results were horrible. Business activity
fell drastically and unemployment rose to well over a million and a
half. The outcome was a great wave of strikes and industrial unrest.
JCT: So what was good to make the bankers richer made everyone
else poorer. To safety the value of their gold, ordinary people had to
suffer wage and service cuts. Upping the value of bankers' gold was
necessarily laid on the backs of the working classes. Bradburys that
worked to finance war-time production were not going to be able to
finance peace-time production.
Page 333
To maintain the gold reserve at all, it was necessary to keep the
discount rate at a level so high (4.5% or more) that business
activity was discouraged. As a result of this financial policy,
Britain found herself faced with deflation and depression for the
whole period of 1920-1923. The number of unemployed averaged about
1.75 millions for each of the thirteen years of 1921-1932 and reached
3 million in 1931.
Belgium, France and Italy, accepted orthodox financial ideas and
tried to deflate in 1920-1921 but after the depression which
resulted, they gave up the task.
JCT: So orthodox financial methods to deflate the money supply
and make gold-holders richer always cause depression for the workers.
So governments that pursue deflationary policies have gold-holders'
and not workers' interests at heart. Of course, considering that most
politicians came from the gold-holding classes and few from the non-
gold-holding classes, what would one expect? Of course the politicians
were in favor of their gold being more valuable no matter how many
ordinary people went sick and hungry.
What's amazing is that they knew first-hand the Bradburys had
saved their nation and boosted production and were still willing to
cut production and murder their nation in the name of making their
gold worth more.
Page 334
The Dawes Plan provided the gold reserves which served to protect
Germany from the accepted principles of orthodox finance.
JCT: Otherwise, without gold as a base, they wouldn't have been
allowed to have any money according to orthodox financial policies.
And since the only people profiting from the war debts were the
bankers who received their payments, they were keenly supportive of
their governments lending Germany gold so she could pay the bankers
their interest.
Page 336
Financial capitalism had little interest in goods at all, but was
concerned entirely with claims on wealth - stocks, bonds, mortgages,
insurance, proxies, interest rates, and such. It built railroads in
order to sell securities, not to transport goods. Corporations were
built upon corporations in the form of holding companies so that
securities were issued in huge quantities bringing profitable fees
and commissions to financial capitalists without any increase in
economic production whatever. Indeed, these financial capitalists
discovered that they could not only make killings out of the issuing
of such securities, they could also make killings out of the
bankruptcy of such corporations through the fees and commissions of
reorganization. A very pleasant cycle of flotation, bankruptcy,
flotation, bankruptcy began to be practiced by these financial
capitalists. The more excessive the flotation, the greater the
profits and the more imminent the bankruptcy. The more frequent the
bankruptcy, the greater the profits of reorganization and the sooner
the opportunity of another excessive flotation.
JCT: Of course, the lives of those thrust into unemployment and
need by their cycle of flotation, bankruptcy, etc. wasn't taken into
consideration.
Page 337
The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of
world economic control and a use of this power for the direct benefit
of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.
Financial control could be exercised only imperfectly through credit
control and interlocking directorates.
JCT: And of course, many in the booboisie argue vehemently that
this power for the direct benefit of financiers to the indirect injury
of all other economic groups was never used on purpose. Only
conspiracy nuts would think that.
Page 338
The real key rested on the control of money flows which were held
by investment bankers in 1900.
THE PERIOD OF DEFLATION, 1927-1936
Page 339
After 1929, deflation reached a degree which could be called acute.
JCT: By this he must mean that people were dying in the streets
and things looked bad.
In the first part of this period (1921-1925), the dangerous economic
implications of deflation were concealed by a structure of
self-deception which pretended that a great period of economic
progress would be inaugurated as soon as the task of stabilization had
been accomplished.
JCT: As soon as the value of their gold had stabilized to a
lot more, things would be better for everyone.
This psychological optimism was completely unwarranted by the
economic facts. After 1925, when deflation became more deep-rooted
and economic conditions worsened, the danger from these conditions
was concealed by a continuation of unwarranted optimism.
JCT: I'm sure it wasn't optimism being stated by the people
themselves and more a lying media owned by the gold-holders telling
the people that everything was getting better.
THE CRASH OF 1929
Page 342
When France stabilized the franc at a level at which it was devalued,
the Bank of France sold francs in return for foreign exchange. The
francs were created as credit in France thus giving an inflationary
effect.
JCT: Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on whether equivalent
collateral was created with the new money issued. Remember Edgie the
economist who played Poker at my table and would scream "inflation"
any time a new player entered the with a new rack of poker chips.
Even though we had to take him to the cage every time to reassure him
that the new chips were backed up with new collateral in the cage, his
conditioning prompted to forget how the cage worked and scream
"inflation" every time he saw new chips enter the game.
Flaherty like most economists in the world was never taught cage
accounting and suffers from this same conditioning to believe that any
increase in the chips causes the value of the other chips to go down.
Page 343
The financial results of the stock market boom in the US was credit
diverted from production to speculation and increasing amounts of
funds being drained from the economic system into the stock market
where they circulated around and around, building up prices of
securities.
JCT: A lot similar to today where trillions move in stock market
transactions so they can make 1% commissions and only billions move in
productive purchases.
Page 344
Early in 1929, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System
became alarmed at the stock market speculations draining credit from
industrial production. To curtail this, they called upon member banks
to reduce their loans on stock collateral to reduce the amount of
credit available for speculation. Instead, the available credit went
more and more to speculation and decreasingly to productive business.
Call money rates in New York which had reached 7% at the end of 1928
were at 13% by June 1929.
JCT: So just before the stock market crash, the FED started
jacking up the loanshark rate. This is the true cause of the crash
because as credit tightened, more and more people needed to dump their
securities to get money to pay their debts and this "panic" or credit
crunch set the stage where the loans were called in precipitating the
crash. How many people knew that Winston Churchill had been invited
over to Wall Street to witness the crash? It certainly let him know
who ruled the real world.
Page 346
To restore confidence among the wealthy (who were causing the panic)
an effort was made to balance the budget by cutting public
expenditures drastically. This, by reducing purchasing power, had
injurious effects on business activity and increased unrest among the
masses of the people.
JCT: Count up the children who got sick and died because daddy
had no job to buy medicine, count up all the desperadoes who turned to
crime, count up all the people who were morted in this bid to restore
the confidence among the wealthy and lay the blame on the Rothschilds
and Rockefellers where it belongs.
Page 350
Washington left gold in 1933 voluntarily in order to follow an
unorthodox financial program of inflation.
JCT: It's not fair to call this unorthodox finance. It wasn't.
Page 351
The Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933)
gave the president the power to devaluate the dollar up to 50%, to
issue up to $3 billion fiat money, and to engage on an extensive
program of public spending.
Page 352
The economies of the different countries were so intertwined with
one another that any policy of self-interest on the part of one would
be sure to injure others in the short run and the country in the
long run. The international and domestic economic systems had
developed to the point where the customary methods of thought and
procedure in regard to them were obsolete.
page 353
As a result of the crisis, regardless of the nature of its primary
impact, all countries began to pursue policies of economic
nationalism. This spread rapidly as a result of imitation and
retaliation.
JCT: Pursuant to the Miracle Equation, all countries borrow
Principal to produce their goods and try to sell them at
Principal+Interest. Since no country can purchase with the P issued at
home the prices of P+I, the unpurchasable portion must be exported in
order to survive. This accounts for the trade wars where every
country tries to capture with foreign sales enough to pay their home
interest while at the same time preventing any home Principal from
buying foreign goods and leaving.
This explains "dumping" whereby a nation will overcharge its own
citizens to that even more is left unpurchased which can then be
offered at an even cheaper rate to obtain the foreign funds.
Example: Country borrows $100 billion at 10% to produce 10
widgets for sale at $11 billion each. The home country buys $100
billion worth of widgets and successfully exports the other $10
billion it could not buy at home and pays off its debt.
If it can't successfully export and sell the excess it couldn't
sell at home, the banks will foreclose and generate unemployment and
inflation. So what some countries do is to charge $12 billion per
widget to the home market and selling only 8 widgets so that they can
try to gain the outside $10 billion necessary to pay their interest by
offering two widgets to get the necessary $10 billion. This is called
dumping. Otherwise, why would anyone object to countries wishing to
sell us products at a loss unless the removal of that currency causes
us problems.
So it's the eternal struggle of mortgage that forces countries to
try to export what they don't have sufficient money to buy at home.
Page 355
The Bank of France raised its discount rate from 2.5% to 6% in 1935
with depressing economic results. In this way, the strain on gold was
relieved at the cost of increased depression. The Right discovered
that it could veto any actions of the Left government merely by
exporting capital from France.
JCT: Once again, protection of gold leads to misery for the
people.
Page 356
The franc passed through a series of depreciations and partial
devaluations which benefited no one except the speculators and left
France torn for years by industrial unrest and class struggles. The
government was subjected to systematic blackmail by the well-to-do
of the country because of the ability of these persons to prevent
social reform, public spending, arming, or any policy of decision by
selling francs.
JCT: And of course, the rich were led by the French branch of the
Rothschild family in tearing France apart with industrial unrest and
class struggles. Like I say, I can't imagine any of them choosing to
keep their name in the new world where everyone will be aware of what
they did.
Page 357
The historical importance of the banker-engendered deflationary
crisis of 1927-1940 can hardly be overestimated. It gave a blow to
democracy and to the parliamentary system and thus became a chief
cause of World War II. It so hampered the Powers which remained
democratic by its orthodox economic theories that these were unable to
rearm for defence. It gave rise to a conflict between the theorists of
orthodox and unorthodox financial methods.
JCT: So the bankers caused the Great Depression, hurt democracy
and caused World War II with another 50 million casualties. R&R always
made the biggest money with the biggest flows of blood.
The bankers' formula for treating a depression was by clinging to the
gold standard, by raising interest rates and seeking deflation, and
by insisting on a reduction in public spending, a fiscal surplus or
at least a balanced budget.
JCT: Clinging to the gold standard did no good for those who had
no gold, raising interest hurt everyone but those who had money,
seeking deflation benefited only those who had money, reducing public
spending hurt those without money. The pattern is consistent.
Everything good for those with money, everything bad for those
without.
These ideas were rejected totally, on a point by point basis, by
the unorthodox economists, (somewhat mistakenly called Keynesian).
The bankers' formula sought to encourage economic recovery by
"restoring confidence in the value of money," that is, their own
confidence in what was the primary concern of bankers.
The unorthodox theorists sought to restore purchasing power by
increasing, instead of reducing, the money supply and by placing it
in the hands of potential consumers rather than in the banks or in
the hands of investors.
JCT: Increasing the money supply helps everyone, not just rich,
and placing it in the hands of all consumers, not just the bankers,
again helps everyone, not just the rich.
page 358
The whole relationship of money and resources remained a puzzle to
many and was still a subject of debate in the 1950s but at least a
great victory had been won by man in his control of his own destiny
when the myths of orthodox financial theory were finally challenged in
the 1930s.
JCT: They may have been challenged but certainly never defeated.
They're still called unorthodox because the orthodox way is still
always to the advantage of those with the money and never of those
without.
REFLATION AND INFLATION 1933-1947
Page 360
Except for Germany and Russia, most countries in the latter half of
1937 experienced sharp recession.
JCT: Why this was so has to do with their not following the
orthodox advice of the bankers interested only in increasing their own
wealth.
Page 361
As a result of the failure of most countries (excepting Germany and
Russia) to achieve full utilization of resources, it was possible to
devote increasing percentages of resources to armaments without
suffering any decline in the standards of living.
JCT: In other words, they had plenty of unemployed to shift to
armaments without taking anyone away from productive enterprise where
they couldn't find enough money to be paid anyway.
Page 366
It was discovered by Germany in 1932, by Italy in 1934, by Japan in
1936 and by the United States in 1938 that deflation could be
prevented by rearming.
JCT: This is a confusing way of putting it. It should actually
say that it was discovered that deflation caused by bankers refusing
to fund production could be prevented by bankers agreeing to fund
destruction. As long as they wanted to produce peace-time production,
the bankers would not create money and only when they were ready to
produce war-time production were the bankers ready to create money to
fund it. So since the bankers would only fund war and not peace,
Quigley concluded that war production fought deflation.
Page 368
Britain made barter agreements with various countries, including
one direct swap of rubber for wheat with the US.
JCT: This is definitely unorthodox finance. Too had they didn't
keep trading using a central barter system. Then we'd have a global
LETS as I've been advocating for so many years.
Page 369
The period of reflation after 1933 was caused by increases in public
spending on armaments. In most countries,the transition from
reflation to inflation did not occur until after they had entered the
war. Germany was the chief exception and possibly also Italy and
Russia, since all of these were making fairly full utilization of
their resources. In France and the other countries overrun by
Germany, such full mobilization of resources was not achieved before
they were defeated.
JCT: You'd have to wonder why economists aren't more interested
in how Germany managed full employment while the rest of the world
were suffering high unemployment of depression. And they still aren't
interested in how they did it.
Page 370
The use of orthodox financing in the First World War had left a
terrible burden of intergovernmental debts and ill-feeling.
JCT: Not ill-feeling for the bankers even if it was deathly-
feeling for everyone else.
Page 371
The post Second World War economy was entirely different in character
from that of the 1920s following the First World War. This was most
notable in the absence of a post-war depression which was widely
expected but which did not arrive because there was no effort to
stabilize on a gold standard. The major difference was the eclipse of
the bankers who have been largely reduced in status from the masters
to the servants of the economic system. This has been brought about
by the new concern with real economic factors instead of with
financial counters, as previously. As part of this program, there has
been a great reduction in the economic role of gold.
CHAPTER VIII: INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM AND THE SOVIET CHALLENGE
Page 375
Industrialism, especially in its early years, brought with it social
and economic conditions which were admittedly horrible. Human beings
were brought together around factories to form great new cities which
were sordid and unsanitary. In many cases, these persons were reduced
to conditions of animality, which shock the imagination.
JCT: What shocks the imagination is that human (?) bankers
planned it to be that way.
Crowded together in want and disease, with no leisure and no
security, completely dependent on weekly wage which was less than a
pittance, they worked twelve to fifteen hours a day for six days in
the week among dusty and dangerous machines with no protection
against inevitable accidents, disease, or old age, and returned at
night to crowded rooms without adequate food and lacking light, fresh
air, heat, pure water, or sanitation. These conditions have been
described for us in the writings of novelists such as Dickens in
England, Hugo or Zola in France.
JCT: Rothschild's and Rockefeller's planet described in
literature.
Page 376
The Socialist movement was a reaction against these deplorable
conditions to the working masses. It has been customary to divide
this movement into two parts at the year 1848, the publication of the
Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx. This work began with the ominous
sentence, "A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of Communism,"
and ended with the trumpet blast "Workers of the world, unite."
In general, the former division believed that man was innately good
and that all coercive power was bad, with public authority the worst
form of such coercive power. All the world's evils, according to the
anarchists, arose because man's innate goodness was corrupted and
distorted by coercive power. The remedy, they felt, was to destroy
the state. The simplest way to destroy the state would be to
assassinate the chief of the state to ignite a wholesale uprising of
oppressed humanity.
JCT: The we have a bunch of guys who want to blame the idiot
politicians who got hooked into the loansharks rather than the
loansharks themselves. Getting rid of the chief of state would have
absolutely no effect with a ready replacement idiot waiting in the
wings.
Page 377
Syndicalism was a somewhat more realistic and later version of
anarchism. It was equally determined to abolish all public authority.
The state would be destroyed by a general strike and replaced by a
flexible federation of free associations of workers.
JCT: Syndicalism was just another group again blaming the wrong
guys. A free association of workers ready to get hooked into the same
loansharks wouldn't be much of an improvement.
The second group of radical social theorists wished to widen the power
and scope of governments by giving them a dominant role in economic
life. The group divided into two chief schools: The Socialists and
the Communists.
JCT: Government needs only not be subservient to the money
creators but do the creating itself for it to take its proper dominant
place in the scheme of things. But as long as they let the bankers
create the money and then loanshark it to the government, they will
forever be subservient. the only problem with these suggestions is
that they never mention the role of money creator in their plans.
Page 378
From Ricardo, Marx derived the theory that the value of economic
goods was based on the amount of labor put into them.
JCT: That's a good theory and would work fine if people could
finally accept that money does not do work and does not to deserve to
be paid on an equivalent basis with human labor.
Page 379
Marx built up a complicated theory which believed that all
history is the history of class struggles.
JCT: True, all history is the struggle between the debt slave
masters and the debt slaves.
The money which the bourgeoisie took from the proletariat in the
economic system made it possible for them to dominate the political
system, including the police and the army. From such exploitation,
the bourgeoisie would become richer and richer and fewer and fewer in
numbers and acquire ownership of all property in the society while the
proletariat would become poorer and poorer and more and more numerous
and be driven closer and closer to desperation. Eventually, the latter
would rise up and take over.
JCT: Call the loansharks the "bourgeoisie" and the proletariat
the "debt slaves" and it's a good explanation of how interest makes
the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.
Page 381
In fact, what occurred could be pictured as cooperative effort by
unionized workers and monopolized industry to exploit unorganized
consumers by raising prices higher and higher, quite contrary to the
expectations of Marx. Where he had expected impoverishment of the
masses and concentration of ownership with gradual elimination of the
middle classes, there occurred instead rising standards of living,
dispersal of ownership, a relative decrease in the numbers of
laborers, and a great increase in the middle classes. Due to income
and inheritance taxes, the rich became poorer and poorer, relatively
speaking.
JCT: What a joke. Just because they put their money into trust
funds and foundations which they still control is not to say that the
rich have become poorer and poorer at all. And a better-fed group of
slaves was still just a group of slaves nevertheless. No matter their
standard of living, they were still in hock up their necks.
THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION TO 1924
Page 385
The new government forced the abdication of the czar. The more
radical Socialists had been released from prison or had been returned
from exile (in some cases, such as Lenin, by German assistance)
JCT: And Rockefeller and Mackenzie King helped Lenin get to
Russia too. Some Canadians were quite upset that Lenin's return pulled
Russia out of the war which freed up Germans on the Eastern Front to
go and kill Americans and Canadians on the Western Front. But having
the bankers help the Bolsheviks take over Russia was far more
important to them than the lives of their own countrymen.
It's this kind of banker's treason that we keep running into over
and over. Selling arms to the enemy, helping the enemy defeat our
allies, quite treasonous and never published, let alone punished.
Page 386
Lenin campaigned to replace the Provisional Government with a system
of Soviets and to adopt an immediate program of peace and land
distribution. The Bolshevik group seized the centers of government in
St. Petersburg and within 24 hours, issued a series of decrees which
abolished the Provisional government, ordered the end of the war with
Germany and the distribution of large land holdings to the peasants.
JCT: Though the land may have been distributed to the peasants,
they had no intention of letting them keep it for long. And didn't.
Page 387
By 1920 industrial production in general was about 13% of the 1913
figure. At the same time, paper money was printed so freely to pay
for the costs of war, civil war, and the operation of the government
that prices rose rapidly and the ruble became almost worthless.
JCT: Maybe but at least they had money to pay their agents with
while their opponents did not.
The secret police (Cheka) systematically murdered all real or
potential opponents.
Page 388
Various outsider Powers also intervened in the Russian chaos. An
allied expeditionary force invaded northern Russia from Murmansk and
Archangel, while a force of Japanese and another of Americans landed
at Vladivostok and pushed westward for hundreds of miles. The British
seized the oil fields of the Caspian region (late 1918) while the
French occupied parts of the Ukraine about Odessa (March 1919).
By 1920, Russia was in complete confusion. Poland invaded Russia
occupying much of the Ukraine.
JCT: This invasion of parts of Russia is almost unreported in
most histories. Since the Bolshevik Communists were supported by Wall
Street money, despite all my historical researches, I'm still
mystified about why this invasion took place. Any suggestions?
Page 389
As part of this system, not only were all agricultural crops
considered to be government property but all private trade and
commerce were also forbidden; the banks were nationalized while all
industrial plants of over five workers and all craft enterprises of
over ten workers were nationalized. This culminated in peasant
uprisings and urban riots. Within a week, peasant requisitioning was
abandoned in favor of a "New Economic Policy" of free commercial
activity in agriculture and other commodities, with the
re-establishment of the profit motive and of private ownership in
small industries and in small landholding.
JCT: So they learned in no time that they had to keep the profit
motive of private ownership alive for maximum production. Seems they
soon forgot that lesson though.
Page 395
The Bolsheviks insisted that the distribution of income in a
capitalistic society would become so inequitable that the masses of
the people would not obtain sufficient income to buy the goods being
produced by the industrial plants.
JCT: That's certainly happened.
As such unsold goods accumulated with decreasing profits and
deepening depression, there would be a shift toward the production of
armaments to provide profits and produce goods which could be sold
and there would be an increasingly aggressive foreign policy in order
to obtain markets for unsold goods in backward and undeveloped
countries.
JCT: I've already described the eternal search to sell goods that
can't be sold at home to foreign markets and as the Social Credit
engineer, Major Douglas said, economic war always leads to real war.
Such aggressive imperialism would inevitably make Russia a target of
aggression in order to prevent a successful Communist system there
from becoming an attractive model for the discontented proletariat in
capitalistic countries.
JCT: That's certainly the reason why the United States invaded
Vietnam and other smaller countries that tried to make their own
economic way. They certainly feared the "good example."
Page 396
Communism in Russia alone required that the country must be
industrialized with breakneck speed and must emphasize heavy industry
and armaments rather than rising standards of living. This meant that
goods produced by the peasants must be taken from them by political
duress, without any economic return, and that the ultimate in
authoritarian terror must be used to prevent the peasants from reducing
their level of production. It was necessary to crush all kinds of
foreign espionage, resistance to the Bolshevik state, independent
thought, or public discontent.
JCT: Of course, when you realize that the Bolsheviks were simply
serving the international bankers, the reasons for this seem silly.
The alternate reason is that bankers always love it best when the
population are on their knees so any action to bring the population to
its knees needs no other explanation.
Page 397
Stalin forced the peasants off their land. In the space of six weeks,
(Feb-Mar 1930) collective farms increased from 59,400 with 4.4
million families to 110,200 farms with 14.3 million families. All
peasants who resisted were treated with violence; their property was
confiscated, they were beaten or sent into exile in remote areas;
many were killed. This process, known as "the liquidation of the
kulaks" affected five million kulak families. Rather than give up
their animals, many peasants killed them. The number of cattle was
reduced from 30.7 million in 1928 to 19.6 million in 1933. The
planting season of 1930 was entirely disrupted. Three million
peasants starved in 1931-1933. Stalin told Churchill that 12 million
died in this reorganization of agriculture.
JCT: Realizing that Stalin was working for the international
bankers, what they did to the Russian peasants seems little different
than what they did to the North American peasants during the Great
Depression. Just more heavy handed.
Page 401
The privileged rulers and their favorites had the best of everything
obtained, however at a terrible price, at the cost of complete
insecurity for even the highest party officials were under constant
surveillance and would be inevitably purged to exile or death.
The growth of inequality was embodied in law. All restrictions on
maximum salaries were removed. Special stores were established where
the privileged could obtain scarce goods at low prices; restaurants
with different menus were set up in industrial plants for different
levels of employees; housing discrimination became steadily wider.
JCT: This is the ugliest part of the whole system, that
privileged elites got special stores that the average people couldn't
access. This is so hypocritical for a group of workers that it is
indicative that the system really wasn't by the workers for the
workers but rather by the bankers for the bankers.
Page 402
As public discontent and social tensions grew, the use of spying,
purges, torture and murder increased out of all proportion. Every
wave of discontent resulted in new waves of police activity. Hundreds
of thousands were killed while millions were arrested and exiled to
Siberia or put into huge slave-labor camps. Estimates vary from two
million as high as twenty million.
JCT: I'd really like to find out how Rothschild and Rockefellers
gained by all these dead people. I can understand their profiting from
war but simply killing millions doesn't seem all that profitable
for them. But I'd certainly bet that they did profit from this misery
as they profit from all other misery.
Page 403
For every leader who was publicly eliminated, thousands were
eliminated in secret. By 1939, all the leaders of Bolshevism had been
driven from public life and most had died violent deaths.
There were two networks of secret-police spies, unknown to each
other, one serving the special department of the factory while the
other reported to a high level of the secret police outside.
JCT: Of course, there's always the chance that this was the test
of the prototype civilization the bankers have in mind for us. A few
millionaires, lots of police and lots of slaves. We must always keep
in mind that the Bolshevik Revolution's financing was Wall Street
money directed by Jacob Shiff of the famous usury company Kuhn Loeb
who quite proudly took credit for it. Unfortunately, most people have
been suckered into believing that Wall Street feared the Russian
workers' revolution when in reality, they and their privileged elites,
really owned it.
Page 404
Whenever the secret police needed more money it could sweep large
numbers of persons, without trial or notice, into its wage deduction
system or into its labor camps to be hired out. It would seem that
the secret police were the real rulers of Russia.
JCT: What a joke. The real rulers of Russia were the guys who
paid the secret police, not the secret police themselves.
This was true except at the very top where Stalin could always
liquidate the head by having him arrested by his second in command in
return for Stalin's promise to promote the arrester to the top
position. In this way, the chiefs of the secret police were
successively eliminated.
JCT: Again, the real rulers were never the guys doing the slave-
driving or running the slave labor camps. The real rulers were the
owners of the runners of the slave labor camps.
Send
a comment to John Turmel
Home