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. 
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 
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  
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 
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 
     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 
     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 
     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 
     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 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
     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 
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.  
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. 
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 
     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 
     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 
     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 
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 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
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 
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 
     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. 
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 
     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