None Dare Call It Conspiracy, by Gary Allen, 1971
Originally published by Concord Press
P.O. BOX 2686
Seal Beach, Calif. 90740
This act (the Federal Reserve Act) establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth...
When the President signs this act, the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized...
The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation..."
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. December, 1913
"IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY WE HAVE IN EFFECT TWO GOVERNMENTS...
We have the duly constituted government...
Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
- Congressman Wright Patman, (former) Chairman of the House Banking Committee
"Those that create and issue the money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people."
Reginald McKenna, (former) president of the Midlands Bank of England.
The Money Manipulators
Many college history professors tell their charges that the books they will be using in the class are "objective". But stop and ask yourself: Is it possible to write a history book without a particular point of view? There are billions of events that take place in the world each day. To think of writing a complete
history of a nation covering even a year is to entertain a fantastic conceit.
Not only is a historian's ability to write an "objective" history limited by the sheer volume of happenings but by the fact that many of the most important happenings never appear in the papers or even in somebody's memoirs. The decisions reached by the "big boys" in the smoke-filled rooms are not reported in even the
New York Times, which ostensibly reports all the news that's fit to print. ("All the news that fits" is a more accurate desription.)
In order to build his case, a historian must select a miniscule number of facts from the limited number that are known. If he does not have a "theory", how does he separate important facts from unimportant ones? As Professor Stuart Crane has pointed out, this is why every book "proves" its author's theory. But no book is
objective. No book can be objective and this book (NDCC) is not objective. The information in it is true, but the book is not objective. We have carefully selected the facts to prove our case...
Most of the facts that we bring out are readily verifiable at any large library. But our contention is that we have arranged these facts in the order that most accurately reflects their true significance in history. These are the facts as the Establishment does not want you to know them. Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie two-thirds of the way through? Confusing, was'nt it? All the evidence made it look as though the butler were the murderer, but in the final scenes you find out that, surprisingly, it was the
man's wife all along. You have to stay and see the beginning of the film. Then, as all the pieces fall into place, the story makes sense.
This situation is similar to one millions of Americans find themselves in today. They are confused by current happenings in the nation. They have come in as the movie, so to speak, is going into its conclusion. The earlier portion of the mystery is needed to make the whole thing understandable. (Actually, we are not
really starting at the beginning, but we are going back far enough to give meaning to today's happenings.)
In order to understand the conspiracy (to usurp the constitutional right of governments to coin money so as to force these governments to borrow money with usury [interest]), it is neccesary to have some rudimentary knowledge of banking and, particularly, of international bankers. While it would be an over-simplification to ascribe the entire conspiracy to the international bankers, they nevertheless have played the key role.
Think of the (world) conspiracy as a hand with one finger labeled "international banking", others labelled "charity foundations" (i.e. Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller Foundations, etc.), the "anti-religion movement", "Fabian Socialism", and "Communism". But it was the International Bankers of whom Professor Carroll Quigly (of the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University) was speaking when we quoted him earlier (in this book) as stating that THEIR AIM IS NOTHING LESS THAN CONTROL OF THE WORLD THROUGH FINANCE.
(Professor Quigly does not see anything harmful in this (!), only objects to the secrecy with which these aims are cloaked. Hence his book, a 1300 hundred page, 8 pound tome, Tragedy and Hope.)
Where do governments get the enormous amount of money they need? Most of course comes from taxation; but governments often spend more than they are willing to tax from their citizens and so are forced to borrow. Our national (U.S.) debt is now (1974) 455 billion dollars - every cent of it borrowed at interest from somewhere. The public is led to believe that our government borrows from "the people" through savings bonds. Actually, however, only a small percentage of the national debt is held by individuals in this form. Most government bonds, except those held by the government itself through its trust funds, are held by vast banking firms known as international banks .
For centuries there has been big money to be made by international bankers in the financing of governments and kings. Such operators, however, are faced with certain thorny problems. We know that smaller banking operations protect themselves by taking collateral, but what kind of collateral can you get from a government or a king?. What if the banker comes to collect and the king says, "Off with his head!" The process through which one collects a debt from a government or a monarch is not a subject taught in the business schools of our universities, and most of us - having never been in the business of lending money to kings - have not given the problem much thought. But there is a king-financing business, and to those who can ensure collection it is lucrative indeed.
Economics professor Stuart Crane notes that there are two means used to collateralize loans to governments and kings. Whenever a business firm borrows big money its creditor obtains a voice in management to protect his investment. Like a business, no government can borrow big money unless willing to surrender to the creditor some measure of sovereignty as collateral. Certainly, international bankers who have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to governments around the world command considerable influence in the policies of such goverments.
But the ultimate advantage that the creditor has over the government or ruler is the threat that if the borrower steps out of line the banker can finance an enemy or rival and can even create an enemy by such means. Therefore, if you want to stay in the king-financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or a rival waiting in the wings to unseat every ruler to whom you lend. If the king does'nt have an enemy, you must create one.
Pre-eminent in playing this game was the famous House of Rothschild (German for Redshield, a name adopted by this family for the red shield over the front door of their house). Its founder, Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany, kept one of his five sons at home to run the Frankfurt
bank, and sent the others to Paris, London, Vienna and Naples. The Rothschilds became incredibly wealthy during the nineteenth century by financing governments to war with one another.
According to Professor Stuart Crane:
"If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always
ended with the establishment of a 'balance of power'. With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France or Austria. They grouped nations, so
that if any king stepped out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the
financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be
In describing the characteristics of the Rothschilds and other major international bankers, Professor Quigly tells us that they remained different from ordinary bankers in several ways: they were cosmopolitan and international; they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with government debt,
including foreign government debts; these bankers came to be called "international bankers". (Quigly,Tragedy and Hope, p.52) A major reason for the historical blackout on the role of the international bankers in political history is that the Rothschilds were Jewish. ANTI-SEMITES HAVE PLAYED INTO THE HANDS OF THE CONSPIRACY, by trying to portray the conspiracy as a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Nothing could be further from the truth! The traditionally Anglo-Saxon J.P.Morgan and the Baptist Rockefeller international banking institutions have played a key role in the conspiracy. But there is no denying the importance of the Rothschilds and their satellites. However, it is just as unreasonable and immoral to blame the Jewish people for the crimes of the Rothschilds as it is to hold Baptists accountable for the crimes of the Rockefellers. (Other authorities, however, trace the Rockefellers' Jewish roots and hold their adoption of the Baptist faith and their church-going a sham. -editor.)
The Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an organization called the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.) as an instrument to try to convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds or their
allies is an attack on the Jewish people. In this way they have stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and made the subject taboo in the universities.
Any individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by hundreds of A.D.L. committees all over the country. The A.D.L. has never let truth or logic interfere with its highly professional smear jobs... But actually, nobody has more of a right than the Jewish people to take just vengeance on the Rothschilds and their clique. The Jewish Warburgs (bankers), part of the Rothschild empire, helped finance Adolph Hitler. There were few, if any, Rothschilds or Warburgs in the Nazi concentration camps! They sat out the war in luxurious hotels in Paris or emigrated to the United States or England. As a group, the Jewish
people have suffered most at the hands of these power-seekers. A Rothschild has much more in common with a Rockefeller than with a Jewish tailor from Budapest or the Bronx.
Since the keystone of the international banking empires has been government bonds, IT HAS BEEN IN THE INTEREST OF THESE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIERS TO ENCOURAGE GOVERNMENT DEBT. The higher the debt, the more the interest on the debt. Nothing drives government deeply into debt like a war (in 1935, before the out-break of World War Two, total U.S. public debt was $28 billion 708
million, or $225.55 per capita. In 1940, before the attack on Pearl Harbour, the public debt was $42 billion 968 million, or $325.23 per capita. But, by 1945, with the cessation of hostilities, it was $258 billion 682 million, or $1,848.60 per capital -ed.); and it has not been an uncommon practice among the international bankers to finance both sides of the bloodiest military conflicts! For example, during the American Civil War the North was financed by the Rothchilds through their American agent, August Belmont, and the American South through the Erlangers, Rothschild relatives.
But while wars and revolutions have been useful to the international financiers in gaining or increasing control over governments, the key to such control has always been control of money. You can control a government if you have it in your debt; a creditor is in a position to demand the privileges of monopoly from the sovereign. Money-seeking governments have granted monopolies in state banking, natural resources, oil concessions, transportation, medicine, and others. However, the monopoly the international financiers have most coveted is control over a nation's money.
Eventually, these bankers actually owned as private corporations the central banks of the various European nations. The Bank of England, Bank of France and Bank of Germany were not owned by their respective governments, as almost everyone imagines, but were PRIVATELY-OWNED MONOPOLIES granted by the heads of state, usually in return for loans. Under this system, observed Reginald McKenna, president of the Midlands Bank of England: "Those that create and issue the money and credit direct the policies of
government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people." ONCE THE GOVERNMENT IS IN DEBT TO THE BANKERS IT IS AT THEIR MERCY. A frightening example was cited by the London Financial
Times of September 26, 1921, which revealed that even at the time: "Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills."
All those who have sought dictatorial control over modern nations have understood the necessity of a central bank. When The League of Just Men hired a hack revolutionary named Karl Marx to write a blue-print for conquest called The Communist Manifesto, the fifth plank read: "Centralization of credit in the hands of
the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." Lenin was later to write that the establishment of a central bank was ninety percent of communizing a country! Such conspirators knew that you cannot take control of a nation without military force unless that nation has a central bank through which you can control its economy. The anarchist Bakunin sarcastically remarked of the followers of Karl Marx: "They have one foot in the bank and one foot in the socialist movement."
The international financiers set up their own front men in charge of each of Europe's central banks. Professor Quigly reports:
It must not be felt that the heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers
in world finance. They were not. Rather they were the technicians and agents of the dominent investment
bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up, and who were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called "international" or "mercantile" bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks..." (Quigly, op.cit., pp.326-7)
Dr. Quigly also reveals that the international bankers who owned and controlled the Banks of England and France maintained their power even after those Banks were theoretically socialized. Naturally, those who controlled the central banks of Europe were eager from the start to fasten a similar establishment on the
United States. From the earliest days, the Founding Fathers had been conscious of attempts to control America thruogh money manipulation, and they carried on a running battle with the international bankers. Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams: "...I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies..." But even though America did not have a central bank after
President Jackson abolished it in 1836, the European financiers and their American agents managed to gain a great deal of control over (the American) money system. Gustavus Meyers, in his History of the Great American Fortunes, reveals:
"Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws.
The law records show that they were powers in the old Bank of the United States (abolished by Andrew
During the nineteenth century the leading financiers of the metropolitan East often cut one another's financial throats, but as their Western and rural victims started to organize politically, the "robber barons" saw that they had a "community of interest" towards which they must work together to protect themselves from thousands of irate farmers and up-and-coming competitors. This diffusion of economic power was one of the main factors stimulating the demands for a central bank by would-be business and financial monopolists.
In Years of Plunder Proctor Hansl writes of this era:
Among the Morgans, Khun-Loebs (bankers) and other similar pillars of the industrial order there was less
disposition to become involved in disagreements that led to financial dislocation. A community of interest came into being, with results that were highly beneficial to themselves ..."
But, aside from the major Eastern centers, most American bankers and their customers distrusted the whole concept.
In order to show the hinterlands that they were going to need a central banking system, the international bankers CREATED A SERIES OF PANICS as a demonstration of their power - a warning of what
would happen unless the rest of the bankers got into line. The man put in charge of conducting these lessons was J. Pierpont Morgan, American-born but educated in England and Germany. Morgan is referred to by many, including Congressman Louis McFadden (a banker, who for ten years headed the House Banking and Currency Committee), as the top American agent of the English Rothschilds. By the turn of the century, J.P.Morgan was already an old hand at creating artificial panics. Such affairs were well coordinated.
Senator Robert Owen, a co-author of the Federal Reserve Act (who later deeply regretted his role), testified before a Congressional Committee that the bank he owned received from the National Banker's Association what came to be known as the "Panic Circular of 1893". It stated: "You will at once retire one-third of your
circulation and call in one half of your loans..."
Historian Frederick Lewis Allen tells us in Life magazine of April 25, 1949, of Morgan's role in spreading rumours about the insolvency of the Knickerbocker Bank and the Trust Company of America, which rumours triggered the 1907 panic. In answer to the question: "Did Morgan precipitate the panic?" Alan reports:
"Oakly Thorne, the president of that particular trust company, testified later before a congressional committee that his bank had been subjected to only moderate withdrawals...that he had not applied for help
and that it was the (Morgan) 'sore point' statement alone that had caused the run on his bank. From this
evidence, plus other fragments of other supposedly pertinent evidence, certain chroniclers have come to the
ingenious conclusion that the Morgan interests took advantage of the unsettled conditions during the autumn
of 1907 to preciitate the panic, guiding it slowly as it progressed so that it would kill off rival banks and
consolidate the pre-eminence of the banks within the Morgan orbit."
The 'panic' which Morgan had created, he proceeded to end almost single-handedly. He had made his point. Frederick Allen explains:
"The lesson of the Panic of 1907 was clear, though not for some six years was it destined to be embodied in
legislation: the United States badly needed a central banking system."
The man who was to play the most significant part in foisting onto America that central bank was Paul Warburg, who along with his brother Felix had immigrated to the United States from Germany in 1902. They left brother Max (later a major bankroller of the Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution) at home in Frankfurt to run the family bank (M.N.Warburg & Co.).
Paul Warburg married Nina Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb of Khun, Loeb & Company, America's most powerful international banking firm. Brother Felix married Frieda Schiff, daughter of Jacob Schiff, the ruling power behind Kuhn,Loeb & Co.. Stephen Birmingham writes in his authoritative Our Crowd : "In the eighteenth century the Schiffs and Rothschilds shared a double house" in Frankfurt. Schiff reportedly bought his partnership in Khun,Loeb with Rothschild money. Both Paul and Felix Warburg became partners in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.
In 1907, the year of the Morgan-precipitated panic, Paul Warburg began almost all of his time writing and lecturing on "the need for banking reform". Kuhn, Loeb & Company was sufficiently public-spirited about the matter to keep him on salary at $500,000 a year while for the next six years he donated his time to 'the public good'.
Working with Warburg in promoting this "banking reform" was Nelson Aldridge, known as "Morgan's floor broker in the Senate". Aldridge's daughter Abbie married John D. Rockefeller Jr. (the late Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon's Vice-President and long-time Governor of New York, was named for his maternal grandfather).
After the panic of 1907, Aldridge was appointed by the Senate to head the National Monetary Commission. Although he had no technical knowledge of banking, Aldridge and his entourage spent nearly two years and $300,000 of the tax-payers' money being wined and dined by the owners of Europe's central banks as they toured the Continent 'studying' central banking. When the Commission returned from its luxuriuos junket it held no meetings and made no report for nearly two years. But Senator Aldrich was busy 'arranging' things. Together with Paul Warburg and other international bankers, he staged one of the most important secret meetings in the history of the United States. Rockefeller agent Frank Vanderlip admiited many years later in his memoirs:
"Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive - indeed, as furtive, as any conspirator...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyl Island (Georgia) as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System."