TYRANT AND TRAPEZITAE

Of the tyrants of Greece and Asia Minor in ancient times, the learned Professor Heichelheim wrote: ⁽¹⁾

“ These tyrants were for the most part members of the nobility themselves who had made the grade using the new political and economic possibilities of their time to overthrow their own equals and to subdue their whole home state temporarily. The tyrants were often compelled to introduce the coin economy pattern into the area over which they ruled, or at least to promote its development officially, in order to gain the upper hand over their enemies...

 

To stabilize the position of the peasantry on the land, and to expand and rebuild state economy, a central distribution of money and goods in kind partly directed towards mercenaries, bodyguards and various political friends, and partly indirectly to the masses of poor people in the form of wages paid for extensive building operations and improvements, is characteristic of tyrant economy...”

The above remarks of Professor Heichelheim indicate there were “new political and economic possibilities” in that period 650-500 B.C. when the tyrannies most of all flourished...

 

The question then becomes, what were these “new political and economic possibilities?

”... The answer is arrived at readily; they derived from the activities of the agents of the international silver bullion brokers, who, from ports such as Argos, Athens, and Aegina where King Pheidon struck the first Greek silver coinage c.680 BC., promoted the luxury traders who sold their wares from wigs to harlots as against the new silver coinage or promise thereof.

 

The opportunities clearly were for those who assisted in the monetization of the city, and all its activities and possessions, and its population, man, woman, and child, and their possessions too, and thereby assisted in the firm establishment of the rule of bankers, trade, and traders, as against the gods ruling over mankind living in his natural order.

“The aristocracies refused political equality to the landless traders and manufacturers, the peasants were oppressed by the rich and encouraged to get into debt and then were reduced to slavery and exile; slaves began to compete with free labour. Ambitious individuals capitalized this discontent to overthrow the constituted government and establish themselves as tyrants in all the Greek cities with the notable exception of Sparta...” ⁽²⁾

The situation is very clear.

 

The kings and aristocracies as descended from ancient days, as a derivative of their folly in permitting the unrestricted activities of the new bankers, who were now well established in all the major cities of Greece outside of Sparta, saw a class of manufacturers and entrepreneurs come into being, largely foreigners and men of lowly origin. These men, more often than not with the means of nobility but the outlook of slaves, were clearly a serious threat to kings and nobility and the order they represented.

In the same manner during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries A.D., the worthy tradesmen of London, while still deferring to the natural nobility of the land, more and more realized, that they too were lords of the land through control of labour by the wage rates and needed little encouragement from that true source of their power, the bullion brokers, towards hatred of a government ⁽³⁾ which still gave them little say, for all the wealth that they were possessed of according to the new standards.

 

This government still continued, at least until Charles I, to consider one of its main duties was to prevent the oppression of the poor and the trusting, ⁽⁴⁾ regardless of the so-called “needs of trade”.

The similar class that rose in Greece some two thousand years previously, more and more realized that they were the new reality, and that they were now in actuality the lords of the land through labour, which they owned outright as slaves, or controlled as through daily wages. If the land itself they still did not own and control, it mattered not; for there were those voices that told them that land too was but a trade and a tool in the new order.

 

As their textiles (as at Megara), or pottery (as at Corinth), that every ship leaving harbour carried to the ends of the earth, so the land of the great lord was but the capital investment that grew the food that he the manufacturer purchased for himself and his slaves or the raw materials needed for his particular trade; and he himself, in the money creator’s kingdom on earth, was as assessable in coin as was potter, weaver, or armored.

 

The land owning nobleman was a man controllable as themselves through the arts of taxation in terms of money, could they but institute a system of government in which the natural ruler had no more power to rule than themselves...

No doubt these worthy tradesmen of Megara, or Corinth, or Athens, led on by the attitude of their true masters, the trapezitae, the money creators, agents of those great and ancient banking houses of Babylon city, said to themselves of the natural lords of Hellas “Who are these men?”...

“For all their fine manners and clothing, we could buy them up a hundred times did they but know it!”

And so the stage was set for the arrival of the tyrant financed into existence by the bankers towards the total destruction of the old way of life, which still had within it the seeds of a strength sufficient to root out its enemies such as, in the case of Sparta, had been outstandingly proven by the renewal of the ancient life system through the financial and social reforms of Lycurgus.

 

Classes of manufacturers and entrepreneurs, contemptuous of a nobility that seemed to have betrayed its trust, were easily stirred to envy and resentment, and the work of destruction by the tyrant received little or no opposition.

“In order to level the class of large landowners and nobles economically, Theagenes of Megara simply allowed their herds of cattle to be slaughtered without remuneration. A frequent political device of tyrants from Asia Minor to Sicily was to murder or banish nobles, confiscate their possessions, and redistribute their wealth amongst the poor.” ⁽⁵⁾

The poor, needless to say, soon returned to being poor again...

“The poor ye shall always have with you.”

The poor merely being those who trust that their rulers are attending to serious matters as indicated by their position in the scale of life, such as governing.

 

The word “poor” having existed, of course, long before the crafty banker, standing in the shade beside the ways of life, arranged it that measure of poverty and riches was in that number of (privately issued) units of exchange in which a man could be assessed according to success or failure in the conflict of life, as he the banker had established it.

The tyrant, therefore, was that force by which international money power as it derived from the control of silver bullion and the slave markets, destroyed all resistance to its total ownership of life and labour and human hope...

 

The status of all, slave or free, in some degree, depended on their relations with the trapezitae who presided at their table in the agora; and should they be kings or rulers of states, no doubt their destinies would be much influenced by those shadowy figures furtively watching from the counting houses of far away Mesopotamia...

 

According to the special nature of the times, the tyrant, in his capacity as ruler, would above all be guided instrument; but that the tyrant no more understood the true significance of his existence than do these so-called revolutionary “leaders” of today, is a certainty...

The so-called “revolutions” of today are clearly similar in their origins to those of the time of the tyrants; the main difference being more of a technicality...

 

Until 1870 A.D. the arbitrary valuation of gold bullion as according to the decision of the bullion brokers, was common denominator of values internationally, with silver bullion in second place at the ratio as decided by the leading states; but still rarely varying a great deal from that ratio decided on nearly 2000 years ago by Julius Caesar and his financial advisors, of 12:1. ⁽⁶⁾

 

After the demonetization of silver in almost all the major states of the world, in the seventies of the last century, ⁽⁷⁾ the common denominator of values was gold alone, with silver just another commodity moving up and down on world markets according to supply and demand.

More than ample evidence exists of those persons designated international bankers in “Modern Times” as also the instigative factor in the principle so-called revolutions of the last three hundred years.

 

According to Commander Guy Carr, ⁽⁸⁾ the so-called English revolution was totally the work of the international bullion brokers who seem at that time to have been lodged in Amsterdam, although the loan of silver bullion to Queen Elizabeth I ⁽⁹⁾ for the recoinage that took place shortly after her accession to the throne as negotiated by the famous “Sicile”, ⁽¹⁰⁾ later Lord Burghley, came from Antwerp.

Some of the Crypto-Jews of the Commonwealth, ⁽¹¹⁾ of whom many would have been in England during the reign of Charles I, would also appear to have been a factor in such revolution as witting or unwitting agents of the Amsterdam bullion brokers... ⁽¹²⁾

 

The main designer of the events of those days seems to have been a Manasseh Ben Israel, “a remarkable character,” who apparently took the initiative in the financing of Cromwell; ⁽¹³⁾ which enabled Cromwell to obtain the best of arms, the first requisite of the would-be conqueror throughout history.

The arrival of the Spanish and Portuguese Marranos ⁽¹⁴⁾ in Holland in 1593 A.D., with the consequent harnessing of the Dutch, a seafaring people, naturally aggressive, to their world wide trade activities, and the resultant so-called “prosperity”, immediately produced its impact in Britain.

 

The regrowth of the commercial power of these “New Dutch“, more especially as deriving from the bullion trade which they seemed to continue to control internationally, principally due to the connections they continued to maintain in Spain, directed towards them a great part of the flood of the precious metals which was being wrung out of the wretched natives of South America particularly; not to speak of that which came from Japan, China, and India, of which not so much seems to be known. ⁽¹⁵⁾

 

No sooner did these precious metals arrive in Spain or Portugal than almost immediately they moved on to other parts in settlement of trade debit balances created largely by the Spanish wars in Europe, particularly in Italy. ⁽¹⁶⁾

This superfluity of the precious metals in Northern Europe certainly was one of the instigative factors, in the growth of “Banking”, which had spread from Venice and Genoa, to Amsterdam, and from thence to London, ⁽¹⁷⁾ where, evinced by the activities of the goldsmiths, it had set itself up against kings, as the whole story of the downfall of Charles I would indicate.

The political picture of Northern Europe derived a great deal of its changing character from the rise in prices which came about both as a result of the relatively tremendous influx of new precious metals at that time, and as a result of the growth of “Banking”, that is private abstract money creation, which affected prices equally with that precious metal that could be seen as it circulated as money.

 

Kings, often in the hands of the venal advisors to whom the age gave rise, were no longer able to make both ends meet, and not understanding the true nature of the activities of the bankers or goldsmiths, they neither knew how to put a stop to such activities nor, if they permitted them, how to tax them...

The sullen resistance experienced by Charles I from the puritanical and self-righteous burghers of the City of London, ⁽¹⁸⁾ most of whom were by then deeply beholden to the goldsmiths for their finances, who, in their turn were no doubt beholden to the Amsterdam bullion brokers for the gold they sometimes needed in a hurry when rumor went round that their receipts which circulated as money, were largely false and had nothing behind them except lies, may be traced to these same bullion brokers of Amsterdam...

Their policy above all required the weakening of kingship in England, for the “Banking” monopoly they saw they might come to institute in England, could not flourish with a king on the throne such as Charles who truly regarded himself as the Lord’s anointed... A king who was aware of the source of his power, even if not widely instructed therein, that is to say, who was aware of the true meaning of monetary creation and emission relative to his kingship, was not much to their liking....

 

The reinstitution of the office of a Royal Exchanger, abolished by Henry VIII in 1539 on the advice of a Sir Thomas Gresham, ⁽¹⁹⁾ was also not much to their liking, nor the seizure by Charles of the £130,000 deposited in the Tower supposedly by the London merchants, reputed to have come from Spain en route to Dunkirk, Spanish possession at that time...

 

The reinstitution of the office of Royal Exchanger meant that one of the major sources of revenue of the goldsmiths, and therefore their masters, the bullion brokers was cut off: that which obtained from the exchange of coins, foreign or domestic; which meant, therefore, they were denied the opportunity to clip, or sweat, or retain for export those full-weight coins that came their way. ⁽²⁰⁾

“The unsafe condition of a Bank under a Monarchy.” ⁽²¹⁾

These words of Pepys indicate the trend of thought of certain circles at the time.

 

Although Charles I could not be considered the most effective opposition to banking and its proponents, nevertheless, he was in the way; even if the cure to him—Cromwell—proved perhaps to be even more in the way!

 

Cromwell’s “Bills of Public Faith”, of which very little record remains, a true currency being intrinsically valueless, state issued, and inconvertible, must have been cause for grave misgivings on the part of the goldsmiths, and all concerned, as to whether they had done right in supporting the enemies of the king!

 

It was not long after the return to the throne of England of the Stuart Line in the person of the amenable Charles II, in 1660, that these “Bills of Public Faith,” the real key to sovereignty, were repudiated; ⁽²²⁾ showing that the son had even less understanding of the realities of money than had the father. ⁽²³⁾

To return to Cromwell and the principal factors that lead up to his success, and his assumption of the powers of tyranny: when it became clear that Cromwell was as “suitable” a man as could be found to fit the needs of the occasion, Manasseh Ben Israel supplied him with the gifted Fernandez Carvajal, for the reorganization of his army, which became known as the “Model Army”.

 

Trained revolutionaries then poured into the country, presiding over whom was the Portuguese Ambassador, a De Souza, who loaned them the diplomatic immunity of his house for their meetings. One such revolutionary was the man known today as Calvin, whose father had been fiscal agent to a prominent French Bishop. ⁽²⁴⁾

These revolutionary leaders, besides developing the technique of spreading religious differences, also exploited the use of truculent mobs, a practice known to this class of people from most ancient times, for the gaining of political ends.

 

According to Commander Guy Carr, who is a relatively recent writer on this subject: ⁽²⁵⁾

“The evidence which absolutely convicts Oliver Cromwell of participating in the revolutionary plot was obtained by Lord Alfred Douglas, who edited a weekly review known as Plain English published by the North British Publishing Company. In an article which appeared in the issue of Sept. 3rd 1921, he explained that he and his friend, Mr. L.D. Van Valckert of Amsterdam, Holland, had come into possession of a missing volume of records of the Synagogue of Muljeim. This volume had been lost during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

The volume contained records of letters written to and answered by the directors of the Synagogue.

They are written in German. One entry dated June 16th, 1647 reads: From O.C. (i.e.) Oliver Cromwell to Ebenezer Pratt.

‘In return for financial support will advocate admission... to England; this however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with the arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.’

In reply to this dispatch the records show E. Pratt wrote a letter dated July 12th, 1647 addressed to Oliver Cromwell.

‘Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and... admitted. ⁽²⁶⁾ Assassination too dangerous. Charles should be given an opportunity to escape. His recapture will then make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.’

On November 12th, that same year, Charles was given the opportunity to escape. He was, of course, recaptured. Hollis and Ludlow, authorities on this chapter of history, are both on record as considering the flight as the stratagem of Cromwell.

 

After Charles had been recaptured, events moved apace. Cromwell had the British Parliament purged of most of the members he knew were loyal to the King. Notwithstanding this drastic action, when the house sat all night on December 6th, 1648, the majority agreed ‘That the concessions offered by the king were satisfactory to a settlement.’

Any such settlement would have disqualified Cromwell from receiving the blood money promised him by the international money barons through their agent E. Pratt, so Cromwell struck again. He ordered Colonel Pryde to purge Parliament of those members who had voted in favour of a settlement with the King. What then happened is referred to in history books as ‘Pryde’s purge’.

 

When the purge was finished, fifty members remained. They are recorded as the ‘Rump Parliament’. They usurped absolute power. On January 30th, 1649, he was publicly beheaded in front of the banqueting house at Whitehall, London... Oliver Cromwell received his blood money just as Judas had done.” ⁽²⁷⁾

On the same somewhat obscure page of history, Professor Andreades pointed out in his History of the Bank of England, ⁽²⁸⁾ that Cromwell’s best known historians pay little attention to the subject of his relations with the Jews and their return to England. Carlyle and Morley devoting no more than a page to this highly controversial event. ⁽²⁹⁾

 

The reader gains the impression that more was to be said on the subject...

 

He asserts himself:

“It is certain that as soon as Charles I was dead, the Jews attempted to return to England.” ⁽³⁰⁾

The following statements by Benjamin Franklin in reference to the causes of the American Revolution are equally illuminating:

“About this time (the time of the Treaty of Paris, 1763), Benjamin Franklin made a visit to England. While there he was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions of the colonies. His reply was: ‘That is simple. It is only because in the colonies we issue our own money. It is called “Colonial Scrip” and we issue it in the proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry.’ ”

(See Senate Document No. 23, Page 98, by Robert L. Owen, ⁽³¹⁾ former Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate.)

Robert L. Owen continues:

“It was not very long until this information was brought to the Rothschild’s Bank, and they saw that here was a nation ready to be exploited; here was a nation setting up an example that they could issue their own money instead of the money coming through the Banks. The Rothschild’s Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English Parliament., therefore, which provided that no colony of England could issue its own money.

 

They had to use English money. Consequently the colonies were compelled to discard their ’scrip’ and mortgage themselves to the Bank of England (the Amsterdam Bullion Brokers!) to get money. For the first time in the history of the United States our money began to be based on debt.”

 

“Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed, because when England exchanged with them, she gave them only half as many units in payment in borrowed money from the Rothschild as they had in ’scrip’. In other words, their circulating medium was reduced 50%, and everyone became unemployed according to Benjamin Franklin’s own statement.”

Continuing the quote from Senate Document No. 23:

“Mr. Franklin went further than that. He said that this was the original cause of the revolutionary war. In his own language: ‘The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction’.” ⁽³²⁾

The French Revolution, so called, left much less evidence of its origins than the so-called Russian Revolution 120 years later, though the instigating factor is clear enough.

 

The French Revolution by Nesta Webster, The Life of Napoleon by Sir Walter Scott, almost unobtainable, and above all the chapters in God and the Goldsmiths by McNair Wilson, on Napoleon Bonaparte, give some light on this matter. A study of Louis XV and his relations to the Pâris Brothers, the state tax farmers, especially through Madame Du Pompadour, formerly Poisson, possibly illegitimate child of Pâris Duverney and god-daughter of Pâris Monmartel, yields impressions.

 

The writings of Necker, front man for the international bankers of the time, and who Mirabeau described as “the Hero who arrived by famine” should be read, and also the writings of Turgot, finance Minister to Louis XVI, who fought against Necker and the evil fraternity behind him, and who nicely summed up the situation in his first memorandum to Louis XVI as follows:

“So long as finance shall be continually subject to the old expedients in order to provide for state services, your Majesty will always be dependent on financiers, and they ever will be the masters, and by the maneuvers belonging to their trade they will frustrate the most important operations. Thus the government can never feel itself at ease, it can never be acknowledged as able to sustain itself, because the discontents and impatience of the people are always the means made use of by intriguing and ill-disposed men in order to excite disturbance.” ⁽³³⁾

Clearly the Minister Turgot was a man of sincerity and integrity, a true God-servant, and the fact that it was only after prolonged scheming on the part of the international bankers, who mostly lived outside of France, that he was dismissed, ⁽³⁴⁾ would suggest that his master also sought to do that which he was borne to do, that is, love, guide, and protect the people...

 

But neither master nor man understood the strength of the undercurrents which flowed, nor, it is to be feared, the true meaning of l’etat c’est moi!... which in essence means,

“I am the fount of Life. I am that point through which the Almighty God injects your money amongst you that binds you together as one. I, and no other; not my steward, nor servant, faithful or unfaithful...”

The men of intrigue he referred to, were such stewards, the international bankers.

 

These men, standing behind thrones intercepted that God-Power from on high which was the force behind l’etat c’est moi!, and, controlling the value of money of whatever kind, and therefore international price levels, with responsibility only to them and theirs, confused the nations with their sly schemes of fatuous purpose.

The instigating factor of the Russian Revolution so-called is common knowledge and is detailed in a hundred books. Perhaps one of the best sources of information relating to the financing of the same Russian “Revolution” is the book Czarism and Revolution written by Arsene De Goulévitch, a former officer of the Czar’s army and founder of the Union for the Defense of Oppressed Peoples.

According to information deriving from the French Secret Service, one of the principal sources of finances for the International Revolutionary Movement prior to 1917, was Jacob Schiff of the International banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, based in New York City. It was recorded that twelve million dollars had been donated to the revolutionaries by Schiff, in the years preceding the war of 1914-1918. This fact is apparently confirmed and amplified from sources other than the French Secret Service. ⁽³⁵⁾

The main funds for the so called “Revolution” and towards the steps which led up to it, do not appear to have come from that class of nouveau riche bred into being in Russia out of the activities over the previous 50 years, of the joint stock banks, and the men such as Sawa Morozov, and Tereschenko, ⁽³⁶⁾ the socialistic sugar magnate.

 

The extensive funds so necessary towards the effective disruption of a major state appear to have come from certain British and American circles, which it seems, had been lending their support to the Russian revolutionary “cause”, for a long time.

 

In his book, My Life, Trotsky speaks of a large loan granted in 1907 by a “Financier” belonging to the so-called “Liberal” Party in Britain. This particular “British” financier was apparently not alone in his monetary support of the “Revolution” in Russia. ⁽³⁷⁾

The conduct of Jacob Schiff, previously mentioned, towards Czarist Russia, once he was installed as head of the New York “International Banking” firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, was that of an apparently unyielding enemy. References to his anti-czarist activities exist in the book by Cyrus Adler: Jacob Schiff, his Life and Letters. ⁽³⁸⁾

Further verification of the activities of Jacob Schiff is afforded by the New York “Journal American” of February 3rd, 1949; a time when pro-revolutionary activities were “The Thing” in New York City: ⁽³⁹⁾

“today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000.00 for the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.” ⁽⁴⁰⁾

According to Goulévitch (P. 231), various other persons well known in the world of international banking, whatever the expression “International Banking” might mean, ⁽⁴¹⁾ were also known to be associated with support of revolutionary activities.

 

The ruin to the states of the world set on foot by these immensely rich, but otherwise trifling persons, whose solidarity, however, had enabled them to so profit from the unbelievable expansion of the use of Ledger Credit Page Entry Money in the Anglo-Saxon banking systems, could not better demonstrate the absurdity of allowing private, and therefore irresponsible, persons to exercise that power which should belong to the gods alone, the power inherent in the creation and issuance of the Unit of Exchange amongst the peoples.

In a speech made six weeks before the fall of the Kerensky Government, Lenin made one of his most significant recommendations and perhaps the one most suggestive of the possibility of his sincerity, even if in the rest he seems to have been misguided. It was the one recommendation most indicative of his awareness of the deep-seated causes of the conditions that had given rise to himself and what he stood for...

 

Additional to proposing nationalization of the great monopolies already existing in Russia, (primarily as the result of the admission of joint-stock banking into the country as concession to the victors of the Crimean war), above all he recommended the total nationalization of banking.

 

In his own words he says:

...“all banks to be merged into one and the state control its operations, that is the nationalization of the banks.”

 

...“To talk about regularization of banks,” continues Lenin, "means either to betray complete ignorance, or to fool the simple folk with high sounding words... to control the delivery of bread, or in general, the production and distribution of goods, without controlling banking practices, is an absurdity".

(Works of Lenin, XIV; Pt. 2; 182-183.) ⁽⁴²⁾

Of course, six weeks later, when Lenin had physically seized power with the aid of his “armed bandits”, it was a small matter to set up printing presses in the major cities in Russia that commenced to pour off paper roubles by the billion.

 

Some fourteen or fifteen thousand workers were busily engaged in the government printing shops of Moscow, Leningrad, Penza, Perm, and Rostov-on-Don, turning out tons upon tons of paper money. The printing of notes was simplified to a point where counterfeiting became easy... ⁽⁴³⁾

At the same time safety deposit boxes were seized, all accounts frozen and the banks were closed, so that there was no addition to the circulation existing outside of banks at the start of this “operation,” a great part of which circulation would have been gold; and no new money came on the scene other than the paper roubles of the Bolsheviki printing presses which immediately took the place of that Ledger Credit Page Money by manipulation of which the banks had previously controlled a great deal of trade.

For a year or two the Monarchist roubles were printed as if there was intention to keep the people half expecting that the Czar would be coming back, then for a short while a ‘Kerenki’ rouble was printed, presumably issue of the short lived Kerensky government, as if to prepare the people for total resignation, and then finally, the Bolsheviki rouble which let the people know that all was indeed lost.

 

This continuing the money of a destroyed king seems to have been no new policy of international money power, especially in the case of those kings, its particular enemies. An illustration of which, occurring in ancient times, was the continued minting at the Sardis mint of the sigloi of Croesus long after he had been destroyed.

 

The printing press money of the Russian Revolution entered the circulation against government expenditures and against gold coin which it became illegal to possess, no doubt being accompanied by an equal amount of counterfeit, also exchanged against gold.

These vigorous moves must have been cause for some misgivings amongst the bankers who continued to finance the “Revolution” so far as went Bolsheviki needs in foreign exchange. But no doubt so closely surrounded was Lenin by their agents, ⁽⁴⁴⁾ they would have been justified in reasoning that they would come out on top again without too much trouble, especially with the new roubles being so easy to counterfeit. And during that period of the so-called “New Economic Policy”, approximately 1920-24, they did so come out on top...

In the archives of the State Publishers of Moscow is recorded the following eulogy to the printing press as being as great a force in the so-called revolution as armies:

“Paper money of the Soviet Republic gave support to the young regime at the most critical period of its existence when there was no possibility of raising direct taxes to meet the outlays of the civil war. Hail to our printing press! It is true that its days are numbered but it has already completed three quarters of its work.

 

In the archives of the proletarian revolution along with the cannon, rifles, and machine guns of our epoch that vanquished the enemies of the proletariat, the place of honour will be given to the printing press, the machine gun of the commissariat of finance that poured fire into the rear of the bourgeois system and that made use of the laws of currency and circulation of that regime for the purpose of destroying it, and of financing the revolution.” ⁽⁴⁵⁾

Typically enough the “Tyrant” himself, Vladimir I. Lenin, saw little or no profit out of all this, for himself, the Russian people, or that ideal of world revolution in which it appears he sincerely believed. If he truly was the author of the above statements regarding banking, then, when he died not so long after all these events, it was as a weary and disillusioned man.

 

For that gold, still very much the base for total control of world finance, which was wrung from the Russian people during the period of terror between 1917 and 1922, seems to have almost all found its way back to the “Benefactors” of the original revolutionaries, Messrs.

 

Kuhn, Loeb, and Company of New York (Jacob Schiff’s firm), and it must have been clear to Lenin by the time he died in 1924 that he was but agent of a force that regarded him as merely another tool to be used towards the making of that which they designed.

“Mr. Bakhmetiev, the late Russian Imperial Ambassador to the United States, tells us that the Bolsheviks, after victory, transferred 600 million roubles in gold between the years 1918 and 1922, to Kuhn, Loeb, and Company (Schiff’s firm)”, ⁽⁴⁶⁾

... which makes pretty good return for the mere 20,000,000 dollars granted by the philanthropic Mr. Schiff and which would have been as credits against purchases at that!

At that time such amount of gold could be used to form the apex of an inverted pyramid of abstract money equal in amount to beyond thirty times the number of units such gold represented in U.S. currency according to its official price...

 

 

References

1. Fritz Heichelheim: An Ancient Economic History, Vol. 1, P. 290; Leyden. 1958. 1970.

2. Houghton Mifflin (Publishers): Encyclopedia of World History, P. 48; Boston; 1940.

3. A. Andreades: History of the Bank of England, P. 22; London; 1966.

4. Sir William Ashley: Economic Organizations of England, P. 96-118. London; 1933.

5. Fritz Heichelheim: An Ancient Economic History, Vol. I, P. 290.

6. A. Del Mar: History of the Precious Metals, P. 81; New York, 1968.

7. A. Del Mar: Money and Civilization. Also John R. Elsom. pp. 49-50.

8. Commander Guy Carr: Pawns in the Game, pp. 19, 20, 21.

9. G. Ravenscroft Dennis: The House of Cecil, P. 61. London, 1914.

10. Illustrated London News, Nov. 11th, 1911, P. 762.

11. Lucien Wolf: The Resettlement of the Jews in England; London; 1888.

12. A. Andreades: History of the Bank of England, P. 28.

13. F.P.G. Guizot: Histoire de la République d'angleterre, pp. 154-155; Paris; 1854.

14. Max Dimont: Jews, God, and History, P. 291. New York; 1962.

15. According to the letters of Quang Chang Ling (1878); (History of the Precious Metals; P. 348; A. Del Mar ): ” It was in the year 1498 that the Portuguese made their way around the Cape (of Good Hope). In 1510, under Albuquerque, they treacherously seized the East Indian city of Goa, and leaving a garrison in it, sailed away to Malacca which they had seen and coveted in 1508... They plundered Malacca of a booty so enormous that the Quinto, or fifth, of the king of Portugal amounted to 200.000 gold cruzados, a sum equivalent to $5,000,000.00...”

” We have our own theory concerning the sources of your present riches. We ascribe it in part, to your gains from the piratical conquest, enslavement and murderous extinction of the American races, but chiefly to the profitable trade with the Orient. From the opening of this trade to 1640, when the Portuguese were driven from Japan, and the British first acquired territory in Hindustan, three of your European nations alone took a thousand million dollars in gold and silver from Asia; two thirds as much as they wrung from all America during the same period. From Malacca alone they took 25.000.000; from Japan, up to the date mentioned, four hundred millions; from India and China still greater sums (in gold or silver coin, or bullion)...”

16. The Chapters in Del Mar’s History of Civilization dealing with this period, will repay the reading.

17. Andreades: History of the Bank of England, pp. 14-32.

18. Andreades: History of the Bank of England, P. 19-20.

19. Ibid. P. 22.

20. A. del Mar: History of Monetary Crimes, PP. 7-44.

21. Pepys Diary, Aug 17th, 1666. Diary and Correspondence. 5 vols. London, 1848.

22. Anderson, Adam, P. 485, An Historical and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce, Vol. II, London, 1787-1789.

23. Charles II was totally in the hands of the bankers and goldsmiths as is revealed by the following extract from D. MacPherson’s Annals of Commerce, (P. 428). “Charles being in want of money, the bankers took 10% of him barefacedly, and by private contracts on many bills, orders, tallies and debts of that King, they got 20, sometimes 30% to the great dishonour of Government. This great gain induced the Goldsmiths to become more and more lenders to the King, to anticipate all the revenues, to take every grant of Parliament into pawn as soon as it was given; also to outvie each other in buying and taking to pawn bills, orders and tallies, so that in effect, all the revenue passed through their hands.”

24. Will Durant: The Reformation; P. 459.

25. Commander Guy Carr: Pawns in the Game, P. 20.

26. According to A. Andreades (History of the Bank of England. P. 30.), Frederick Harrison says in his biography of Oliver Cromwell: “Noble were the efforts of the Protector to impress his own spirit of toleration on the intolerance of his age... He effectively protected the Quakers; he admitted the Jews after an expulsion of three centuries, and he satisfied Mazarin that he had given to Catholics all the protection that he dared...”

27. Commander Guy Carr: Pawns in the Game, P. 19-21.

28. A. Andreades: History of the Bank of England, P. 28.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Robert L. Owen was the senator who wrote and introduced the legislation setting up the Federal Reserve (Central Banking) system in 1913. His foreword to a book written by a Miss Gertrude Coogan shows that he lived to bitterly regret his part in writing and introducing this Bill. The remark made later by President Wilson, who had paved the way for the Bill — “ I am a most unhappy man. Unwittingly I have ruined my country ” — shows that Owen was not alone in his remorse... The Central Banking System known as the Federal Reserve System and towards the creation of which he had been the principal instrument, though apparently state department in the same way as the Bank of England, was in reality no more than the instrument through which the so-called International Bankers harnessed the burgeoning energies of the American peoples to themselves, their own world wide needs and purposes. From first to last, which perhaps has not yet come, it was a privately owned and controlled institution.

32. John R. Elsom: Lightning over the Treasury Building, PP. 29-30; Forum Press; Boston.

33. R. McNair Wilson: God and the Goldsmiths, P. 48.

34. His dismissal was effected through the agency of Marie-Antoinette. As she disliked Turgot personally, no doubt she was a ready instrument.

35. A. Goulévitch: Czarism and Revolution, P. 225.

36. Ibid. P. 223.

37. Ibid., P. 224.

38. Cyrus Adler: Jacob Schiff, His Life and Letters, New York, 1928.

39. Although it is really very difficult to see what exactly would have been left for this class of people, often multi-millionaires, to revolt against by 1949, which also includes the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon in the United States.

40. Also according to the author of Czarism and Revolution (P. 224),... ” in the Spring of 1917, Jacob Schiff openly boasted of having been instrumental in overthrowing the Czarist regime...”

41. According to Dr. Carroll Quigley (P. 52.) in the review by W. Cleon Skousen outstanding characteristics of the international bankers were: “...they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: (1) they were cosmopolitan and international; (2) they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts... (3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods... (4) they were accordingly fanatical devotees of deflation... (5) they were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life. These bankers came to be called ‘international bankers’ and, more particularly, were known as ‘merchant’ bankers in England, ‘private bankers’ in France, and 'investment bankers’ in the United States. In all countries they carried on various kinds of banking and exchange activities, but everywhere they were sharply distinguishable from other, more obvious kinds of banks, such as savings banks or commercial banks.”

42. Arthur Zapolsky Arnold, Ph.D.: Banks, Credit, and Money in Soviet Russia, P. 57; Columbia; 1937. Also see the article by Lenin in ” Pravda,” May 29th-30th, 1917: The threatening catastrophe and boundless promises.

Of equal interest and strikingly similar in the language used is the comment of Lionel Rothschild on the subject of banking as quoted by Lord Beaconsfield (Benjamin D'israeli) in 1844: "can anything be more absurd than that a nation should apply to an individual to maintain its credit, and with its credit, its existence as a state and its comfort as a people;...?”

43. Arthur Zapolsky Arnold: Banks, Credit, and Money in Soviet Russia, P. 96; Columbia; 1937.

44. Fr. Dennis Fahey: Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, Dublin; 1964.

45. (a) Arthur Zapolsky Arnold: Banks, Credit, and Money in Soviet Russia, pp. 96-97. (b) Paper Money during the epoch of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, (Moscow State Publishers, 1920) P. 4.

46. A. Goulévitch: Czarism and Revolution, P. 225.

Back to Contents