|
 "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke |
|
|
| . |
. | . |
. | . |
Library |
The Enemy Within the EmpireA SHORT HISTORY OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
By ERIC D. BUTLER. INTRODUCTION Most orthodox history that is crammed into
the heads of our children is one long list of contradictions. There
is no real background to our social development because the main underlying
factors have been completely ignored. If we are really desirous of preserving and developing British culture, it is essential that we attempt to gain at. least an elementary knowledge of the attack which was launched against the British people at the time of Cromwell. It is significant that the introduction of
what has been termed a "spurious Whig culture," marked the origin
of the present banking racket in Britain. This cultural and financial
attack has been going ever since, although there is sound reason to
believe that the enemy is at last being turned on both flanks However,
as yet, there is no sign of a rout in the enemy's ranks. Even the
London "Times," one of the chief mouthpieces of the financial oligarchy,
offered the following criticism of "Whigism" in its issue of August
4, 1840: The man who wrote the above lines, 100 years ago, had a deep insight into the principles of social organisation. Those who seek to re-write history find it a very formidable undertaking, because it has become a "vested interest" with the official historians. Any historian who refused to portray Cromwell as a saviour of the British people, pointed out that his real name was Williams, and that he belonged to a small group of men who had been enriching themselves at the expense of the Monarchy and the people, while bringing a group of foreigners from Holland to batten on the British people, would not find his books recommended for use in our schools or universities. Our "Whig" historians tell us about the tyrannies of Charles I. and Charles II, and how they reigned without Parliament. The impression is given that Parliament in those days was similar to what we have to-day. Nothing is further from the truth. It was comprised of. a group of wealthy men who were not very responsible to the British people. The real fight was between the Money Power and Monarchy, with the victory of the Money Power in 1688 when James II was driven off the throne by his son-in-law, William III., who was brought to Britain at the behest of the financial interests. The Bank of England was formed six years later - 1694 - and with it began the National Debt. The Bank was formed for the purpose of lending money to the crown and was modeled on the Bank of Amsterdam, founded in 1609, the first bank in Northern Europe. The part played by Jews in this formation of the modern banking system, together with the modern Stock Exchange, was considerable. THE PRELUDE IN BRITAIN It is essential that we make ourselves conversant with the growth of the forces which paved the way for the establishment of the Bank of England and the debt-system. Anyone who cares to study British history during the six and a half centuries from the Norman Conquest, until the financiers arrived at the invitation of Cromwell, will find that the Monarchy did exercise its sovereign right of issuing money. There was adequate money for the people's needs. Modern history books fail to tell us of the general standard of prosperity and culture which existed prior to the banking swindle. It has remained for such writers as William Cobbett and Thorold Rogers to give us a true picture of those times. Writers like Sir John Fortesque (about 1460) give detailed evidence of the general prosperity of the English people. There is no need for me to deal with the Trades Guilds and the great architecture of which the British people still have much evidence - although aerial bombing has wrought much destruction. With a population of three millions, there were ten thousand students at Oxford University. In Queen Elizabeth's reign Britain produced some of the finest minds the world has ever seen. Both Bacon and Shakespeare have had a tremendous influence on Western civilisation - particularly Bacon, to whom we chiefly owe the modern system of experimental science based on inductive reasoning. In 1655, the Jewish influx under Cromwell started.
Cromwell first called Councils to consider the matter, but all were
against it. Cromwell dismissed his counsellors and allowed the Amsterdam
Jews to enter Britain surreptitiously. The following extracts from
"The Jewish Encyclopedia" are most instructive on this matter:
This is a most interesting admission, confirming what I have mentioned concerning the attack on British culture by the Puritans, or Whigs. It was in 1650 that Manasseh ben Israel, the man through whom the Jews had financed Cromwell, published his "Hope of Israel," in which he said that the Messiah could not appear until the Jews had settled in every country. He said that if England would only admit them the Messianic Age might be expected. Further extracts from "The Jewish Encyclopedia"
will prove of interest: M. ben Israel then left for London where he
"printed his 'humble address' to Cromwell . . . as a consequence,
a National conference was summoned at Whitehall. Both the divines
and the merchants were opposed to the re-admission and Cromwell stopped
the discussion in order to prevent an adverse decision." This somewhat surreptitious method of solving the Jewish Question in England had the advantage of not raising anti-Semitic feeling too strongly, and it likewise enabled Charles II., on his return, to avoid taking any action on the petition of the merchants of London asking him to revoke Cromwell's concession. Although several determined attempts were made to have the Jews removed, they maintained rather a precarious position until the arrival of William III., in 1688. He was surrounded by Jewish bankers from Amsterdam. In an article in "The Jewish Encyclopedia" on Holland, we read that the reign of William III. marked a "period of exceptional prosperity for the Jews . . . the prince employed Jews in his negotiations with foreign kings . . . and Isaac Lopez Suasso (who lent 2,000,000 gulden to William for his descent upon England)." The following extract is from Sir Archibald
Alison's "History of Europe":- THE FORMATION OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND The modern banking system did not exist in
Britain until Cromwell's regime. In his history of England, Macaulay
says that banking had not started at the time of the Restoration (1660).
Merchants had their strong-boxes and paid out honest coin on demand.
A. E. Feaveryear, in "The Pound Sterling" (Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1931) fixes the origin of English banking as 1662. Goldsmiths
started to give receipts for money held. These were passed about,
and thus the cheque and banknote were born. The goldsmiths began to
find that they could make more loans than they had cash. Macaulay
quotes a pamphlet, published in 1695, as saying: William was finding that his war against France was not very popular. Money was hard to obtain. It was at that stage that William Paterson, a Scottish economist and financier, hit upon the brilliant idea of forming a Bank, to be called the Bank of England, for the purpose of lending the King money. Whatever the present supporters of the banking swindle may say, the man who was primarily responsible for the Bank of England frankly admitted what he was doing. In a plan for forming the bank which he drew up at that time, he said: "The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." This Scot knew the real basis of banking,
and, unlike his successors, did not bother to conceal it. The merchants
of London were very keen on the idea, although the Government of the
day was not very enthusiastic. In his "History of His Own Times"
(1693), Bishop Burnet wrote: Needless to say, the majority of the Whigs favoured the establishment of the Bank. The first Governor was Sir John Doublon, a Dutchman. The formation of the Bank in 1694 was incredibly camouflaged in its authorisation by 'The Tonnage Act." As far as I am aware, there had been no attempt to have the Charter of the Bank revoked until August 13, 1940, when Mr. Stokes, Labour Member for Ipswich, asked the Prime Minister whether there would be time made available to discuss a motion to that end standing in his name. Mr. Attlee, replied, and said that no time for discussion was possible. Which indicates quite clearly that there is very little hope of financial reform from the British Labour Party. Mr. Stokes's resolution read as follows: "That this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to revoke the Charter of the Bank of England, whereby the right to issue money was passed to private interest in the reign of William and Mary, and to repeal all Acts of Parliament passed in support thereof since its granting, so as to take back for the benefit " of the people the power which rightly belongs to them. . . . The ownership of the Bank of England has always
been a matter of much speculation, although its close contact with
International Jewish finance is well known. In 1696 the law laid it
down that stock in the Bank might be held by "any and every persons,
natives and foreigners, bodies politick and corporate, who may so
subscribe." In 1847 a British Parliamentary Committee
took evidence about the Bank of England. One witness, a Mr. Samuel
Gurney, was asked a question concerning the functioning of the Bank
in the public interest. The question was as follows: "Is it not
a principle laid down by the Act of 1844, that in all its dealings
with the public the Banking Department of the Bank of England is to
carry on its transactions with reference to its own interest alone,
arid not with any view to the public advantage?" The following interesting report in connection with the Bank of England appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on December 28, 1839, and was republished in that paper on January 6, 1940:- "A special general meeting of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers was held at their offices, Town Hall Buildings, King Street, on Thursday last, to receive a report from the board of directors on the effects of the administration of the Bank of England upon the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country. (The report of the meeting, which ran to five and a half columns, contained the lengthy report of the directors on the Bank, the concluding paragraphs of which were): "Although it scarcely comes within the scope
of their present object, the board will add a reflection upon the
subject of the undue privileges possessed by the Bank of England.
That such a power over the property, and, as has been seen, the health,
morals, and very lives of the community should be vested in the hands
of 26 irresponsible individuals for the exclusive benefit of a body
of bank proprietors, must be regarded as one of the most singular
anomalies of the present day - that the secret of these individuals,
veiled as they are even from the eyes of their own constituents, should
decide the fortunes of our capitalists, and the fate of our artisans
- that upon the error or wisdom of their judgment should depend the
happiness or misery of millions - and that against the most capricious
exercise of this power there should be neither appeal nor remedy;
that such a state of things should be allowed to exist, must be regarded
as a reproach to the intelligence of the age, and as totally irreconcilable
with every principle of public justice. At the famous Macmillan Commission in 1929, the evidence of Sir Ernest Harvey, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, dealt with this same. point. He said: "The Bank of England is practically free to do whatever it likes. . . . " In the "Manchester Guardian" of May 23, 1940, the financial editor wrote: ". . . It still remains to be seen whether the Treasury, with all the enabling powers in the world, can make the views of the War Cabinet prevail over the views of the Bank of England." As we trace its influence on the affairs of the British people, and practically every country throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations, we will see that this private monopoly is the greatest internal enemy the British people have in their midst. BANK ASSESSES ITS OWN INCOME TAX One of the outstanding features of the Bank of England is the manner in which its history and operations have been shrouded in secrecy. A very good orthodox history was published in 1908, but revealed nothing. Research in regard to this institution has not been simple. There are no publicly available files of the Bank of England. Since it is not a limited company, but operates under Parliamentary charters, it has no registered offices, and, therefore, no place where, by law, its accounts may be examined. The following is a reply to one enquiry: -
"In reply to your recent letter I have to inform you as follows: One of the most remarkable facts about the
Bank is that it assesses its own profits for Income Tax. The following
extract is from the British "Hansard," dated June 13, 1940: "Mr.
Stokes asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that
the Bank of England assesses its own profits for Income Tax; and whether
he will take such steps as may be necessary to have them assessed
by an independent authority? " Mr. Glenvil Hall: 'How can they make an assessment if they do not issue a balance-sheet?" Sir Kingsley Wood: "That is another matter." It was by Section 24 of the Income Tax Act,
1842, that the Bank of England, a private institution, was empowered
to assess and tax itself with no other person or body in control.
The present authority for this is contained in the Consolidation Act,
the Income Tax Act, 1918, Section 68, from which I quote the opening
paragraphs: These important concessions not only indicate that the Bank has something to hide; it is definite evidence that the Bank of England has power over the British Government. THE MACMILLAN ENQUIRY The Macmillan Committee was appointed by a Labour Government in 1929 "to enquire into banking, finance, and credit, paying regard to the factors, both internal and international, which govern their operation, and to make recommendations calculated to enable their agencies to promote the development of trade and commerce and the employment of labour. " The list of members on this committee is particularly
interesting: Mr. Paul Einzig, in his admiring biography of Mr. Montagu Norman, wrote: "The efforts of the Macmillan Committee to throw more light upon the machine of the Bank of England failed almost completely. . . . Indeed, the evidence of Mr. Norman is a study in non-committal and evasive answers." However, some significant facts were brought
to light. Mr. A. N. Field, the New Zealand author, writes as follows:
From the questions asked of Sir Ernest Harvey,
some members of the Macmillan Committee were strongly under the impression
that certain powerful firms had permanently reserved seats on the
Bank of England. Mr. J. M. Keynes, the economist, asked whether 'the
class of merchant bankers from whom the directors of the Bank are
largely drawn historically, by reason of ancient tradition, is suited
to modern conditions.' Mr. J. T. Walton Newbold, another member of
the Committee, chipped in with a remark that: 'It is very strange
how certain merchant bankers have members of their firms appearing
on the Court of Directors over a period of fifty years. As fast as
one goes off another comes on.' The 'merchant bankers' referred to as sitting so continuously on the directorate of the Bank of England and thus controlling the British Empire were later on described to the Macmillan Committee by Sir Robert M. Kindersley, himself a director of one of these firms, that of Lazard Brothers. They are also known as 'issuing houses' for big loan flotations and as 'acceptance houses.' 'Practically every acceptance house of long standing in this country,' said Sir Robert M. Kindersley, 'commenced purely as merchants trading with foreign countries, and a great many of them, most of them, I think I may say, are of foreign origin. If you take the names, Goschen, Hambro, Klienwort, and Lazard, and Brandt, you can go through the whole list of them, and I think you will find a very large number, the majority, are people of foreign origin. . . . It is only the origin . . . some people might think they are still very largely, perhaps, under foreign influence, which, of course, is not so.' In spite of Sir Robert Kindersley's assurances, the fact remains that when the Great War broke out in 1914, the head of one prominent firm of merchant bankers, long represented on the directorate of the Bank of England, was discovered to have omitted even the easy formality of naturalisation. This was Baron Bruno von Shroeder, who, according to statements by Lord Wittenham in the House of Lords on July 26, 1918, had to be naturalised after war was declared in order to save the solvency of the City of London. Having got so far in our glance at the Bank
of England, which governs our Empire in its monetary affairs, we have
next to note another pleasant little trait in its habits. It is answerable
to nobody, and never explains its actions. On Mr. Keynes asking Sir
Ernest Harvey if this was the case, the reply was, 'Well, I think
it has been our practice to leave our actions to explain our policy.' HOW WAR DEBTS ARE JUGGLED People who urge that the present disastrous
financial policy of needless debt and taxation should be abolished
in order to allow the British peoples to win this war FOR THEMSELVES,
in the shortest possible time, are sneered at by our financial "'experts,"
who tell us that "we must pay the cost of the war." Under the present financial swindle the people are sacrificed in order to pay financial tribute in the form of taxation for all time. To ask men and their families to pay the interest bill for all time on the materials they used to defend themselves is little short of treachery. Those who think that we should be sacrificed to an insane financial policy at the end of the war might note that Britain, during the last war, actually increased her assets by 25 per cent. This was done in spite of the millions of men taken out of production and doing the fighting in France. When these men had won the military conflict, they came back to civil life and started producing further goods. In 1919 Britain possessed the greatest industrial machine in the world. She was in the position to give her people the highest standard of living the world has yet seen - in fact, a land really fit for heroes to live in. But, as we have seen previously, while the British people were standing up to the German military machine, the financiers were plotting to obtain ever a greater control of the nation. No wonder that William Jennings Bryan, the famous American statesman, once said: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity." We should always remember the sinister Cunliffe Committee, and its recommendations to put Britain back on the gold standard after the war. Dealing with these recommendations, Mr. A. N. Field, the New Zealand writer, has stated: "The recommendation of the Cunliffe Committee was 'for the maintenance of a complete and effective gold standard.' In plain language, this simply meant that the enormous debt incurred in 8/- and 10/- pounds should be paid back in 20/- pounds. The nation was saddled with a debt more than ten times that existing in pre-war days, in nominal value; but in actual value, in consequence of. the depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound, about five times the pre-war debt. This committee recommended that the load on the back of the people should be doubled by a restoration of the pound to the value it had possessed before the banks had lowered its value by lending thousands of millions of imaginary money. To realise the enormous fraud which was perpetrated by this juggling with money it is sufficient to take one example. An important item in munitions manufacture was copper. A good deal of this was purchased from the United States. In a publication at hand it is stated that the average price for copper in the United States during the ten years preceding the war was 16.2-3 cents per pound; the war price was 27 cents per pound. Commodities bought with 8/- and 10/- pounds at wartime prices of this sort were lumped in the huge bill tied round the nation's neck, to be paid off in 20/- pounds. In the words of Mr. Reginald McKenna, in his annual address as chairman of the Midland Bank at this time, the whole proceeding was 'repugnant to every principle of equity and economic propriety.' Dealing with the recommendations of the Cunliffe
Committee in a series of articles in the London "Times" from
May to October 1918, Mr. Arthur Kitson said: " . . . The nation
should be on its guard to see that the war debt is not enhanced by
some jugglery with our legal tender after the war. . . . The method
is so insidious and can be accomplished so easily that the public
may be cheated before they are aware of it. The war debt has been
incurred in cheap pounds, and honest dealing requires repayment in
pounds and commodities of the same value as when the debt was incurred. MONTAGU NORMAN TAKES CONTROL In spite of the warnings of Kitson and others,
the policy of deflation was introduced in 1920 by the new Governor
of the Bank of England, Mr. Montagu Norman. He introduced Wall Street's
deflation policy. Millions of British people have lived in hell
under the dictatorship of Norman and his Wall Street friends. In 1922 Mr. Norman went to America with Stanley Baldwin to fix the American debt. The result of this visit was to "fix" the British people more firmly under the heel of the Wall Street group. Stanley Baldwin immediately afterwards had a meteoric rise to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain, and played a traitor's role in introducing Planning and Boards - part of the Bank of England's program of Socialism, as we will see later - and acquiesced in the reduction of Britain to a second-rate Power. When Mr. Montagu Norman returned from America with the Debt Settlement, Mr. Bonar Law, Prime Minister of Britain at that time, is reported to have said: "If I sign this I will be cursed for generations." Nothing more prophetic could have been uttered. That Mr. Norman had the "right" outlook for his job of controlling the British Empire will be seen from the following significant extract from John Gunther's book, Inside Europe: "Once, amiably chatting with a banker friend, he (Norman) listened imperviously to the argument that the gold standard would impoverish Britain in the long run. 'Tell me,' Norman is reported to have said, 'do you think it better to be rich than to be poor?' His friend replied: 'Well, I have been poor, and now I am fairly rich, and I hope to be richer.' Norman replied that he was not sure but that countries which were too rich went to pieces; he pointed to the examples of Periclean Athens and Imperial Rome. His friend did not reveal the substance of the conversation; the indication that the Governor of the Bank of England might consider it his duty to impoverish his country for the country's 'benefit' would not have been too popular." Just like Hitler and other gangsters: "I know
what is good for you." "I will have you thrown into a concentration
camp and have you beaten to death with a rubber truncheon," says Hitler Civilisation will never be safe until the Hitlers and Normans are removed from control. SOME INTERESTING QUOTATIONS Apart from the actual history of what took place after the last war, the following quotations, which I have selected from a variety of sources, leave no doubt that even many orthodox people realised that the control of the financial policy of Britain had been transferred to Wall Street: "The City, the financiers and the moneylenders in New York. and Paris, refused to put up credits in support of a balanced budget." 'They wanted humanity crucified on a cross of gold. We declined absolutely, and resigned. . . . Twenty men and one woman - a British Cabinet - waited one black Sunday afternoon in a Downing Street garden for a financial decision from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York." -Thomas Johnston, M.P., Civil Defence Commissioner for Scotland, and Lord Privy Seal in the Ramsay Macdonald Labour Government. "Many nations may laugh at our State Department, but all must tremble before our Federal Reserve Board. . . . High money rates in the United States of America early in 1929, for instance, forced an increase in the official bank rates at once in England, ten European countries, in two Latin-American countries, and two in the Far East; and in almost every case that action restricted business and brought suffering to millions of foreign workers. That blow hit Britain hardest of all." -Mr. Ludwell Denny, well-known American banking authority, in his book, America Conquers Britain, published in 1930. "Never in the history of the world has so much power been vested in a small body of men as in the Federal Reserve Board. These men have the welfare of the world in their hands, and they could upset the rest of us either deliberately or by some unconscious action." Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of Bank of England, reported in the National Bank Monthly, February, 1926. The memoirs of the late Lord Snowden, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Ramsay Macdonald Labour Cabinet, reveal the fact that during the 1929-32 depression Wall Street demanded a reduction in the British unemployment dole. Lord Snowden said: "On Saturday, the 22nd August, the situation was hectic. The Bank of England submitted to Mr. Harrison, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the tentative suggestion for a reduction of unemployment payments, . . . Mr. Harrison replied by telephone that, while he was not in a position to give the answer until he had consulted his financial associates, his opinion was that it would give satisfactory assurance." "The interdependence of the money policies of the U.S. and Great Britain, or - not to put too fine a point upon it - the dependence of the latter upon the former, has been dramatically demonstrated. We are informed that the bank-rate must certainly be raised from 4 to 5 per cent. next Thursday. There is nothing in the present position of British Industry which would in itself call for an increase in the rate. . . . The incident seems to show clearly who it is that cracks the whip and who obeys the signal." Sir Josiah Stamp, in a letter to the Times, London, February 3, 1923. "Nor is the growing importance of American finance in international trade an assuring event. One of the things that can be assumed as a certain consequence of the war is that finance is to hold a more important grip on international industry than hitherto, and that in their own interests communities must protect themselves so far as possible against an imperious international financial trust. In any event, it is quite clear that this country will have to watch not only Lombard Street, but Lombard Street and Wall Street. . . . For finance can command the sluices of every stream that runs to turn the wheels of industry, and can put fetters upon the feet of every Government that is in existence. Those who control finance can paralyse the nation, can make it drunk, can keep it normal. And in all their transactions their own interests are put first. Of course, these interests are 'involved in the general interest. They cannot flourish in a dead economic state. But they fix exchanges, bank rates, capital values; they can tighten or loosen the purse strings of Governments and manufacturers; they control the means upon which the political and industrial State depends for its existence." Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in Socialism, Critical and Constructive. "The Prime Minister, at his interview with
the junior Ministers on Monday, said the proposals which the Government
submitted to the Bank of England had to be telephoned to America to
see if they could be approved of there." Speaking in the British House of Commons on September 10, 1931, Mr. W. Graham explained how the British Government was forced to reduce the dole rates at the instigation of Wall Street: " . . It was specifically put to us (the late Ministers) that. unless one item in particular - a 10 per cent. cut in unemployment benefit, to yield £12,250,000 - was included in the program, it would not restore confidence, and we were told that no other item could be put in substitution. . . . Let the House be under no misapprehension. It was because of an outside insistence upon that specific point that the late Government broke." "To propitiate Wall Street, British industry is to be taxed another 1 per cent. From the list of directors of the Bank of England we publish (under the heading of 'Our Masters: Who's Who at the Bank: Who are the Financial Dictators of Great Britain?'), it will be seen how few of them are engaged in the daily uphill task of making goods and finding markets. Their eyes and minds are more on the ends of the earth than on the troubles and needs of their immediate fellow-citizens. The voice of Wall-street is heard and obeyed in their councils. . . . The Governor of the Bank has followed his customary line by leaving industry to shift for itself, while he moves his pieces on the board as though credit, and all that depends on it, were merely favours in a game of international chess. We have to face the fact that the power of the world today is in the hands, not of kings or governments, nor of armies or navies, but of financiers." Sunday Dispatch, August 16, 1931. On the previous day the Dean of Winchester had written in the Times: "The recent experience of Australia shows us that the banking community is at long last a very effective Second Chamber." When we study the control of Australian Governments by the local representatives of the Bank of England we must agree that the Dean of Winchester was right. On September 25, 1929, following a rise in the London bank rate, the editor of the Daily Express said, in an open letter to the Governor of the Bank: "Among your colleagues are several who are closely identified with large foreign interests, and who may be tempted to consider questions of current policy from the standpoint of international finance. But the Bank of England is, or should be, a British institution serving British interests." The questions which every Britisher, loyal to the principles upon which the British Commonwealth of Nations has been built and the sovereignty of the Monarchy - particularly in the issue of the nation's money supply - should ask: "Are the British peoples still controlled by a financial policy dictated by a group of aliens? Can we hope to preserve British institutions and British culture under such domination?" THE FINANCING OF NAZI GERMANY In the British House of Commons on April 16,
1940, Mr. Stokes asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he
would introduce legislation to alter the charter of the Bank of England,
so as to enable the names of the bank proprietors, together with the
capital holding of each of such proprietors, to be published. Sir
John Simon: "No, Sir." The following humorous item, which appeared in the News-Chronicle on May 10, 1940, is very pointed: "Germany is an ungrateful beast, and I don't care who hears me say it," declared Miss Ruby Fossicks, the Bank of England May Queen for 1940, at Brighton yesterday, opening the £500,000 Golden Calf Rest Home for Tired Usurers. A wane smile from a Mr. Skinner and frantic applause from 5000 City usurers, each with features more brutally degraded than the last, rewarded this stinging attack. 'Heil der interest on der Unprodugtif Loan!' cried Sir Henry Glockenspiel, a leading British financier. A resolution never to arm the Prussian Spirit with money ever again till the present war is over was carried unanimously." Le Canard Enchaine for August, 1939, published the following interesting item: "In 1933 there appeared in Holland a book, written by a certain Sidney Warburg, which quickly disappeared from booksellers' windows. In it the author stated that in the preceding year, 1932, he had attended meetings in the United States of financial gentlemen who were seeking means of subsidising Hitler. It appears that among those present were Sir Henri Deterding, representatives of Morgan's Bank, Mr. Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), and representatives of the Mendelssohn Bank." Mr. Montagu Norman was openly in favour of supporting the new Hitler movement by 1931. By 1935 the Bank of England was openly pro-Nazi, as revealed even in the Financial News of May 15 of that year. In 1937, the "Banker" said that "we regret to have to admit that from a small but influential circle in the City of London there flows a constant stream of propaganda in favour of credits for Germany." The following report appeared in the Sydney
Sun on April 3, 1941: "A sharp attack on Mr. Montagu Norman
is made by the foreign editor of the conservative 'Financial News,'
urging a public enquiry into the governship of the Bank of England.
'We ought to probe more deeply into Mr. Norman's apparently unending
reign as Governor,' he writes. 'Any criticism of this reign from financial
quarters is still regarded as something akin to sacrilege, but we
ought to ask ourselves whether it is to Britain's advantage that Mr.
Norman remains Governor at such a critical period. . . Mr. Norman
was largely responsible for our ill-advised return to the gold standard
in 1925. He strongly opposed the Treasury's "cheap money" policy,
which he reversed. Shortly before the outbreak of war he pursued a
policy of financial appeasement towards Germany. As anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the present financial system knows, the Bank of England did not send millions of pounds to Germany. These millions of pounds - created out of nothing by the Bank of England - were written up as a credit to Germany in Britain. Germany could then buy goods in Britain to this amount. A loan of £80,000,000 to Germany would mean that Germany could buy that amount of materials in Britain. The terrible fact emerges that the British
people were working to re-arm their future enemies The same individuals who were building up Germany were keeping Britain weak by telling the people that there was a shortage of money. Stanley Baldwin, one of the chief puppets of the Bank of England, openly admitted on one occasion that he kept the fact concerning German re-armament from the British people in order to win the general elections. Mr. Paul Einzig says, in "World Finance, 1918-36," that "there can be no doubt that practically the whole of the free exchange available to Germany for purchase of raw materials was supplied, directly or indirectly, by Great Britain in giving her enemy free exchange for the purpose of raw materials. If the day of reckoning ever comes the liberal attitude of the British Government in this matter may well be responsible for the lives of British soldiers and civilians." These facts are widely recognised by responsible
authorities all over the world. Unfortunately, the people and their
governments have very little say concerning policy. The following
is an extract from a report of an interview which Mrs. Lillie Beirne,
of Sydney, had with Mr. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada,
while she was lecturing in Canada. (Reported in the New Era,
February 14, 1941): The following extracts are from a sensational
article which appeared in Ken (Chicago, U.S.A.), November 3,
1938. The article was reprinted in many journals throughout the world
and caused a considerable stir:- Immediately the directors went into action. Their first move was to sponsor Hitler's secret re-armament, just about to begin. Using their controlling interests in both Vickers and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), they instructed these two huge armament concerns to help the German program by all means at their disposal. . . . In the same year English armament firms placed huge advertisements in the Militaerischer Wochenblatt, offering for sale tanks and guns, prohibited by the Versailles Treaty. A statement made by General Sir Herbert Lawrence, chairman of Vickers, furnished the necessary evidence that the British Government knew about and approved these advertisements. When, at his company's annual meeting, he was asked to give the assurance that Vickers arms and munitions were not being used for secret re-arming in Germany, he replied: 'I cannot give you an assurance in definite terms, but I can tell you that nothing is done without the complete sanction and approval of our Government.' The excuse has been made that, although this financing of Nazi Germany did take place, it was for the purpose of building a rampart against Russian Communism. I quite appreciate this viewpoint, and believe that many sincere British interests were made the victims of a carefully drawn-up program of propaganda. The fear of Communism was deliberately played upon. Little did many people know that the real controllers of the Bank of England - the Jewish oligarchy of Wall Street - were also very interested in Russia. I believe that the opposition between Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy was for the deliberate purpose of making the British people acquiesce in a policy which was weakening the foundation of the Empire. The following extract from an article by D. E. Faulkner-Jones, in The Fig Tree (England), June, 1937, is almost prophetic, when we see the position today: "Secret fear makes us seize eagerly on the comfortable assumption that the three militaristic Powers (Russia, Germany and Japan) to be reckoned with are arming for internecine conflict. Common sense would suggest a very different view; the view that it would pay the three to unite, at least temporarily, for the dismemberment of the British Empire. An appearance of mutual enmity between two of the three conspirators would recommend itself as a simple and politic means of delaying British re-armament as long as possible, and should, therefore, be discounted by prudent statesmen." Russia's pacts with Germany and Japan - although only of a temporary and expedient nature, as demonstrated by Hitler's attack on Russia - confirm the above viewpoint. (Clashes between Hitler and Stalin must not blind us to the fact that National Socialism and Marxist Socialism are only different sects of the one "religion." An overwhelming victory for either sect would be a further danger to the British way of life.) While Britain's defences were being depleted - particularly her navy - the totalitarian countries were being built up. Dictator Montagu Norman kept the British shipbuilding yards closed. It is not without significance that the Governments of both Ramsay Macdonald and Stanley Baldwin - dominated by Wall Street and the Bank of England - played a big part in destroying Britain's naval power. By no stretch of imagination could it be suggested that the British Navy was ever likely to be used in an aggressive role. It was essential for the defensive purpose of keeping the trade routes of the Empire open. Writing in the Fig Tree, March, 1937,
D. E. Faulkner-Jones said: "If America had insisted strongly and openly
on the repayment of our immense debt to her, there would have been
no alternative but to expose the real truth. The so-called 'investors'
in America no more desired this exposure than our own rulers; but
they pressed their advantage home and made Britannia give up her title
of Mistress of the Seas. . . . If we are now unable to protect our
coasts, let alone our food routes, future historians may well find
a very potent cause in the financial control exercised by America
(the writer is referring to Wall Street) over us in the first years
immediately after the War, when our financial policy was watched over
directly by an American adviser. This control existed not because
we owed America money; it existed because our Government could not
pay America the true debt we owed her - which was a debt in goods,
not money - without explaining to the public the secret of credit-creation. In view of the seriousness of Britain's shipping
position in this War, the following extract from an editorial in Social
Credit, of September 20, 1935, a typical attack launched by loyal
Britishers against the treacherous policy of the Bank of England,
is well worth quoting:. "By a strange twist of irony a Bank of England
concern which has probably done more in the last few years to undermine
Britain's security than all the Communists and all the machinations
of foreign Powers put together, is called National Shipbuilders' Security
Ltd. A more suitable name would be International Bankers' Security,
for this concern is engaged in making ship-owning safe for bankers
who now control the 'British' mercantile marine. It is 'rationalising'
the shipbuilding industry by scrapping so-called redundant yards.
According to its annual report, this company has spent, in the last
three years, a total of £1,153,387 to buy shipbuilding yards for the
deliberate purpose of scrapping them. To replace this destruction
would cost at least twenty times as much. This is but one more instance
of the sabotage of real wealth in the attempt to make facts fit an
archaic financial system. This sabotage of Britain's shipbuilding industry
was referred to in the British House of Commons on January 21, 1941: Looking back over past history it is almost beyond comprehension that the Bank of England. should be allowed to continue its domination of the financial policy of an Empire fighting for its very existence. All loyal Britishers will make every effort to make these facts as widely known as possible in order that this internal financial cancer can be removed and thus allow the British Empire to develop its tremendous potential strength. Such a step would bring us real victory within a remarkably short time. MR. NORMAN AND DR. SCHACHT Dr. Hjalmar Schacht was the financial adviser in Germany; he was connected with the interests responsible for the financing of Soviet Russia; was closely connected with some of the "Left" movements in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler; helped bring Hitler to power and, if International Finance accomplishes its objects, will be still in a position of power long after Hitler has been swept from the world stage. However, we are determined to sweep them all out. That is one of our major objectives in this war. Dr. Schacht has been intimately connected with Mr. Montagu Norman. In July, 1925, they both were at a conference of international financiers in Nice. They were discussing how "to save France" from financial collapse. In answer to a question by the Chairman of the Macmillan Committee, Mr. Norman said, in outlining the proposals to form a Central World Bank: "But, . . . there were at that time outstanding individuals, as I believe, in the Central Banking World, who made co-operation possible in the earlier stages, and pre-eminent among them were Governor Strong and President Schacht. They were both dominant men, extremely interested from different sides - and very differently they were - in co-operation. They were the most wholehearted supporters of the idea and did, in its early stages, I believe, a great deal in trying to bring about a common policy as between the various banks." In May, 1934, a private conference took place between Dr. Schacht and Mr. Norman. They met again at a "secret conclave" at Badenweiler, in the Black Forest, while on their way to a meeting of the Bank of International Settlements at Basle. A loan for Nazi Germany was being negotiated. A further meeting between the two bankers took place in October of the same year. Towards the end of 1935 Mr. Norman was again in secret discussion with Dr. Schacht. Already the Bank of England had pledged itself to a financial scheme for stabilising the Nazi regime! The Times Basle correspondent reported, April 5, 1936: "For the first time since the existence of the Bank of International Settlements a board meeting was held today in a country other than Switzerland. Dr. Schacht had invited all the Governments to meet at Badenweiler, a German health resort in the Black Forest, where Dr. Schacht has several times spent weekends with Sir (!) Montagu Norman." After Munich, Dr. Schacht went over to England
and was a guest of Mr. Norman. In January, 1939, Governor Norman was
on his way to the monthly meeting of the B.I.S.; he called on Dr.
Schacht in Berlin on the way. War was declared in September, but,
as questions in the British House of Commons on September 17, 1940,
revealed, the Bank of International Settlements is carrying on, with
representatives of the bankers from all the belligerents. The following
is taken from the British "Hansard": Mr. Craven-Ellis asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the enemy gain no advantage from the Bank of England's association with this bank, which is now controlled by representatives of enemy countries, he will take steps to ensure that all connection with the Bank of International Settlements is revised? . . . " Mr. Shinwell: 'Is it desirable to retain this informal association between Mr. Montagu Norman and Dr. Funk, and if the arrangement which was previously operative is now inoperative, could not this association be brought to an end?" Sir K. Wood: 'No, sir, I do not think so, because, as I have said, I think there are advantages to this country in retaining the connection. We have a little money there. . . ." Mr. Gallacher: 'Does the right hon. gentleman remember the words of the Prime Minister, that the gold sent through this bank by Montagu Norman to Germany would come back to this country in the form of bombs; and in view of the correctness of that prophecy is it not about time to put an end to this bank?" Sir K. Wood: 'I have already said we have some interest there.' THE FINANCING OF RUSSIA It is now common knowledge in well-informed circles that certain German-American-Jewish financial interests were directly associated with the financing of the Russian revolution and the exploitation of that country. The same interests seek to foist International Socialism on the entire world - particularly the British Empire. The same interests were responsible, both directly and indirectly, for Hitlerism. Hitlerism and Communism are almost synonymous terms - as the world was shocked to learn when the Russo-German Pact took place just prior to the outbreak of the present war. The fact that Germany has since attacked Russia does not alter the underlying fact that International Finance is gaining more in power at the expense of the British peoples. We can only judge who wins a war by asking "Who benefits?" In 1921, a certain Krassin - who had been a
direct representative of the International Financiers in Russia after
the revolution - went to London as leader of the Soviet Trade Delegation
- the negotiations for which had been initiated by persons in the
City of London with powerful international financial groups behind
them. The forces behind Russia are forces which have
consistently sought to destroy the British Empire; far too many of
our Empire's "leaders" have been prepared to betray us to these alien
forces. In his book, The Alien Menace, the late Colonel A.
H. Lane, one of the most patriotic Britishers who has ever written
on this matter, said: "Our financial crisis in July, 1931, was largely
due to the international financiers in the City of London having granted
large credits to Germany, which Germany declared herself unable to
repay. The newspapers described these loans or credits as being 'frozen'
in Germany. Germany had passed on these loans, or a good portion of
them, to Russia, and it was in Russia where they were - or are still
- 'frozen.' The following extracts from recent statements on this question of 'frozen' credits not only prove that the relations between International Finance and Bolshevism continue, but they suggest that these relations may have serious consequences for this country. "On 18th September, 1931, Mr. James W. Gerard, American Ambassador in Berlin during the War, after returning from a visit to Europe, declared that Germany 'did not need any financial assistance and that a large percentage of the loans from the United States was lent to Russia.' He added: 'If we're going to do business with Russia, let us do it directly and not through Germany, which has arranged to give Soviet Russia millions of dollars' credit to purchase commodities in Germany' ('National Review,' January, 1932). . . . This story of Germany passing loans received from England and America to Russia has been told many times in the Socialist journal, 'Forward'; and the story is now confirmed by a paper closely associated with Soviet interests. The 'British-Russian Gazette and Trade Outlook,' December, 1931, said, in an editorial article: 'It must be ironic for them (British manufacturers) to view the forced cessation of work on the giant Cunard liner, which is attributed to this country's 'frozen' credits in Germinany - credits which have been used in great part by Germany to finance orders from Russia. During 1931, orders amounting to over £45,000,000) have been placed with German firms by the Soviet buying organisations. Further information on these credits was given by Lord Beaverbrook in an address at Lincoln, reported in the 'Daily Express,' 16th January, 1932. Speaking on German Reparations, Lord Beaverbrook said: 'It is true that Germany owes our international financiers in the City of London £500,000,000. . . . Our international financiers in the City borrowed that money from France and America and paid 2 per cent. for the accommodation. They lent it to Germany for 8 per cent; and what did Germany do with the money? She lent it to Russia for 15 per cent, interest. That is what became of the money' Lord Beaverbrook added that 'these buck-jumping financiers . . . have ramifications all over Europe. We need not worry ourselves about them.' While Lord Beaverbrook was right concerning the ramifications of the international financiers, he was wrong when he said that we have no need to worry about them The Bank of England is a vital factor in the plans of the international financiers. As we will see later, the Bank of England has been deliberately introducing a form of Socialism into Britain under the term, "Planned Economy." This is similar to the Russian idea. It is being fostered by banking interests in all parts of the Empire. THE ANGLO-GERMAN FELLOWSHIP We have' dealt with the close connection between the Bank of England and the financing of Nazi Germany. Most people have heard of the Anglo-German Fellowship Association which existed before the outbreak of war. I have no doubt that many people who belonged to this organisation were sincere in their outlook. Whether we can believe the same of other members who belonged to the financial world is another matter. In the membership of the Anglo-German Fellowship were three directors of the Bank of England, three directors of the Midland Bank, Sir Walter Runciman (director of Lloyds Bank), a director of Barclay's Bank, two directors of the National Bank of Scotland, including the late Lord Lothian, three directors of Schroder and Company (Anglo-German Bank), two directors of the British Linen Bank, two directors of Ratti Brothers (Anglo-Italian Bank), Sir Sydney Peel (director of the National Bank of Scotland), and Lord Hutchinson of Montrose (director of the London board of the National Bank of Australia) . THE ADMISSIONS OF 1924 The year 1924 will always be remembered by students of economic history as the year in which Reginald McKenna "blew the gaff" on the banking system in his now-famous admission to the shareholders of the Midland Bank, in January, 1924; "I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do create money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing and decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft, or bank sale destroys a deposit. AND THEY WHO CONTROL THE CREDIT OF A NATION, DIRECT THE POLICY OF GOVERNMENTS, AND HOLD IN THE HOLLOW OF THEIR HANDS THE DESTINY OF THE PEOPLE." Such an admission must have shocked Mr. Norman. But there was even worse to come. Sir Drummond Fraser, vice-president of the Institute of Bankers, said: 'The Governor of the Bank of England must be the autocrat who dictates the terms upon which alone the Government can obtain borrowed money." THE DESPOT OF THREADNEEDLE STREET Writing in the New Leader of October 9, 1931, Lieut. Commander Kenworthy (now Lord Strabolgi) said: "On one memorable occasion the present Governor of the Bank was asked the relationship of the Court of Directors to the Treasury. He replied that it was the relationship of Tweedledum and Tweedledee." No wonder, then, that one authority dubbed Mr. Norman the "Despot of Threadneedle Street." The following extracts, from various sources,
are most striking evidence of the power of Mr. Norman's dictatorship:
"Mr. Montagu Collet Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, is
now head and shoulders above all other British bankers. No other British
banker has ever been as independent and supreme in the world of British
finance as Mr. Norman is today. He has just been elected Governor
for the eighth year in succession. Before the war, no Governor was
allowed to hold office for more than two years; but Mr. Norman has
broken all precedents. He runs his bank and the Treasury as well." Well, Wall Street should know. The Wall
Street Journal, of March 11, 1927, had quite a lot to say concerning
Mr. Norman: "Montagu Collet Norman, as Governor of the Bank of England,
has wide powers in determining the course of British credit. . . .
He, more than any other banker, has inspired the policy of banks of
issue in a dozen countries. His personal influence is such that he
has variously been called 'a Crusader' and 'the Currency Dictator
of Europe.' . . . When Britain returned to the gold standard, many
Continental banks shifted gold balances to the Bank of England. Mr.
Norman insisted that Poland, Greece, and other countries maintain
gold deposits at the Bank of England, in order to get credit accommodation.
He berated the Governor of the Austrian Bank a couple of years ago
for Austria's failing to make administrative economies." "Now, let us turn to those we can congratulate. The Court and directors of the Bank of England have agreed to recommend to the proprietors in April next that the Right Hon. Montagu Collet Norman be re-elected Governor. Mr. Norman will then have held that post for a decade, and he can look back on the period of his office and say, without fear of contradiction, that during his term of governorship America has experienced ten years of unexampled prosperity." Viscount Castlerosse, 1928. "I can say, with regard to a certain public
appointment, Mr. Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England.
not only objected to a decision reached by a responsible Government
Department and its Ministers, but insisted on the appointment of another
person, and also further advised the salary he was to receive. In
this case, the views of Ministers were overruled, and Mr. Norman's
advice accepted. The salary granted was also twice as high as that
originally proposed." On May 13, 1925, Mr. Norman forced Britain back on to the gold standard. The poverty-is-good-for-you theory was being rigidly enforced. The worship of a yellow metal was more important than human values. Sir Charles Morgan-Webb, in "Ten Years of Currency Revolution," writes: "The operations of currency management conferred upon the Bank of England the power to restrict credit, to postpone new enterprises, to lessen the demand for constructional materials and other capital goods, to create unemployment, to diminish the demand for consumable goods, to cause difficulty in renewing loans, to confront manufacturers with the prospect of falling prices, to force dealers to press their goods on a weak market, and to cause a decline in general prices on the home market." Following the appointment of Lord Catto, Cohn Campbell and Sir B. Hornsby - all bankers - to the British Treasury in 1940 the following appeared in the London Evening Standard of July 3: "The Bank of England is now taking over Whitehall. That is the true meaning of appointments to the Treasury in the past few days. The Bank of England today is probably more powerful than it has been for years." It might be appropriate here if I deal briefly
with the famous incident in the British Navy on September 15, 1931. THE CZECHOSLOVAKIAN GOLD EPISODE What is now known as the famous "Czech Gold
Incident" further demonstrated the power of the Bank of England and
the Bank of International Settlements. It also demonstrated the fact
that the British Government had no control over the actions of the
Bank of England. When the Nazi machine crashed into Czechoslovakia
in September 1938, it took the assets of the Czechoslovakian National
Bank. Approximately £5,000,000 worth of Czech gold held by the Bank
of England was transferred to Germany, with the result that, when
this fact became known, there was an uproar in the British House of
Commons. The following extracts from the Sydney Morning Herald
of May 24, 1939, speak for themselves: Three days after this report, the following
appeared in the Sydney Sun: "The charge that Germany had 'stolen'
£ 6,000,000 of Czech gold held in England was made in the Commons
today. The gold, it was stated, was claimed by the Bank for International
Settlements, acting on behalf of the German Reichsbank, from the Bank
of England. "Mr. B. Bracken (Cons.), who raised the subject, declared
that the British delegates on the Bank for International Settlements
should have informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the claim.
He said that gangsters had got into Czechoslovakia and stolen the
title deeds. . . . Mr. Lloyd George (Lib.) asserted that the £6,000,000
had already been transferred to the Reichsbank, which had no more
right to it than a burglar. It was amazing, he said, that the Treasury
could have agreed to the decision without consulting the Government."
A BLOW AT THE MONARCHY I pointed out earlier, in this "History of the Bank of England," how the Money Power has been endeavouring to undermine the British Monarchy since the time of Cromwell. I have also mentioned the conditions prior to the start of the debt system, when the issue of the nation's money supply was one of the Monarchy's greatest prerogatives. Here is an interesting table of comparison of conditions in England: Thirteenth Century Twentieth Century Debt:
Until 1928 in Britain, the pretence of the King's sovereignty over the nation's money was maintained by keeping his head upon all Treasury notes. But, as we know, this is only a small portion of the total money supply. The great bulk of it is manufactured in the form of bank credit by the private trading banks. However, the private financiers wanted every suggestion of the Monarchy's sovereignty in money matters removed. In 1928 an Act was passed which transferred the King's currency to the Bank of England. In the design of the new Bank of England notes the King's head disappeared! The people's paper money ceased to have any authority under the Crown, and was now issued to them, very kindly, by the private joint stock concern called 'The Governor and Company of the Bank of England.' " In an article on this matter, the Daily Mail said: "The new green £1 and brown 10/- notes have a curiously foreign aspect. They look as if they had been designed in the United States. . . . The old Treasury notes were not particularly artistic productions, but they did not produce this impression of foreign provenance. The King's head and the design of St. George killing the dragon stood out plainly on the front, and Houses of Parliament equally plainly on the back. . . ." The following pointed criticism was offered by the Morning Post: "The first impression on the mind is that the design-perhaps in token of our debt to America - has been modelled on that of the Greenback, and that if the denomination had been expressed in dollars instead of in sterling, the effect would have been more complete." Whether there was any connection between what
was little short of a personal attack upon King George V, and his
breakdown has caused some speculation. King George V, was very pointed
in his remarks when opening the World Economic Conference in 1933:
"I appeal to you to co-operate for the ultimate good of the whole
world. It cannot be beyond the power of man so to use the vast resources
of the world as to assure the material progress of civilisation. No
diminution of these resources has taken place." Speaking before the National Congress of the London Chamber of Commerce on Commercial Education in 1933, his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales - now Duke of Windsor - said: "The depression and economic disturbance has been largely caused by maladjustment of distribution. The potential output is far greater than ever before. If all employable labour were employed for a reasonable number of hours per week, the world would have at its disposal a volume of commodities and services which would enable the entire population to hive on a higher level of comfort and well-being than has ever been contemplated in the rosiest dreams of the social reformer. Our urgent task is to bring consumption and production into a proper relationship - not a simple, but a quite possible, task." Distribution depends upon the money system,
which is largely controlled by the Bank of England. Other members
of the present Royal family have shown a similar concern for the well-being
of their people. Perhaps this evoked the famous slogan in some of
the slum areas a few years back: "We may be lousy, but we're loyal."
MONTAGU NORMAN'S FOREIGN POLICY Mr. Montagu Norman told the Macmillan Committee that he had been devoting a great deal of his time after the war to two things: The first was "the stabilisation of foreign countries which had lost what they possessed before the war," and the second was the setting up of central banks throughout the world. In 1922 a Conference of International Financiers
took place in Genoa. Mr. Montagu Norman was the leading exponent of
the Central Reserve Bank System. In "Montagu Norman, a Study in
Financial Statesmanship," Mr. Paul Einzig, editor of the London
"Financial Review," says that Mr. Norman "raised central banking
after its early haphazard growth to a scientific system." He was "assisted
by able and experienced experts such as Sir Otto Niemeyer (Australians
and New Zealanders remember this gentleman quite well) and Mr. Siepmann."
In his biography of Mr. Norman, Mr. Eimzig says: "His conception of a Central Bank is that it should be a State within a State. This implies immunity from political interference on the part of the political authorities of their respective countries, and also the observance of rules adopted in the intercourse between sovereign powers. . . . The most important step in the course of the endeavours to promote co-operation between central banks has been the establishment of the Bank of International Settlements. . . . As usual, he remained entirely behind the scenes. . . . In spite of this he had more to do with it than anybody else." Mr. Einzig also says: "It is a fact that in chronological order he devoted his attention in the first place to the reconstruction of the ex-enemy countries." We are told that this was "only because they were in urgent need of help." (The crushing of the British people by Mr. Norman was apparently a matter of very little importance. Mr. Poverty-is-good-for-you-Norman knew what was best!) The first countries to be "assisted" by the Bank of England were Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and the City of Danzig. The activities of the Bank of England in connection
with Austria, as related by Mr. Bruce Lockhart in "Retreat from
Glory," published in 1934, are well worth quoting. From 1919 to
1922 Mr. Lockhart was Commercial Secretary at the British Legation
at Prague. He says: Czechoslovakia had formerly used Austrian currency, but when this paper money became worthless in the inflation of 1921, the Czechoslovakian Government held up the value of this money, and on a given date separated it from Austrian currency by stamping all notes in the country with a Czechoslovakian brand. Unfortunately," says Mr. Lockhart, "the Jews in the A.O. Bank had been too far-seeing. Instead of sending the bank-notes into Czechoslovakia on the given day, they had transferred interest-bearing Treasury notes. The Czechs had stamped the bank-notes. . . . Greed for interest had defeated its own ends. . . . If the 148,000,000 Treasury notes of the A.O. Bank had a Czech value, they were worth over £1,000,000. If they had an Austrian value they were worthless. Without the assets the Governor (of the Bank of England) could not go ahead with his scheme." This was where the services of Mr. Lockhart came in. He was to try and persuade the Czechoslovakian Government to make this worthless pile of paper (if Austrian) into a million sterling (if Czech) . The Government felt disinclined to do anything of the kind, but in the end gave the A.O. Bank a loan of 148,000,000 kronen at 1 per cent. Six months later, as a reward, the Czechs were allowed to float a loan of £10,000,000 in New York and London. In this manner, that section of Central Europe, represented by the parties interested in the A.O. Bank, was brought under the control of the Bank of England. OBTAINING CONTROL OF INDUSTRY At the World Economic Conference of 1927, there was a suggestion of the "rational organisation of production and distribution" by the "bringing of the whole of an industry under intelligent direction and administration." One of the most prominent men in this movement in Britain was the Jew, the late Sir Alfred Mond, head of the powerful Imperial Chemical Industries(ICI) combine. In 1927 he sought the support of the trade unions for his scheme of rationalisation. The General Council of the Trades Union Congress stated that "while rationalisation can never prove an alternative to nationalisation, the movement was prepared to welcome such changes in the organisation of industry during the period of private ownership as would lead to improvements in the efficiency of industry and to the raising of the standards of living of the people." Here we had the financiers and the socialists more or less agreeing on basic principles. When Mr. Norman made his first appearance before the Macmillan Committee, on March 26, 1930, he said that he was devoting some attention to "an attempted study of industry, mainly the heavy basic industries of the country." His idea was that "the salvation of industry in this country, without which commerce and finance cannot long continue, lies in the process of rationalisation . . . and that is to be achieved by the unity or unification, or marriage, of finance and industry." Here was an open admission that the Bank
of England was attempting to get control of industry Mr. J. W. Beaumont Pease, chairman of Lloyds Bank, in his evidence before the same committee, said: "Of course, the whole question of amalgamation affords a certain amount of ironical amusement to bankers, because as the wheel comes round what used to be considered a danger, a step in the direction of monopolies, and so on, is, in other industries, now held out very much as one of the means of salvation." Crushed financially by the Bank of England's deflation policy, British industry in sheer desperation was ready to accept any solution. We see exactly the same technique in this country where the local agents of the Bank of England are pursuing the same policy. The result is the centralisation of industry into monopolies and the rapid growth of innumerable bureaucratic boards to control the primary producers. Sir Ernest Harvey, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, admitted in his evidence that about October, 1929 - about the beginning of the world depression - the Bank of England had set up a Securities Management Trust to buy up control of industrial concerns. As we have seen, the policy of credit contraction was initiated by the Wall Street group through their control of the Bank of England. Mr. Louis T. McFadden, ex-President of the Pennsylvania Bankers' Association, and for twelve years Chairman of the U.S.A. House of Representatives' Banking and Currency Committee, speaking in the U.S.A. Congress on December 15, 1931, said, in referring to the slump: "It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence - the International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they could emerge as rulers of us all." Mr. E. L. Payton, in giving evidence before
the Macmillan Commission on behalf of the National Union of Manufacturers
on February 27, 1930, dealt with the increasing difficulty of small
firms to obtain capital. Further evidence of the elimination of small
traders was given by Sir William Perring, President of the National
Chamber of Trade, an organisation representing some 360 local Chambers
of Trade. He said: "In each provincial town which you go into today,
if you walk up the main street you will see five businesses out of
six are multiple shops or chain shops. That is the position in the
main street. They have been secured at fabulous rents and premiums.
The banks handle the money of these multiple shops. The small man
is being squeezed out, and I think ultimately it will be to the detriment
of our people as a nation." A FURTHER MOVE In February, 1931, Mr. Norman told the Committee
that his first company - Securities Management Trust - had been developed
into a much larger concern - the Bankers' Industrial Development Company.
Its capital was provided by the Bank of England and the big acceptance
houses. Some nasty allegations were made that the amalgamations of
British industries were being affected by "foreign money." This fine group of "British" financiers set out to get control of British industries. That they were finding the average Britisher
rather hard to deal with was evidenced by Sir Guy Granet's admission
that tact was needed. He told the Macmillan Commission that "It would
be a dreadful thing if industry thought that here was a body of bankers
who were going to tell industry how they ought to be organised: that
would at once get their bristles up." The arrogant attitude of the bankers towards
industry can be gathered by the following statement by Sir Ernest
Harvey: MONTAGU NORMAN "SACKS" A STEEL-"KING" That Mr. Norman wields despotic powers and over-rides anyone who gets in the way of his policy was clearly demonstrated when he removed Sir William Firth, chairman of Richard Thomas and Co.; the £20,000,000 steel and tinplate combine. Sir William Firth started his career as a 10/- a week office boy. It was entirely due to his initiative and drive that the Richard Thomas steel combine was re |
