Did London Banksters Really Threaten America in 1865?

A famous editorial allegedly printed in The Times of London in 1865 stated that British financiers were devoted to destroying the American republic in order to preserve the power of banksters and monarchs. We find no evidence for such an editoral.

We reprint the quote in question, admittedly quite incendiary:

“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

This excerpt is frequently presented as the smoking gun to prove that international banksters have a long standing plan to gain control of the world. It is most likely that some of them have worked on such plans – plans to which chief bankster David Rockefeller acknowledges in his autobiography wherein he proudly admits to wishing to dismantle American sovereignty. Yet no one labels him a terrorist.

 

The editorial was presumably written in response to President Abraham Lincoln’s decision to bypass private bankers to finance the Civil War in favor of Treasury issued Greenbacks. This snub – predicated on strenuous objection to usury - supposedly infuriated the banksters who lost a golden opportunity for which they eventually thanked Lincoln with his assassination at Ford’s Theater in April 1865.

 

The aforementioned editorial is adduced to provide direct linkage to bankster ire, the Civil War, and Lincoln’s demise.

 

Because of the exotic nature of the quote and its implications, we wished to track down its provenance which we thought would be relatively straight forward, especially since it has been widely reproduced all over the world wide web. In each citation we consulted, we noted that no specific information was provided to document its source.

 

This lack of proper attribution alerted our suspicions which were confirmed in a WikeQuote.org discussion over this passage. One researcher noted that the earliest instance of it was September 2, 1898 in The Flaming Sword, Vol. XII. It subsequently appeared in ads for the Cincinnati Enquirer in 1898-99.

 

Although we suspect that others used the quote over the decades, one of the greater examples of its usage appeared in Gods of Money by F. William Engdahl published in 2011. The internet is rife with reproductions of the editorial extract – again, all without proper attribution.

 

The final nail in the coffin came from a researcher who stated that his search of the The Digital Times for the editorial yielded no results. To us, that is the final word on the subject. The editorial was the contrivance of a publicity seeking newspaper ad man.

 

While we agree that modern banking is sinister and inimical to freedom, we also deplore shoddy research and the use of myths and lies to advance a cause. Only the truth shall set you free. Hit it, James Brown.

Reference
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Money

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Who Was Sidney Warburg?

There are a number of famous Warburgs who are associated with the epynomous Euro American banking dynasty but the name Sidney isn’t exactly among them – at least not in a nonfictional sense. As best as we are able to determine, Sidney is a pen name for a Warburg or a close associate who possessed an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Wall Street financial elite who directly financed Hitler's rise to power and his war machine.

Sidney has become famous due to the research of Antony Sutton who produced a number of volumes on western relations with totalitarian governments of Europe. Dr Sutton discovered an obscure tome published in 1933 by Van Holkema & Warendorf, entitled De Geldbronnen van Het Nationaal-Socialisme (Drie Gesprekken Met Hitler). The New York Times oddly enough reported publication of this obscure book of which only three known copies were known to survive its banning.

The book describes the efforts of western financiers, led by John Rockefeller, Jr. to finance German dictator Adolph Hitler’s rise to power in order to overcome the French grip on Germany. The French vice was preventing the other Western powers from recovering their war reparations.

The book was originally published in Dutch from which an English translation was made. The British authorities under the auspices of the British Museum have sequestered this book by withdrawing it from circulation or access.

One copy made its way to Switzerland where it was translated into German from which Dr Sutton made an English translation.

It should be noted that other renditions of this book exist but they are not based upon the original 1933 edition. One version is Sonderegger's Spanischer Sommer published in 1947, and the other is Werner Zimmerman's Liebet Eure Feinde. These interpreted versions include numerous expansions attributing a substantial amount of anti-Semitism to the bankers - a characteristic entirely absent in the 1933 edition.

After just a few days on the market, the publisher recalled the book because Sidney Warburg did not exist. From here the laughs grow louder. I am not sure how the complainant was able to prove that a person did not exist. And surely the publisher met with someone who authored or represented the author of the book. Books do not write themselves – even in the evolutionists’ most zany fantasy. In any event, a pen name is a very common authorial device of which I am absolutely certain the publishers were cognizant. Thus the claim of the author’s non-existence is totally absurd.

James Paul Warburg signed an affidavit in Nazi Franz von Papen’s Memoirs published in 1953 denying the authenticity or existence of the book and Sidney Warburg. Oddly enough Warburg claims to have never seen or read the book yet he disavows its authenticity! On the other hand, his affidavit was directed to the Sonderegger book which as we noted is not a version of the original 1933 book.

Finally, as Sutton asks, why would an alleged anti-Nazi such as James Warburg, whose family was persecuted by the Nazis, use a Nazi’s publication to denounce anti-Semitism? His denial is a non-denial of the substance of the 1933 book.

I. G. Shoup, the translator of the original Dutch book, said that he took notes from a Warburg living in England to translate into the published version.

Sutton notes that the author of the book possessed detailed knowledge which the average man on the street would not know. For example, "von Heydt" was the original name for the Dutch Bank voor Handel en Seheepvaart N.V. – a fact which most random forgers would not have. He also notes that Guaranty Trust is not a household name even in its native New York. Thus there is strong plausible reason to connect authorship with a well connected banker – which role a Warburg would nicely fill.

Our take is that the book is authentic and written by some Warburg or very close associate who was trying to draw attention to the growing power and aims of Hitler. The solid documentation we have connecting the Warburgs of I. G. Farben who gave money directly to Hitler give very sound credibility to the authenticity of the Sidney Warburg work.

Finally, the determined efforts by authorities today to suppress the book speaks volumes about the sensitive nature of it. The banksters stand guilty of the murder and deaths of at least 60 million people.

Unfortunately, when the banksters discovered the leak, they went full bore at destroying it because they dared not reveal the power the behind the Nazi throne.

Reference

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony Sutton

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Days of Wine and Putsches

A little regarded footnote to American history concerning a fascist plot in the mid 1930s to takeover the American government has caused certain conspiracy historians to regard the affair as another example of the peril which the country faced and faces with respect to the plutocrats who rule this nation. Alas, after careful examination of this case, a more sophisticated explanation is required to understand the episode of Smedley Butler and his recruitment to this plot.

In July 1935, Gerald MacGuire approached Smedley Butler (1882 – 1940), the illustrious and retired Major General of the United States Marine Corp, to present a speech endorsing a return to the gold standard at an upcoming American Legion meeting. Butler, who was no friend of financial types, questioned the relevance of such a pitch to his overriding concern about the Bonus Marchers. MacGuire told him that such a reinstitution was required as a precondition for the bonus payments to World War I veterans arguing that paying them in fiat dollars was unfair.

Butler was quite indignant with the offer but smelling a fishy story, he humored MacGuire and his associate, Bill Doyle of the Massachusetts American Legion, in order to find out more about their intentions and backers. Through a series of subsequent meetings with MacGuire and Robert S. Carter, an heir to the Singer Sewing Machine fortune, Butler found out that the real reason for their interest in his services was to lead a soldier’s movement which would replace Roosevelt.

These men, with millions of dollars at their disposal, would create a grass roots solider movement, modeled on the French Croix de Feu, organizing 500,000 veterans to march on Washington to relieve President Roosevelt of his executive duties due to declining health. In his place Butler would assume the newly created position of Secretary of General Affairs while Roosevelt functioned as ceremonial president.

MacGuire pursued Butler doggedly over the next 5 months with various blandishments appealing to his ego, pocket book, patriotism, or another vulnerability he could exploit. After accumulating as much information as he could – including fulfilled predictions made by MacGuire which validated his bonafides in part, Butler took his story to an old newspaper friend Tom O’Neil at the Philadelphia Record who assigned reporter Paul Comly French to investigate the story independently for corroboration before approaching authorities.

When French completed his task, Butler approached Congress where he met with Representative Thomas McCormack, future Speaker of the House, and Representative Samuel Dickstein who opened an executive session committee to investigate the allegations from Butler.

They first took Butler’s testimony followed by MacGuire’s who in turn categorically denied or forgot every material point which Butler made. The committee then subpoenaed bank records from MacGuire which substantiated those parts of Butler’s testimony involving money. The committee was also able to document MacGuire’s trip to Europe from where he sent reports about European fascist groups to his backers. In short, Butler’s testimony was confirmed in key respects while MacGuire was caught in numerous perjuries.

Since the Congress was winding down its term, the committee hastily concluded its business after calling Mr Carter to testify in early January 1935. It soon issued a report and told the public that it would seek funding to continue further investigation in the new Congress – funding which was not forthcoming.

A circus ensued in the press with Time magazine mercilessly ridiculing Butler – a fate which he had anticipated before going forward with his information. When the New York Times reported the findings of the committee a chorus of denials was issued by all of the accused players which included some powerful men of Wall Street such as the du Pont and Morgan people. The howling of scorn and laughter was deafening.

One contemporary investigator discovered that transcripts of the proceedings had been excised, from which many of the conspiracy and cover-up allegations stem. The story had enough tantalizing murkiness to lead the History Channel to investigate the entire affair in a documentary segment but they pooh-poohed it as a hoax or misunderstanding on Butler’s and (amateur) historians’ parts.

The McCormack-Dickstein committee produced a vague report confirming the broad veracity of Butler’s allegations but essentially swept them under the rug. Why would such explosive allegations with credible support be given such short shrift?

In the first place, no credible threat could be substantiated from the testimony. Yes, Butler had been recruited to lead a plot; but no, there was no palpable manifestation of a plot. Therefore there was little for the committee to act upon. Its findings were sent to the Attorney General who promptly filed them away for historical reference.

So was there a plot to overthrow the government? And did powerful forces squash the investigation over the earnest attempts of Congress to combat the plutocrats? In both cases the answer is no. But that is not the end of the story.

Even during his last days in the Marine Corp, Butler had begun to make outspoken criticisms of war and the powerful industrialists who fomented it for their financial gain. He had seen firsthand the power these men wielded and the costs in life and limbs which the poor soldiers had to make – not for protecting their country but for protecting the financial interests of the plutocrats.

After retiring from the Marines, Butler’s attacks became more vociferous and relentless. He was in great demand as a speaker and used his time before his audiences to expose the true state of affairs.

A powerful bankster is willing to endure only so much criticism before he takes actions to squelch his opponents. The recruitment of Butler to take part in a plot to overthrow Roosevelt was a grand intelligence operation to silence Butler through ridicule. If the plutocrats could bribe Butler to take charge of a putsch, they could dispose of him as a traitor. If he took his story to the authorities, they could deny it and ridicule him for it, thus discrediting him. Either way they would be rid of a nuisance who was exposing their criminal and psychopathic greed.

As it turns out, the Congressional committee handled it in such a way that MacGuire and his backers lost credibility but suffered no meaningful consequences. Butler was given a face saving way out of the quandary. Whether McCormack-Dickstein understood the implications of the banksters’ operation is unclear but the net effect was a preservation of Butler’s integrity even if he was royally roasted in the press to which his constituents paid no heed and he remained in demand as a speaker.

The referenced book - though not a scholarly treatment of the Butler affair, it is very informative, especially the parts disclosing how the Marines were used to accomplish the goals of the banksters in very corrupt interventions in Latin America affairs. It is a very quick and worthwhile read.

References

The Plot To Seize the White House, Jules Archer

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.