NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
                     by Gary Allen, 1971
                    _____________________
           Originally published by Concord Press
                        P.O. BOX 2686
                 Seal Beach, Calif. 90740
                                       ...




                               ........
                This act (the Federal Reserve Act)
            establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth...
                When the President signs this act,
         the invisible government by the money power,
      proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation,
                       will be legalized...
               The new law will create inflation
            whenever the trusts want inflation..."
                    Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.
                                         December, 1913



                  "IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY
              WE HAVE IN EFFECT TWO GOVERNMENTS...
           We have the duly constituted government...
                   Then we have an independent,
             uncontrolled and uncoordinated government
                  in the Federal Reserve System,
                    operating the money powers
            reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
                             -  Congressman Wright Patman,
          (former) Chairman of the House Banking Committee

                                    ........
        "Those that create and issue the money and credit
                direct the policies of government
                     and hold in their hands
                   the destiny of the people."
                                       Reginald McKenna,
     (former) president of the Midlands Bank of England.
                                 .......
                                   ...


                             Chapter
                                 3

                      The Money Manipulators

  Many  college  history professors tell their  charges  that  the
books  they will be using in the class are "objective".  But  stop
and ask yourself: Is it possible to write a history book without a
particular point of view?  There are billions of events that  take
place  in  the  world each day.  To think of  writing  a  complete
history  of  a  nation  covering even a year  is  to  entertain  a
fantastic conceit.
  Not  only  is  a historian's ability  to  write  an  "objective"
history limited by the sheer volume of happenings but by the  fact
that  many  of the most important happenings never appear  in  the
papers or even in somebody's memoirs. The decisions reached by the
"big boys" in the smoke-filled rooms are not reported in even  the
New York Times,  which ostensibly reports all the news that's  fit
to  print.   ("All  the  news  that  fits"  is  a  more   accurate
desription.)
  In order to build his case,  a historian must select a miniscule
number of facts from the limited number that are known. If he does
not  have a "theory",  how does he separate important  facts  from
unimportant ones?  As Professor Stuart Crane has pointed out, this
is  why every book "proves" its author's theory.  But no  book  is
objective.  No  book can be objective and this book (NDCC) is  not
objective.  The  information in it is true,  but the book  is  not
objective.  We  have  carefully selected the facts  to  prove  our
case...
  Most  of the facts that we bring out are readily  verifiable  at
any  large library.  But our contention is that we  have  arranged
these facts in the order that most accurately reflects their  true
significance in history.  These are the facts as the Establishment
does not want you to know them.
  Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie
two-thirds  of the way through?  Confusing,  was'nt  it?  All  the
evidence made it look as though the butler were the murderer,  but
in the final scenes you find out that,  surprisingly,  it was  the
man's  wife all along.  You have to stay and see the beginning  of
the film. Then, as all the pieces fall into place, the story makes
sense.
  This  situation  is similar to one millions  of  Americans  find
themselves  in today.  They are confused by current happenings  in
the nation.  They have come in as the movie, so to speak, is going
into its conclusion.  The earlier portion of the mystery is needed
to  make the whole thing understandable.  (Actually,  we  are  not
really starting at the beginning, but we are going back far enough
to give meaning to today's happenings.)
  In   order   to  understand  the  conspiracy   (to   usurp   the
constitutional  right of governments to coin money so as to  force
these  governments to borrow money with usury [interest]),  it  is
neccesary  to  have  some rudimentary knowledge  of  banking  and,
particularly, of international bankers. While it would be an over-
simplification   to   ascribe  the  entire   conspiracy   to   the
international bankers, they nevertheless have played the key role.
Think of the (world) conspiracy as a hand with one finger  labeled
"international  banking",  others labelled  "charity  foundations"
(i.e.  Ford,  Carnegie, Rockefeller Foundations, etc.), the "anti-
religion movement",  "Fabian Socialism",  and "Communism".  But it
was the International Bankers of whom Professor Carroll Quigly (of
the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University) was  speaking
when  we quoted him earlier (in this book) as stating  that  THEIR
AIM  IS  NOTHING LESS THAN CONTROL OF THE WORLD  THROUGH  FINANCE.
(Professor Quigly does not see anything harmful in  this(!),  only
objects  to the secrecy with which these aims are  cloaked.  Hence
his book, a 1300 hundred page, 8 pound tome, Tragedy and Hope.)
  Where do governments get the enormous amount of money they need?
Most  of course comes from taxation;  but governments often  spend
more  than they are willing to tax from their citizens and so  are
forced  to  borrow.  Our national (U.S.) debt is  now  (1974)  455
billion  dollars  -  every cent of it borrowed  at  interest  from
somewhere.
  The  public is led to believe that our government  borrows  from
"the  people" through savings bonds.  Actually,  however,  only  a
small  percentage of the national debt is held by  individuals  in
this  form.  Most  government  bonds,  except those  held  by  the
government  itself  through  its trust funds,  are  held  by  vast
banking firms known as international banks .
  For   centuries  there  has  been  big  money  to  be  made   by
international  bankers in the financing of governments and  kings.
Such operators,  however,  are faced with certain thorny problems.
We  know  that smaller banking operations  protect  themselves  by
taking collateral,  but what kind of collateral can you get from a
government or a king?. What if the banker comes to collect and the
king  says,  "Off  with his head!" The process through  which  one
collects  a debt from a government or a monarch is not  a  subject
taught in the  business schools of our universities,  and most  of
us - having never been in the business of lending money to kings -
have  not  given the problem much thought.  But there is  a  king-
financing business,  and to those who can ensure collection it  is
lucrative indeed.
  Economics professor Stuart Crane notes that there are two  means
used to collateralize loans to governments and kings.  Whenever  a
business  firm borrows big money its creditor obtains a  voice  in
management  to  protect  his  investment.   Like  a  business,  no
government can borrow big money unless willing to surrender to the
creditor  some measure of sovereignty  as  collateral.  Certainly,
international  bankers  who have loaned hundreds  of  billions  of
dollars  to  governments  around the  world  command  considerable
influence in the policies of such goverments.
  But  the  ultimate  advantage that the  creditor  has  over  the
government  or ruler is the threat that if the borrower steps  out
of  line  the banker can finance an enemy or rival  and  can  even
create an enemy by such means.  Therefore,  if you want to stay in
the  king-financing  business,  it is wise to have an enemy  or  a
rival waiting in the wings to unseat every ruler to whom you lend.
If the king does'nt have an enemy, you must create one.
  Pre-eminent  in  playing  this  game was  the  famous  House  of
Rothschild  (German for Redshield,  a name adopted by this  family
for  the  red  shield over the front door  of  their  house).  Its
founder,   Meyer  Amschel  Rothschild  (1743-1812)  of  Frankfurt,
Germany,  kept  one of his five sons at home to run the  Frankfurt
bank, and sent the others to Paris, London, Vienna and Naples. The
Rothschilds  became  incredibly  wealthy  during  the   nineteenth
century  by  financing  governments  to  war  with  one   another.
According to Professor Stuart Crane:

       "If  you will look back at every war in Europe  during
     the  Nineteenth Century,  you will see that they  always
     ended  with the establishment of a 'balance  of  power'.
     With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power  in
     a  new  grouping  around  the  House  of  Rothschild  in
     England,  France or Austria.  They grouped  nations,  so
     that  if any king stepped out of line a war would  break
     out  and  the  war would be decided  by  which  way  the
     financing  went.  Researching the debt positions of  the
     warring  nations  will usually indicate who  was  to  be
     punished."

  In  describing the characteristics of the Rothschilds and  other
major international bankers,  Professor Quigly tells us that  they
remained  different from ordinary bankers in  several  ways:  they
were   cosmopolitan  and  international;   they  were   close   to
governments and were particularly concerned with government  debt,
including  foreign  government debts;  these bankers  came  to  be
called "international bankers". (Quigly,Tragedy and Hope, p.52)
  A  major reason for the historical blackout on the role  of  the
international bankers in political history is that the Rothschilds
were  Jewish.  ANTI-SEMITES  HAVE  PLAYED INTO THE  HANDS  OF  THE
CONSPIRACY,  by  trying  to  portray the conspiracy  as  a  Jewish
conspiracy  to rule the world.  Nothing could be further from  the
truth!  The  traditionally Anglo-Saxon J.P.Morgan and the  Baptist
Rockefeller  international banking institutions have played a  key
role in the conspiracy.  But there is no denying the importance of
the  Rothschilds  and their satellites.  However,  it is  just  as
unreasonable and immoral to blame the Jewish people for the crimes
of  the Rothschilds as it is to hold Baptists accountable for  the
crimes of the Rockefellers. (Other authorities, however, trace the
Rockefellers' Jewish roots and hold their adoption of the  Baptist
faith and their church-going a sham. -editor.)
  The  Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an  organization
called the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.) as an instrument to try
to convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds or  their
allies  is an attack on the Jewish people.  In this way they  have
stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and
made the subject taboo in the universities.
  Any  individual  or book exploring this subject  is  immediately
attacked  by hundreds of A.D.L.  committees all over the  country.
The A.D.L.  has never let truth or logic interfere with its highly
professional  smear jobs...  But actually,  nobody has more  of  a
right  than  the  Jewish  people to take  just  vengeance  on  the
Rothschilds and their clique.  The Jewish Warburgs (bankers), part
of the Rothschild empire, helped finance Adolph Hitler. There were
few,  if  any,  Rothschilds or Warburgs in the Nazi  concentration
camps!  They  sat  out  the war in luxurious hotels  in  Paris  or
emigrated to the United States or England.  As a group, the Jewish
people have suffered most at the hands of these  power-seekers.  A
Rothschild has much more in common with a Rockefeller than with  a
Jewish tailor from Budapest or the Bronx.
  Since the keystone of the international banking empires has been
government   bonds, IT   HAS  BEEN  IN  THE  INTEREST   OF   THESE
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIERS TO ENCOURAGE GOVERNMENT DEBT.  The higher
the  debt,  the  more the interest on  the  debt.  Nothing  drives
government deeply into debt like a war (in  1935,  before the out-
break of World War Two, total U.S. public debt was $28 billion 708
million,  or $225.55  per capita.  In 1940,  before  the attack on
Pearl  Harbour,  the public debt was $42 billion 968  million,  or
$325.23  per  capita.   But,   by  1945,  with  the  cessation  of
hostilities,  it  was $258 billion 682 million,  or $1,848.60  per
capita! -ed.);  and it has not been an uncommon practice among the
international  bankers  to  finance both sides  of  the  bloodiest
military conflicts! For example, during the American Civil War the
North was financed by the Rothchilds through their American agent,
August  Belmont,  and  the American South through  the  Erlangers,
Rothschild relatives.
  But  while  wars  and  revolutions  have  been  useful  to   the
international  financiers  in gaining or increasing  control  over
governments,  the  key to such control has always been control  of
money. You can control a government if you have it in your debt; a
creditor  is  in a position to demand the privileges  of  monopoly
from  the  sovereign.   Money-seeking  governments  have   granted
monopolies in state banking,  natural resources,  oil concessions,
transportation,  medicine,  and others.  However, the monopoly the
international  financiers  have  most coveted is  control  over  a
nation's money.
  Eventually, these bankers actually owned as private corporations
the  central banks of the various European nations.  The  Bank  of
England,  Bank  of  France and Bank of Germany were not  owned  by
their  respective governments,  as almost everyone  imagines,  but
were  PRIVATELY-OWNED  MONOPOLIES granted by the heads  of  state,
usually in return for loans.  Under this system, observed Reginald
McKenna,  president of the Midlands Bank of England:  "Those  that
create  and  issue  the money and credit direct  the  policies  of
government  and  hold in their hands the destiny of  the  people."
ONCE  THE  GOVERNMENT  IS IN DEBT TO THE BANKERS IT  IS  AT  THEIR
MERCY.  A  frightening example was cited by the  London  Financial
Times   of September 26,  1921,  which revealed that even  at  the
time:  "Half  a dozen men at the top of the Big Five  Banks  could
upset  the whole fabric of government finance by  refraining  from
renewing Treasury Bills."
  All  those  who  have sought  dictatorial  control  over  modern
nations have understood the necessity of a central bank.  When The
League  of Just Men hired a hack revolutionary named Karl Marx  to
write  a blue-print for conquest called The  Communist  Manifesto,
the  fifth plank read:  "Centralization of credit in the hands  of
the State,  by means of a national bank with State capital and  an
exclusive   monopoly."   Lenin  was  later  to  write   that   the
establishment of a central bank was ninety percent of  communizing
a country!  Such conspirators knew that you cannot take control of
a  nation without military force unless that nation has a  central
bank  through  which you can control its  economy.  The  anarchist
Bakunin  sarcastically  remarked of the followers  of  Karl  Marx:
"They  have  one foot in the bank and one foot  in  the  socialist
movement."
  The  international  financiers  set up their own  front  men  in
charge  of  each  of  Europe's  central  banks.  Professor  Quigly
reports:

       It  must  not be felt that the heads  of  the  world's
     chief  central banks were themselves substantive  powers
     in world finance.  They were not.  Rather they were  the
     technicians  and  agents  of  the  dominent   investment
     bankers of their own countries,  who had raised them up,
     and   who were perfectly capable of throwing them  down.
     The  substantive financial powers of the world  were  in
     the  hands  of  these investment  bankers  (also  called
     "international"  or "mercantile" bankers)  who  remained
     largely  behind the scenes in their  own  unincorporated
     private  banks.  These formed a system of  international
     cooperation  and  national  dominance  which  was   more
     private,  more  powerful,  and more secret than that  of
     their agents in the central banks..." (Quigly,  op.cit.,
     pp.326-7)

  Dr.  Quigly  also  reveals that the international  bankers   who
owned  and controlled the Banks of England and  France  maintained
their power even after those Banks were theoretically socialized.
  Naturally, those who controlled the central banks of Europe were
eager  from  the start to fasten a similar  establishment  on  the
United States.  From the earliest days,  the Founding Fathers  had
been  conscious  of  attempts to  control  America  thruogh  money
manipulation,  and  they  carried  on a running  battle  with  the
international bankers. Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams: "...I
sincerely believe,  with you, that banking establishments are more
dangerous than standing armies..."
  But  even  though  America did not have  a  central  bank  after
President  Jackson abolished it in 1836,  the European  financiers
and their American agents managed to gain a great deal of  control
over (the American) money system.  Gustavus Meyers, in his History
of the Great American Fortunes, reveals:

       "Under  the  surface,   the  Rothschilds  long  had  a
     powerful influence in dictating American financial laws.
     The  law records show that they were powers in  the  old
     Bank   of  the  United  States  (abolished   by   Andrew
     Jackson)."

  During  the  nineteenth century the leading  financiers  of  the
metropolitan East often cut one another's financial  throats,  but
as   their   Western  and  rural  victims  started   to   organize
politically, the "robber barons" saw that they had a "community of
interest"  towards  which  they  must  work  together  to  protect
themselves  from  thousands  of irate  farmers  and  up-and-coming
competitors.  This diffusion of economic power was one of the main
factors  stimulating  the demands for a central bank  by  would-be
business and financial monopolists.
  In Years of Plunder Proctor Hansl writes of this era:

       Among  the  Morgans,  Khun-Loebs (bankers)  and  other
     similar  pillars of the industrial order there was  less
     disposition to become involved in disagreements that led
     to financial dislocation.  A community of interest  came
     into being,  with results that were highly beneficial to
     themselves ..."

  But, aside from the major Eastern centers, most American bankers
and their customers distrusted the whole concept.

  In order to show the hinterlands that they were going to need  a
central banking system, the international bankers CREATED A SERIES
OF  PANICS as a demonstration of their power - a warning  of  what
would happen unless the rest of the bankers got into line. The man
put in charge of conducting these lessons was J.  Pierpont Morgan,
American-born  but  educated in England  and  Germany.  Morgan  is
referred  to  by many,  including Congressman  Louis  McFadden  (a
banker,  who  for ten years headed the House Banking and  Currency
Committee), as the top American agent of the English Rothschilds.
  By the turn of the century,  J.P.Morgan was already an old  hand
at creating artificial panics. Such affairs were well coordinated.
Senator Robert Owen,  a co-author of the Federal Reserve Act  (who
later deeply regretted his role), testified before a Congressional
Committee  that  the  bank he owned  received  from  the  National
Banker's Association what came to be known as the "Panic  Circular
of 1893".  It stated:  "You will at once retire one-third of  your
circulation and call in one half of your loans..."
  Historian  Frederick Lewis Allen tells us in Life   magazine  of
April 25,  1949,  of Morgan's role in spreading rumours about  the
insolvency  of  the Knickerbocker Bank and the  Trust  Company  of
America,  which rumours triggered the 1907 panic. In answer to the
question: "Did Morgan precipitate the panic?" Alan reports:

       "Oakly Thorne,  the president of that particular trust
     company,   testified   later  before   a   congressional
     committee  that  his  bank had been  subjected  to  only
     moderate withdrawals...that he had not applied for  help
     and  that  it was the (Morgan)  'sore  point'  statement
     alone  that had caused the run on his  bank.  From  this
     evidence,  plus  other  fragments  of  other  supposedly
     pertinent evidence, certain chroniclers have come to the
     ingenious  conclusion  that the  Morgan  interests  took
     advantage of the unsettled conditions during the  autumn
     of 1907 to preciitate the panic, guiding it slowly as it
     progressed  so  that it would kill off rival  banks  and
     consolidate  the  pre-eminence of the banks  within  the
     Morgan orbit."


  The 'panic' which Morgan had created, he proceeded to end almost
single-handedly. He had made his point. Frederick Allen explains:

       "The lesson of the Panic of 1907 was clear, though not
     for  some  six years was it destined to be  embodied  in
     legislation:  the  United States badly needed a  central
     banking system."


  The  man who was to play the most significant part  in  foisting
onto  America that central bank was Paul Warburg,  who along  with
his brother Felix had immigrated to the United States from Germany
in  1902.  They left brother Max (later a major bankroller of  the
Russian  (Bolshevik) Revolution) at home in Frankfurt to  run  the
family bank (M.N.Warburg & Co.).
  Paul  Warburg  married Nina Loeb,  daughter of Solomon  Loeb  of
Khun,  Loeb  &  Company,  America's  most  powerful  international
banking  firm.  Brother Felix married Frieda Schiff,  daughter  of
Jacob  Schiff,  the ruling power behind Kuhn,Loeb &  Co..  Stephen
Birmingham  writes  in  his authoritative  Our  Crowd  :  "In  the
eighteenth  century  the Schiffs and Rothschilds shared  a  double
house" in Frankfurt.
  Schiff  reportedly  bought  his partnership  in  Khun,Loeb  with
Rothschild money.
  Both  Paul  and Felix Warburg became partners in  Kuhn,Loeb  and
Company.
  In 1907, the year of the Morgan-precipitated panic, Paul Warburg
began  almost all of his time writing and lecturing on  "the  need
for banking reform". Kuhn, Loeb & Company was sufficiently public-
spirited about the matter to keep him on salary at $500,000 a year
while  for the next six years he donated his time to  'the  public
good'.
  Working  with  Warburg in promoting this  "banking  reform"  was
Nelson Aldridge,  known as "Morgan's floor broker in the  Senate".
Aldridge's  daughter Abbie married John D.  Rockefeller  Jr.  (the
late Nelson Rockefeller,  Richard Nixon's Vice-President and long-
time   Governor  of  New  York,   was  named  for   his   maternal
grandfather).
  After the panic of 1907, Aldridge was appointed by the Senate to
head  the  National  Monetary  Commission.   Although  he  had  no
technical knowledge of banking,  Aldridge and his entourage  spent
nearly two years and $300,000 of the tax-payers' money being wined
and  dined by the owners of Europe's central banks as they  toured
the  Continent  'studying' central banking.  When  the  Commission
returned from its luxuriuos junket it held no meetings and made no
report  for  nearly  two  years.  But  Senator  Aldrich  was  busy
'arranging'   things.   Together  with  Paul  Warburg  and   other
international bankers,  he staged one of the most important secret
meetings  in the history of the United States.  Rockefeller  agent
Frank Vanderlip admiited many years later in his memoirs:

          "Despite  my  views about the value to  society  of
     greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there
     was an occasion,  near the close of 1910,  when I was as
     secretive - indeed,  as furtive,  as any conspirator...I
     do  not  feel  it is any exaggeration to  speak  of  our
     secret  expedition  to  Jekyl Island  (Georgia)  as  the
     occasion  of  the actual conception of  what  eventually
     became the Federal Reserve System."