Excerpt from 'The Day the Dollar Dies', Willard Cantelon, on the Federal Reserve and international bankers: ** Begin excerpt ** The Invisible Government On March 22, 1922, John F. Hylan, mayor of New York City, made the following statement: The real menace of our republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state, and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, generally referred to as "international bankers." To what extent did international bankers exercise ownership or control over America's Federal Reserve System? The public in general assumed that the stock in the Federal Reserve System was owned by America's private banks, but apparently this was not voting stock. For years I observed those who were genuinely concerned over this very grave question. The men concerned were often the most astute business men and lawmakers of our land, some as prominent as Wright Patman, Chairman of Banking and Currency. In 1941 Congressman Patman wrote concerning this question to Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman of the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve Bank. On April 18th of that same year Congressman Patman received a reply from Eccles which read, This so-called stock ownership, however, is more in the nature of enforced subscription to the capital of the Federal Reserve Bank than an ownership in the usual sense. More than a quarter of a century later, Mr. Patman was still trying to get an answer, from the chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, then William McChesney Martin: The stock, or that word "stock" is a misnomer, is not? Mr. Martin's answer: If you were talking about stock in terms of proprietorship ownership - yes. Mr. Patman continued, Then the word "stock" is a misnomer. It is not correct at all. lt is just an involuntary assessment that has been made on the banks as long as they are members. Therefore, the statement that the banks own the Federal Reserve System is not a correct statement, is it? Mr. Martin: The banks do not own the Federal Reserve System. As I pondered the words of Wright Patman and the statments of many other prominent lawmakers on Capitol Hill through the years, it seemed that a great number of prominent senators and congressmen had expressed their concern that the financial power of America was held not in the hands of its local bankers or its lawmakers, but rather in the hands of a few international bankers who exercise their control over not only America but also western Europe. Is there, in truth, a small group of international bankers controlling the world's financial destiny, even as Mayor Hylan of New York declared? Paul Warburg Who was responsible for the formation of the Federal Reserve? None other than the scion of Hamburg's famed banking House of Warburg-Paul Warburg. Regarding Mr. Warburg, Professor E. R. A. Seligman, himself of the international banking family and head of the Department of Economics at Columbia University, said, The Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man. The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of Banking and Currency Committee, seemed to reach the same conclusion. On March 4, 1933, he said to Congress, We know from assertions made here by the Honorable John Garner, Vice-President of United States, Paul Warburg did come here from Hamburg, Germany, for one purpose-to take over the treasury of United States as the international bankers have done with the treasuries of Europe. Regarding the so-called group of international bankers, Mr. McFadden said further on June 10, 1932, It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. Paul Warburg had a son named James P. Warburg. On February 17, 1950, he stood before the U.S. Senate and declared, We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent. The House of Rothschild Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany, studied originally to be a rabbi. Later, however, he turned his interests to finance and, with his five sons, established the famous banking house in Frankfurt. Four of the sons were later sent to Vienna, London, Paris, and Naples to set up branches of their family bank. This combine soon became the most powerful banking establishment of Europe. Amschel Rothschild the eldest son, remained with his father in Frankfurt and became the treasurer of the German Confederation. Salomon, the second son, founder of the Vienna branch became a leading personality in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nathan, the third son, founder of the London branch became the most powerful man in English finance. Carl, the fourth son, founder of the Naples branch, became one of the most powerful men in Italy. James (Jacob), the fifth son, founder of the Paris branch, soon dominated the financial destiny of France. By 1850, the House of Rothschild represented more wealth than all the royal families of Europe and Britain combined. International Bankers The House of Warburg, the House of Rothschild, the few other powerful banking houses became known as "the international bankers." They are described best by Dr. Carroll Quigley who taught at Princeton and Harvard. He did research in the archives of France, Italy, and England and authored several widely read books. When Dr. Quigley decided to write 'Tragedy and Hope' (Macmillan, 1966), he knew he would be exposing one of the best-kept secrets in the world. Regarding the international bankers, Dr. Quigley states, They remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: (1) they were cosmopolitan and international; (2) they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts; (3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods; (4) they were, acccordingly, fanatical devotees of inflation; (5) they were aImost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life. These bankers came to be called the international bankers. In quoting Dr. Quigley, W. Cleon Skousen comments on page 4 of his book entitIed 'The Naked Capitalist', Dr. Quigley makes it clear throughout his book that, by and large, he warmIy supports the goaIs and the purposes of the network. If that be the case, why should he want to expose a worId-wide conspiracy and disclose many of its most secret operations? Obviously disclosing the existence of a mammoth power network which is trying to take over the world couId not help but arouse the vigorous resistance of the people who are its intended victims, so why did Dr. Quigley write this book? Quigley's answer appears in a number of places, but it is especially forcefuI and clear on pages 979-980. He says, in effect, that now it is too late for the little people to turn back the tide. In a spirit of kindness, he is therefore urging them not to fight a power that is already established. All through his book, Dr. Quigley assures us that we can trust these benevolent well-meaning men who are secretly operating behind the scenes. They, he declares, are the hope of the world. All who resist them represent tragedy hence the title of his book. Dr. Quigley states, I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted for two years in the early 1960's to examine its papers and its seeret records. I have no aversion to it, nor to most of its aims, and have for much of my life been close to it, and to many of its instruments. According to W. Cleon Skousen, Dr. Quigley expresses the utmost contempt for members of the American middle class, who think they can preserve what he calls their "petty bourgeois" property rights and constitutional privileges. After pondering these writings, I asked myself how far back one could trace this organized plan for control of world finance. On July 4, 1856, Benjamin Disraeli declared before the British House of Commons, The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. Some of the strongest words that came to my attention were those of Curtis B. Dall, written in Philadelphia Pennsylvania, on April 1968, as an introduction to H. S. Kenan's book on the Federal Reserve Bank. In reference to the international bankers, Mr. Dall writes, They are driving toward complete control of the world's long-range monetary policy and principal world markets for their own profit. They foment foreign wars to aid this objective. It did not take a brilliant mathematician long to prove with simple arithmetic that war debts allowed to continue would soon burden the people of the world with such indebtedness that it would take most of the earning power of the masses simply to pay the compounding interest. Was it possible, I asked myself repeatedly, that men could so crave power that they would be willing to sacrifice millions of lives to the god of war in order to achieve their goals? If it were true, were they so deluded or deceived that they justified the mass slaughter of the innocent as a so called stepping-stone to a better world they were seeking to build? Regardless of the questions, or their answers, there was one certain fact: the world was swiftly moving toward centralized government and universal control. The General Assembly of the United Nations frequently echoed with accusations and dissension. But there was one power that seemed even stronger than man's endless legislation. It was the power of money. Whoever controlled it, controlled man's destiny. The path toward world control seemed to be indeed a divided highway. On one side, there were the shadowy personalities representing the high priests of finance, who visualized the wealth of the world in few hands-their hands. On the other side of the road, there were a number of men, honest and sincere, who pointed out that the total commitment to a world government was man's only hope of escaping a nuclear holocaust. Or famine from exploding population, or poison from pollution.