The Naked Capitalist

by W. Cleon Skousen

  To assure us of his own unique qualification for the writing of this 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 secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”2

  Anyone reading Dr. Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope will have little difficulty detecting the tremendous self-esteem of the author. He considers himself not only an “insider” but a member of the intellectual elite among the insiders. He feels that the forces of total global control are now sufficiently entrenched so that they can reveal their true identity without fear of being successfully overturned. He 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.3

  He also expresses contempt for those who thought the Communist conspiracy was the real center of collectivized conspiracy. He ridicules their conclusions,4 and then turns right around and admits that their conclusions were correct—American anti-Communists had merely erred in knowing whom to blame.5

  Although he is a brilliant compiler, it becomes quite apparent from the start that Dr. Quigley’s book is not intended to be objective. He himself boasts (as we saw in the quotation above) of his inside position with the “network,” and this book is designed to portray modern history the way the network wants it told. However, as we have also noted in the previous quotation, Dr. Quigley admits he is telling more than his comrades-in-arms would care to have disclosed. They want their conspiratorial subversion to be kept a secret. Dr. Quigley thinks it is time people knew who was running things.

  We see no reason to question the basic historicity of the way Dr. Quigley says the world-wide conspiratorial network developed, since these facts can be verified from other sources. We note, however, that his interpretation of modern historical events is often seriously biased by expressions of opinion or uninhibited ridicule. In dealing with recent critical issues, he is often careful to deliberately ignore many important historical facts and fails to quote the factual conclusions brought out by the bi-partisan Congressional investigations.

  The real value of Tragedy And Hope is not so much as a “history of the world in our time” (as its subtitle suggests), but rather as a bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race.

  Of course, we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.

  Chapter Footnotes

  << 1. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 991.

  << 2. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 950, emphasis added.

  << 3. See, for example, Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 1248.

  << 4. See Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 949.

  << 5. See Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, pp. 950-956.

  Chapter Two

  Perhaps We Should Have Anticipated Just Such a Development

  Anyone familiar with the writings of John’s Apocalypse might have suspected that modern history would eventually contain the account of a gigantic complex of political and economic power which would cover the whole earth.

  John predicted that before the great epic of Messianic or Millennial peace, the human race would be subjected to a ruthless, world-wide conglomerate of dictatorial authority which would attempt to make all men subservient to it or be killed (Revelation 13:15). He said it would compel all men, “both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,” to be identified with it (Revelation 13:16).

  John also referred to its economic grip on humanity and said that unless a person were identified with its monopoly network, “no man might buy or sell” (Revelation 13:17).

  Dr. Quigley assures us that this type of global power structure is on the verge of becoming a total reality. He points out that during the past two centuries when the peoples of the world were gradually winning their political freedom from the dynastic monarchies, the major banking families of Europe and America were actually reversing the trend by setting up new dynasties of political control through the formation of international financial combines.

  Dr. Quigley points out that these banking dynasties had learned that all governments must have sources of revenue from which to borrow in times of emergency. They had also learned that by providing such funds from their own private resources, they could make both kings and democratic leaders tremendously subservient to their will. It had proven to be a most effective means of controlling political appointments and deciding political issues.

  We quote Dr. Quigley verbatim as he describes how these banker families evolved into vast, secret pockets of power. I have inserted topical sub-headings to facilitate reading.

  The Banker Families Develop a Vast Network to Control High Finance and the Affairs of Governments

  “In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this ... aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers.”1

  Introducing Some Of the Major Banking Family Dynasties

  “The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild’s five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled....

  “The names of some of these [other] banking families are familiar to all of us and should be more so. They include Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Selingman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan.”2

  Was This a Jewish Conspiracy? (a note by the reviewer)

  It should be noted in passing that while the Rothschilds and certain other Jewish families cooperated together in these ventures, this was by no means a Jewish monopoly as some have alleged. Neither was it a “Jewish conspiracy.” As we shall see, men of finance of many nationalities and many religious or non-religious backgrounds collaborated together to create the super-structure of economic and political power which Dr. Quigley is about to disclose. No student of the global conspiracy should fall for the Hitlerian doctrine that the root of all evil is a super “Jewish conspiracy.” Nor should they fall for that long-since-discredited document, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which Hitler palmed off on the German people as an authentic declaration of policy by an all-Jewish congress. The spurious origin of this document was proven decades ago and serves as an object lesson to those who are inclined to accept an over-simplified explanation for the rise of the global power structure which has snared mankind.

  Some would answer this by saying that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and certain other Jewish organizations have been in
the forefront of the collectivist movement and also in the suppression of American voices seeking to warn the nation. However, this infiltration of the Jewish community is no more applicable to the Jewish people as a whole than the scurrilous left-wing activities of the National and World Councils of Churches is a reflection on all Protestants or the liberal, irreligious Catholic left-wing is a reflection on all Catholics. In studying the global conspiracy it is important to keep in mind that it was not any particular race or religion but the “passion for money and power” which has drawn the tycoons of world finance into a tightly-knit, mutual-aid society. Dr. Quigley identifies this group as the “International Bankers.”

  The International Bankers Are Different From Ordinary Bankers

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

  How the Centers Of Monetary Power Were Kept Secret

  “One of their less obvious characteristics was that they remained as private unincorporated firms, usually partnerships, until relatively recently, offering no shares, no reports, and usually no advertising to the public. This risky status, which deprived them of limited liability, was retained, in most cases, until modern inheritance taxes made it essential to surround such family wealth with the immortality of corporate status for tax avoidance purposes. This persistence as private firms continued because it ensured the maximum of anonymity and secrecy to persons of tremendous public power who dreaded public knowledge of their activities as an evil almost as great as inflation. As a consequence, ordinary people had no way of knowing the wealth or areas of operation of such firms, and often were somewhat hazy as to their membership. Thus, people of considerable political knowledge might not associate the names of Walter Burns, Clinton Dawkins, Edward Grenfell, Willard Straight, Thomas Lamont, Dwight Morrow, Nelson Perkins, Russell Leffingwell, Elihu Root, John W. Davis, John Foster Dulles, and S. Parker Gilbert with the name “Morgan,” yet all these and many others were parts of the system of influence which centered on the J.P. Morgan office at 23 Wall Street. This firm, like others of the international banking fraternity, constantly operated through corporations and governments....”4

  The Campaign to Keep Governments From Controlling Their Own Money Systems

  “The influence of financial capitalism and of the international bankers who created it was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have done neither if it had not been able to persuade both of these to accept two “axioms” of its own ideology. Both of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with control of the money system.... To do this it was necessary to conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and people about the nature of money and its methods of operation.”5

  The Rothschilds—One of the Oldest Banking Dynasties

  The founder of the famous Rothschild dynasty was Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany. Although destined originally to be a rabbi, he became highly successful in a number of commercial pursuits and eventually established his famous banking house in Frankfurt with his five sons. Four of these 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 in Europe.

  Amschel Rothschild (the eldest son) remained in Frankfurt with his

  father. Eventually he became the Treasurer of the German Confederation.

  Salomon, the second son, founder of the Vienna branch.

  He became a leading personality in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

  Nathan, the third son, founder of the London branch.

  He became the most powerful man in England.

  Carl, the fourth son, who founded the Naples branch

  and became one of the most powerful men in Italy.

  James (Jacob), the fifth son, who founded the Paris branch

  and soon dominated the financial destiny of France.

  The Private Bankers Decide to Set Up the Bank Of England As a Means of Creating Credit Out of Nothing

  “Credit has been known to the Italians and Netherlanders long before it became one of the instruments of English world supremacy. Nevertheless, the founding of the Bank of England by William Paterson and his friends in 1694 is one of the great dates in world history. For generations men had sought to avoid the one draw-back of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. Today we call such pieces of paper gold certificates. Such a certificate entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands. It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to be presented for payment; accordingly, the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing, a volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment.... Such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes.

  “In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. The same thing could be done in another way.... Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to a third person were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money (gold, certificates, and notes) no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans, and if these loans were made by creating a deposit [account] for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such ‘created deposits’ or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value. Such created deposits also were a creation of money out of nothing, although bankers usually refused to express their actions, either note issuing or deposit lending, in these terms. William Paterson, however, on obtaining the charter of the Bank of England in 1694, to use the moneys he had won in privateering, said, ‘The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.’”6

  The Bank Of England Becomes the Secret Center Of Political Power

  “In government the power of the Bank of England was a considerable restriction on political action as early as 1819 but an effort to break this power by a modification of the bank’s charter in 1844 failed. In 1852, Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer and later prime minister, declared, ‘The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned.’

  “This power of the Bank of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers. In January, 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915-1916, as chairman of the board of the Midland Bank told its stock-holders: ‘I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money.... And they who control the credit of the nation direct the
policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.’ In that same year, Sir Drummond Fraser, vice-president of the Institute of Bankers, stated, ‘The Governor of the Bank of England must be the autocrat who dictates the terms upon which alone the Government can obtain borrowed money.”7

  Concerning the Dynastic Powers Secretly Entrenched Behind British Financial Life

  “Although this situation is changing slowly, the inner circle of English financial life remains a matter of ‘whom one knows,’ rather than ‘what one knows.’ Jobs are still obtained by family, marriage, or school connections; character is considered far more important than knowledge or skill; and important positions, on this basis, are given to men who have no training, experience, or knowledge to qualify them.

  “As part of this system and at the core of English financial life have been seventeen private firms of ‘merchant bankers’ who find money for established and wealthy enterprises.... These merchant bankers, with a total of less than a hundred active partners, include the firms of Baring Brothers, N.M. Rothschild, J. Henry Shroder, Morgan Grenfell, Hambros, and Lazard Brothers. These merchant bankers in the period of financial capitalism had a dominant position with the Bank of England and, strangely enough still have retained some of this, despite the nationalization of the bank by the Labour government in 1946. As late as 1961 a Baring (Lord Cromer) was named governor of the bank, and his board of directors, called the ‘Court’ of the bank, included representatives of Lazard, of Hambros, and of Morgan Grenfell, as well as an industrial firm (English Electric) controlled by these.”8