top of page

Total control

Updated: Oct 26, 2023

This blog is a part of The Matrix Series. See the overview here:

Banksters paradise part 5/7

Read part 1 here.

If “only power that is hidden is power that endures” let the sun shine and illuminate everything.

The Money Power Seeks to Create a World System of Financial Control in Private Hands Able to Dominate Every Nation on Earth

In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another

far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private

hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world

as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of

the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings

and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements

in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks

which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like

Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal

Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the

Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to

manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country,

and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business


International Bankers Seek and Make Agreements on All the Major Financial Problems of the World

In each country the power of the central bank rested largely on its control of credit and

money supply. In the world as a whole the power of the central bankers rested very

largely on their control of loans and of gold flows. In the ... system, these central bankers

were able to mobilize resources to assist each other through the B.I.S., where payments

between central banks could be made by bookkeeping adjustments between the accounts

which the central banks of the world kept there. The B.I.S. as a private institution was

owned by the seven chief central banks and was operated by the heads of these, who

together formed its governing board. Each of these kept a substantial deposit at the B.I.S.,

and periodically settled payments among themselves (and thus between the major

countries of the world) by bookkeeping in order to avoid shipments of gold. They made

agreements on all the major financial problems of the world, as well as on many of the

economic and political problems, especially in reference to loans, payments, and the

economic future of the chief areas of the globe.

The Bank for International Settlements Becomes the Mechanism for Allowing the Three Financial Centers of the World to Act As One

The B.I.S. is generally regarded as the apex of the structure of financial capitalism

whose remote origins go back to the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 and the

Bank of France in 1803. As a matter of fact its establishment in 1929 was rather an

indication that the centralized world financial system of 1914 was in decline. It was set

up rather to remedy the decline of London as the world's financial center by providing a

mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York,

and Paris could still operate as one. The B.I.S. was a ... effort to cope with the problems

arising from the growth of a number of centers. It was intended to be the world cartel of

ever-growing national financial powers by assembling the nominal heads of these

national financial centers.

Montagu Norman Was the Commander-in-Chief of the World System of Banking Control

The commander in chief of the world system of banking control was Montagu

Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who was built up by the private bankers to a

position where he was regarded as an oracle in all matters of government and business. 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."

The Currency Dictator of Europe

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

stockholders: "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." On September 26, 1921, The

Financial Times wrote, "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."

Vincent Vickers, who had been a director of the bank for nine years, said, "Since 1919

the monetary policy of the Government has been the policy of the Bank of England and

the policy of the Bank of England has been the policy of Mr. Montagu Norman." On

November Il, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman "the currency dictator of

Europe." This fact was admitted by Mr. Norman himself before the court of the bank on

March 21, 1930, and before the Macmillan Committee five days later.

Montagu Norman's position may be gathered from the fact that his predecessors in the

governorship, almost a hundred of them, had served two-year terms, increased rarely, in

time of crisis, to three or even four years. But Norman held the position for twenty-four

years (1920-1944), during which he became the chief architect of the liquidation of

Britain's global preeminence.

Norman Viewed Governments and Democracy As Threats to the Money Power

Norman was a strange man whose mental outlook was one of successfully suppressed

hysteria or even paranoia. He had no use for governments and feared democracy. Both of

these seemed to him to be threats to private banking, and thus to all that was proper and

precious in human life. Strong-willed, tireless, and ruthless, he viewed his life as a kind

of cloak-and-dagger struggle with the forces of ... [sound] money .... When he rebuilt the

Bank of England, he constructed it as a fortress prepared to defend itself against any

popular revolt, with the sacred gold reserves hidden in deep vaults below the level of

underground waters which could be released to cover them by pressing a button on the

governor's desk. For much of his life Norman rushed about the world by fast steamship,

covering tens of thousands of miles each year, often traveling incognito, concealed by a

black slouch hat and a long black cloak, under the assumed name of "Professor Skinner."

His embarkations and debarkations onto and off the fastest ocean liners of the day,

sometimes through the freight hatch, were about as unobserved as the somewhat similar

passages of Greta Garbo in the same years, and were carried out in a similarly "sincere"

effort at self-effacement.

Montagu Norman's Devoted Colleague in New York City

Norman had a devoted colleague in Benjamin Strong, the first governor of the Federal

Reserve Bank of New York. Strong owed his career to the favor of the Morgan Bank,

especially of Henry P. Davison, who made him secretary of the Bankers Trust Company

of New York (in succession to Thomas W. Lamont) in 1904, used him as Morgan's agent

in the banking rearrangements following the crash of 1907, and made him vice-president

of the Bankers Trust (still in succession to Lamont) in 1909. He became governor of the

Federal Reserve Bank of New York as the joint nominee of Morgan and of Kuhn, Loeb,

and Company in 1914. Two years later, Strong met Norman for the first time, and they at

once made an agreement to work in cooperation for the financial practices they both


These financial practices were explicitly stated many times in the voluminous

correspondence between these two men and in many conversations they had, both in their

work and at their leisure (they often spent their vacations together for weeks, usually in

the south of France).

Norman and Strong Seek to Operate Central Banks Free from Any Political Control

In the 1920's, they were determined to use the financial power of Britain and of the

United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and

to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of

international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without

interference from governments.

Norman and Strong Were Mere Agents of the Powerful Bankers Who Remained Behind the Scenes and Operated in Secret

It must not be felt that these 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 dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised

them up and 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 "merchant" 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. This dominance of investment bankers was based

on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and

throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their

own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the

discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate

governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the

international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence

and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful

financial coupe, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning

opportunities with their associates. In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent

during much of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were being

replaced by J. P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it was always

operated as if it were in London (where it had, indeed, originated as George Peabody and

Company in 1838). Old J. P. Morgan died in 1913, but was succeeded by his son of the

same name (who had been trained in the London branch until 1901), while the chief

decisions in the firm were increasingly made by Thomas W. Lamont after 1924.

The Money Power Creates an Ingenious Plan to Create and Control Giant Monopolies

The efforts of financiers to separate ownership from control were aided by the great

capital demands of modern industry. Such demands for capital made necessary the

corporation form of business organization. This inevitably brings together the capital

owned by a large number of persons to create an enterprise controlled by a small number

of persons. The financiers did all they could to make the former number as large as

possible and the latter number as small as possible. The former was achieved by stock

splitting, issuing securities of low par value, and by high-pressure security salesmanship.

The latter was achieved by plural-voting stock, nonvoting stock, pyramiding of holding

companies, election of directors by cooptation, and similar techniques. The result of this

was that larger and larger aggregates of wealth fell into the control of smaller and smaller

groups of men.

- Carroll Quigley “Tragedy and Hope: A history of the world in our time” 1966, chapter 20.

Comments and thoughts

It should be pretty obvious by now that what is for the average joe a conspiracy theory, namely that world affairs are controlled or at least heavily directed by a tiny percentage, is in fact reality. In the last part we shall draw a line from Quigleys old book to more recent times and “A New International Economic Order”.. a technocracy.

46 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page