The Ultimate Bankster Quote – from a former Governor of the Bank of England (1920 – 1944)

“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

“When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.

“These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance.

“It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”

Montagu Norman, Governor of The Bank Of England, addressing the United States Bankers’ Association, NYC 1924

NB: This quotation was reprinted in the Idaho Leader, USA, on 26th August 1924, and has been read into the Australian Federal Hansard twice: by John Evans MP, in 1926, and by MD Cowan MP, in the session of 1930-31.

Advertisements

32 responses to “The Ultimate Bankster Quote – from a former Governor of the Bank of England (1920 – 1944)

  1. Thanks for the reference to the Idaho Leader and the Australian Federal Hansard; been looking for early sources for this quote.

  2. If anyone can find an Idaho Leader, other than a US Library of Congress reference to a publication of that name between 1918 and 1920, they’re doing better than I am.

    Likewise, try searching the Parliament of Australia Hansard for 1926 or 1930-31.

    Good luck!

  3. To afew:
    I was delighted to see that someone besides myself had tried (and failed) to verify what is so transparently a bogus quote, a crude fabrication that mimics every progressive’s worst suspicions regarding financial leaders. It was obvious to me that such sentiments, even if actually true, would never be openly expressed in a formal speech, and if they were, it would never be in a forum that “media” would have access to.

    So did the operator of this website invent the quote and spurious source citations himself, or was he duped by someone else and is just credulously repeating this falsehood (that I see has quickly been published on many liberal websites)?

  4. You can say I have been “duped”, Roger.

    But who cares who says or writes what?

    What matters is that banksters are ruining people and planet – in whatever way you describe it in words.

    Sabine
    http://sabinemcneill.blog.com/forum-for-stable-currencies/

  5. To Sabine:

    If you actually believed your own words (“But who cares who says or writes what? “) then why did you go to the trouble of publishing this supposed quote of a central banker? Obviously, you don’t believe it is a meaningless act, nor should you. If the quote were genuine, it WOULD BE significant. Why?

    The most profound and unlikely achievement of the superrich in America has been to create and maintain policies highly favorable to themselves and terribly destructive to the rest of the population without having to overthrow democracy and institute an authoritarian state under their control. If you step back and view this with detachment, it’s an incredible accomplishment.

    Amazingly, tens of millions of middle class folks in the United States have been persuaded (yes, persuaded–no threats or compulsion is involved) to routinely vote against their own economic interests and keep the Republican Party in power, and thus keep the superrich happy and thriving (while they themselves UNCOMPLAININGLY accept lower wages and higher taxes than would otherwise be the case). The psychodynamics of this persuasion are complicated, but one observation I’ve made, based on my intimate relationships with a highly representative slice of these people, is this: many of these middle-class supporters of the superrich are impelled to act in this seemingly masochistic way because they are convinced it is INTRINSICALLY VIRTUOUS. They are perfectly willing to acknowledge, and live with, the negative consequences of their voting behavior on their own lives because they believe it is simply “the right thing to do”. They may never have read Ayn Rand, but even those who haven’t have nonetheless osmotically absorbed her philosophy (ubiquitous on American radio for forty years, although rarely formally identified as such) and thus have a powerful sense that any government interference with capitalism through regulation or redistributive taxes is simply immoral. They visualize the superrich almost as John Galt/Platonic philosopher-kings, or, at the least, as highly ethical Howard Roark-like figures, and revere them. They are blind to their real natures! Just witness the obsequiousness of so many in the presence of that ludicrous barbarian Donald Trump!!!

    If your quote were genuine, it would be a tiny step on the path to acquainting these middle class supporters of the superrich with the at-best pedestrian, and often ugly, reality of the minds and hearts of the people they foolishly venerate. But to disseminate phony quotes—only to have them exposed, inevitably, as phony—is to undermine the efforts of those trying to lay the groundwork for an eventual moment of epiphany for the pathetic middle class acolytes of the superrich, when they finally see their “heroes” for the sometimes prosaic and sometimes contemptible–but never actually “heroic”– people they really are. And, more importantly, when they see the argument for the “moral superiority” of laissez-faire capitalism that their heroes advance as the crudest form of sophistry. (Ironically, even when viewed strictly as an economic arrangement, laissez-faire capitalism is surprisingly inefficient and unproductive, and therefore undesirable even for narrow economic reasons–wholly apart from its many cruelties and injustices.)

  6. Dear Roger

    Many thanks for your care- and thoughtful comment!

    I am reminded of a the fake Christmas story of what would have been wonderful if it had been true.

    In this case, it is certainly true that I didn’t question the veracity of they quote. However, whether it is true or not, does NOT matter to me as much as to you. For in any case, it would have been VERY nice if it was true, from my world view.

    If it’s NOT true, then whoever orginated it did a good job, I think, of ultimately explaining what is going on now but putting it into the mouth of someone who “would have known at the time” by virtue of his position.

    In any case: good that it made you think and contribute!

    Yours gratefully,

    Sabine

  7. Check out evil rothschild on …www. youtube.com …. that should answer most of your questions of how this world runs and what they own.They are a cancer on the world.

  8. Who says it is phoney? I read people saying it, bu I don’t see the clear reference confirming that. Even so, true or untrue, it focuses on the banking system pretty neatly and describes the divide and conquer system to brilliant effect.

  9. EXACTLY,

    THANK YOU, Helen!!!

  10. To Helen: You say, “Who says it is phoney? I read people saying it, but I don’t see the clear reference confirming that.” When the primary source cited, the Idaho Leader, turns out to have CEASED PUBLICATION FOUR YEARS BEFORE IT SUPPOSEDLY REPORTED ON THE SPEECH, that seems pretty reasonable grounds for considering it phony. Do you disagree Helen? In any case, it isn’t the responsibility of debunkers to prove phoniness, it is the responsibility of those citing the quote to prove genuineness, especially when legitimate suspicions exist (in my previous post I cited the basis for very legitimate suspicions).

    And then Helen you say, with Sabine’s immediate hearty approval and appreciation, “Even so, true or untrue, it focuses on the banking system pretty neatly and describes the divide and conquer system to brilliant effect.” No, Helen, it describes to brilliant effect what you PRESUME to be the divide and conquer system. If you try to be an honest liberal, a liberal with integrity, as I do, then we all must acknowledge that we liberal outsiders can only speculate about the motives and strategies of the upper echelon financiers. As far as I know, there’s never been a whistle-blowing account by a top-tier financier– where, perhaps in his old age, near death and tortured by his conscience, he broke ranks with his colleagues and went public with all the ugly truths we liberals suspect they’re concealing. Nor to my knowledge has there ever been an authenticated tape, video or audio, where the financial elite openly discuss “divide and conquer” strategies or anything else comparably explosive. So a sensible liberal must recognize that, absent such evidence, to accuse the elite of harboring, and acting upon, such motives and strategies will seem completely groundless and irresponsible to all those non-liberals we seek to persuade. They’ll be left more disgusted by the liberal position than they were to begin with, and, without the support of these tens of millions of voters, no change is possible.

    That’s why the clearly phony quote cited by Sabine would have been so important if it had been genuine. Though falling short of the impact of a 500 page whistle-blowing account, and lacking the drama of a videotape, such a quote would still have been very significant. It would have provided the first concrete evidence to make non-liberal, middle class Americans begin to grasp how they have been cheering, honoring, and voting for their own deadliest enemies.

  11. Dear Roger

    Have a look at my sites http://www.moneyasdebt.wordpress.com and http://publicdebts.org.uk as samples of how I’ve ANALYSED the monetary and financial system such that I come to ‘opinions’ such as the one expressed by the quote.

    I’m a mathematician and systems analyst who started her life diagnosing software at CERN. I KNOW what I’m talking about. I’ve gone through Bank of England statistics GALORE which is why I KNOW that the words are ‘right’, no matter who produced them for whatever reason.

    It’s not about individual bankers. It’s about institutions who carry on, ever since the Bank of England and other central banks were created. See my site http://www.edm1297.info and Happy Reading with a view to understanding, I hope!

  12. Dear Sabine,

    As someone who’s had intimate and passionate relations with some very frisky second order partial differential equations, and partied all night long in a threesome with ANOVA and her sister ANCOVA, I’m not intimidated by your invocation of your mathematical/ statistical credentials. And while I’m delighted to learn that you were associated with CERN (and I’d love to discuss the LHC with someone as knowledgeable as you presumably are), I still cannot accept your claim that, because you mathematically and statistically scrutinized some data sets, you can validate the MOTIVES and STRATEGIES discussed in the phony quote. In your last post you say, “I’ve gone through Bank of England statistics GALORE which is why I KNOW that the words are ‘right’, no matter who produced them for whatever reason.” Please Sabine, won’t you explain to me how any mathematical or statistical analysis can enable you to say, “I KNOW that the words are ‘right’, no matter who produced them for whatever reason”, when the words in question are (from the quote that started all of this):
    “When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.
    “These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance.”

    Sabine, what z-score gleaned from what Bank of England statistics will tell you that the financiers believed that foreclosing homes would make the common people more docile and easily governed? What is the p-value of the statement, “By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance.” No statistics, Bank of England or otherwise, can resolve these utterly non-mathematical, motive- and strategy-related questions.

    Sure, statistics could show that at a particular time there was a non-random increase in foreclosures with all other things remaining the same, suggesting a deliberate change in foreclosure policy–but statistics can never even hint at, let alone prove, that it was done to “make the common people more docile and easily governed”. It’s an utter absurdity and as a mathematician/statistician Sabine, you know that as well as I. I hope you’re just a wee bit embarrassed by your attempt to persuade me through such tactics!!!

  13. Dear Sabine,

    Given your uncharacteristic silence in response to my last post, I’m inferring that perhaps you were indeed just a wee bit embarrassed—and maybe more than just a wee bit. I know that people often have intense reactions when their core self is challenged, and now I’m beginning to feel bad, thinking I may really have upset you, which was not my intention at all.

    To lift your spirits (if they in fact have been deflated), let me tell you a great story (possibly apocryphal like so many great stories, unfortunately) that involves a mathematical colossus who did something similar to what you did (though with a different outcome)—so you’ll at least have the consolation of being in very illustrious company. The legendary mathematician Euler was residing at the Court of Catherine the Great, and the French philosopher and militant atheist Diderot was visiting—entertaining everyone with his clever and amusing, yet at the same time deeply serious and compelling, arguments against the existence of God. Entertaining everyone, that is, except Catherine the Great and Euler, both of whom were devout Christians—believers, in fact, in the inerrancy of the Bible. After some days of increasing unease, Catherine took Euler by the arm, led him into her most private royal chamber, and said, “Sir, I’m beginning to fear that Diderot’s arguments are taking a toll on key members of my Court. I sense their faith in God, once so intense I considered it unshakable, is showing signs of weakening. Unless something is done, and done quickly, I fear their faith will fail altogether. The conventional philosophical arguments seem impotent in the face of Diderot’s masterful assault. But you are the most brilliant mathematician in the realm, can’t you use your skill in this area to defeat Diderot? I understand that, much like Leonardo da Vinci, a genius who never mastered long division, Diderot, however brilliant otherwise, trembles when confronted by numbers and symbols. My dear Mr. Euler, can you not exploit this failing of his, for the sake of our Lord?”

    Was Euler someone to refuse to come to the aid of his God, especially when requested to do so by the Empress of his adopted land and generous sponsor of his mathematical pursuits? That evening, as Diderot was holding Catherine’s Court spellbound with a particularly savage and effective assault upon God, a voice could be heard from the back of the immense salon, a voice so loud and imperative that Diderot was forced to pause in his attack. “Sir”, the voice bellowed, “ I challenge you!!” The crowd turned to see Euler striding boldly towards Diderot, his usually placid face displaying most unaccustomed ferocity. He stopped inches from Diderot, and proclaimed at a volume of a hundred decibels, in French, “(a + b^n)/z = x, therefore God exists. Respond!!!”

    Diderot fell back, reeling as though struck! His lips moved, but no words came forth!! For many astonishing seconds the crowd watched as the renowned Encyclopedist, the compiler of all knowledge, squirmed helplessly in the face of Mathematics, the queen of sciences, and the only one Diderot couldn’t master. Finally, his head bowed and his face ashen, Diderot slunk from the Court to the raucous sound of the crowd’s disdainful laughter, mocking him twice over as it echoed in the high-ceilinged room. The next morning, Diderot took the first coach out of St. Petersburg.

    Hoping you’ll forgive me for the many liberties I took in fleshing out the spare historical account of the Diderot-Euler incident (since it’s probably quasi-apocryphal anyway, I cast aside all self-restraint in my fanciful retelling of it!), and especially hoping you’ll forgive me for any pain I inadvertently caused you,

    I am, very sincerely,
    Roger

  14. Dear Roger

    I happen to have a few other things to do but am reminded of a question that a therapist once asked: Do you want to be right or do you want to be loved?

  15. In my last post I didn’t retract a word I said in my previous posts, or did you somehow not grasp that? I was right then, and I’m right now. Any even slightly intelligent person reading through all the comments can see the stark, and frankly embarrassing, difference in the quality and cogency of our respective arguments, especially my final, unrefuted points about your absurd claims regarding your statistical analysis and what it supposedly proved about the quote in question.

    What I sought in my last post was not to be loved but to soften the emotional impact upon you of my being so right, and of your being so utterly wrong that you couldn’t even offer a coherent defense of your position. But in view of your shockingly ungracious response, I see you are unworthy of my concern.

    You’ll have to settle for being neither right nor loved.

  16. I have only recently looked at this blog and this particular post. It would have been easy to take the ‘quote’ at face value but I am glad I read the comments. The ‘quote’ is shown to have been fabricated. I am astounded that it is still shown on the blog, and its use defended, where it could mislead the unwary.
    If I cannot trust this item I am left with a default attitude of not trusting anything else on the blog. I have contacted the website that carried the link to the blog suggesting that the link be removed. I shall not be visiting the blog again.

  17. Just for the record – this quote is most definitely fabricated. As a relative, I’m actually pretty upset that someone is slandering him this way. Please remove this blog post.

    • Dear Charlie Mann,

      1. how is this slander?
      2. why does it upset you?
      3. what is your relationship?
      4. how do you know it’s fabricated?
      5. what’s the big deal?

      I’m amazed. Whom do you think you need to protect?

      If I were a relative, I would be proud because of the clarity.

  18. Excerpts from page 225 of ‘Lords of Finance’ by Liaquat Ahamed (additions in brackets by me):
    ‘He (Montagu Norman) arrived in New York aboard the S.S. Carania on December 28’ (1924).
    ‘Norman had not been in the United states for two years’

    So the Idaho Leader not only ceased publication four years earlier, it reported a statement on 26th August 1924 that can not have been made before late December 1924! Whoever invented this quote should have checked the historical facts first.

  19. The words were originally published here:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=LR3iAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA72&dq=At+the+coming+Omaha+Convention+to+be+held+July+4th+1892&hl=en&ei=3uCwTYbaJo_pgAfX6bX4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

    But that’s not to say that Norman couldn’t have used it in his speech to what would have been a private audience of his peers.

  20. Pingback: Help I’m A Soverign Nation, Get Me Out Of Here – Globalist Banking Crimes | Robin Hood Revival

  21. Hello,
    I found a link to the statement in “American Imperialism: Its Rise and Progress” by Sarah E. Van de Vort Emery p.72
    http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015071598463;view=1up;seq=74

    According to N. Montagu diaries, he left England on 1924/12/20 and got back from New-York on 1925/01/20.
    Dec 1924 ; http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Documents/archivedocs/mnorman/1924/MN_1924_12_ADM34_13.pdf
    Jan 1925 : http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Documents/archivedocs/mnorman/1925/MN_1925_01_ADM34_14.pdf

  22. The cited book “American Imperialism: Its Rise and Progress” by Sarah E. Van de Vort Emery was published in 1893 (although its preface could have been written yesterday). Was Montagu Norman in 1924 perhaps reading from this book?

  23. Pingback: No past UK government was ever so brazen in betraying the nation | Fear and loathing in Great Britain

  24. Pingback: The Ultimate Bankster Quote – from a former Governor of the Bank of England (1920 – 1944) Posted on April 4, 2011 | 31 Comments “Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgag

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s