Why People Often Hated Bankers

Government officials and even US presidents have often damned quite horribly those financiers who are involved with the banking system.

Even the French Emperor, Napoleon, seemed to hate them, ...

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes...Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."

And in this piece, I just want to talk about one of the main reasons why bankers have so often been hated.

War.

In the days of the Romans, the ancient Greeks and the Persians, men could be inspired to go to war on behalf of their rulers mostly because they were going to be rewarded for their dangerous and unpleasant endeavours in some way.

If they were being threatened by some outside force then, no doubt, the reward of being spared from a horrible death or enslavement was probably good enough to energise them into taking up weapons.

If, on the other hand, there was no threat to them or to their loved ones then, perhaps, they could be rallied to the war effort by appealing to their sense of honour, the love of their country, the need to appease some god, and so on - in other words, some kind of higher calling.

men who went to war expected to profit themselves in some way

But, for the most part, men who went to war expected to profit themselves in some way.

Typically, these profits would come from all the looting that took place when the enemy was finally conquered.

And so, depending on their rank, soldiers might be given money, gold, land, slaves and/or higher public status for engaging in war on behalf of their rulers.

But money was also needed to pay for all the kit that was needed to carry out a war effectively.

Soldiers needed uniforms, shoes, weapons, horses, chariots, armour and food.

And so, in essence, a great deal of money was needed in order to pay for a large number of people to go to war, and to support the war effort.

Now, in ancient days, the aristocracy of powerful lands were fabulously rich; rich enough to fund a good war effort.

But, as time went by, and empires collapsed, it became more difficult for less powerful rulers to obtain the resources to fund effective wars.

However, it came to pass over hundreds of years that a group of people - bankers - had developed an international system of lending that was so profitable that, together, they had accumulated enough money - often in the form of gold - to fund the war efforts of an entire country.

This gold was kept secure under lock and key all over the place.

This gold was kept secure under lock and key all over the place.

It did not reside in just one country.

This made it mostly safe from any despotic rulers who might take a fancy to it, and who might decide that they would just take it, by force, for themselves.

In other words, because the gold was dispersed in other countries, the potential despots could not actually get their hands on it.

The upshot was that when the ruler of a particular country in these later times wished to conduct a war against another country, the enormous funds that were required to pay for the enterprise could often only be obtained by borrowing the money from the bankers, or by increasing their taxes on their own people.

Without the money, no war.

The problem with increasing taxes, however, is that people are reluctant to fund wars unless they believe themselves to be directly threatened by an aggressor. As such, borrowing the money from bankers is a much less problematic method of funding a war.

But, of course, matters to do with war are not usually so simple.

Typically, different groups of people (or their various rulers) are antagonistic towards each other over a period of time prior to the breaking out of any war. And it is often a question of which group manages to get the upper hand at various stages in the process prior to any war that determines which group is most likely to win it, and what the cost will turn out to be for all concerned.

Now, given that the decisions of the international bankers and the terms that they set for their loans would often be the most significant factor when it came to determining the outcome of any war and, indeed, when it came to providing the wherewithal to engage in war in the first place, it is hardly surprising that such bankers were often held in such low esteem.

For example, if international bankers were to lend money to a country to enable it to wage war effectively against your country and, as a result, you lost your land, your family, your dignity etc, as well as the war itself, then, presumably, your feelings towards these bankers would be somewhat negative, to say the least.

After all, if they had not provided loans to your enemy, there would have been no war!

On the other hand, of course, with war appearing to be imminent at some time in the future, the rulers in your own country would probably also decide that they needed to borrow money in order to be able to fund some reasonable kind of defence.

And so, off they would troop, cap in hand, to the international bankers in order to borrow money so that they could defend their countries and their populations.

international bankers stand to profit from the waging of wars

Thus, what we see here is a situation wherein international bankers stand to profit from the waging of wars, that they can profit by supporting all parties to any war and, further, that without their money there would often have been no war in the first place.

Furthermore, their willingness to lend, or not to lend, to one side or the other, could effectively decide who would win the war and who would lose it.

All in all, therefore, not only have international bankers been the mainstays of wars, they have also been very much the hidden engineers of their outcomes. It is also very clearly in their interest for wars to occur - and, no doubt, such bankers in the past will have actually helped to provoke wars simply in order to profit themselves.

' a den of vipers and thieves'.

Perhaps it comes as no surprise, therefore, that Andrew Jackson,  the seventh President of the United States (from 1829–1837) called these international bankers, ' a den of vipers and thieves'.

It is also surely worth noting that because many Jews have been at the top of the international banking system throughout the past few centuries, a great deal of hatred towards ordinary Jews has been fuelled by the actions of these lofty bankers. And so they, too, have clearly paid a very heavy price for what their banks have done. 

All in all, therefore, it is not too hard to see why international bankers are so often hated, because it is they who have often had the resources to fund, or not to fund, any large-scale enterprise that a ruler or a population might wish to undertake.

Furthermore, these bankers do not need to feel any loyalty towards - nor to have any concern for - the people to whom they make their loans. Indeed, the only bankers who will succeed will be those who make good profits.

And what is alarming about all this is that such a powerful influence over the world's affairs has been wielded by a relatively small number of unelected people whose main aim is to make money.

But, of course, it is not just when it comes to war that money talks.

Bankers can make huge loans, or not, to whomsoever they wish. As such, they can control whether various businesses and industries succeed or fail, and they can also easily dictate the direction that politicians take.

Indeed, using their influence, they can often decide which politicians are going to be elected and which ones are going to disappear into obscurity.

 they can actually control entire countries.

In broad terms, therefore, they can actually control entire countries.

But these people are not elected. They are operating behind the scenes.

And very few people even know who they are.

This, surely, cannot be right - particularly given that we now know, for sure, that many of these people are thoroughly corrupt and self-serving.

For example, the Enron scandal showed us that hundreds of high-ranking operatives in the topmost international banks and accounting firms were crooked enough to embezzle millions of dollars by, effectively, 'looking the other way' and selling on loans that they knew would turn out to be dishonoured.

This has had a devastating effect on the lives of millions of people.

But nothing has happened to most of these crooks.

They are still in their positions. And our politicians are, quite clearly, so dependent on them for their own positions that they will say, and do, nothing to bring them to book.

On the contrary, they have recently used billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' money to shore them up!

In summary, international bankers can, and do, fuel wars. They can decide their outcomes. They can bring countries to their knees. They can dictate which industries and businesses get to flourish or die. And, quite clearly, they also have most of our politicians at their beck and call.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that so many people who have understood how these bankers operate - such as Napoleon - have hated them so much? 

Vipers and Thieves

Bankers: Some quotes by people who knew what they were talking about. ...

"The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson

a den of vipers and thieves

"You (International Bankers) are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out. If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." Andrew Jackson 

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." James Madison 

"Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." James Garfield 

"I am afraid that ordinary citizens will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy 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." - Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Midland Bank in London.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." Franklin D. Roosevelt

The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen...At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." John Hylan, New York City Mayor, 1922

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson 

financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes...Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." Napoleon