In this context, it becomes clear that political conflicts presented as important to the general public by the news media are in fact diversions, secondary and tertiary events, removed from the real power brokers who control large parts of the world economy. Financial machinations are primary; political intrigues are at most shadows of the more foundational monetary blocs.
The public is misled into following elections and legislative disputes, while the real impacts are generated by boards of governors who manage large banks. The officers of the major private banks around the world, as historian Gary Allen writes, have more control over governments than presidents, prime ministers, senators, or judges:
Eventually these international bankers actually owned as private corporations the central banks of the various European nations. The Bank of England, Bank of France and Bank of Germany were not owned by their respective governments, as almost everyone imagines, but were privately owned monopolies granted by the heads of state, usually in return for loans. Under this system, observed Reginald McKenna, President of the Midlands Bank of England: “Those that create and issue the money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people.” Once the government is in debt to the bankers it is at their mercy. A frightening example was cited by the London Financial Times of September 26, 1921, which revealed that even at that time: “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.”
Major international crises, and their resolutions, are often navigated, not by politicians or diplomats or military officers, but rather by bankers. This was the case, e.g., in the creation of the Dawes Plan, and the global tensions which caused the plan to be created.
By the early 1920s, it had become clear that the terms of the Versailles Treaty were unrealistic. The treaty obligated Germany to make large reparation payments to the nations which had won the First World War. The payments were so large, in fact, that they were impossible.
Europe was simultaneously on the brink of an economic collapse and on the brink of war. The solution would not be the result of prime ministers and presidents practicing diplomacy; nor would it be the result of military leaders and their battle plans. Peace would be preserved by financial arrangements.
Charles Dawes, who orchestrated this resolution, was not a sinister figure in some international conspiracy. To the contrary, he was an Ohio-born lawyer, who practiced law first in Omaha, Nebraska, and then later in Chicago. Aside from law, his passion was music, and he composed a song which became a number one pop hit. No, Charles Dawes was not a member of some nefarious conspiracy. He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in avoiding war and avoiding economic collapse in Europe.
The dynamics of the situation in Europe in the early 1920s reveals, however, how a global conspiracy could wield immense power through the banking system. Financial operatives can bypass a nation’s official or elected leadership and have significant power.
Had Charles Dawes not been a benevolent and decent man, he could have exploited the situation to gain personal influence in multiple nations simultaneously.
The example of the Dawes Plan shows that there are opportunities for an international conspiracy to gain significant power by using the financial system and bypassing both civilian and military leadership. The same is true for a domestic conspiracy within any one nation. The question to be posed is not whether such a thing is possible. Rather, it must be asked whether such a thing has already happened.
