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
And in this piece, I just want to talk about one of the main reasons
why bankers have so often been hated.
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
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
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
international bankers stand to profit from the waging
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
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
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
Indeed, using their influence, they can often decide which politicians
are going to be elected and which ones are going to disappear into
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
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?