Infamous James Paul Warburg Quote 

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved
by conquest or consent."

by:
James Paul Warburg
(1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR
Source:
while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share

Reader comments about this quote:
James Paul Warburg's father was the original Daddy Warbucks. At one point he controlled one 1/4 of the wealth of the world.
 -- Student, Economics		 
So much for comic book historians. There was a Warburg who drew up the Federal Reserve Act - and then was the Fed's first chairman. He was paid $500,000 (half a millinon 1910 US dollars) to get a central bank established in the USA. Of course he was an employee of the Rothschilds at the time - they own 50+ percent of the Fed's share. I wonder if the Warburg referred to here was a Nazi. He was too young, I think, to be involved in the Jekyll Island (Fed Reserve) conspirarcy. Like, who pays a 15-year-old kid half a milllion bucks to draft legislation which would sabotage the economy of the USA? Not the Rothschilds!
 -- John-Douglas, Nassau		 
Yes, James Paul Warburg was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg (1868-1932) who was integral in the establishing of the Fed. He was its first Chairman, I believe as well as Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, 1921-1932. James Paul Warburg was also the nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government.
 -- J.P., New York City		 
Thank you all for your feedback. The correction has been made.
 -- Editor, Liberty Quotes		 
 -- Anonymous 
 -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US 
Destiny is a funny thing - it doesn't always behave it's self. What is true is that we have the power to make change if we so desire - but that my dear friends is where the future lies.
 -- Robert, Sarasota		 
 -- AL, washington DC 
Thumbs down for the mere idea. The U.N. charter was based on the Communist Manifesto - funny that the main difference between Socialism and Communism is not in the doctrine (because they're twins) but in how they're established: Communism is created by a revolution of war and Socialism is created over time through infiltration of laws by "due process". "Conquest or Consent"... he should have just said it like it is, "Communism or Socialism".
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN		 
I am opposed to world government, and the new world order of the UN. I will never consent, so our government will need to conquer (kill or imprison) me. To willing give up my rights, certainly those outlined in the Bill of Rights, would be un-American, if not unconstitutional.
 -- Joe, Rochester, MI		 
"You shall be a slave to the banking establishment -- either by consent or force." If we don't fix the money system itself, all the laws in the world will not protect our Liberty. BTW, all member nations of the UN are bankrupt and in receivership to the IMF/World Bank. Any country maintaining its own hard currency cannot be a member -- now you know the real meaning of a 'neutral' country.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
We shall have one world government, through divine intervention, not ruled by men.
 -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood		 
There's that 'divine intervention' thing again - good luck - pray a lot, that'll have an effect! As for Cartoon historians - evidently, Paul Warburg is really the role model for the Little Orphan Annie caricature called "Daddy Warbucks". - http://www.whale.to/b/griffin3.html || Has anyone noticed the extreme relaxation of banking regulations since the Reagan years? Has anyone noticed the incremental growth of 'charges' for previously required 'services' such as cancelled check returns to the owner of the account? Has anyone noticed the 'new' abilities of banks to engage in the marketing of 'instruments' and 'equities' the marketing of which was banned for banks, for good reason, after the 1929 market crash? The 'rationalizations' provided for these changes are just that - rationalizations for public consumption. The effect is what E. Archer has referred to: the 'invisible' enslavement of the non-banking, non-investment classes. Logan, have you considered an alternative to your two bifurcations of the same seed? Have you considered the possibility of an 'invisible' plutocracy? One where the political bent or organization of the lower 'fighting factions' is irrelevant (like it was in WWII and is today)? I mean, what's the difference how they live or die as long as they, in aggregate, produce under the auspices of One World Government with the 'policing powers' to prevent inconvenient disruptions and to 'manage' the plantation? The country in which this 'production' occurs is irrelevant under 'global' banking operations. Granted, that's an Orwellian view which is what makes it unbelievable. The question remains: is it viable?
 -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA		 
That was five stars for 'fair warning'. LOL
 -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA		 
David: Interesting that the Founders never put it that way -- otherwise, they would have formed an interim government while awaiting the 2nd coming. How can someone defend a Republic who believes Heaven is a Monarchy? And every time they set up a special seat for the King of the world, the devil cheats his way into it. What's the solution? Fix the system? No just pray for the end of the world. Freedom means responsibility -- that is why most men dread it. (Shaw)
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
Archer: Since you did not answer my response to your listed erroneous comments of yesterday, here they are again: Regarding Article21.2, what is your point? The question is not what those services are to be, but that all have equal access. Is something unacceptable with that? Regarding Article 22, what specifically do you object to here? There is only a guarantee of equal rights, not a specific imposition of values of another. Regarding Article 23.1, do you seriously oppose laws that protect workers' rights, or feel that workers have none? Regarding Article 24, don't you know that 2 billion people are slaves? Regarding Article 25, millions are prohibitedfrom work solely because they do not support the regimes that control their nation. Regarding Article 26, education is unavailable to billions, often due to government mismanagement of public revenues. Most founders of the United States agreed with the education of the public. Nothing is free. Regarding Article 27, your question does not refute the right. Regarding Article 28, it has no meaning different than that for which we have institutions that are supposed to enforce laws and standards. Regarding Article 29.1, it does not propose what you insinuate, and remains true. Regarding Article 29.2, it merely expresses that we should be protected against unreasonable obligations. I do not agree with a couple of the Articles in question, Article 29.3, for example, which encompasses purposes not related to the rights outlined in the Declaration itself; and Article 23 leaves some questions unresolved. But overall and overwhelmingly that which is proposed by the Declaration is very resonable, and is not overtly an imposition of values not already included in the Constitution of the United States. And where your comments of today are concerned, how can you formulate a reasonable question about something you do not comprehend in the least? The founders founded a secular society, one that permits individuals to worship as they please, not a society designed to preach the gospel or any other cosmic belief, such as evolution, which is as faith-based as any religion. The founders generally kept their particular religious beliefs as separate from governance as reason might allow. That does not mean that they did not believe in Christ, as most of them actually did.
 -- David L. Rosenthal , Hollywood		 
Since Christians cannot even agree among themselves what "believe in Christ" means, I will merely state that among the Founders, the divinity of Jesus was not unanimously recognized. Secondly, they believed that our rights were God-given -- entitlement programs are not rights! They are human services -- and I for one would like the option to support those services or not. I believe the only insurance program being offered by God is the 'Truth' that is to set us free -- not indenture us as feudal serfs on our own land.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
I am not talking about the divinity of Christ. I am saying that most founders were Christians, which is a fact. And as Christians they recognized the inevitable future advent of God's Kingdom. That is my point. Yours seems to be to discredit the belief, while mine has been to point out its existence. You say "the founders never put it that way." I say, of course not. Yet they believed it. You confuse what God now permits with what he intends. You confuse issues rather than asking about what you have no information about.
 -- David L. Rosenthal , Hollywood		 
It is a common trait among proselytizing Christians to speak for God and other Christians (just pick an Inquisition). You claim to know what Christian founders believed -- I am sure Jefferson might have a few objections. I don't want to get into a debate about religion here -- there's no arguing with someone who claims to know God's will. If you believe that divine intervention is all we need, then perhaps you can explain why we should even bother to govern ourselves at all -- just let the devil do it, Christ will come later and sort it out. How convenient (and absurd).
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
Archer, don't waste your breath -- Rosenthal is not ready for the 'red pill'.
 -- Chicago		 
Are you boys inbred mountain folk or what? You seem to find it a great challenge to differentiate between staements of opinion or fact and preaching a religion. Does this have to do with ignorance or envy?
 -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood		 
http://www.moviesounds.com/matrix/allaround.mp3
http://www.moviesounds.com/matrix/aslave.mp3
http://www.moviesounds.com/matrix/reddress.mp3
 -- Chicago		 
The interesting thing I find with socialism/communism is its similarity to Christianity - this was not by mistake. Marx hated Christianity because he felt it was the cause of the social distortion in Europe. And to be fair, it probably was - the Christian churches had largely become complusive and coercive and were seeking political power. However, Marx, though he hated Christianity, saw the strength in its structure (after all, it had endured its own existence for the last 1800 years). The Communist Manifesto was simply a charter of Christianity in which "God" was substituted for "government". It's not hard to see. Many of the provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sound good, as do many points of Communism and Christianity alike. The fact that Article 22 says that every member of society has a "right" to social security, by definition, makes this a socialist/communist document (it makes sense since Communist CFR members drew this document up) - There is absolutely no "natural law" (Delcaration of Independence - "laws of nature and of nature's God") that says that men and women have a "right" for their neighbor to be taxed to pay for their "needs". Article 23 (1) Yes, I have a right to work, no I don't have a right against unemployment... I don't have the "right" to force my employer to do anything - I do have the "right" to leave or stay under his employment. (3) You can't legislate morality and the way people treat people - this is a dangerous slippery slope. (4) Unions are the bane of Capitalism. Article 24 - Are you serious? People have the right to kick back and have their employers pay them for their "rest" and "leisure"? This has nothing to do with slavery. This is a stab at trying to create some utopian socialistic community - Where's the natural law that makes this a "right" anyway? Article 25 (1) This is so socialist it's scary. Volumes could be written on this alone - an obvious slippery slope for people who would abuse it - It's not my duty, as an employer, to pay anything to anyone... If they want to work for me for free, that's their deal! If I contract with them for X amount of dollars, then that's our deal. If I live in San Fran and pay a guy $2/hr to sweep up my store, so what? He doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to - I'm not concerned if he's getting enough to pay rent, he can get another job. What natural law does this "right" come from? (2) Besides this being an allowance for the break-up of families - Who will pay for the out of wedlock babies and single mothers?! Money has to come from somewhere. 3rd world countries are notorious for having out of wedlock babies -some of the women in these countries have up to 10 children easily in these countries... Who is going to pay? If this is going to be the case then we need an international maximum standard to be set for how many children a family can have. Again, how blatantly Socialist can we become? What natural law does this "right" come from? Article 26 - (1) No, the founding fathers were not supporters of free education - they didn't even know the concept. Free education is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. What natural law does this "right" come from? Article 27 - 29, What natural law do these "rights" come from? Article 29 (2) democratic society? It says it all right there! Laws and Rights are inseparably connected - in a Republic that recognizes natural law, natural and unalienable rights are acknowledged. In a democracy, there are no unalienable and natural rights because "law" and "rights" are relative. What was a "law" or a "right" one day can no longer be a "law" or a "right" on another day - it depends solely on the attitude of the majority that particular day. Government can't take care of everyone - what government can actually really take care of itself? Socialism has given the world the power to proclaim their "wants" and "needs" as their "rights" - this is wrong.
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN		 
Are you really sure that the "social security" mentioned in the Declaration is the same thing as the Social Security Program established by Roosevelt?
 -- David L. Rosenthal		 
As in opposed to mere personal security within society? Yes, I would argue that it not only includes Roosevelt's S.S. program but countless other measures as well. This was the proported main objective of Roosevelt's plan: to create a secure social environment, economically, physically, emotionally, educationally - however, it was a facade, Social Security is a contradiction in terms. Society can never be absolutely guaranteed safety, no economy will endure forever, everyone will eventually die, etc... Social Security, socialistically speaking, is the goal-- is it not? It's main problem is that it puts the power of compulsion and coercion into the hands of the government... Government then becomes the very entity it was supposedly protecting the people from.
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN		 
Do you oppose all taxation?
 -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood		 
Capitation tax, yes - except in direct proportion to a state census. I have no problem with business taxes. I am a firm supporter of the Fair Tax.
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN		 
OK. Do you think we should let private sources take care of the disabled? What if the disabled worker had no private backing? Say he were an atheist, or not a church memeber, and had no family? Let him go down the tubes just because he was unlucky enough to get messed up and didn't have anyone who cared? Many of your fellow citizens do not agree with that option. You might say he should have done one thing or another to cover the eventuality of disability. But what if he did not do it? About the question of Christian socialism, you have it wrong, as do so many others. You cannot be both a socialist and a Christian. You might think you can, but you can't. They are mutually exclusive. Some aspects of socialist doctrine were coopted from Christina doctrine. But whoever thinks they are equivalent ideologies does not understand either one or both of them. When I say Christianity, I refer to the ideas expounded in the Bible and writings of the early Christians, not to the twisted pseudo-Christian ideas of whomever you wish to mention. You can find some superficial points of comparison, perhaps, in the Bible and the Manifesto, but nothing beyond that.
 -- David L. Rosenthal , Hollywood		 
I agree with you concerning Christianity. Socialism is the anti-thesis of true Christianity. There are those who claim to be Christian yet beat their wives, steal, cheat, lie, abuse their kids, profain the name of God, etc. These are not Christians, regardless of what they profess. Marx did borrow the structure of Christianity for his Manifesto, this is not new information-- when he saw the many "professing" (key word here) Christian churches that did not follow their own doctrine but sought for political power and doctrinal control - he revolted, as would I. Marx, however, did not see the true essence of the religion he hated -- the essence of complete freedom, agency, and liberty. He saw professing Christians who used this doctrine to force men to be moral - in essence, the church began to legislate morality - "forced virtue" is an oxymoron. When he made his manifesto - he began to run into the same problem as the churches he hated so badly - he could not overcome the problem of everyone not wanting to enter his utopian mecca - so what did he do? Created a government of coercion and control - Vile "professing" Christians had used God as a control ("God wants you to be good - then we'll force you to be good) - Marx simply substituted God for government. As for the disabled - yeah, everything should be done on a privatized basis, apart from government. Churches are a good source for those who are church going - however, this is not the only source possible. Are we really saying that the only way to protect our poor and needy is to force those who have to give? Is that what America is finally admitting? The so-called "most giving" country in the world has to be forced and compelled (see, the whole "compulsion" factor again to do something "good") to help those around them? I don't believe it. I see angry Americans who are tired of being forced into paying for their neighbors 16 y/o daughter to have her baby because she screwed up and doesn't have any money. Government welfare, at its core, robs man of his own accountability and responsibility and places it, by force, upon the heads of other men - such an idea is diametric and cannot exist within a Republic.
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN		 
Sure, government screws up a lot of things. I don't want to pay for every ablebodied bum who works off the books and files for food stamps and medicaid. But some people really do need help. If we enforce laws already on the books, perhaps we could clear the welfare roles of many thieves. I am not against private charity. I am against funding thievery. So I will leave it up yo you to design a way out of this mess. It's 3 am here. I will look for your solution tomorrow. You have ten hours to fix everything.
 -- David L. Rosenthal , Hollywood		 
The problem can't be sovled by laws, due process, or by passing things that can be "enforced"-- you CANNOT legislate morality, virtue, or giving. If we use the foceful hand of government in order to collect on "charity" - where are we really? FORCED chairty? FORCED virtue? FORCED good? These are oxymorons. If you force chairty, virtue, or goodness, then you've destroyed them at their core. Compelled compliance to help others only results in class hatred - this is already evident - the rich hate the poor because the poor think they have a right to share in the wealth of the rich. I've been on both sides of this issue - I've lived in "poverty" when I've had nothing to eat for 3-4 days and I have lived in "wealth" where I could get nearly anything I wanted (within reason). Gov. welfare is not a great "safety net" that's been provided for men to get back on their feet-- it's a way of putting responsibility on another person. Once a person is given the chance to put his responsibility onto another to provide for him, where is the motivation for him to change or get better? With very few exceptions, there is none! Whether government screws up the welfare situation or pulls it off perfectly, it's not important - what IS important is that government welfare CANNOT exist within a Republic. We have a choice, we can have welfare or we can have a Republic - sadly, it's really that easy. When the subject of privatizing welfare is ever brought up, it's the "Churches" that are always listed as the first source to go to. Why? How did they get their money to begin with? Who gave it to them? Churches aren't able to print money for the poor anymore than government can. The fact is, Churches get their money through FREE Charity, FREE virtue, and through those who want to do something good because it is good (Kantian Ethics). "Good will" reigns supreme when men are given their liberty to be good, free from coercion and compulsion - we have just been fed the socialist facade for so long that men hate each other and will never give to another in need, that we have forgotten the simple fact that people like to give. Churches get their money from somewhere too. They aren't the only private source of financial aid-- There are large organizations that have been established on charitable donations. Charity and giving to those in need is not a "religious" idea-- it's built on the basic human desire to help people. Let's give back to the people the responsibility and accountability of helping those around them-- and let them have their own free choice in doing so. "America is great because she is good. If she ever ceases to be good, then America will cease to be great" - Alexis de Toqueville - You can't force goodness!
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN		 
It isn't about forcing goodness, but about fulfilling obligations (real or not). That can be legislated.
 -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood		 
No way, David. That is a distortion of 'the Law'. If anything, it is the government that has obligations to the people. It is a perversion of the law to obligate one man to take care of another. I know you mean well, but the ends do not justify the means.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
People have at least one responsibility for each of their rights. One of the functions of government is to force people to meet their obligations when they do not wish to do so. If you live in a society of laws, you either must obey them, change them, or abolish them. You cannot just ignore them, or you will end up in prison. As a society, we have arranged to take care of the needy, by taxing and redistributing revenues. If we do not give to the needy but to those who do not need, then we distort the arrangement and the law. If we give only to the needy, we follow the law. The law does not cease to exist when we ignore or deny it.
 -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood		 
We are born dependent even though we have inalienable rights from day One. However in order to live Free, we have to learn to be Independent. The process of a baby growing into an 'adult' is the process of accepting responsibility for one's actions, desires, promises -- and eventual death. This is what it means to 'grow up'. And it is my right to decide who I shall give of my time and money -- as it is yours. The government makes a piss-poor parent -- and their idea of 'health and welfare' I do not share in the least.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
And BTW, taxes do not pay for ANY government service -- they don't even come close. Every dollar for government services is 'borrowed' from the Fed (who just prints them up BTW) for which taxes merely pay the interest. The ENTIRE money supply is 'on loan' -- every dollar in your banki account is a dollar owed to the Fed. And even if we paid everything back, we would have no money and still owe trillions more!! So, that is the price of social services -- 75% of your labors everyday of your life -- and for what? Goodwill to the disabled? Learn about the creation of money and you will see how all these UN promises of social security are the lies told to get the poorer majority of the world to buy into it -- all the while indenturing them even further. How about some COURAGE for Christ's sake.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
Yes, E. Archer. Considering the SIZE of the Fed's military/industrial complex, considering the dependency of millions upon millions of people upon the state, considering the currency bought political system, I don't see any possible way to remove the FED and not first have martial law here, FEMA style.
 -- Anonymous		 
Alex Jones, in his film "Endgame", quotes James P Warburg as "We shall have world government whether or not you like it. By conquest or consent." However, his site quotes him with "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." While there is little difference, sublte changes make increadible gaps in interpretation and feeling. Any ideas as to why there's a difference?
 -- Prof. John, Pittsburgh		 
Perhaps just because Alex Jones is famous for misquoting.
 -- BL, Coeur d'Alene, ID		 
It appears, the Nazi style of fascist socialism is winning out for the consent side.
 -- Mike, Norwalk		 
World Government is the worst possible nightmare. I believe in sovereignty, peace, and liberty.
 -- J Carlton, Calgary		 
Consent
 -- warren, olathe		 
David Rosenthal, our founders were Deists for the most part. Jefferson would certainly not be a Christian if you use the fundamentalist definition. He despised the idea of the Trinity and hoped that Americans would someday be Unitarians. Read his writings on religion in "The Essense of Jefferson".
 -- jim k, austin		 
Man has always dreamed of "one world government". This dream is what inspires man and men to strike out and impose or bring their organizational skills upon others. Thus Talleyrand, Ghengis Khan, Alexander etcetera in the old days. The Universal Chruch of Rome, and Protestant Missionaries in these latter days. The concept of prosyletizing is nothing new and nor is the dream of one world government. It will continue to be a dream, man wants to be at one, most religion is predicated on the idea of unity under one true god. Communication and travel and the computer is enabling this to happen at a faster and faster rate. Not to worry those of you who detest the facts of life the planet and its inhabitants will be utterly destroyed one day by either Yellowstone blowing up, a massive meteor or the burning out of the son. The thing will start all over again (history will repeat itself) in the mud and ooze and you right wing fanatics will again have your lack of cohesion and unity that you so much admire.
 -- Waffler, Smith		 
I've mentioned this before: there are 2 styles of socialism. A Stalin / Lennon style of communism (out right state ownership) that starts by violent conquest; and, a Hitler / Nazi style of fascist socialism (control out right and through corporate and other endeavors) that is consent by deception. Depending on one's Donkey or Elephant identification, left or right, identifies, as Waffler so apply puts it, the theocratic proselytizing of choice.
 -- Mike, Norwalk		 
It is interesting that if you are fond of the constitution and think that it should be upheld you are a right wing fanatic. Fact is that if you are not a communist/fascist in this new world order you are labeled as a right wing fanatic. If you want to have some control over your own life you are a right wing fanatic. If you think you should be allowed to defend the constitution on TV or radio you need to be shut up because you are a right wing fanatic. This nation has become the most polarized it has ever been in the last 2 months. It may be a good thing if it wakes some people up. Or it may result in a very heavy cost to our liberty with the new domestic army seeing to it that all of us right wing fanatics are under control. Of course this would be to protect the country from subversives.
 -- warren, olathe		 
I repeat Warren some day there will just be one family per continent and you can have your way with the world or at least with your continent. In the mean time and in between time we are going to have to have a little bit of cooperation among the 6 billion of us on this little sphere.
 -- Waffler, Smith		 
Good point, warren. How can you tell if there is a socialist in your midst? They use phrases like 'right-wing fanatic.' There will always be some one or some cartel that seek to 'rule the world.' The common man's only defense from a world oppression like that of the old monarchies of Europe will be the knowledge of his rights, his ability to support himself and family, honest trade with others, a fellowship of like-minded 'libertarians,' and the courage to stand up for oneself and the Liberty of everyone else on Earth. Government is but a coterie of the power-hungry fighting for control of the treasuries and resources of the world. And don't be fooled into thinking the US govt will dominate the world -- we have already lost control of our govt to these super rich globalists. But it is held together by our 'consent' -- once the fraud has been exposed and people like Waffler realize they a have been duped, it's going to get messy.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
How do you know that you have a "right wing fanatic" in your midst? They will call every one else especially anyone who thinks for themselves (really is there any other way to think than for yourself) a socialist.
 -- Waffler, Smith		 
Archer says "government is a coterie of the power hungry" then he says that "it is held together by our consent" which pronoun "our" would presumably include himself. Thus he is apparently one of the power hungry. If he is not interested in influencing people and the power that influence brings why does he waste his time on a sight like this which is ostensibly for the purpose of influencing people with ones insights. Archer is a prime example of whata Churchill spoke of: an enigma inside a mystery inside etcetera.
 -- Waffler, Smith		 
 -- Anonymous 
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!
 -- Edgar, London		 
Bookmark and Share
Rate this quote!
How many stars?
0
1
2
3
4
5
 
What do YOU think?
Your name:
Your town:
    CLICK JUST ONCE!

  
Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email:
 
This site is supported
by donors like you!

More Quotations

Read the Bills Act Coalition
Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

© 1998-2008 Liberty-Tree.ca