Infamous Civil Servants' Year Book Quote

"Capital must protect itself in every way ...Debts must be collected
and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a
process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be
more tractable and more easily governed by the STRONG ARM OF THE LAW
(police) applied by the central power of leading financiers. People
without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known
among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of
capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them
to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance
to us except as TEACHERS OF THE COMMON HERD."

by:	Civil Servants' Year Book
Date:	January 1934
Source:	Civil Servants' Year Book, "The Organizer"
Rating:
Categories:	Money, NWO, Oppression, Socialism, Tyranny, UN, Terrorism, Capitalism, America
	Tweet

wow. this is from 1934, and is so related to the state of things today.  -- ashley, saginaw      1
This quote appeared in this same forum a few months ago, attributed to JP Morgan. At least that time it was admitted that there was no written document which could actually link it to Morgan. Has anyone actually SEEN this "Civil Servants' Year Book" ? While it is easy for me to attribute this sentiment to many capitalists, it is at the same time hard for me to belive that any of them would be dumb enough to actually publish this under their own name. I suspect it is propaganda, Depression Era style.  -- The MAN with No Name, Tampa      2
So now we apparently know that capitalism is a totalitarianism like any other or do we. I will google this foolishness right now!  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      2
This quote is all over the right wing fraud blogs. Can the editior give more information about the source of this dribble? Where this Yearbook can be found, what nation is being referred to etcetera? This is really serious stuff. If it is some how implied that this was actually written for the guidance or orders for some "Civil Servants" some where in the world we should be informed. Editor: if you are unable to so inform us your use of this material is totally irresponsible.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      2
We can argue all day about who may have said this quote, or whether anyone said it, but it is accurate and true.  -- jim k, austin      1
It doesn't appear the book will be in wide circulation; it was apparently from a collection of articles compiled within a single work. The actual article itself does not appear to have hit mainstream media until I was reprinted in a following work "Banker's Manifest" (which was circulated to the corporate heads of the financial world around the middle of the 1930's). Capitalism in the free market deals with individuals and corporations; Government controlled Capitalism is merely Socialism (all capital and property placed in the hands of the state). This transition from the people's capital to government controlled capital has been happening for the last 100 years -- why did it take so long? There are various reasons given, but the most simple (Occam's Razor) is that the American ideology of free-enterprise was so ingrained within the populace that it would take this long to transition the people's focus to desiring a socialist regime without their notice. Even in 1934 Congress was working against the property ownership of the people themselves; remember that the PEOPLE use to have absolute ownership over their land through Allodial freehold. Historically, property defines who is sovereign and who isn't; in feudal Europe, no one but the sovereign of the land owned land (in fact, it was because he "owned" the land that made him sovereign). The Sovereign Lord could then legitimately tax all income, sales distribution, interaction, and movement through his land (this is the essence of feudalism); not until the Sovereign Lord would give up a portion of his property to another in "Allodial Title" could another individual legitimately and legally be called "sovereign". Land was too precious to ever give away, so there were very, very, very few people who were ever deemed "sovereign" (why would the king over all the land ever want to give away that power?). Allodial Freehold was the legal document wherein a person owned their land free and clear; after receiving this document, no other power could ever take their land from them or tax them -- it was theirs free and clear; most historical documents we have showing Allodial Freehold are established on the principle of "inalienability" -- or, in other words, the land was the sovereign's forever, and nothing could EVER "alienate" him from that land. Why? Because that's what sovereign meant. Now, in the US, we use to have Allodial Freehold, but with the expansion of the western frontier during the onset of our country, it was not the cultural thing to do to stay on your land for several generations like it had been in feudal Europe. There was an exception with Allodial title wherein you could legally change to "Real" title (Real = Royal; the offering of land to be operated, controlled, and owned by the State). Properties in Allodial Freehold could never be borrowed against, liened, or sold, because the basic premise of what "inalienable property" meant. During the transition and migration of people to the western frontier, they needed money for their endeavor; their properties that they had held in Allodial Freehold could do nothing for them, so they switch their title from Allodial to Real title so that they could collateralize (selling, borrowing against, renting, etc.) on their land and fund their journeys. Now, while we can establish a very tight fit in correlation, it is hard to find the causation of subsequent government interference; however, we have some interesting ideas. These ideas form from such Congressional Records that say, "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual and so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere 'user' and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State" (US Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (1934)). The fact that this statement exists in 1934 shows that this had not been the "law" (the way things existed) before 1934. All government actions since then have been done under these parameters. This effectively closed/transitioned all possible Allodial claims to Real Title; nowadays, all estate is "Real" estate. Since all property title is in the hands of the State, this means that the individual could no longer "own" land in Alloidial Freehold -- this effectively gave up all claims of sovereignty within the United States by the individuals (as historically "sovereignty" has been defined), and established government as the ultimate sovereign -- from this point it can be easily argued that the people lost their independence under the Constitution. As every political theorist, philosopher, or "scientist" has ever stated, the best way to subvert a people is to enslave the people through laws without their knowledge. Rome was the master of doing this; after conquering a people, Rome would still let those conquered carry on in the daily manner as they had done for hundreds of years. People willingly surrendered to Rome (gave up the freedom) because Rome was not perceived as a horrible task-master; after all, the newly conquered area would now be under Roman protection (the strongest army in the world), and all the people had to do for this new protection was pay a few taxes on their increase/income, interactions, and movements (the beginning of European feudalism). Interestingly enough, Caesar was the first real documented "sovereign" type figure wherein this whole scheme began. Once you begin to see history as it was, current political arguments seem rather trite.  -- Logan, Memphis, TN      1
I give this a thumbs down because of the accuracy in which it has abused this nation. Waffler, you surprise me a bit, you continue to mis-define capitalism with the rest of the socialists but then, you impugn that which you hold most dear, that being a fiat money system, a democracy's ability to inflict (with a fascist's / socialist's defined eminent domain) the individual, the state's confiscation powers for non-paid tribute, the rule of man being superior to the rule of law, etc.  -- Mike, Norwalk      2
-- warren, olathe
That's why the banks got bailed out and the citizens did not... Thumbs down for the truth in it.  -- E Archer, NYC      2
The quote is crap. It appears to blast capitalism and capitalist's lackey, Civil Servants. It is a BS nodding of the head towards the Rush Limbaugh class of intellectualism like Logan and his "republic not a democracy" weak thinking. Rush and Hannity and all this crap is dead, lets move on. Logan's apologizes for its appearance etcetera is just as lame as his arguemnts for "republic". Shameful, shameful, shameful. Y'all's derelection of intellectualism never ceases to amaze me.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      2
And your blatant rejection of absolute history never ceases to amaze me. I've met ignorant people before, Waffler, but you're the first "evil" (very Socratic, not moral) person I've really ever talked with. Disagree with history, fine; but you ignorantly reject all fundamental and absolute aspects of history and substitute your own asinine sophistry. This is not ignorant, this IS evil. Certainly a traitor to American liberty.  -- Logan, Memphis, TN      2
You guys should be locked up. Enough is enough and I think that should mean and end to the Logan, Mike, Archer manchurian lies. Lock 'em up I say. Being uneducated is no crime but wanting to remain uneducated and ignorant as you are demonstrate constantly Logan is a crime in my value system. Unfortunately you have a fraudulent value system.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      1
PS: Logan if allegiance to American Liberty includes your views of logic, history, and philosophy yes I am a traitor. Luckily you have a fraudulent and phony worldview that has nothing to do with American Liberty. You have a Palin view of pro America vs anit American areas of America. You are even in possession of the concept of "freedom of thought".  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      2
Yes Waff, everyone should be locked up who disagrees with you.  -- jim k, austin
My goodness, Waffler, this is your view of freedom? I have learned one thing from you: how could the German people ever have allowed Hitler and fascism to take over their country? You have provided enough evidence to write a book. You will have a hard time making converts here, my friend. It is a shame that your dedication to such ideals cannot be directed to the honor, respect, and dignity of your fellow man.  -- E Archer, NYC      2
I THINK WE SHOULD START A MAJOR REVOLUTION IN THE U.S. THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS IN PLACE AND IS READY TO PROCEED WITH IT'S WICKED DEEDS. I AM READY TO BE A JOHN THE BAPTIST AND PREACH THAT JESUS IS COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  -- JOSEPH MEEKS, LONDON      1
This quote is seriously corrupt.  -- Anonymous      2
Even if you studyed "real Historical facts you were in all probability never informed about this one. Norman Dodd and Reece Comity snip> Welcome to the Reality Zone. I am Ed Griffin. The story we are about to hear represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history. We are about to hear a man tell us that the major tax-exempt foundations of America, since at least 1945, have been operating to promote a hidden agenda. That agenda has nothing to do with the surface appearance of charity, good works or philanthropy. This man will tell you that the real objective has been to influence American educational institutions and to control foreign policy agencies of the Federal government. The purpose of the control has been to condition Americans to accept the creation of world government. That government is to be based on the principle of collectivism, which is another way of saying socialism; and, it is to be ruled from behind the scenes by those same interests which control the tax-exempt foundations. Griffin: There is quite a bit of publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither. Will you please tell us who he was, and what was that conversation you had with him? Dodd: Rowan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me, when I found it convenient to be in New York. He asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today, because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves." And, before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on, and voluntarily stated, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience either with the OSS during the war, or with European economic administration after the war. We have had experience operating under directives. The directives emanate, and did emanate, from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?" I said, “Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.” Whereupon, he made this statement to me, "Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union." Well, parenthetically, Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair. I, of course, didn't, but my response to Mr. Gaither then was, “Oh, Mr. Gaither, I can now answer your first question. You've forced the Congress of the United States to spend a hundred and fifty thousand dollars to find our what you have just told me.” I said, “Of course, legally, you're entitled to make grants for this purpose. But, I don't think you're entitled to withhold that information from the People of this country, to whom you're indebted for your tax exemption. So why don't you tell the People of the country just what you told me?” And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such thing." So, then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously, you forced the Congress to spend this money, in order to find out what you just told me.” Griffin: Mr. Dodd, you have spoken, before, about some interesting things that were discovered by Kathryn Casey at the Carnegie Endowment. Would you tell us that story, please? Dodd: Sure, glad to, Mr. Griffin. This experience you just referred to, came about in response to a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment Center, National Peace, asking certain questions and gathering certain information. On the arrival of that letter, Dr. Johnson, who was then President of the Carnegie Endowment, telephoned me and said, "Did you ever come up to New York?" I said, “Yes, I did, more or less each weekend.” And he said, "When you are next here, will you drop in and see us?” Which I did. And again, on arrival, at the office of the Endowment, I found myself in the presence of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the President, who was the successor to Alger Hiss, two vice-presidents and their own counsel, a partner in the firm -- a fellow by the name of Cromwell. And Dr. Johnson said (again after amenities), "Mr. Dodd, we have your letter. We can answer all those questions, but it would be a great deal of trouble. We have a counter-suggestion. Our counter-suggestion is that, if you can spare a member of your staff for two weeks, and send that member up to New York, we will give to that member a room in the library, and the minute books of this Foundation since its inception. And we think that, whatever you want to find out or that the Congress wants to find out, will be obvious from those minutes." Well, my first reaction was they had lost their minds. I had a pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain, but I realized that Dr. Johnson had only been in office two years, and the vice-presidents were relatively young men, and counsel also seemed to be a young man. I guessed that, probably, they had never read the minutes themselves. And so, I said that I had somebody and I would accept their offer. I went back to Washington, and I selected the member of my staff who had been a practicing attorney in Washington. She was on my staff to ensure I did not break any Congressional procedures or rules. In addition to that, she was unsympathetic to the purpose of the investigation. She was a level-headed and very reasonably brilliant, capable lady, and her attitude toward the investigation was this: “What could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so much good.” [Start of side 2] Well, in the face of that sincere conviction of Kathryn's, I went out of my way not to prejudice her in any way, but I did explain to her that she couldn't possibly cover fifty years of handwritten minutes in two weeks. So, she would have to do what we call “spot reading.” I blocked out certain periods of time to concentrate on. Off she went -- to New York. She came back at the end of two weeks, with the following recorded on dictaphone belts. We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war? Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the People of this country, than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. And finally, they answer that question as follows: we must control the State Department. And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective. Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. And finally, of course, the war is over. At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. At that point, they come to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States. And they realize that is a pretty big task. To them it is too big for them alone. So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion: that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment. They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History. So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country -- people like Charles and Mary Byrd. Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject”” And, they get turned down, flatly. So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians." Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say” “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so? And the answer is, “Yes.” >end snip  -- Anonymous, White Bluff
The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 The Father and his more famous son. Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, SR from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens. "We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them. At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation. The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism. The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party. By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."  -- Anonymous, White Bluff
I think the entire quote is from a document which was most likely fabricated by Charles A Lindbergh Sr for political reasons. Mr Lindbergh Sr (originally Carl Mansson) was a thoroughgoing scoundrel who was convicted of embezzlement in his native Sweden. He then fled with his mistress to the US where he changed his name to Lindbergh, leaving behind his wife and seven children. He was obviously Congressional material and when he gained a law degree in 1883 he became a prosecuting attourney and then moved on to a political career. Today he would be a member of the Tea Party and no doubt a conspiracy theorist. He would doubtless shout about great criminal cabals to direct public attention as far as possible from his own shady misdeeds. Like all TP politicians he would wrap himself in the Constitution and the flag while actually serving the highest bidder.  -- colourmegone, Lowestoft      1
I look at all these entries and I may not have the vast vocab or great grammar that all of you have, but I can say that Waffler just doesn't want to admit that Logan is right. If he opens his mind, that means that all he has ever learned about our government and this world for that matter would be wrong, and there in lies fear, fear of the unknown. Fear of the fact that the government could give two &*^*^ about us. Grow a pair and live with the truth.  -- J, Oregon      3
all these big brains stuck in the left vs right paradigm. civil servants yearbook? really you need to wonder about its accuracy? what about josiah stamp? dont you believe him? i think he would have known what was up. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/josiah_stamp.html think bankers are left or right think again. they are way way above that fray.  -- kenny, boston      1
Some would do well to know Their own history. Merchants and Bankers between 1600 / 1700. Family ties, roots if you will, to the bank of England, a group of 6 with controlling interest. English Planters from Virgina passing down from generation to generation. Even in 1710, the change of hands within families, so the sentiments of Freedom for all, Stamped within their minds and hearts, knowing the Truth of personal sovereignty. Spreading west and south to New Orleans. Super Attorneys now days do very well representing their clients of OIL and Banking interest. Not all, it is evident cared for the Yoeman farmer. But he the yoeman made up the largest degree of land owners. Only 7% owned slaves as the Large planters. Slavery is the oldest profession on the planet. Practiced by very old money ! Even falling prey to corrupt banking during this time frame, My Grandmother had the fine house BURNED TO THE GROUND. to spit in the face of the competing banks. 1933. Of course coming from such good stock, reestablished a holding of 1200 ac by my grandfather, it Runs in the family. Siding on both sides of the fence prior to and after the civil war. Still doing well to this day. I mention no names. From ship builders, bankers and merchants from England and beyond, from Spain to the middle east. The apple dose not fall far from the tree. As with any fruit bearing tree. Whose fruit is within itself. Seeing slavery for what it is before and after, prepares one for the upcoming battle. A Sane Sound Education is most vital when living in a sea of socialism !! Let the Fight Come, tar and feathers might be to good, swing sets are in order. SEMPER FI  -- Ronw13, USA
Waffler, once again you manifest one of your god's favorite sayings: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." (Lenin) Capitalism by definition, is a laissez-faire accumulation of excess money (a tangible entity with intrinsic value like gold or silver coin) used to increase wealth. A debt system can NOT participate in a capitalist system — only Marxist "crony capitalism" can. Marx coined a new definition to base his reasoned theocratic enslavement (Marx needed a boogyman). Waffler, you who hate individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law in favor of Marxist enslavement are a very twisted and deranged individual.  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Shouldn't we at first acquire a home before we discuss what happens if we lose it?  Aren't homes a place of love, understanding, security?  If you'd acquire a circumstance of that description, could anything take it away?  -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown

Tweet  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: