Banker Plot to Remove FDR Was a Ruse

July 27, 2007

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

The 1933 "Banker's Coup" Was a Ruse

The story that Wall Street bankers planned to overthrow FDR in 1933 still makes the rounds in 2007.

Recently, the BBC named "Dubya's" grandfather, Prescott Bush as one of the conspirators. The NWO apparently still considers Roosevelt and the New Deal as propaganda assets. They want us to think the bankers don't run the government and  fascism doesn't also take the form of Liberalism, Socialism and Communism.

The Illuminati bankers staged the coup to give FDR credibility as Wall Street's nemesis. As I will show, they routinely used such tricks to build up their Presidential puppet.

The conspirators (members of the "American Liberty League") approached retired Major General Smedley Butler to use 500,000 veterans to remove FDR and become a Mussolini-like figure.

Smedley Butler was absolutely the LAST man you would ask if you were serious. The most decorated Marine in history; Gen. Smedley Butler recently had been forced to resign by Herbert Hoover for calling Mussolini a "mad dog" and warning that his fascist cohorts "were about to break loose in Europe." Butler refused to retract his remarks and thus became a national hero overnight.

However, if you wanted someone to expose your coup (as he did; thought it "smacked of treason,") Butler was the "go-to" person.

Nor was Butler fond of Wall Street. He was touring the nation with a speech stating that the bankers used the US army as "gangsters for capitalism" -- thugs and debt collectors: "Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints," Butler said. "The best he could do was .. operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." ("War is a Racket" 1933)

"There was definitely something crazy about the whole affair," remarked Curt Gentry. "Butler who had gained prominence for speaking out against fascism, being asked to become an American Duce." ("J. Edgar Hoover" p. 203)

Nevertheless, Gentry and most other historians accepted the tale, indicating their function as highly paid flacks.

The story received its widest currency in Jules Archer's book "The Plot to Seize the White House" (1973). Judging from Archer's other works, he is either the Illuminati's best propagandist or biggest dupe (or both.)

His other subjects include such "defenders of the people" (Illuminati front-men)  as: Trotsky, Mao Tse Tung; Chou En Lai; and Ho Chi Minh. He has also penned books about such elite-sponsored movements as feminism, civil rights and environmentalism.


For the answer, we are indebted to a book by a courageous honest, public-spirited New York doctor, Emmanuel Josephson: "The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt" (1948.)

FDR was the scion of two Illuminati families, the Delanos and the Roosevelts. He was related to a dozen US Presidents: four on the Roosevelt side and eight on the Delano side. He was a third cousin of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

These families have some Jewish antecedents but they also have Dutch, German, Swedish and principally English blood. FDR's mother's father, Warren Delano made a fortune in the opium trade. His father James Roosevelt was Vice President of a railway and director of several companies.

FDR was a spoiled brat who always changed the rules to suit his whims. He was tutored privately, and failed law school but allowed to enter the bar anyway. He never held a real job. In the 1920's, he helped float some stock market scams. As Governor and later President, he was extremely suggestible, evasive and shifty. Louis Howe created his public persona and did his thinking for him. Howe was FDR's "alter and wiser ego." (102)

FDR had a small army of speech writers and sometimes there were screw-ups. For his Democratic nomination acceptance in 1932, he was handed two speeches with diametrically opposed views and read them both. (157)

After his attack of encephalomyelitis, the Rockefellers gave him a health spa at Warm Springs, Georgia. They subsequently funnelled millions of dollars to FDR in the guise of charitable contributions to his "foundation." (Dr. Josephson found that the institution did not accept charity cases and didn't issue financial statements.) (118-ff)

In Josephson's words, "Roosevelt was magnificently bribed to run for office. By the end of 1930, some $700,000 was poured into the coffers of the foundation ...[FDR] was the pathetic puppet of conspirators scheming the destruction of democracy and the establishment of an American monarchy." (95, 124)

In return , the US Treasury under FDR spent hundreds of millions bribing Saudi King Ibn Saud and building oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia to benefit Standard Oil. (262-263)

Josephson said the basic doctrines of the Rockefeller Empire are "feudalistic monarchic government" ... "monopoly of every necessity of  life and of national existence, and absolute dictatorship..." (86-87)

The rich must "divide and rule": " The people must be dealt with not as Americans but as minorities set at each other's throats, Labor vs. Capital, Black vs. White, Catholic vs. Protestant, Christian vs. Jew for e.g." (87) He could have added male vs. female and gay vs. straight.


Rich degenerate inbreeds running for President naturally pretend to defend the public good. Naturally their banker-sponsors are willing to feign displeasure and opposition.

FDR learned the game from his cousin Theodore Roosevelt who pretended to be a "trust buster" while remaining a creation of the trusts and giving the country to them.

The contributors to FDR's 1932 campaign include a "Who's Who" of the US business elite, the same people who supposedly tried to overthrow him a year later: Hearst, Rockefeller, Morgan, Baruch, Du Pont, Astor.

In 1933, a group of "publicity men" advised that fascism was becoming unpopular in America and FDR could score points by opposing the Nazis. "They suggested that Hearst and his publications launch a sham attack on Roosevelt and at the same time pretend to support Nazism and Fascism, thus throwing the Anti-Nazis and Anti-Fascists into the Roosevelt camp." (167)

"As the perverters of public opinion expected, the gullible public raged at Hearst and flocked to the standards of Roosevelt, blind to the fact that he was giving them another of the same brand of dictatorship." (167)

The antagonism was an utter sham. Hearst employed FDR's son Elliot, his daughter and her husband! Similarly the public enmity of the munitions manufacturing Duponts was also a sham. Ethel Dupont married FDR Jr. !

"The Liberty League was then set up for the ostensible purpose of attacking Roosevelt and fighting his re-election. This served to throw the entire pacifist vote into Roosevelt's camp and helped reassure his re-election." (169)

Clearly the "Fascist Coup" was just another clever ploy invented by the "publicity men."


Curtis Dall  was a banker and FDR's son-in-law. He portrays the President not as a leader but as a "quarterback" with little actual power. The "coaching staff" consisted of a coterie of handlers ("advisers" like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international banking cartel. For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by "World Money" and motivated by conceit and personal ambition. (Dall, "FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law" 1970)

The 1933 "Banker's Coup" is indicative of the trouble the financial elite takes to deceive the public. Until George W. Bush, no President did more than FDR to take America down the road to tyranny.


Comments for "Banker Plot to Remove FDR Was a Ruse"

Martin said (July 30, 2007):

I'd also like to chime in about Ron Paul. Don't the PoZ say:

"In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards."

So, if those FEMA concentration camps are ready and all that is needed is a long list of names, wouldn't it be handy to set to a candidate in such a way as to get that list of "dissidents" soon? Has any Ron Paul supporter ever considered that possibility?

If Ron Paul is on "their" side, associating with him might be quite dangerous. If he is real, it is clear he will never be allowed to succeed. Either way, he is just another distraction IMHO.

Notice how he always harps about the gold standard as the solution to everything. Who owns all the gold? The private banks. Thanks to the "Money Masters" documentary (, we should be able to realize that the return to a gold standard is a trick -- the problem is not the fiat currency as such (money is just an abstraction anyway, it can be anything as long as everybody agrees on it), but that it is issued and controlled not by the state but by privately-owned central banks who use it for their own gain!

Your own entry about FDR, Hearst and Co. shows how devious the game is and how the public is baited mercilessly, so why not this time?



At this rate they'd have to lock up 75% of the population. Remember we are collateral on the debt. They need us-it's our credit they're burning through. We're a necessary evil, from their p.o.v.


Cliff Shack said (July 29, 2007):

I believe that there is a deeper level of understanding that begs our attention and contemplation with regard to the relationship of FDR, Prescott Bush and the rest of the Illuminati gang. To understand this relationship, you’ve got to go back in history, well beyond 1933.

The core of the ruling “Illuminati” are, IMHO, descendants of Jews and Crypto-Jews who were believers in the messiahship of Shabbatai Tzvi- the mystic considered by history to have been a dismal failure after he consented to convert to Islam rather than face death at the hand of the ruling Ottoman Sultan; whose crown he desired to remove so that he may have become, like James Cameron, “King of the World”!

While most Jews have categorically rejected Shabbatai Tzvi, there was a widespread, but hidden group whose faith became stronger due to the apostasy. Shabbatai Tzvi became the welcome hero of the many devout Catholics and Protestants of the 17th century who were actually Crypto-Jews; descendents of Jews who had chosen conversion to expulsion (or worse) in 15th Century Spain.

Since the Spanish and later Portuguese expulsions, many Marranos left the Iberian Peninsula for Northern Europe and the Meditterranean Basin, as gentiles. Some landed in England, which didn’t allow entry to Jews at the time. These Crypto-Jews would become the bedrock of English aristocracy and royalty. The “Saxe” in Gotha-Saxe-Coburg (now Windsor) is Spanish Jewish in origin. Some landed in the Netherlands where in many instances crypto-Jews were rejected by the Jewish communities when they attempted to re-enter the Jewish fold. Others did succeed like the families of Spinoza and Menashe ben Israel.

Though not quite Jewish or Gentile, the crypto-Jews managed to develop a hidden culture of their own. What they lacked was a hero and a home. The hero would arrive in the personage of the mystical messiah, Shabbatai Tzvi. The home, for many would be the The New World “discovered” by Christopher Columbus, perhaps a crypto-Jew himself. Just how many crypto-Jews crossed the Atlantic on the Santa Maria or immigrant ships like the Mayflower? Who can say? But cross they did.

Which brings us to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Prescott Bush. Both, coincidently descend from ancestors who lived in the city of Leyden, The Netherlands. The same city where the Pilgrims lived before their Mayflower voyage. Was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ancestor, Philippe De La Noye (1602-1681), a crypto-Jew? Possibly. Perhaps likely. It is known that he lived during the time of Shabbatai Tzvi. [De La Noye had children with customary biblical names. One child of particular interest was a girl with the name of Esther (the patron saint of crypto-Jews). Queen Esther was the Jewish heroine that concealed her religious identity in a successful effort to save the Jews within the Persian Empire from genocide. An annihilation that was to take place on one single day. The drama is kown as the story of Purim. Esther’s son would come to rule the known world. That was accomplished with one strategically placed crypto-Jew.

Crypto-Jews would form Freemasonry in England in 1717. Based on the Seven biblical laws of Noah, Freemasonry allowed the crypto-Jewish “believers” of Shabbatai Tzvi to finally remove the crown from the Sultan and reign over the world in the names of the God of Shabbatai Tzvi. The “Marrano” or “Pig” would re-emerge on the world stage as princes of the world. The feelings of guilt and inadequacy gone forever.

One hundred years after the death of Shabbatai Tzvi, Freemasonry, with an inner core referred to as The Illuminati, with the aid of Jacob Frank, a militant Shabbatean convert to Catholicism and Rothschild mentor, would launch the “American” Revolution. Three years later they would bring about the French Revolution and soon thereafter the Napoleonic takeover of Europe. Napoleon, I suspect, was a descendant , like FDR and the Bushs, of Masonic crypto-Jews and puppet of the Illuminati.

By 1830, Philippe De La Noye’s descendant-- Warren Delano (FDR’s maternal grandfather) was shipping Shabbatean (Rothschild/Sassoon) Opium to China. The Sabbatian opium trade was the source of FDR’s wealth. Warren Delano was also named after the little-known Mayflower passenger Richard Warren, an ancestor of Prescott Bush. Was he a Crypto-Jew? Maybe.

Bill said (July 29, 2007):

The most useful model of the world of politics and high finance is arguably the Mafia. In which every faction co-operates in the common endeavor, but nobody trusts anybody and is always looking for some way to get the upper hand and exploit it. If there is a single head, his role is more nearly that of moderator than dictator. This is evident from considering history (very rarely indeed does a major player like the Austrian House of Rothschild ever disappear, although fortunes rise and fall among them) and the nature of business. (Or Congress, for that matter).

You never suffer one individual or interest to function in any capacity without rivals. In this way, a coalition of players "loyal" (for the time being) to you can be mobilized against a coup attempt by any one of them. With this in mind, consider that historians have long puzzled over Roosevelt's having assigned cabinet powers ambiguously enough that intra-agency rivalries consumed a lot of time and energy. This is also the way the illicit drug trade is organized, and why. Corporate politics 101.

Given an opportunity, these rival forces stick it to each other with glee. For an example, recall the way the City forces (which largely financed the Union side) prohibited the redemption of Confederate bonds (ditto French Rothschild) after the War Between the States. It would be in this light that I'd consider the Third Reich's financial system. Some saw their profits cut into. Some made out well ; all had their bets hedged to an extent. There was enough to go around for everybody and then some. In war, there usually is.

Liberty said (July 29, 2007):

You have an excellent article today on the Truth
Seeker and one that is required to keep us all alert to the propaganda and tactics that 'they' use. It is a good reminder to us all if anyone in power can betrusted and the content of your article leads me on to Ron Paul. Now as far as I am concerned Ron Paul is what one could call one of their 'containers'. Now he is sprining into action and become an election candidate. Just so convenient. For years that man has spoken of the Federal Reserve but can you ever recall ANYTHING of ANY significance that he has said
to highlight the problem to the american people?

But here is the most pertinent point. Have you ever heard Ron Paul criticise the Fed or those in power who are corrupt? No he never does. Now think about this. For years Ron Paul has been the lone voice or should we say the one 'approved' voice that has been
permitted to speak on that subject but of course NO OTHER politician has done so. Now that the people are waking up. It is time to dust him down and push him right to the front to contain the situation and give the people a focus BUT a focus that will be in safe hands.

Ron Paul is not the man that people think he is. Just listen to what he has to say. Will he ever criticise his masters?

Thanks Liberty, I am not as cynical as you about Paul. Just because he doesn't beat the drum on the Fed, doesn;t mean he isn't on our side. The reality is that the bankers do not want Paul and he will not be elected either because of media coverage or election rigging.


Robert said (July 29, 2007):

I disagree with your characterization of the plot to use Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR as a sham coup d 'etat. First, because even though Butler was assuredly the last man who would lead a coup, that would never prevent those behind the plot from believing that he could be
bought or manipulated. The elite believe everyone has a price, but they have no recourse against that one-in-ten-million--a brave and honest man--but actual or character-asassination. Second, because even though FDR was connected (he could not have been elected otherwise), that does not mean that the elite are monolithic and cannot disagree among themselves. JFK was connected, but when he tried to buck the master plan, he was murdered; same with his brother. I find it curious that the coup backers were so interested in the gold standard, when the
Federal Reserve is a far more subtle and powerful tool of control than J.P. Morgan's periodic use of manipulating the price of gold to bring the U.S. government to its knees. This suggests to me a split in the illluminati.

The biggest mystery to me is that this event--surely equal to 9/11 as a fraud and myth, if it was a fraud--has had zero exposure in the history books. Given that history can be and is controlled, surely this event could have been spun into a monumental national myth about supporting the government no matter what. Butler himself, arguably the greatest American of the last 100 years, is completely unknown to the public, and would have remained buried forever but for the internet. Given the mythos created around MacArthur and Patton, surely Butler's story could have been more profitably put to use by the powers-that-be than to place him in total obscurity. If the plot was a sham--like 9/11--why isn't it spun far-and-wide, and for equal effect, as 9/11 has been? After Butler exposed the plot, couldn't J. Edgar Hoover have rounded up a few anarchists, made them confess and had them executed, and thereby paved the way for martial law and a dictatorship to "protect the Homeland?"

Nobody would have listened to Butler protesting that the backers were millionaires, not patsies, after they were dead and villified. Perhaps it's unknown because the Illuminati don't want the precedent known:they want the "popular" fascist coup card in reserve for when they
really need it--as the American economy collapses in the next few years.



I think they handled this sham coup very well. If they publicized it, there would have been demands for the millionaires to be brought to trial. FDR was a puppet. Look who his children worked for and married! It is touching how many cling to the illusion of democracy, prefering a comfortable lie to the unpleasant truth. --Henry

Anonymous in S. Korea said (July 29, 2007):

I live in a culture and society much different from yours. But this is the same it seems; feminism and its destructive behavior to society; always depicting the few incidents as something that happens because of men, not to mention making themselves people that can only be right.

As S.Korea had been neighbors with N.Korea, USSR, and China, the introduction of communism followed by a false link with feminism had been inevitable.

Today, it actually has a Ministry of Women. A government body not many people here know why it exists, including myself, as it does a lousy job if you ask me.

Divorce rate is at one of the highest in the world, and fertility at one of the lowest. Unlike the US (which is where I think you are from), many women's universities didn't go co-ed, but instead decided to stay a women's only institution, and now has turned into a hideous feministic value instilling factory.

I applaud you for your ability to talk about these things on your books and website and talking to us, because so many men seem to be cowardice to ever even go against what the media or some women think. And some even, cheering feminists for being free to sex, as that's all they care about.

Tim said (July 28, 2007):

Interesting take on the 1933 coup. The thought had crossed my mind but I always reasoned that Butler was the closest to the event and he thought it was real so it must be real. Your article has me back to sitting on the fence and I hate that! I am now at the 50-50 point again after having been 90% sure it was a real coup attempt.

The choice of Butler to lead a coup is not as far fetched as you think. He did a lot of hatchet jobs in central & south America for decades, was very popular with the public and offering the ultimate power to even the most loyal person does work most of the time. If he went along with it they get their dictatorship and if he blows the whistle on them then FDR get the benefits you describe in the article. They could have been playing it both ways.

Tim said (July 28, 2007):

Interesting take on the 1933 coup. The thought had crossed my mind but I always reasoned that Butler was the closest to the event and he thought it was real so it must be real. Your article has me back to sitting on the fence and I hate that! I am now at the 50-50 point again after having been 90% sure it was a real coup attempt.

The choice of Butler to lead a coup is not as far fetched as you think. He did a lot of hatchet jobs in central & south America for decades, was very popular with the public and offering the ultimate power to even the most loyal person does work most of the time. If he went along with it they get their dictatorship and if he blows the whistle on them then FDR get the benefits you describe in the article. They could have been playing it both ways.

Sam said (July 28, 2007):

It isn't easy to decide exactly to what extent FDR, Hitler and Stalin and were controlled by the banksters.

Hitler was financed by the banksters. But we do know that his Government, under the direction of his finance minister Hjalmar Schacht, issued its own currency. This was apparently regarded as heresy by the banksters.

Stalin had told FDR's son that the banksters had poisoned FDR. Stalin also complained that the Banksters were trying to poison him.

Some people have suggested that while FDR was indeed put into power by the banksters, he turned against them. I would urge your readers to also take a look at "FDR vs the Banks", Part 1.


Thanks Sam,

The article you cite is by the LaRouche people. Their research on most subjects is good but in my opinion they are truly blind when it comes to Roosevelt.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at