GLORIOUS REVOLUTION???

There is, indeed, some question in regard to naming any revolution “glorious,” and I believe that such a designation should be investigated. One feels almost classically journalistic when confronting the issue, spouting “whys,” “whos,” “hows,” “whats,” and “wheres.” In this instance the answer to “where” is easy: Great Britain. Many of us know approximately “when”: mid-17th century. Let’s see if we can get a better idea about the rest of these questions, shall we? 

The term seems to be applied in a specific way to the removal of James II and the ascendance of William of Orange and his wife, Mary, the daughter of James II, to the position of Constitutional Monarch. The concept of Absolute Monarch ended thenceforth in England. It seemed to usher in an era of “the common man” in England. In that sense it was clearly revolutionary compared to prior forms of governance. Indeed, William of Orange had held the position of “stadtholder” [Dutch, lit.: "placeholder"]. This position arose from the medieval feudal system. A noble would appoint an able fellow to supervise the noble’s holdings. It seems to be akin to the Biblical position of “steward.” Hence, the powers of the stadtholder were delegated but not hereditary. In certain jurisdictions in the Dutch Republic, the stadtholder was also appointed the position of “captain-general.” So it was with William of Orange-Nassau. Although some claim that he had royal Stuart blood as grandson of Charles I, his position seems to suggest that he was a prominent citizen who was never part of the landed aristocracy. It is hard to see a man who was third in line to be king of England holding such a relatively mundane job as stadtholder. Of course, the Stuarts may well have started their social & political ascent as “stewards.” His position had some political characteristics of a governor, but it was a bit above that in terms of power and scope, I believe.

Given this background, there need be little surprise that William III acquiesced to the “leveling” energy at work in England at the time of James II’s collapsing rule, accepting the legitimacy of Parliamentarian rule of law. He himself had been a beneficiary of Dutch Republican rule. Yet, for all its “glorious” promotion [a Mr. John Hampden first coined the expression "glorious Revolution" in 1689] which lives on today, the event did not usher in an era of “good feelings,” as the Roman Catholic population of England became disenfranchised and even persecuted de facto regardless of official pronouncements.

Yet, the struggle in England was not confined to Roman Catholic vs Church of England. Unfavored Protestant groups were also treated as unwelcomed guests. Calvinists had attained a certain political cachet during the Cromwell period and continued to ride relatively high.

A political Bill of Rights may have been born, but it was more de jure than de facto.

One of the groups which were very consequential, although seldom alluded to in the American educational system, were a class of Jews, associated with trade and money-lending. Since no proper understanding of events can be had without discussing ALL the prominent actors on that stage at that time, I intend to attempt just that–with the help of some diligent researchers. Please note: I put forth information which I believe to be accurate, although there may be some errors here and there–typically minor, and the tone or style of a writer is allowed unedited, although some may not care for a word or phrase. When considering such data, it is always wise to ask oneself: Does this make sense? Is it consistent with the known history of this world? Are “financial angels” always altruistic, or may there be a self-serving aim, unannounced, in their monetary support? You’ll have to decide for yourself. Qui Bono ? On that note, please consider:

“When King Charles I was brought into disagreement with his Parliament a Jewish Money-Baron in Holland, named Manasseh Ben Israel, had his agents contact Oliver Cromwell. They offered him large sums of money if he would carry out their plan to overthrow the British Throne. Manasseh Ben Israel, and other German and French moneylenders, financed Cromwell. Fernandez Carvajal of Portugal, often referred to in history as The Great Jew, became Cromwell’s Chief Military Contractor. He re-organized the Round Heads into a model army. He provided them with the best arms and equipment money could buy. Once the conspiracy was under way, hundreds of trained revolutionaries were smuggled into England and were absorbed into the Jewish Underground. The same thing goes on in America to-day.”

> Pawns In The Game (cir.1958), William Guy Carr, p.19

The implication of this last remark of Mr. Carr’s should not be misunderstood. A citizen today might well consider the invasion of the United States by Mexicans and Central Americans as the reference. Although there may well be validity to such a viewpoint, Mr. Carr was a Canadian, lecturing both in Canada and the United States of America. There were large scale ”off-the-books” migrations into both countries, and Canada was often a “stop-over” country, as the U.S.A. was the ultimate goal. Communists, frequently Jewish, were the most important element in this semi-invisible invasion.

Parenthetically, Jews, once again, are most frequently credited with mastering the use of “double books,” “smuggling,” and “the underground.” Of course, they are not alone. Yet, their global archipelago of communities provides them with the sort of support few other groups can come near.

I believe that I should say that the word “underground” was peculiarly connected to Jews for many centuries. Americans are liable to associiate the term with the Abolitionist’s Underground during the mid-19th century in America. This is understandable, especially in light of the educational system imposed upon the American society. There may also be some connection by many Americans with the term “underground” and organized criminal doings. Whatever connection Jews may have had with the Abolitionist Movement, they are certainly connected back at least to the Roman Empire in criminal underground operations such as slavery, transport of stolen goods, prostitution, et al. But let’s continue with our look at the conditions leading up to the “Glorious” Revolution.

“The head of the Jewish underground in England at that time was a Jew named De Souze. The Great Jew, Fernandez Carvajal, had used his influence to have De Souze appointed Portugese Ambassador. It was in his house, protected by diplomatic immunity, that the leaders of the Jewish revolutionary underground remained hidden and worked out their plots and intrigues.”

Let me interject here that such meetings may have been the origins of the expression, “brain-storming.” But let’s continue with this citation.

“Once the revolution had been decided upon, the Jewish plotters introduced Calvinism into England to split Church and State, and divide the people. Contrary to general belief, Calvinism is of Jewish origin. It was deliberately conceived to split the adherents of the Christian religions, and divide the people. Calvin’s real name was Cohen! When he went from Geneva to France to start preaching his doctrine he became known as Cauin. Then in England it became Calvin. History proves that there is hardly a revolutionary plot that wasn’t hatched in Switzerland; there is hardly a Jewish revolutionary leader who hasn’t changed his name.

“At the B’nai B’rith celebrations held in Paris, France, in 1936 Cohen, Cauvin, or Calvin, whatever his name may have been, was enthusiastically acclaimed to have been of Jewish descent.”

> Supra, pp. 19-20

What were some of the tenets of the Christian religion of John Calvin (aka, Cohen, aka Cauin)? Consider:

“On both sides of the Tweed these demogogues contracted all religion into rigid observance of the ‘Sabbath.’ To use the words of Isaac Disraeli, ‘the nation was artfully divided into Sabbatarians and Sabbath breakers.‘ ‘Calvin, states Disraeli, ‘deemed the Sabbath to have been a Jewish ordinance, limited to the sacred people.’ He goes on to say that when these Calvinists held the country in their power, ‘it seemed that religion chiefly consisted of Sabbatarian rigours; and that a British senate had been transformed into a company of Hebrew Rabbins’ : and later, ‘In 1650, after the execution of the King, an Act was passed inflicting penalties for a breach of the Sabbath.’ “

I believe that this period was seminal for the eventual establishment of the Grand Lodge of Masonry in England. According to a German intelligence report in the period of the Third Reich, according to data at the time of the foundation in about 1717 A.D. of the English Grand Lodge, there were many Jews associated with it. Why would Masonic Lodges be important to Jewry? Such lodges, if they fostered the ideas which were to be accepted by the ruling circles, could be the matrix for a New Order. If you establish such lodges in every country, starting with the most important Western ones, then you plant the seeds for a global, messianic tomorrow. Hence, Masonic Lodges became “Trojan Horses” in every country inwhich they were introduced.

> The Nameless War, Captain A. H. M. Ramsay, pp. 11-12

Many people would be surprised to learn that some of the well-known, Christian leaders and their most enthusiastic followers, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, were of Jewish descent, even though their theological statements were based upon typically Pharisaic rituals and beliefs. Just as the Edomites who moved north into what was know as Idumea in the area of the old Judah Southern Kingdom, forced to become Jews by John Hyrcanus, eventually took over both the kingship (Herod) and the position of High Priest (Caiphas), as well as the chief priest positions in the time of the Israelite Messiah, Jahshua (generally known in the West as “Jesus”). Such ideas as possessed by Zionist “Christians” and the “Rapturists” seemed keyed to Jewish ploys. Yet, religion is the “high road” of contolling the masses.

So, too, may the para-religious movements be characterized, having well-known examples in Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, and possibly Lyndon LaRouche, whose most important assistants are overwhelmingly Jewish. There is also a “low road.” Consider:

“In addition to the religious controversy, the revolutionary leaders organized armed mobs to aggravate every situation injected into politics and labour by their masters. Isaac Disraeli, 1766-1848, a Jew, and father of Benjamin Disraeli, who afterwards became Lord Beaconsfield, deals with this angle of the British Revolution in detail in his two volume story The Life of Charles II. He remarks that he obtained considerable information from the records of Melchior de Salem, a Jew, who was French Envoy to the British Government at that time. Disraeli draws attention to the great similarity, or pattern, of the revolutionary activities which preceded both the British and the French revolutions. In other words the handiwork of the secret and real directors of the World Revolutionary Movement (W.R.M,) could clearly be seen in both,–a fact which we will proceed to prove.”

> Pawns In The Game, William Guy Carr, p.20

A caveat: Jews almost always dismiss any such work as forgery, fraud, lies, and anti-Semitism. The fact that the author is Jewish carries no more weight than if he were not Jewish. Not only did Jews master or create the “underground”; they most certainly mastered, if not invented, “stonewalling.”  Having said this, let’s proceed with this look at the “low road.”

“Strafford, who had been in his early days inclined to follow the opposite faction, later left them: and became a staunch and devoted adherent of the King.

“This opposition faction became steadily more hostile to Charles and by the time that they were led by Pym had decided to impeach Strafford. ‘The King,’ writes Disraeli, ‘regarded this faction as his enemies’ ; and he states that the head of this faction was the Earl of Bedford. Walsh, the eminent Catholic historian, states that a Jew wine merchant named Roussel was the founder of this family in Tudor times.

“With the impeachment and execution of Strafford, the powers behind the rising Calvinist, or Cohenist, Conspiracy began to reveal themselves, and their focus, the City of London.

“At this time there suddenly began to appear from the City armed mobs of ‘Operatives’ (the medieval equivalent for ‘workers’ no doubt). Let me quote Disraeli: ‘They were said to amount to ten thousand…with war-like weapons. It was a militia for insurgency at all seasons, and might be depended upon for any work of destruction at the cheapest rate….as these sallied forth with daggers and bludgeons (from the city) the inference is obvious that this train of explosion must have been long laid.’

“It must indeed; and we must recollect here, that at this time Strafford was still unexecuted, and civil war in the minds of none but of those behind the scenes, who evidently had long since resolved upon and planned it.”

Parenthetically, the reader may wish to reflect upon the likes of Leon Trotsky, who is said to have led a group of two hundred or more Jewish hoodlums from the Lower East Side of Manhattan toward the approaching revolutionary fireworks in Tsarist Russia, which they planned to participate in and exacerbate. Financier Jacob Schiff, according to his son, gave Trotsky [born Bronstein] $20 million in gold to use in the revolution. Upon his departure even stingy old John D. Rockefeller, Sr., gave Trotsky $10,000 in cash, according to researchers. In those days $10,000 had a lot of buying power, compared to today. It was a bit of traveling money. Presumably, Schiff’s donation was in the form of a transfer document whereby the gold would be made available through a bank in Sweden or Germany.

[Jacob Schiff's grandson, or great-grandson, married the daughter of Albert Gore, Jr., whose father, as well as himself, was the beneficiary of U.S.S.R. agent Armand Hammer, known in the U.S.S.R. as the "Capitalist Prince," whose father was a co-founder of the Communist Party in America. "Junior" took a shot at president of the U.S.A., picked up an Academy Award, and also a Nobel Prize. His investments, especially in Google, have made him a very, very rich man.]

Continuing with our citation:

“These armed mobs of ‘workers’ intimidated all and sundry, including both Houses of Parliment and the Palace at critical moments, exactly on the model employed later by the ‘Sacred Bands’ and the ‘Marseillais’ in the French Revolution.”

> The Nameless War, Captain A. H. M. Ramsay, pp. 12-13

The observant reader will note that both Commander Carr and Captain Ramsay have relied in part upon the written testimony of Isaac Disraeli. As with the well-known  Antiquities of Josephus, the written account provided by Isaac Disraeli cannot well please that portion of Jewry which so conspired or so sympathized, then, or, any time up to, now. As one of my sisters was fond of saying: “Truth hurts!”  These people operate in part upon the pleasure-pain principle, and they don’t like pain. But let’s go forward with this “low road.”

“Isaac Disraeli draws again and again startling parallels between this and the French Revolution: Notably in his passages on the Press, ‘no longer under restraint,’  and the deluge of revolutionary pamphlets and leaflets. ‘From 1640 to 1660,’ he writes, ‘about 30,000 appear to have started up.’ And later, ‘the collection of French revolutionary pamphlets now stands by the side of the French tracts of the age of Charles I, as abundant in number and as fierce in passion.’

“He goes on, ‘Whose hand behind the curtain played the strings….could post up a correct list of 59 commoners, branding them with the odious title of Stratfordians or betrayers of their country.’ “

Let me again interject the thought that this usage was emplyed in my time against Mr. Senator Joseph McCarthy. Surrounded and hounded by enemies, he was, in effect, executed. The pamphleteers of today inveighed against him with the same malice. Let’s continue with this citation.

“Whose hand indeed? But Disraeli who knew so much, now discreetly draws a veil over that iron curtain; and it is left to us to complete the revelation.

“To do so we must turn to such other works as the Jewish Encyclopedia, Sombart’s work, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, and others. From these we learn that Cromwell, the chief figure of the revolution, was in close contact with powerful Jew financiers in Holland; and was in fact paid large sums of money by Manasseh Ben Israel; whilst Fernandez Carvajal, ‘The Great Jew’ as he was called, was the chief contractor of the New Model Army.

“In The Jews in England  we read:–’1643 brought a large contingent of Jews to England, their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew) [ed.-more properly, a "converted" Jew]. Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor.’

“In January of the previous year, the attempted arrest of the five members had set in violent motion the armed gangs of ‘Operatives’ already mentioned, from the city. Revolutionary pamphlets were broadcasted on this occasion, as Disraeli tells us: ‘Bearing the ominous insurrectionary cry of ‘To your tents, O Israel’.’ Shortly after this the King and the Royal Family left the Palace of Whitehall. The five members with armed mobs and banners accompanying them, were given a triumphal return to Westminster. The stage was now set for the advent of Carvajal and his Jews and the rise of their creature Cromwell.”

> The Nameless War, Captain A. H. M. Ramsay, pp. 12-13

I don’t believe that this was the first attempt at Jewish-sponsored revolution in England. Only a few decades after Edward booted the Jews out of England in 1290 A.D., a movement began among the peasants of upper central England. They were basically espousing equalitarian views and striking out in violent and destructive ways toward the lords and lordly of the land. Interestingly, they called their movement, “The Great Society.” In my time a president of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, used the exact terminology to describe his “vision for America.” Incidentally, the peasants’ revolt was smashed in a decisive battle in 1381 A.D. (Chaucer had been writing nearby but never mentioned the battle or the reasons for it. Uninterested? Or discreet?) Be that as it may, the prelude to the “Glorious Revolution” was as “icky” and “deadly” as anything Bela Kun and Tibor Samuelly ever dreamed up for the Hungarian Revolution. But let’s proceed, shall we?

“The evidence which ABSOLUTELY convicts Oliver Cromwell of participating in the Jewish Revolutionary Plot was obtained by Lord Alfred Douglas, who edited a weekly review Plain English published by the North British Publishing Co. In an article which appeared in the issue of Sept. 3rd, 1921, he explained how his friend, Mr. L. D. Van Valckert of Amsterdam, Holland, had come into possession of a missing volume or records of the Synagogue of Muljeim. This volume had been lost during the Napoleonic wars. The volume contains records of letters written to, and answered by the Directors of the Synagogue.

“They are written in German. One entry, dated June 16th, 1647 reads:

” ‘From O.C. (i.e.) Oliver Cromwell, to Ebenezer Pratt.

” ‘In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England; This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.’

“In reply to this dispatch the records show E. Pratt wrote a letter dated July 12th, 1647, addressed to Oliver Cromwell.

” ‘Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed, and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles should be given an opportunity to escape. His recapture will then make trial execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.’

“On November 12th that same year Charles was given the opportunity to escape. He was of course recaptured. Hollis and Ludlow, authorities on this chapter of history, are both on record as considering the flight as the stratagem of Cromwell. After Charles had been recaptured events moved apace. Cromwell had the British Parliament purged of most members he knew were loyal to the king. Notwithstanding this drastic action, when the House sat all night on December 5th, 1648, the majority agreed ‘That the concessions offered by the king were satisfactory to a settlement.’

“Any such settlement would have disqualified Cromwell from receiving the Blood-Money promised him by the International Money-Barons through their agent E. Pratt, so Cromwell struck again. He ordered Colonel Pryde to purge Parliament of those members who had voted in facour of a settlement with the King. What then happened is referred to, in school history books, as Pryde’s Purge. When the purge was finished fifty members remained. They are recorded as The Rump Parliament. They usurped absolute power. On January 9th, 1649, ‘A HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE’ was proclaimed for the purpose of putting the king of England on trial. Two thirds of the members of the Court were ‘Levellers’ from Cromwell’s Army. The conspirators couldn’t find an English lawyer who would draw up a criminal charge against King Charles. Carvajal instructed an alien Jew, Isaac Dorislaus, Manasseh Ben Israel’s Agent in England, to draw up the indictment upon which King Charles was tried. Charles was found guilty of the charges levelled against him by the International Jewish money-lenders, not by the people of England. On January 30th, 1649, he was publicly beheaded in front of the Banqueting House at Whitehall, London. The Jewish money-lenders, directed by the High Priests of the Synagogue of Satan, had had their revenge because Edward I had expelled the Jews from England. Oliver Cromwell received his Blood-Money just as Judas had done.

“History proves that the International Jewish money-lenders had a purpose other than revenge for getting rid of Charles. They removed him to obtain control of England’s economy and government….”

>  Pawns In The Game, William Guy Carr (Commander R.C.N. ret’d), pp. 20-21

By controlling debt, a small group may ride a much larger group, as a dwarf may ride and control a great stallion, so long as the “law” is on their side. Around the turn of the 20th century, Britain was known as the “Protector of the Jews.” The terminology suggests a great people protecting a small, just people. Wrong on both accounts. After Britain had “spent” its best masculine blood in wars to protect the interests of the Jews, it passed the baton to Anglophilic America. We do the same as they did and for the same reasons. The end is near.

Downnlaced, 2008.

THE BANK OF ENGLAND

There are few single words that have the power of “money.” Although it is not my plan to reference the dawn of money, I do note that it has been around in various forms for millennia. The area of interest today is central banks. In the United States just after the first decade iof the 20th century, powerful men conspired to create a central bank. This was not the first effort. The pretext was to find an institution which could keep our currency stable, ironing out the old “boom or bust” cycles. Additionally, as the possibility of war breaking out in Europe seemed each year more likely, the proposed institution would be a means to fund any wartime costs which the United States might incur, either through direct participation or by the support of one of the belligerents.

Needless to say, these efforts won favor, and the Federal Reserve Act was enacted by Congress into law. This act created a private central bank system, which was to work closely both with the nation’s banks, whether members or not, and with the federal government. It even took the title of “federal,” even though it was not an instrument of the federal government, per se, but of private banks. Unlike government units, it has never had a public audit. It does, however, pay property taxes, unlike federal property in the District of Columbia. the most important thing for contemporary Americans to understand is that the “Fed” was set up by rich men, mostly New Yorkers, and has ever worked to keep their descendants, cronies and “fellow travelers” in a Land of Milk and Honey, while other Americans were to taste of famine as often as plenty. The “Fed” never controlled the money in such a way as to “even out” the potential recessions and booms. In that sense, it failed. Even today, Americans witness the oncoming recession, even as the “Fed” bails out the rich Baer Sterns Merchant Bank and probably others–secretly. Big banks and Wall Street are still “kin folk” to the people who control the policies of the Federal Reserve Board and regional boards.

This American central bank is a “johnny-come-lately” as an institution. Modern Western central banking finds its genesis with The Bank of England. This is, in fact, the focus of my blog probe. As with the Federal Reserve System in America, the origins of The Bank of England are perfumed by thousands of polished “go-fors” whose reason to be is to deflect probes. After the perfumed ones come the rose petal strewers. The English are masters of the dignified, costumed parade.

But what are the real circumstances that young minds–and not so young–should understand? I want to call to your attention some sources which I believe to be reliable. Consider:

“It took a revolution in England to lay the foundation for the Bank ‘of England.’ This took place in 1688. Six years later the bank received its special privileges. Soon afterwards, a Board of Trade was set up, with John Locke as a member. This bank lost no time in getting busy to accomplish the purposes for which it had been established.

“In 1694, under the guise of a disputed succession to the throne of England, the gold gang forced William III to legalize their previous sub-rosa practice, thereby legalizing the system by means of which the gold worshippers could periodically despoil all producers and workers.

“In order to emphasize the facts, we quote from The Breakdown of Money, by Christopher Hollis:

” In 1694 the Government of William III was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson offered to lend William 1,200,000 [pounds sterling] at 8 per cent on the condition that ‘the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect 1,200,000 [pounds sterling] in gold and silver and to turn it into 2,400,000 [pounds strl.], lending 1,200,000 [pounds strl.], the gold and silver, to the Government, and using the other 1,200,000 [pounds strl.], the bank-notes, themselves. Patterson was quite frank about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make up money. ‘If the proprietors of the Bank,’ he wrote, ‘can circulate their own fundation of twelve hundren thousand pounds without having more than two or three hundred thousand pounds lying dead at one time with another, this Bank will be in effect as nine hundred thousand pounds or a million of fresh money brought into the nation.’ In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or three hundred thousand pounds. By 1696 we find them circulating 1,750,000 [pounds strl.] worth of notes against a cash reseve of 36,000 [pounds strl.].

” Intelligent critics saw that the experiment had proved that it was perfectly possible to manufacture money without any metallic backing but that it was dangerous and iniquitous to allow the privilege of that manufacture to be in private hands. For instance Bishop Berkeley, the idealist philosopher, writing in 1735 his Queries Proposed to the Consideration of the Public, asked ‘Whether it be not a mighty privilege for a private person to create a hundred pounds with a dash of his pen,’ and ‘Whether it be not evident that we may maintain a much greater outward and inward commerce, and be five times richer than we are, and our bills abroad be of far greater credit, though we had not one ounce of gold or silver in the whole island.’

“Not long after the Bank ‘of England’ began to create its private money, the rapid growth of the American Colonies attracted attention at home. Not satisfied with the profits they made through regular commerce with the Colonists, the ‘merchants’ wanted more; so began an insidious campaign to exploit the industrious Colonists.” 

> Money Creators, Gertrude M. Coogan, pp. 176-177

This is not the conclusion of our look at the “Old Lady.” Nor is it the conclusion of our look at the baleful influence it had upon the prosperity of the American Colonies. The origin(s) of the central bank of England has drawn a number of intelligent researchers. Whoever William Patterson was, he was not alone. Who else was involved? Consider:

“It is important to remember that no sooner was the Dutch General [plain William Stradholder,who was elevated to Captain-General, became William, Prince of Orange] sitting upon the throne of England than he persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1,250,000 [pounds sterling] from the Jewish bankers who had put him there. The school book history informs our children that the negotiations were conducted by Sir John Houblen and Mr. William Patterson on behalf of the British Government with money-lenders WHOSE IDENTITY REMAINED SECRET.

“Search of historical documents reveal that in order to maintain complete secrecy the negotiations regarding the terms of the loan were carried on in church. In the days of Christ the money-lenders used the Temple. In the days of William of Orange they desecrated a church.

“The international money-lenders agreed to accommodate the British Treasury to the extent of 1,250,000 [pounds strl.] providing they could dictate their own terms and conditions. This was agreed to. The terms were in part:

1. That the names of those who made the loan remain secret; and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Bank of England.
2. That the directors of the Bank of England be granted the legal right to establish the Gold Standard for currency by which–
3. They could make loans to the value of 10 [pounds strl.] for every 1 [pound strl.] value of gold they had on deposit in their vaults.
4. That they be permitted to consolidate the national debt; and secure payment of amounts due as principal and interest by direct taxation of the people.

“Thus, for the sum of 1,200,000 [pounds strl.], King William of Orange sold the people of England into economic bondage….

“The international bankers never intended that England be allowed to pay off the national indebtedness. The plan was to create international conditions which would plunge ALL nations concerned deeper and deeper into their debt.

“As far as England is concerned, in only four years, 1694 to 1698, the national debt was increased from one to sixteen million pounds sterling. This debt accumulated because of wars. It is interesting to note that John Churchill, 1650-1722, became the leading military figure during this period of English history. Because of his military genius, and his services to Britain, he was created the first Duke of Marlborough.

“The Secret Power behind the World Revolutionary Movement pulled the necessary strings and brought about The Wars of the Spanish Succession. In 1701 the Duke of Marlborough was made Commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Holland. No less an authority than the Jewish Encyclopedia records the fact that FOR HIS MANY SERVICES THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH RECEIVED NOT LESS THAN 6,000 [pounds strl.] A YEAR FROM THE DUTCH JEWISH BANKER, SOLOMON MEDINA.

“The events leading up to the French Revolution show how between 1698 and 1815 the National Debt of Britain was increased to 885,000,000 [pounds strl.]. By 1945 the British National Debt had reached the astronomical fugure of 22,503,532,372 [pounds strl.], and for the years 1945-46 the carrying charges alone amounted to 445,446,241 [pounds strl.]. As an Irish economist remarked ‘Only a Jewish controlled  organization would insist on the odd pound.’ “

> Pawns In The Game, William Guy Carr, pp. 23-25

Now, this last citation covered a bit more than the formation of the Bank of England, but I considered the extension justified. This central bank is a “Trojan Horse” whose purpose is to bring about the conquest of the recipient. That is also the reason for the Federal Reserve Act and the central bank it created. In either case the beneficiaries of this debt-mongering operation extoll its virtues, as do their allies, agents and fronts. I dub these latter “dogs,” and they rarely bite the hand that feeds them.

Now, there are three means of acquiring wealth: 1) produce it, 2) inherit it, or 3) take it. In days gone by war and the taking of spoils, at the least, augmented whatever wealth was being produced by laborious means. To be successful using this method, one needed to have a large standing army of trained soldiers, plus a plethora of farmboys and herdboys to shanghai into the army as “extras.” If one were a part of a small group of people, conquest by force of arms, however soothing to violent souls, might not be practical route to “sudden wealth.” Yet, if a small group of people developed the needed acumen, then usury might hold the power of a conquering army. There is no reason why war lords and money lords might not work together, so long as it proved mutually advantageous. Further, if peace could be imposed on the world, as well as usury, then the masters of usury would also be the masters of the world.

The events related in regard to the loan to the Treasury by the Patterson-led group is interesting in regard to their demand to collateralize the loan by bestowing upon the lending group the right to directly tax the English subjects. This is the same right that was claimed for the Sixth Amendment by the bankers and their dogs in America, even though Justice White [about 1918) had stated in a decision that it was an “excise tax” by its nature and “nothing new.” Loan-sharking operations require “break-legs” to fetch the “vigorish” or interest. Was there a precedent to the English request for the right to tax as a collateral to a loan? Consider:

“It is these hidden incidents which reveal so much truth. It was in Spain, during the 14th Century, that the Jewish money-lenders first succeeded in having the loans they made the State secure by the right to collect the taxes levied upon the people. They used such cruelty, when demanding their Pound of Flesh, that it only required the inflammatory oratory of the priest Fernando Martenez to produce mass action which ended in one of the bloodiest massacres recorded in history. Here again is a perfect example of how thousands of innocent Jews were victimized, for the sins and crimes committed against humanity by just a few.”

> Pawns In The Game, William Guy Carr, p.17

Whether many or few, these money manipulators were able, it seems, to operate from an archipelago of connected communities, which acted as a sort of “safehouse” for one or more branches temporarily in “hot water” elsewhere. What is important to understand is that their efforts never ceased over many centuries. Their set-backs were eventually countered by “great leaps forward.”

In my view the Bank of England was one such “great leap forward.”

Downnlaced, 2008.