Rothschild… China, White Phosphorous, Iran and Iraq

Posted in Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on February 26, 2011

MP Lazarowicz has been advised time and time again about the Rothschild influence yet has simply refused to accept what is in front of his eyes written in black and white by the UK Parliament.

From: Earthling
Subject: Coming soon… to the UK.
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Dear Mark,

Don’t say I didn’t warn you Mark. Your government of today know it. They’re getting ready for it.
But while all of your colleagues keep your mouths shut to keep in line with the party, this is what you are allowing to build up.
Because you’re allowing yourselves to be bullied. You’re all weak. Just a fact Mark. You’ve lost your individuality. You’re no longer “Mark Lazarowicz” you’re “Mark Lazarowicz Labour MP”. And you and your MP colleagues feel so proud and better and above everyone else – that’s why you feel no need to reply to points which are facts and you cannot argue.
I could be wrong but I sense you picking up on all of this while it’s just too hard and too dangerous for you in your position to speak out. But don’t worry. Your weakness will be more than made up for by those who will. The unfortunate thing is – when they look to you they will ask what your modus operandi was. The answer: “To keep my job”. FAR more important than doing your job isn’t it?
You’re not going to like Britain soon Mark. I don’t like it now but then I “see” it whereas you don’t. You wish to believe it’s all going to blow over.
You’re so very very wrong. Having said that, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve seen this coming for years now. I’ve educated myself immensely to see the how’s and the why’s.

Wisconsin Capitol Building: The Police join the protestors.

We have Police in the UK Mark who are beginning to listen too. We don’t want a mini civil war now do we? Or would the bankers profit from it? 😉

I’m just trying to get through to you Mark. When the questions are put nicely I get nothing in return or I get the BULLSHIT responses you know I just got from an evasive treasury. When someone is faced by people who show them no respect, then those people tend to be offered no respect. It’s not a preference but straight, blunt talking is needed and it’s going to be needed even more unless you people get your fingers out of your collective posteriors.

As for the attachments. Just to give you a flavour (hardly exhaustive) of the Rot of the Rothschilds which has crept in over the last couple of centuries – and never let up – while they have “advised” (and I use that term advisedly) the government on all the major sell offs of our industry. A to Z. I haven’t even touched on the Motor industry. So while all the developing world is doing great – investment, GDP growth etc BECAUSE they have basic industry – the UK has zero. Oh EXCEPT for perhaps TWO things – TWO guesses what they are Mark? ….. BANKING and???……….. ARMAMENTS/DEFENCE/WHITE PHOSPHOROUS/ DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS to sell to Iran and Iraq and every other dictatorship Rothschild can do business with.

Is it getting clearer Mr Lazarowicz?

I wait in hope Mark to hear from a man not a mouse.


PS: As for the mousy quiet Darling (another weak willed Scot just doing as he’s told – but the pay is good) who has refused to answer the questions I put to him also. Isn’t this a rather interesting little statement he made a number of years ago in the commons:

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The reason why we ask him to be brief is that we know that he can make his arguments extremely well briefly, which he does time and again——and I say that not only because he happens to be one of my next-door neighbours in an Edinburgh constituency.
The debate has been extremely useful. On few occasions that I have witnessed in the eight years I have been a Member has the House spent so much time discussing directly problems which affect so many of our constituents, and also a problem that is fundamental to the future development of the economy.
There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the principle of venture capital trusts. We all agree that it is desirable, and from time to time necessary, to use fiscal incentives to ensure that investments are made in the sectors where we need it.
The difference between us is threefold. First, we believe that the Government need to consider other sectors, which have been mentioned on both sides of the House. Secondly, we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that, if one gives a tax incentive, one does not end up subsidising undesirable behaviour, such as the behaviour that occurred when the business expansion scheme was set up. In that respect, too, there was common ground on both sides of the House. The difference between the two sides is that those who support the Government do not appear to accept that there is a case for ensuring that there should be safeguards in relation to venture capital trusts.
I suppose that the third difference between us is that we believe that the Government have given fiscal incentives in undesirable ways, such as the business
expansion scheme, but the Government will not accept that the taxpayer’s money has thereby been poured down the drain. I shall perhaps discuss that later.
7.15 pm
The Minister appeared reluctant to accept that there is no difference of principle between us, so we should perhaps not spend too much time trying to make differences where none exist. Perhaps British industry as a whole will welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of encouraging investment in what is known as the investment gap, which has been identified by almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
However, I took exception when the Minister said that because no one was focusing on granny farms, as he put it, that was all right. In support of his proposition, he cited the fact that Rothschild’s supported the Government. What a surprise—Rothschild’s supports the Government. I am sure that a bank such as Rothschild’s, which has no fewer than 14 times been the recipient of public largesse, either as an adviser to the Government or as an underwriter of its flotation schemes, should say, “Well done the Government for coming up with that scheme.”
Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, if venture capitalists do take great care in assessing the risks and evaluating the projects before them, it is scarcely surprising that the Chancellor hardly sat down after his Budget statement before our old chums at Rothschild’s announced that they were going to set up a venture capital trust. They could not have known what was in the Budget, could they? How on earth would they know what a surefire bet it was—unless, of course, they had the amazing foresight of the noble Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare?How could Rothschild’s say so confidently that it was going to set up a venture capital trust unless it had made an evaluation of the type of tax breaks available and knew that, no matter what the risk, no matter what venture it backed, it was guaranteed to obtain a suitable return?
I do not think that the Minister can rely on Rothschild’s for support, therefore, and I believe that both he and Conservative Members generally, today of all days, would do well to be very quiet about Rothschild’s and the Conservative party, for reasons that people outside and inside the House will understand.
The main subject to which successive hon. Members drew attention was the funding gap between quoted companies and small businesses, many of which are funded by family money or by bank overdraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said, that is starting to change; nevertheless, there is obviously a funding gap and we welcome the fact that the Government are tackling it.
I want to take up an argument that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made about property. I think that we all accept that if inflation remains low—a big “if’—obviously property will not be the kind of bet that it was in the past 30 or 40 years. However, in my travels around the City of London I have been surprised how many people tell me that they are getting back into property again. We all remember the property collapses of the 1970s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s; yet people are getting back into property because it is regarded as a major asset in a portfolio.

But no, indeed, Alistair has no idea what I’m talking about when I put those questions to him now does he?
Would you care to comment Mark? No, I guess not.


I hope that gives a fairly decent summary to you all regarding Rothschild TOTAL influence on the UK government (along with their “Friends of Israel lobby) which you can consider having watched the following Channel 4 programme “Dispatches” Nov 16 2009:

While you may then consider the following Rothschild “ADVICE” to the UK government:

While you may also consider the following Rothschild/Mandelson/Osbourne threesome:


While you ALSO may consider this. Mandelson and Blair dine with the Rothschilds and Gaddafi:

And this…. Mandelson is, in fact, very likely a Rothschild…..


While Hannah Rothschild calls him “The REAL PM”! 😉

From the Independent 24th October 2010:

And finally, you may wish to understand why our dearly departed ex PM Blair gets along so well and becomes so rich while being picked up by J.P. Morgan (another Rothschild front bank):


Who arranged the entire thing for him? Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild, old Evelyn’s bit of fluff!


Jewish banishment and The “City” of London

Posted in Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Money, Political History, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on February 26, 2011

I think it’s important, for the “naysayers” who visit this blog, that I prologue it with a point re the “Crown of England”. The following is a statement made by Tony Benn in the Houses of Parliament not too many years ago (and it matters not when such was said anyhow). This is very very simple: The British people have no idea who this “Crown” is. It acts outside of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. As such, it acts outwith the law yet decides what this thing called “Law” is!

The Crown prosecutes. Our Armed Forces fight and kill and destroy nations on its say so. Our Police and Forces take an oath to this “thing” called “the Crown”. They believe it to be “Her Majesty” the monarch without understanding at all that the monarchy is NOT a person or the Queen and her family. The Monarchy is a Constitutional Office. When it comes to the profit of the British Queen and her family from the “Crown Estate”, it is, in actual fact, deceptive criminal theft by the “reigning monarch” (like a reigning CEO of a corporation stealing the wealth of the company yet, the person in the office of CEO does not have the legal or lawful entitlement to take the wealth of the company because it is the Corporation in total as a legal person which owns the wealth and NOT the CEO). This is PRECISELY the same when we look at this “Constitutional Monarch” in office profiting no longer from a Civil List but from various sources of the country’s wealth.

Our Armed Forces, Police and judiciary are immensely ignorant but do what they are told otherwise they will not eat. They do as the “Crown” bids simply because, if they question it, then their wealth and the wealth of their family disappears. The Policeman with integrity would be sacked and the soldier fighting for his dearest “Crown” would find himself at the mercy of “friendly fire”.

So, what were those words of Tony Benn which crystallises the seriousness of this issue?

Here they are:

“I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not.The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”


Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:


Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits

“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”
Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)

Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?

Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —

Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.

1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )

[As an addendum to the above, I feel it is necessary to clarify that, before the expulsion in 1290, there was the Statute of the Jewry in 1275, entirely based upon the moneylending and usury issue:  jews1275.html

Now please understand that this is just pure factual history and the pieces fall where they fall.

It seems very obvious to me that, while the Islamic religion has not forgotten one of its fundamental cornerstones: NO USURY, the Christian world simply has. For NO USURY is a cornerstone of the christian religion too. I wonder, then, why Christians call themselves christians? They don’t follow Jesus’ teachings and haven’t done so in the west since the following took place – the readmission of jewish usury into England by Oliver Cromwell during the 1640 – 1660 period and then the establishment of the Bank of England where one can see, William of Orange and his Queen, Mary became original investors – it is on Bank of England documents]

JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “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.” —

To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.

A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.

With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )

(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.

A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.

The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.
* The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.

Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )

Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.

Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England

Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange

Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby

Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery

UPDATE 4 Nov 2011: George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper. Although he just doesn’t go quite far enough into the history and the connectivity. Mainstream media now supporting much of the above regarding the “above the law” nature of the City of London. I rest my case your honour!

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance.

    • George Monbiot

Daniel Pudles 01112011

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

It’s the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it’s the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, “among local authorities the City of London is unique”. You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You’re most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don’t even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you “must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery”. You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a “contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year.” This is, in other words, an official old boys’ network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.

The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation’s unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.

The Lord Mayor’s role, the Corporation’s website tells us, is to “open doors at the highest levels” for business, in the course of which he “expounds the values of liberalisation”. Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it “handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City”, such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts “extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services.” But this isn’t the half of it.

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London’s mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.” The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it’s colluding with Babylon.

If you’ve ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. “The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …”.

The Corporation’s privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK’s dependent tax havens.

But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor’s Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.

Article: corporation-london-city-medieval

Now, when you think of “an Empire” and you may think America is the Empire of today, think again. Britain “lost” it’s Empire didn’t it?

Well maybe or….. Maybe not.

I go with the latter. You see, it does NOT take an army to ensure an Empire. What size if the Commonwealth? The Commonwealth is THE largest group of human beings (and resources) in the world. What is the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government of the United States? What controls them? What if it were that the City of London and Bank of England controlled them? So many (the majority) people believe this is just a “flight of fancy”. It isn’t.

Watch this next movie (very enlightening) and consider the following Telegraph article (which I have blogged about elsewhere on this blog):

The United States becoming an “Associate Member” of the Commonwealth? Now WHY would they “need” to do that? And what about Brexit? What’s that all about?

Well, this is what it may well all be about:

From U.S. Congressional Archives 1940:

Mr. Speaker, In order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Re-public, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point. These articles are entitled “Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife.” This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled “Triumphant Democracy.”

In this he expresses himself in this manner:

“Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited states—the British-American Union.”

“Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody— any Congress, any government, any President—to break the good faith which they have pledged to the mother country. In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book entitled, “Triumphant Democracy.” I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which we destroyed constitutional government, international security, and paved the road for us to become a colony of the British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under the control and domination of the Bank of England and the international banking groups that are now financing the British-Israel movement in the United States. It was also the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone does not know is that we were committed to this war in 1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan’s own testimony before the Senate committee investigating the munitions industry. Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British- Israel movement.”

Please note that the following movie (and other such movies) will NEVER mention jewish control of the banks or banking system, so don’t be looking for it. But bear this in mind while watching.


I hope you notice the myriad of Spanish and non jewish sounding names in that list. This list, as I know, is not available anywhere else in blogs throughout the internet. I may be wrong.

All of the above can then lead me into tying this up to what is happening in China and Hong Kong today but that would have me simply regurgitating my blog “CAPITALIZING CHINA”.  How has the City of London then taken significant control in China?

Enter the concept of the “Legal Person” – a British legal basic jurisprudence term:

Am I a “Conspiracy theorist”? YES….. indefatigably YES! Why?

Because I’ve researched, done my homework and I have found that the entire globe is shaped by events which are entirely linked. So yes, there IS one umbrella conspiracy. Not to say there are not factions within it who play on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”, BUT they all use you and I as pawns in this big game.

Let the naysayers in media and elsewhere scoff as they will but they are entirely ignorant; generally, have never fully immersed themselves into research and know that to do so and then speak of it, they would lose their well paid positions.

A couple of things to ponder over:


HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56


With all deference to the most reverend Primate, that is not what the court is            338            asked to declare. The court is asked to declare that the child was born in lawful wedlock between Mrs. X and Y. Otherwise, by the laws of legitimacy as understood in this country, it could not be a legitimate child. It is that which personally I find so shocking.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seemed to think—at least so I understood—that there was no material difference between the situation which I have just described and the situation which was dealt with by the Act of 1926, under which both the parents were unmarried at the time of the birth of the child and they merely, as it were, anticipated the ceremony. But to me at any rate, there is all the difference in the world between the two cases. In one case both were free to marry each other; in the other one or both was solemnly linked at the time in wedlock to another man or another woman. How is it possible for the court to ignore that fact? If I may say so with all deference—and this is a great impertinence—some lawyers always seem to think that by adding the adjective “legal” to the word “fiction” it makes it much more respectable, just as in politics when a Government wants to do something which is manifestly unjust to some section of the community it thinks it makes it sound better by calling it “social” justice. In both cases, the addition of the adjective is intended to produce a different and more agreeable atmosphere. But to the ordinary man, such as most of us in this House are, a fiction remains a fiction, whatever adjective is attached to it; a lie remains a lie even though it is condoned by the law.


HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………

Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”


“It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”



Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on February 23, 2011

“For twenty-two years, twenty-four merchants of the city of London, as the directors of this corporation, had, without check and without control, the unlimited power of issuing a forced paper currency on the country, for their own exclusive benefit. The public did not participate in any way in the advantage derived from this establishment; and this corporation, uncontrolled and unlimited, had the power of issuing notes to any amount, without any expense to them but the trifling expense of paper and the payment of their clerks”.


Which continues to the present day but in VASTLY increased number by way of the fractional reserve system and the forever increasing number of “financial instruments” they have used (and abused) to rape the public of their wealth. And TODAY’S Chancellor does quite the same as the Chancellor of 1818 – Says NOTHING!



HC Deb 26 January 1819 vol 39 cc0-111 0
§Mr. Grenfell said, he had often addressed the House on the subject to which he was about to allude—a Subject of deep interest, and one which demanded all the wisdom of the House. Notices had been given of different motions since the opening of the session, connected with the question he was about to submit to their consideration. The first was from his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), the second from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer; and notice had been given by an hon. and learned friend of his (sir J. Mackintosh), on the subject of the fabrication of bank notes—an inquiry of deep public interest in every way that it could be considered—interesting as it affected national credit, and doubly interesting as it affected the happiness, the character, and the morals of the people. It would 109 be of course extremely ill-timed in him to enter into a subject which happily was in the hands of men so capable of treating it with superior knowledge and ability: it was not his intention. The only object he had in view in calling the attention of parliament to the subject was, to show that the corporation of the Bank of England had, during a period of twenty-two years, accumulated an enormous mass of wealth at the expense of the public, without the performance of any public service that could entitle them to that exclusive benefit—that they had accumulated wealth during a shorter period, and to a greater amount, than any body of men had been ever able to do, in any banking or commercial country, since banking or commerce had been established in the world. The first great benefit this corporation enjoyed flowed directly from the Bank Restriction bill, an act which was first passed in the year 1797, and from that period down to the present, the Bank had been relieved from the necessity of paying in cash, and had therefore been exonerated from the performance of its pecuniary engagements. For twenty-two years, twenty-four merchants of the city of London, as the directors of this corporation, had, without check and without control, the unlimited power of issuing a forced paper currency on the country, for their own exclusive benefit. The public did not participate in any way in the advantage derived from this establishment; and this corporation, uncontrolled and unlimited, had the power of issuing notes to any amount, without any expense to them but the trifling expense of paper and the payment of their clerks. There was, he should add, one other item in their expenditure—one, he supposed, of considerable amount, from the frequency of the case—he meant the numerous prosecutions carried on by the Bank, from one extremity of the kingdom to the other, against those unhappy wretches who were almost every hour brought to the bar of criminal justice, on the charge of forging notes. This practice had of late years been carried to so alarming an extent, as to call forth, from every quarter, the loudest murmurs of disapprobation—it forced itself upon the attention of parliament, and demanded an immediate inquiry.—The next great source of profit and advantage to the Bank was the enormous extortions which they had committed in their various contracts with the 110 government. By means of their exclusive credit, the corporation of the Bank had been enabled to meet the wants of the minister, but they had done so on terms enormous and highly injurious to the country. These matters, he said, had been frequently mentioned—they have been met on the part of the Bank, sometimes by assertion, often in silence, and never by disproof. He concluded by moving for —1. “Accounts of the total weekly amount of Bank notes and Bank post bills in circulation, from the 1st Jan. to the 25th Jan. 1819. 2. Of the amount of Bank notes in circulation on the 7th and 12th of each month, from Jan. 1818, to Jan. 1819, both inclusive. 3. Of the highest and lowest aggregate amount of bank notes, including those of every kind, at any one time in circulation from the 1st Jan. 1818, to the 25th of Jan. 1819, both days inclusive. 4. Of the weekly amount of bank notes in circulation of the value of 5l. and less, from the 1st Jan. 1818, to the 25th of Jan. both inclusive. 5. Of the market prices of standard gold in bars, of Portugal gold in coin, standard silver in bars, and Spanish dollars, or pillar pieces of eight, with the course of exchange with Hamburgh, Lisbon, and Paris, from the 1st Jan. 1818, to the 25th Jan. 1819. 6. Of the balances of cash in the hands of the Bank of England, on the 1st and 15th days of each month between the 1st Jan. and 15th December, 1818, inclusive, resulting from payments under the head of customs, and of all other branches of the public revenue, stating the average balances of the year, made up from the said days. 7. Of the balances of cash in the hands of the Bank of England, on the 1st and 15th days of each month, between the 1st Jan. and 15th Dec. 1818, inclusive, resulting from the postmaster-general’s account with the Bank, stating the average balance of the year, made up from the said days. 8. Of the balances of cash in the hands of the Bank of England on the 1st and 15th days of each month between the 1st Jan. and 15th Dec. 1818, inclusive belonging to the different departments of the government, including the balances of the accountant-general of the court of chancery, and stating the average balance of the year, made up from the said days. 9. Of all other public balances not particularly specified in the three preceding accounts with the bank of England; on the 1st Jan. 1819; 111 distinguishing the amount under each head respectively, and stating the aggregate amount of the whole. 10. Of the total amount of unclaimed dividends, including lottery prizes, in the hands of the Bank on the 1st and 15th days of every month in the year 1818 inclusive. 11. Of the Exchequer bills and Bank notes deposited by the governor and company of the bank of England, as cash, in the chests of the four tellers of his majesty’s receipt of exchequer, on the 2nd Jan. 1818, and on every 28th day subsequent to that period, down to the 1st Jan. 1819; distinguishing the amount of all such Bank of England notes as exceeded in value l,000l. each, known at the Exchequer under the title of special notes, and stating the average balances of the year, made up from the said days. 12. Of all allowances made by the public, to the Bank, or charged by the Bank against the public, exclusive of the charge for the management of the public debt, for transacting any public service in the year 1818; describing the nature of the services, and the amount charged thereon in the said year, and including the sums paid to the Bank under the denomination of Charges of Management. 13. Of the advances made by the Bank of England to government on land and malt exchequer bills, and all other securities, on the 10th Jan. 10th April, 10th July, and 10th Oct. 1818, and on the 10th Jan. 1819.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it was not his intention to object to the production of the accounts. The information they contained might be usefully laid before the House, preparatory to the discussion which was to take place. With regard to the hon. gentleman’s comments, and the justness of the inferences which he had drawn, a better opportunity would soon present itself for the consideration of them.
§ The motions were then agreed to.

Now on to the present day Governor of the Bank: Mervyn King.
Looks like the usual old gent who loves his kids and grandchildren right?

Maybe so. But he couldn’t give a DAMN about yours!

So Merv here suggests the “quantitive easing” is entirely necessary and a good idea. Yet Merv knows full well how the creation of money happens with the stroke of a pen – NO MORE, NO LESS! – while Merv then goes around the country evangelizing about why the fractional reserve system should be and has to be abolished. So while he knows the money is created out of nothing and that all the money created out of nothing can then be multiplied by factors of 10 or substantially more (and, in fact, within investment banking, when they get their hands on it, can be factors of 1000 and far more! So the money they gambled with and you and I paid back to them DID NOT EVER EXIST!).

However, it’s worse than that when it comes to Merv. You see Merv KNEW you were all going to be stolen from in 2008. He knew this at least as far back as May of 2003! How do i know this? This is why:

“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.”

While you have people like Blanchflower here spouting off about having worked for the MPC – therefore, this must give him authority to speak on the subject while he doesn’t have a clue who the 24 original merchants were. While he’ll ignore the fact that this “Independent Bank” (oh yes it is indeed) has aspects of its charter protected by the Official Secrets Act (Oh yes it does – Bank of England Act 1946. Look it up).

You see, our Merv here, attended that conference along with our present Lord Chief Justice Clarke (the shark). Our entire inner government and Banking circles knew what was coming and the private debt to income ratio levels increasing from 101% in circa 1997 to 171% circa 2007, was simply to “fatten you up” for the financial slaughter.

Skip to 5.54 if you wish to hear the list or British attendees.

You see, you’ve been fleeced. The entire world has been and now people like Merv can go round saying “we need to have stricter controls and we need to change the entire system” because he’s been given the nod to do so. It’s what the controllers of the money supply want because they have now committed the heist and they want to lock the door from anyone being able to achieve it again and catch up with them (not that that is actually possible). But what Merv is doing (and he knows it) is LOCKING THE BARN DOOR AFTER THE HORSE HAS BOLTED!

Merv King is as much a criminal as any of the rest of them!

The major point, however, is this: WHO were these 24 merchants who were given the capability by a King and Parliament to create money out of thin air? Because, today, it is the offspring of these merchants – or associates thereof – who are still profiting from it and are protected by the OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT regarding their identities.

But there is ANOTHER simple, while abundantly plain and obvious, issue with all of this. One must think in terms of the powers of the King and Parliament particularly in the 17th Century (and sure we had the Glorious Revolution prior to the formation of the Bank of England in 1694 BUT, it must be considered that if it were not for William and Mary – remember being Dutch who had the precursor to the BofE with the Bank of Amsterdam – then, perhaps, the Bank of England may never have been founded at that time or in the way it was). Having considered this, then one must ask the question:


You have a King of England and a Parliament in 1694 who charter a Bank of England. OF ENGLAND.
You have a country full of people whom you wish to be able to transact together in commerce in a simple fashion using paper money instead of gold or silver etc.

YOU’RE the King of England and you and your parliament govern the UK and create its laws and yet you cannot set up a public bank called the “Bank of England” to create and issue your own currency without charging YOU debt interest? The King himself and the Parliament has to BORROW money from this bank and pay it interest on money which the bank creates into existence using a pen and paper?

YOU as the King of England create an entity which allows that entity to charge you for your own money? AND those who own that entity become richer than YOU are over time?



Were the Government and Parliamentarians IMBECILES?

But it gets worse because, not only were these owners of the Bank of England allowed to do as above, but they were then ALSO allowed to provide loans to foreign entities – foreign governments – thereby allowing for the possibility of such loans to finance enemies at the time such as France, Spain and even the USA!
Yet even THESE countries used the same idea. They set up their OWN banks where they then had to borrow money from them and pay interest rather than create their own paper out of thin air with NO debt and NO interest!?!

So the question remains and is the fundamental question which, if humanity understood the simplicity of it, it would free humanity worldwide:

WHO are these people who were so powerful – even in the 1600s and 1700s (and even earlier one would have to assume) that they had Kings and governments by the balls to put in place such INCOMPETENT “laws” and grant a worldwide monopoly to a group of private individuals?

There can be no doubt that – unless there is, in fact, some unknown, mysterious group of people/families who have power we can only have nightmares about – then it is the monarchies themselves who are behind the entire global financial system and have hidden it wonderfully well.

NO KING (and let’s face it – it seems ALL monarchies “succumbed” to this) would ever, in their right minds, allow this.

We can think it is the Pope and Vatican/Jesuits who hold the key – and that is still debatable since it COULD be – BUT if it were the case then the Jesuits must have some incredible form of “Army” (perhaps even of assassins as in “Vatican assassins”) to ensure that their demands are met. And let’s face it – Zionism was not even an issue hundreds of years ago. It didn’t even exist in any real sense.

So, bottom line, in one way or another, I would definitely suggest the entire thing is controlled by the jesuit/vatican connection along with the Royal bloodlines. Your Rothschilds and Rockefellers are simply “Knights” in this game. Powerful Knights nevertheless.

YOU loaned the Banks money! They owe YOU it back!

Posted in Finance, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on February 15, 2011

I want to try and make this issue as clear, succinct and simple as possible for ANYONE who reads it…….



The British government knows this and so do the banks and bankers who OWN the banks and IMF etc.


What it allows is that the banks, as a whole system, can take your signature on a loan for, say, £100,000 for a mortgage let’s say, and the banking system then generates that amount as nothing more than digits on a computer screen. IT NEVER DID EXIST AND DOES NOT EXIST!

Yet YOU have signed it into existence. But even more than that, you have created at LEAST (and it is AT LEAST) 10x (so £1M) that amount into the banking system. YOU have, therefore, GIVEN (LOANED) the banking system £1M. The following is from the Federal Reserve’s OWN LITERATURE….

Now, while the following video is an excellent summary of the Banking system and what we are trapped within (and TRAPPED is the correct term here), what it does not do is clarify precisely how the debt which, would be left for the public (which includes government borrowing of course) to repay even if we repaid every loan in existence, is a debt which would never have had existed if it were not for OUR signatures creating the money then loaned to us in the first place. Essentially, the banking system (completely owned by a few) has us CREATE the money which exists FOR them and they lend our OWN created money to US at interest. So when you watch the video, recognise that the £306bn left in debt to the banks is “money” they never created (we did) or generated in any way through adding ANYTHING of value to society.

This is why, if you are a christian (and I hasten to add I am agnostic when it comes to any and all man-made religions) you MAY recognise why Jesus cast out the moneylenders from the temple and, up until the 17th century (just before the Bank of England was created) USURY was outlawed since this entire issue was understood. Today, it is only Islamic banks which do not charge interest however, rest assured, they get around the system for the problem is not only Jews and their manipulation of christian principles (in ALL walks of life) but any and all corrupt people of any religious bent.

Now, one must simply consider this all very very simply: The banks not only charge you interest on what THEY describe as a “loan” to you of £100K BUT THEY ALSO have another £900K (again, at the very least) which they have been “legally” allowed to create, to either loan out to others OR to invest and speculate with.

[Please note and consider this “legally” point: While it is “LEGAL” for the banks to create this money, you will note further on that the treasury themselves admit that such money is NOT “LEGAL TENDER”! Consider how bizarre these two facts taken together are]

Now, you are only ONE person doing this. There are approx 65 million people in the UK alone using this banking system. Each one of them, through taking a “loan” or depositing their money with the banks, are enabling the creation of “money” FOR the banks out of absolute thin air.
The financial crisis (the mortgage subprime and Credit Default swaps etc) has all been based upon the £billions (in fact £trillions) of non existent money (except existing on the balance sheets of banks worldwide and created by YOU) being used to gamble.

THEN, when they have “lost” this “money” (it is seriously monopoly stuff), not only do they expect your payback on your mortgage and loans based upon money which never existed until you SIGNED it into existence, but they also demand (and put pressure on) our government to apply austerity measures and sell off assets (such as forests/land) to pay back the loans which the government itself took form these banks AND increase taxes of all shapes on you.


Please consider this response, to an FOI request, from the UK Treasury VERY carefully:

You will note the reference made to “credit money” in particular and the admission that it has no intrinsic value (not linked to gold for example) and that it is NOTHING MORE than a PROMISSORY NOTE or I.O.U.
Now, let’s consider the “money” which exists in ALL banks (whether initially YOUR cash deposits or not):

From another FOI request to treasury regarding LEGAL TENDER:

1. Is electronic money legal tender in the UK?

Bank of England notes are legal tender in England and Wales. Therefore,
electronic money (bank deposits) is not legal tender. Nevertheless,
people are very often willing in settlement of a debt to accept value in
the form of bank deposits which can be delivered using a wide range of
payment instruments, e.g. debit cards or cheques.

Hence in ordinary everyday transactions, legal tender has little practical
application. It means that if a debtor pays in legal tender – i.e. in
banknotes – the exact amount he or she owes under the terms of a contract,
he or she has a good defence in law, if they are subsequently sued for
non-payment of the debt. It is essentially a matter of agreement between
the parties concerned in a transaction.


So from the above, please understand that the Banks are gambling with money which is not, by the UK treasury’s own admission, legal tender!! And YET, when they “lose” it (and the system as a whole – as I have explained – does NOT lose it, it is simply transfered upwards) YOU, the taxpayer, are LEGALLY obliged to bail them out with your REAL generated wealth from the sweat of your brow!


Now, back to the original FOI response:

“None of the above suggests to us that mortgages contracted with financial institutions…. would be judged void”

OF COURSE the treasury would HAVE to make this statement because it is simply due to their need (and the Bank of England/ALL Central Banking/ Banking system’s need) to maintain what we all know is “confidence” in the system. You may quite rightly then call this entire system a “Confidence Trick” for that is precisely what it is. It maintains itself on people’s ignorance!
BUT the treasury is morally bankrupt with such a statement because, while it suggests the only alternative is bartering with goods and services, that is using a “slight of hand” to deflect from the REAL issue.

PAPER MONEY and the BANKING SYSTEM would have been (and can be) perfectly adequate in concept if it had always been based upon REAL (NO fractional reserve) money being used for deposits and loans. There would then be NO “illegal tender” in the banking system that they could expand and contract at will. Furthermore, IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT BORROW IT’S MONEY BUT ACTUALLY CREATED SOVEREIGN TREASURY MONEY (for want of a better term), IT WOULD HAVE NO INTEREST AND THERE WOULD BE NO (ZERO) NATIONAL DEBT. THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR AN IMF TO DEMAND AUSTERITY MEASURES FOR THERE WOULD BE NO DEBT!

Given the “Confidence trick” the banks have played and the immorality of the entire system:

1. They LOAN YOU money which never existed and charge you interest on it, while that loan has allowed them to generate at least 10x the loan amount in MORE non existent money.

2. They do not pay you interest on the £1M you have generated for them but actually CHARGE you interest on £100K you have taken as a loan AND GENERATED FOR THEM.

3. The banks add ZERO value to ANY transaction. It is YOU, as working taxpayers that generate EVERY LAST PENNY of value within the system.

Then, yes, if people fully appreciated this, the banks and those who justify and promote them (i.e. our government), would be held to account and the mortgages contracted with financial institutions would most certainly be judged void. There being NO “consideration” within the contract. The ONLY consideration being provided by YOU in your creation of the money by your signature and your promise to pay, with interest, a sum of money which would never have existed for the bank in the first place.



IT IS MORALLY CORRUPT AND REPUGNANT AND ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SET THE SYSTEM UP AND< TO THIS DAY, USE IT (The IMF and World Banks owners together with the Federal Reserve and major investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, J.P Morgan etc) SHOULD BE LOCKED UP. This is not a throw away statement. This is a serious one. These people have entrapped the world’s population into a global con which has gone on centuries. The booms and busts are created to first expand the money supply globally then the “bust” is not for them. The bust is when they transfer the money from you and I and our offspring to them.


So ALL of those £trillions WE create for them allows for the massive bonuses, allows the banks and Corporations owned by these same banks to buy up land and assets and also to speculate and play their monopoly game. When it doesn’t work out (and it doesn’t at the high street banking level because that is the whole idea – to pump up a financial bubble then deflate it) what happens is that the bubble is deflated and the money does not disappear – it finds it’s way through hedge funds and very private investment vehicles to those who KNOW what is about to transpire. George Soros IS NOT a brilliant investor! He is an Insider. If you knew beforehand that the horse way out in front was going to fall before the finish line you would bet on the number two horse now wouldn’t you?
Doing so transfers wealth from us to them. It’s SIMPLE!

In 2008/9 the 1000 richest in Britain raised their wealth by 30%. THINK about that for just TWO SECONDS! It doesn’t take an Einstein!

There is a financial crisis across the world but these people saw their wealth soar by 30%!


How? By exactly what I’m telling you above. It is a transference of wealth and precisely why people like Soros and Kissinger and our political elite LOVE crises! They make opportunity out of them because they CREATE them!

Please read the following re Alan Greenspan and his joining a Hedge fund almost a year before the crash: an-orchestrated-crisis-what-more-evidence-do-you-honestly-need

Please read the following re Ken Clarke and HIS Hedge Fund dabbling a year before the crash: centaurus-board-idUKNOA13935520070601

Then, finally, please read the following of how these people KNEW there was going to be a financial “destruction”:

[ Source: CEC’s Australian Alert Service Oct.03 2002 ]
According to the Sept.26 LondonTimes, in private retreats, top oligarchs are discussing a “hair raising” and “grim” future of non-stop wars in the Middle East, and global economic collapse — or, How the Old Dark Age meets the New Dark Age.

In his regular Times column, Anatole Kaletsky writes a quite shocking article. He says he is reminded by a recent experience he had of the writings of Boccaccio’s Decameron, written during the 14th century tribulations, where a form of “escapism” is described, whereby the characters “turn away from the plagues of the outside world and retreat to a refuge of beauty, luxury, and self indulgence. Although I am not very rich, I had the opportunity to do exactly this when I spent two days at a retreat for the rich and powerful, organized by NetJets, a company which provides private aircraft for the world’s movers and shakers.

Schwarzenegger being Groomed for California’s Governor (He’s being groomed for more than that. He will most likely end up the first President of the North American Union).
Warren Buffet, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lord Jacob Rothschild at Waddesdon Manor
“Everything about this gathering made me think of Boccaccio. The setting was Waddesdon Manor, the magnificent baroque palace outside London, built by the Rothschild family, in the 1980s…. The hosts were Lord Rothschild,…. and Warren Buffet, the owner of NetJets, and the second richest man in the world.” The themes were so unnerving, that “the conference agenda made me think of Boccacciossybarites, eating sweetmeats on their hilltop outside Florence, as the plague ravaged the world outside..”

He said that while everyone was drinking the best wines in the world, they were confronted with “three interconnected traumas” by those speaking: The Middle East, The collapse of shares, and the prospect of a global economic depression.

Kaletsky writes: “The apocalyptic tone was set by a hair raising discussion of the Middle East. After hearing presentations from two well placed Washington officials, it became clear that war was now inevitable — and in a matter of weeks, not months. Far more alarming, was that the war would not stop with the removal of President Saddam Hussein, still less with the U.N.-sponsored campaign to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Within hours of September 11 2001, President Bush apparently made two irrevocable decisions. America was at war, and the war ‘was not just against the authors of September 11, but against all those who air or support acts of this kind.’ The war against terror, would therefore, ‘get bigger and bigger all the time.’

“After dealing with Iraq, the pressure for ‘regime change’ would shift to Iran, then Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan. Most Middle Eastern countries, we were told, were not really ‘nations’. They were personal fiefdoms. Iraq should really be called ‘Saddam-land’, Syria ‘asad-land’ — and the name Saudi Arabia speaks for itself. Thus military action to remove Saddam will really be a war on Iraq, not against it. The White House seemed confident that Iraqis would see things this way and would welcome U.S. soldiers, if not American bombs.

“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative bubbles of all time.

“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property markets……..”


Then, in May 2003 Asia Times:


“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.”

From “Business Week”

Stock markets across the world may have tanked last year but that didn’t stop the top performing hedge fund managers from making themselves a huge pile of cash.

In fact, the top 25 made £8.275 billion or an average of $464 million (£331m) each in 2008, according to research by Alpha Magazine. That is enough money to pay for 30 hospitals, employ more than 300,000 nurses for a year, or vaccinate every child in poverty from five preventable diseases.

Anyway, here is the list of the top 10, and how they made their millions (billions).

(Earnings have been calculated by adding each managers’ share of their firm’s performance and management fees, and gains on their own capital invested in their funds.)

1. James Simons, Renaissance Technologies Corp: $2.5 billion

Mr Simons generated an 80 per cent return for investors at his 20-year-old Medallion Fund last year. His exact investment strategy is a mystery but he says that it is based on rapid-fire trading across almost every possible market. Alpha Magazine says that his fund relies on computer-driven programs designed by an army of more than 100 Phds.

2. John Paulson, Paulson & Co: $2 billion

Mr Paulson also appears in our list of the 10 biggest winners of the financial crisis after he made millions in 2007 short selling risky pools of collateralized debt obligations. Last year he continued short selling and continued to make huge profits. However, Mr Paulson has felt the effects of the slump in the US housing market. Last year, he cut the asking price for his 6,800-square-foot Southampton, New York, home twice, by a total of $5.6 million, to $13.9 million.

3. John Arnold, Centaurus Energy: $1.5 billion

Energy trading John Arnold achieved an 80 per cent return at his Houston-based fund last year. The former Enron trader, who manages $5 billion in assets, deals mostly in natural gas, using futures and other derivatives.

4. George Soros, Soros Fund Management: $1.1 billion

Mr Soros’s $21 billion Quantum Endowment Fund eventually rose 8 per cent last year but it was a close call. In an annual review he published in the Financial Times, Mr Soros said he was losing money until bet correctly that the US dollar would fall. Mr Soros made his name and millions of pounds by betting against Sterling in the early 1990s.

5. Raymond Dalio, Bridgewater Associates: $780 million

Mr Dalio’s $38.6 billion Pure Alpha Strategy fund made 8.7 percent last year after a series of successful currency trades. Mr Dalio went long on the Japanese yen and shorted certain credit positions and emerging markets.

Although Mr Dalio’s is unlikely to suffer personally, he is very pessimistic about the future of the world economy. In his year-end letter, he wrote: “One of the most important lessons for those who did badly in 2008 is to have a ‘timeless and universal investment’ perspective” and to “understand what happened in long-ago times (e.g., the 1930s) and faraway places (like Japan and Latin America).”

6. Bruce Kovner, Caxton Associates: $640 million

Bruce Kovner, a former NY cab driver, made 13 per cent last year (after a 30 percent performance fee) on his $4.3 billion Caxton Global Investments fund . Most of the profit came from fixed-income investments.

7. David Shaw, D.E. Shaw & Co: $275 million

D.E. Shaw & Co.’s $13 billion macro fund was up about 7 per cent last year, offsetting most of the loss from its flagship $15 billion multistrategy fund, which ended 2008 down 8 to 9 percent.

8. Stanley Druckenmiller, Duquesne Capital Management: $260 million

Mr Druckenmiller made his money last year by reducing both his long and short exposures, instead building up cash. By the end of the year, he had cut his exposure to equities frop $5.8 billion to just $745 million. He also correctly bet on the dollar staging recovery last summer.

9. David Harding, Winton Capital Management: $250 million

Mr David Harding rode a number of trends — both up and down — including large moves in bonds, equity indexes and commodities (especially energy and grains), according to Alpha magazine. His $5.5 billion flagship Winton Futures Fund rose 21 per cent.

10. Alan Howard, Brevan Howard Asset Management: $250 million

Mr Howard’s Multi-Strategy fund made a 21 per cent gain in 2008 mostly from interest rate and foreign exchange arbitrage.


business week