Earthlinggb's Blog

Capitalizing China!

Posted in Finance, Law, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on March 31, 2014

I rarely say this but I have said it before I admit on one or two occasions (because they have been) but this is one of the most important blogs I have ever written and I hope you read every last damned word of it and take it in….slowly. PLEASE share this widely and get LAZY people to READ IT!

This is how America, the UK and the West is getting slaughtered. NOT by the chinese but by our own. Your enemy lies at home America! Deep in the heart of Texas and Washington. And in the UK, deep in the heart of the City of London.

You don’t need an army to take over a country. You can do it perfectly well with a fictional idea. Two words: “Legal” and “Person” that’s it. Literally. Nothing more is required.

You think this is outrageous and ridiculous don’t you? Well you carry on believing. No skin off my nose.

Ch legal 1

China's new civil law

China's legal framework for foreign investment

The Globalists have commenced their take over control of China in 1979 and, as you will see here – as simply as I can make it – they did it with those two words: LEGAL PERSON. China accepted those two words and hey presto! The entire world and every soul in it is a market and an economic unit to be parasited from.

“I’ll ruin everything you are…

I’ll give you legal person…”

I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
It’s in the white of my eyes

My little China girl
You shouldn’t mess with me
I’ll ruin everything you are
I’ll give you television
I’ll give you eyes of blue
I’ll give you man who wants to rule the world

You are aware of the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES Ltd Private Company I assume? Wholly owned subsidiary of a PUBLIC company (so they tell us the B of E is a Public company that is) but the subsidiary is a PRIVATE offshoot. Why PRIVATE? Well, it does not come under the FOI Act does it? Just like Icke’s “The PEOPLE’S Voice” Private Limited Company funded by you. Anyhow, don’t let me go off on the Icke tangent again.

What has been in our news this last week or so?

The Bank of England has just made history (which means nothing to most people) and signed an agreement with the Chinese Central Bank to have the City of London as a clearing house for the RMB.

George Yuan

The City of London initiative on London as a centre for renminbi (RMB) business was launched on 18 April 2012. The role of the initiative is to consider practical measures to support the development of London as a centre for RMB business. It aims to:

Provide leadership to the wider financial markets on the technical, infrastructure and regulatory issues relevant to the development of the RMB product market in London
Advise HM Treasury on maximising London’s capacity to trade, clear and settle RMB and articulate practical next steps and long term aims for the development of the RMB market in London. Additionally, the group advises HM Treasury and other UK authorities on any financial stability concerns the members may perceive.
Develop and maintain, as appropriate, a private sector dialogue on the international RMB market with regulators in Hong Kong and mainland China to complement that which is already maintained by the UK public sector.

The City of London Representative offices in China.

The overall aim of the offices in Beijing and Shanghai is to strengthen trade and investment links in both directions between China and the UK through the promotion of world-class financial services and products. The offices work to promote ‘the City’ as a brand, covering financial services as a whole (including those under non-UK ownership) throughout the UK. The offices work to promote the services of the City – including the raising of capital, insurance, asset management, legal, accounting and other advisory services; emissions trading; London’s exchanges; and financial education, training and qualifications – to the government and private sector in China and promote awareness of the City as both a unique cluster of capital and expertise and a centre in which to locate operations.

The specific functions of the offices are to:

facilitate the business development of City firms by providing support for their visits to China;
support visits by Chinese decision-makers and senior financial services practitioners to the UK;
gain and disseminate information on market opportunities for City firms;
identify barriers to market access for financial and related business services; [These barriers to market are legal issues]
promote the UK as a physical location for representation and investment by Chinese financial services companies and provide support for inward investors;
organise visits by the City of London’s Policy Chairman and assist in planning and arranging visits by the Lord Mayor;
organise and support financial services related events and seminars.

Members of the City of London initiative:

Current members of the initiative are leading international banks with a strong presence in London and Hong Kong:

Agricultural Bank of China (UK)
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ)
Bank of China (UK)
Bank of Communications (UK)
China Construction Bank (UK)
Deutsche Bank
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (UK)
JP Morgan
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Standard Chartered
HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority are observers to the initiative. The City of London provides the secretariat.

Interestingly, this is taken from the 2012 Annual Report of the People’s Bank of China (China’s Central Bank):


“The PBC signed bilateral local currency swap agreements with central banks and monetary authorities in 18 countries and regions including Republic of Korea and Malaysia. Offshore RMB markets in Hong Kong, Taiwan, London and Singapore were in a good shape.”

So, Malaysia got in there before us.

Further, within this annual report, it states the following (there are many references to the “legal person” in fact). The way they refer to it, you can see, quite clearly, it is something new to them and they are struggling with it:


The PBC achieved significant results in statistics, survey and analytical work


“Statistics and monitoring of small rural financial insti中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).inddtutions based on legal person was achieved.


Ok. Now, for the moment, let’s just flip back to the Bank of England Nominees….




Investigating the Bank of England Nominees Limited

The following article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the October 2011 issue of Prosperity….

Occasionally we encounter people who refuse to believe the fact that the Bank of England is a fully, publicly-owned national institution, and has been since it was nationalised in 1946(1)

They will point to something called the “Bank of England Nominees Limited” (BOEN) to allege that there is a “secret” company attached to the Bank, into which a flow of hidden profits is presumably being directed for the enrichment of a select few. Their sources are usually unreferenced conspiracy websites.

If our reform is to gain traction, it is important that we are neither distracted by misinformation nor labour under misapprehensions about normality.

The Bank of England is Publicly-Owned

The Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government – meaning its profits go into the public purse at the Treasury. This is a plain fact and people who do not accept this are not being serious about our reform. See the statement on the Bank’s website where it states:

As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly. The principal means of accountability for the Bank is via the House of Commons Treasury Committee.(2)

Let’s look at that statement closely however because the Bank Of England Act 1946 doesn’t quite match up to what this statement by the Bank says:

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998

1 Transfer of Bank stock to the Treasury

  1. (1)  On the appointed day –(a) the whole of the existing capital stock of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank stock”) shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred, free of all trusts, liabilities and incumbrances, to such person as the Treasury may by order nominate,(3) to be held by that person on behalf of the Treasury;(b) the Treasury shall issue, to the person who immediately before the appointed day is registered in the books of the Bank as the holder of any Bank stock, the equivalent amount of stock created by the Treasury for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the “Government stock”).
  2. (2)  The Government stock shall bear interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum; and

the equivalent amount of Government stock shall, in relation to any person, be taken to be such that the sum payable annually by way of interest thereon is equal to the average annual gross dividend declared during the period of twenty years immediately preceding the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, upon the amount of Bank stock of which that person was the registered holder immediately before the appointed day.

So, all the stock in the Bank was transferred to the treasury/government BUT, on that transfer, the treasury contracted to the previous private owners of the stock in the Bank, an EQUIVALENT amount of stock in the British government! So, the Bank is owned by the government BUT the government is owned by the previous stockholders in the bank by an amount equivalent to their stockholding in the bank. FURTHER, in holding this government stock, the previous bank stockholders shall receive interest at the rate of 3% per annum IN PERPETUITY (there is no end date stated). So, in essence, it is a stock swap and nothing, in effect, has changed.

(4) After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October, [a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree.]


So, ONLY 50% (assuming they are stating 25% on each date rather than a total of 25%) of net profits – so after ALL costs are accounted for – goes to the Treasury. WHERE does the other 50% go?

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 19984 Treasury directions to the Bank and relations of the Bank with other banks

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998Sections 4(4) and 4(5) repealed by section 16(4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

Now, if we go to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and follow this through, we get the following:

16(4) The enactments and Order mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act are hereby repealed or revoked to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.

So then we go to schedule 2 and what do we find?


(1)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or
(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or
(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to defence or that its disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of subsection (1) above.
(4)In this section “defence” means—
(a)the size, shape, organisation, logistics, order of battle, deployment, operations, state of readiness and training of the armed forces of the Crown;
(b)the weapons, stores or other equipment of those forces and the invention, development, production and operation of such equipment and research relating to it;
(c)defence policy and strategy and military planning and intelligence;
(d)plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services that are or would be needed in time of war.

Read them each in turn carefully and decide which, if any, something within the Bank of England Act 1946 could have anything related to such. Essentially, then, it means that the paragraphs repealed by the Official Secrets Act within the Bank of England Act 1946, relate to matters of defence. That “defence of the realm” can ONLY be related to those documents which give detail as to WHO these bankers are who own this stock. “obstructs the promotion or protection…of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad…” (which citizens precisely?). Couple that with paragraph (c).


What is the “Bank of England Nominees Limited”?


The Bank of England Nominees is a wholly-owned, non-trading subsidiary of the Bank of England, with 2 ordinary shares valued at £1 each, as the latest Bank of England Annual Report(3) states. (the ordinary share value has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the shareholdings it deals in for third party private persons – corporate or natural persons)

A reply from Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank, to an enquirer Mr E Danielyan, dated 5 March 2010 explains:

BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey.(4) (The Directors and shareholders of such shares have nothing to do with the value of shares the nominees deals in)

Both John Footman(5) and Andrew Bailey(6) are employees of the Bank and their biographies are on the Bank’s website. (so what? Uninterested.)


What is the Purpose of BOEN?

As the following written answer from the Commons’ Hansard from 21 April 1977(7) states, it is intended to hold shares on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others. (Now we’re getting somewhere. Could be Her Heinous to his Holiness, to Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, DuPont, Bill and Melinda Gates, President Assad, any and all Heads of state no matter what they are. Dictators or not. And let’s face it, they ALL are).

Shareholdings (Disclosure)

HC Deb 21 April 1977 vol 930 cc151-2W 151W

Mr. Blenkinsop asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England (which means it does not have to disclose the beneficial interest holders of shares). Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover (a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.; (b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company; (haha. That is absolutely fucking hilarious! A shareholder who wants no control and no say) (c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital. 152W

Bank of England Nominees Ltd. has also undertaken to make a report annually to the Secretary of State for Trade of the identity of those for whom it holds securities, and, provided that it holds securities for two or more people, the total value of the securities held. The contents of such reports are to be confidential to the Secretary of State.

BOEN – No Longer Allowed Disclosure Exemptions

It is important to note, however, that BOEN is “no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements”, as the following written answer from the Lords’ Hansard on 26 April 2011(8) makes clear. (But it no longer matters since it is now dormant! They have taken the money and run and they have closed down all their accounts and put their interests elsewhere, while that just so happens to have happened before June 2010 – not long, then after the economic collapse! Nice timing!)

BOEN nominees

This must mean that BOEN is no longer granted an exemption under Sec 796 of the Companies Act 2006 to the notification provisions required by Sec 793 – which it has been previously, according to Ben Norman above.

Bank of England


Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited were last published; when they will next be published; and whether they intend to review whether the company should remain exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[HL8302]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): The most recent accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited are available via the Companies House website and were published on 14 June 2010. It can be seen from these accounts that the company is currently dormant. The company is due to publish its next set of accounts by 30 November this year. The company is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements and currently no other persons are exempt from these requirements.

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited will be published; whether these accounts will take into account an indemnity from HM Treasury; and whether the accounts of the company are exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.[HL8303]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Bank of England will publish accounts for the asset purchase facility (APF) for the year ended February 2011 before the Summer Parliamentary Recess. The amount due to or from HM Treasury under its indemnity to the Bank will be identified. The accounts are not exempt from any company law disclosure requirements. 12

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accounts of the Bank of England, Bank of England Nominees Limited and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited are all audited by the same firm of public accountants.[HL8310]

Lord Sassoon: KPMG are the external auditors for the Bank of England and the Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited. As a dormant company, Bank of England Nominees Limited is not required under the Companies Act 2006 to appoint an external auditor.


The BOEN Company Accounts for 2010 can be viewed online.(9) These Accounts state that, “There has been no income or expenditure on the part of the Company since its incorporation and accordingly no profit and loss account is submitted.” (p.2) It has Net Assets of £2. (p.4)

In Summary

As stated in Hansard, above, BOEN is a company set up with the intention of holding shares confidentially on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others.

That is to say, presumably, HM the Queen and her “immediate family” and certain governmental bodies.

Presumably the thinking here is that if those people were to buy them through normal means, then they would be visible to staff at share dealing companies and would regularly be leaked. This could, possibly, raise various security-related matters, and it could also, possibly, raise various rumours about matters related to the economy and the health, or otherwise, of certain companies.

In any case, BOEN is presently dormant, and is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.

Imagining strange goings-on at BOEN is a complete distraction from reality.

The truth, as with most things, is quite prosaic.

Purchase back issues of Alistair McConnachie’s Prosperity money reform journal here

And here is a link to Alistair McConnachie’s Google Profile.

(1) Bank of England Act 1946,

(2) Bank of England, “The Bank’s Relationship with Parliament”,

(3) Bank of England, Annual Report 2011, p.69,

(4) This letter can be viewed in full and downloaded at

(5) Bank of England, “John Footman Executive Director, Central Services and Secretary of the Bank”,

(6) Bank of England, “Andrew Bailey, Executive Director, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – Deputy CEO designate”,

(7) Hansard, 21 April 1977, Written Answers,

(8) Hansard, 26 April 2011, Written Answers,




Now, there are quite a number of other “Nominees” companies scattered all over the place. ONE is called “Houblon Nominees” and another is “Bank of Scotland Branch Nominees”. It’s strange for all of them that, although “Live” and still have their Directors listed, each one is “dormant” or “non trading”. Isn’t that just a tad strange? 😉

There is one “Nominees” I am coming to shortly, however, which you will see has MASSIVE investments. But, for now, let’s just take a little peek at our Dear, lovely, fluffy Queen who is “so close to bankruptcy” while she ensures that the monarchy is now fully protected from any investigation via the Freedom of Information Act or any other method/vehicle.


From: In and Out of Hollywood: A Biographer’s Memoir (2009)
By Charles Higham


You may wish to look up Higham himself. His wikipedia is here: Why is it all these people same to share so many of the same perversions and issues? However, this is what he wrote in his own autobiography/memoir:

Hollyqueen 1

Hollyqueen 2

Hollyqueen 3


Now let’s turn to Australia for a moment:

Who owns the largest share of Australia’s Top 4 Banks
**Data taken from SYB
Top 4 ANZ Shareholders

Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
Top 4 Commonwealth BA Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 210,455,886 13.59
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 154,853,734 10.00
3 National Nominees Limited 136,450,456 8.81
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 66,664,831 4.30

Top 4 National Australia B Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees 359,630,439 16.86
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 260,185,567 12.20
3 National Nominees Limited 244,446,877 11.46
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 97,543,050 4.57

Top 4 Westpac BC Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Fully Paid Ordinary Shares % Held
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 444,695,642 14.88
2 JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 379,805,564 12.71
3 National Nominees Limited 312,929,618 10.47
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 143,271,824 4.79
What an EYE OPENER. Still more. Who are these 4 private entities so secretly powerful? Many would think HSBC belongs to the Asians. Yet, have a look at what Wikipedia has to say.

HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited
They own:

17.46% of ANZ 13.59% of CBA 16.86% of NAB 14.88% of WBC
In fact, they’re the number one shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

12.09% of Bendigo & Adelaide Bank and 17.00% of Bank of Queensland.

Wikipedia had this to say about them,

“HSBC Holdings plc is a global financial services company headquartered in Canary Wharf, London, United Kingdom. As of 2010 it is the world’s sixth-largest banking and financial services group and eighth-largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine. It has around 8,000 offices in 91 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America and around 100 million customers. As of 30 June 2010 it had total assets of $2.418 trillion, of which roughly half were in Europe, a quarter in the Americas and a quarter in Asia.” (accessed 21 Feb 2011).

Here is a link to their 2010 Annual Report. Here are a few of the financial Highlights listed in that report:

Pre-tax profit more than doubled to US$19bn on a reported basis.
Underlying pre-tax profit up by almost US$5bn or 36% to US$18.4bn.
Profitable in every customer group and region, including North America
Their 2009 Annual Report wasn’t too shabby either. It says that, on a reported basis, their profit before tax was US$7.1 billion

OKAY, what about the other 3 private entities deemed so secretly powerful? Let’s see.

JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited
They own:

14.51% of ANZ 10.00% of CBA 12.20% of NAB 12.71% of WBC
In fact, they’re also the number two shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

7.92% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 7.77% of Bank of Queensland.

JPMorgan Chase had a $12 billion profit for 2009. We found this out and read all about their success in their Annual Report.

National Nominees Limited
National Nominees Limited is the number three shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Australia Bank Limited – You know the BANK that just staged a HUGE break-up. It must be an awkward break-up indeed with all of those shared assets. We think you should give them a spank purely for staging such a pathetic break-up!

They own:

13.42% of ANZ 8.81% of CBA 11.46% of NAB 10.47% of WBC
We don’t know about you, but we certainly find it a little bit strange that they own less of themselves than they do of ANZ. This certainly deserves a “Please Explain!”

They’re also a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

6.35% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 10.87% of Bank of Queensland.

NAB had a net profit of $4.2 billion for 2009. We read all about their wonderful year in their Financial Year Highlights

And Last but not Least,

Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited is listed as the number four shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group Inc. You might know them better as Citi BANK. Citi Group Inc only has the largest financial network in the world.

They own:

3.84% of ANZ 4.30% of CBA 4.57% of NAB 4.79% of WBC
In fact, they’re a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

2.13% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 2.57% of Bank of Queensland.

Citigroup Inc. (branded Citi) is a major American financial services company based in New York City. Citigroup was formed from one of the world’s largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group on April 7, 1998. The company holds over 200 million customer accounts in more than 140 countries. It is a primary dealer in US Treasury securities. accessed 21 Feb 2011

Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 in a massive bailout by the U.S. government. Its largest shareholders include funds from the Middle East and Singapore. In the last two financial years, their core businesses, together known as Citicorp, were profitable with $10.6 billion and $14.8 billion in net income. (2010) (2009)

Now, many still think the RBA is a quasi governmental body and belongs to the people in Australia, IF these top four pillars have the freedom to create credit from nowhere, which affects the Australian Economy as a whole, who actually DOES the greater power belong to, the PUBLIC OR THE PRIVATE??? THINK ABOUT IT.

So, with that, you can see that Australia (just as much the UK and US and Canada and the west in fact) is wholly owned and controlled by the globalists


So, now, let’s turn to CHINA! (we got there eventually):

Here is the HKSCC Nominees. You would think it had its ownership and incorporation in Hong Kong wouldn’t you? But no, it is a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON

HKSCC Nominees

And this is PRECISELY why the West HAD to get China to accept the “LEGAL PERSON”. To allow western interests to take hold of greater and greater holdings of China’s assets. So what happens when the Chinese build their exports to America and the west and, on our TV screens and in our newspapers, we are fed that this is “dangerous” and it is “bad for business” in the west and “We are so in debt to the chinese and it just gets larger and larger. Oh Wo is us!” Well, ever so quietly, our leaders are perfectly happy for western multinationals to go offshore and take our jobs with them because THEY are invested in not just the chinese banks (and a myriad of other banks, central and commercial) but also invested in the largest companies on earth wherever they may be. Oleg Deripaska’s “RUSAL” aluminium company, for example is the largest aluminium company on planet earth. Do you think it’s because of Oleg Deripaska? No, it’s because Peter Mandelson and George Osbourne – both “Ministers of the Crown” – support Deripaska with the advice that Nominee accounts such as HKSCC and BOEN etc, will invest in the company and build it up and make sure that European legislation and any other legislation is taken care of to ensure it becomes as large as it is BECAUSE they all, including the Queen and the City of London Bankers (Nat Rothschild for example) want their dividends at the expense of the public. It is the same for British Gas and British Nuclear fuels and the Oil companies who drill off our coast. That is why they don’t mind that our prices go up. That is why they don’t mind if everything is “offshored” to China and India and the Philippines etc. Because THEY OWN SUBSTANTIAL SHARES IN THE BANKS AND THE CORPORATIONS.


Now, flip back to the list of Banks which were mentioned re the City of London RMB China Bank agreement. Here’s one. Look at the second largest shareholder (and the third). Both of them “Foreign-owned legal persons”:

Bank of Comms

Bank of Communications shareholding


Now, here is another bank on that list:

ICBC Annual report

Shareholding in Indust China bank





Now take a look at this (and I promise there is a heap more), I just wish to keep this as succinct as possible (which, as you can see, it is not simply because, to understand this, it must be laid out as fully as possible):

Capitalizing China 2

Capitalizing China



Bank of China HKSCC


Sinopec 1



This is Petrochina’s annual report:

Petrochina Annual report 2012


Then, just for one example. You have one of Her Majesty’s “Sirs” and a “Freeman of the City of London”

Sir. Malcolm Christopher McCarthy, also known as Callum, serves as the Chairman of European Operations at J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. Sir. McCarthy served as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Gas and Electricity Markets. He served senior positions in BZW and Kleinwort Benson, as well Department for Trade and Industry, US. Sir. McCarthy’s early career was in the chemical industry, and in the DTI where he served several posts, including Principal Private Secretary to Roy Hattersley when he served as Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer protection. He served as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, US. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Office for Gas and Electricity Markets. He joined Kent Reliance in 2010. He was Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays de Zoete Wedd, London. He also served as Director of Corporate Finance at Kleinwort Benson from 1985 to 1989. Sir. McCarthy served as the Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays’ investment banking arm BZW. From 1996 to 1998, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Bank, North America and Barclays Bank, Japan from 1993 to 1996. He served as the Director-General, Chief Executive and Chairman at Gas regulator Ofgas. At Ofgem, Sir. McCarthy was responsible for the introduction of greater competition into the gas and electricity markets. He served as senior executive of Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Services Limited. He serves as Chairman of London at Promontory Financial Group, LLC. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Castle Trust. He served as the Co-Chairman at The Financial Conduct Authority (Financial Services Authority) from 2003 to 2008. He joined FSA in September 2003. Sir. McCarthy has been an Independent Director of IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. since October 1, 2009. He has been an Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Indonesia) Co. Ltd. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Macau) Limited. since December 2009. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited since December 2009. He serves as a Trustee of Said Business School. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board at Her Majesty’s Treasury. He serves as a Trustee of International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. He serves as Member of Supervisory Board at Dutch MBS XVI B.V. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board of HM Treasury. He serves as Non-Executive Director at OneSavings Bank Plc. He served as Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank Of China, London Ltd. since December 2009. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Bank N.V. from January 25, 2011 to September 1, 2012. He served as a Director at Financial Services Authority. until September 19, 2008. Sir. McCarthy served as a Director of Bank of England from September 20, 2003 to September 19, 2008. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Holding N.V from January 14, 2011 to September 01, 2012. He is an Honorary Fellow of Merton College, an Honorary Doctorate of the University of Stirling, and a Freeman of the City of London. He has an MA in History at Merton College of Oxford University, PhD in Economics of Stirling University, and MS in Business at Graduate School of Business of Stanford University.

Malcolm Christopher McCarthy

He is the ONLY non Chinese member of the board of the Industrial Commercial Bank of China. Why?


Well it’s obvious. Here is precisely what is happening to us:

Our elite want access to China’s 1.5 billion people as a market. China’s elite say “Why do we want to give you that?”. Our elite say “Hey it’s simple Chin Chong! You give us access to your market and we’ll give you access to ours. You’re a bit behind with technology and know how so we’ll invest in your corporations and bring you up to speed. To enable that however, we need you to amend the way you interpret law. We need something called the legal person so that we are both talking the same language so to speak and so that we can “integrate”. Then while you get access to the west as a market, we can benefit from offshoring our jobs to you – you, therefore employing more of your people, increasing your GDP and making a packet. We, on the other hand, benefit from the lower wage costs and make UBER profits and dividends from our multinationals. we’ll ensure there is less competition for your goods and our chinese manufactured goods by destroying our own indigenous small and medium sized businesses and we’ll do that through our taxation system. YOU win, WE win, our people’s don’t win but hey! THAT is “globalism”. You want to maintain your power and so do we. Now, about Malaysia, We’ve both got a problem there because YOU will benefit greatly from being a powerhouse within a Trans-pacific partnership and so will we BUT these little Malaysian bastards are not playing ball! Capice? Now if we rattle them and destabilise their government, we might just get one which sees things our way. Now I know Malaysia has a “look est” policy but you could say we’re helping them to focus on their look east policy in a way because you, as their major trading partner, want the TPPA and better access to the South East Asian markets just as we do. There’s another good half a billion people at least in that area you know? So what if you, China, got very upset with your Asian neighbour over something? Oh, I don’t know, a plane disappearance perhaps with the majority of those onboard being chinese?”

Get the picture?

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Gazz said, on March 31, 2014 at 4:28 am

    Great work again earthlinggb ~ oh what to do ? This needs to be broken right down into leaflet format or some other simple way in which to get people to snap out of the trance . . . through the letterbox if You follow ?

    Don’t forget Canada btw ~

    Queen Elizabeth & President Obama to meet Pope Francis
    It doesn’t get much stranger but Queen Elizabeth who suddenly canceled her visit to Rome scheduled for March 2013, after this web site blew the whistle on her motives, has announced that she will travel to Rome on April 3rd this year and she will be meeting Pope Francis when, in 2013, she had no intention of visiting Pope Benedict.

    Observers have noted that US President Obama will be visiting the Pope on March 27, 2014, a week before the Queen shows up which creates an impression that the Queen of England, the President of the USA, and the Pope in Rome are meeting, albeit on different days, to discuss a topic of mutual interest which some observers suggest is the vexing topic of the murder/execution of former Canadian Federal Court of Appeal Justice, Carolyn Layden-Stevenson in June of 2012 that was allegedly approved by former Pope Benedict.–prince-charles-and-the-royal-family-connection-to-water-war-crimes.html

  2. David said, on March 31, 2014 at 6:14 am

    That’s some read, earthling……and it requires another sitting to take in the details but I get the gist…..
    Somehow I feel even smaller and more insignificant than before.
    Excellent research.
    Well done.

  3. Julian Lowe said, on March 31, 2014 at 7:02 am

    Currency trading. Swaps and once again derivatives. Oh my god. You can see what the plan is on this one.. I swear the states derivative tools ie the housing market was captured as a means to break the world to force china in the long run to deal.with london directlty rather than float about with dollars. Just has the root is london it all comes back to british.imperilism which never died. The.whole of the chinese market is heading towards one major derivative block or a legal fiction derivative. A binding belivable pile of bollixians.

  4. spartacus said, on March 31, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    Effing hell earthling, have you got a bullet proof vest? I do have problems with the more complicated stuff, as my memory and concentration is not what it should be, and the fact i am probably the least educated person here, but this seems fascinating and deserves the attention of everyone.
    If you were an investigative journalist (a real one) i honestly dont think you would live very long. Your attention to detail is admirable to say the least.
    It is also a strange feeling when i click on an article and see Bowie and this particular song AGAIN. The lyrics of this song have been on my mind for a few weeks, i have absolutely no idea why. just like a few songs from Ultravox i have suddenly been wondering about. Again i have absolutely no idea why, just a hunch that something is not right about them, gawd knows.

    • earthlinggb said, on March 31, 2014 at 5:42 pm

      Well to be honest Spartacus, I’m sick and tired of this shit now. If I post Icke related exposes the views go through the roof. If I post Malaysian Airlines related stuff, the same. I post something as absolutely bombshell (and it is) as this and I get a few views of it (comparatively). Sorry mate but most people just want theories and aliens and SHITE (even when it’s not shite like the Icke and MH370 stuff – at least not on here). They don’t wish to really understand anything or apply themselves. They want spoonfed “exciting” little tidbits about conspiracy theories. They don’t want to SEE PRECISELY how they are getting shafted and, by god, they don’t wish to use that info to DO anything! I could write up a significant, professional, fully researched and evidenced letter to the press and British government stating that the British people have reason to believe that our representatives are committing fraud (legalised fraud because THEY just make it legal!) on the British people (and American people). I could cover every angle and, with massive numbers, I could (I should say WE could) shake these bastards to their very core because they’d shit themselves with people adding their signatures to it. But I can’t be bothered because I already see the results, by views, of what “sells” and what doesn’t. Yet, their fucking laziness and lack of interest to support such an undertaking is what is killing them. Fuck em! Fuck em all! They deserve what they get as they fucking moan their bleating hearts out.

    • earthlinggb said, on March 31, 2014 at 5:44 pm

      And I’d take my chances with the bullets. I am past caring. I seriously am. I would take 10,000 signature, 100,000 signatures, whatever and I’d walk up to No. 10 and hand it in. I’d take it to the press. I’d argue it. I’d do whatever it takes. But no. No-one’s fucking interested.

    • earthlinggb said, on March 31, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      Well read the condensed version first if the big one is too much to handle for now.

  5. pete fairhurst said, on March 31, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Superb work and stunning information Earthling. Talk about connecting the dots……

    These evil people are so clever aren’t they. Smoke and mirrors every time.

    Makes my earlier question about China seem incredibly naive. It’s infinitely clearer now

    Thank you

    • earthlinggb said, on March 31, 2014 at 6:58 pm

      You’re welcome Pete. It was your question that compelled me to write it. Because it is an important (very important) fundamental question and, as you can see, issue. The world is being plundered by this very issue. The legal person and the money system.

      • ROnny G said, on May 26, 2020 at 5:26 am

        What do you think about the poster TheCaptainSlappy? He does videos on law and how the US is a corporation. Basically, everything you’ve said here he has said, and also says nobody cares and nobody listens.

        • earthling said, on May 26, 2020 at 3:20 pm

          Hi Ronny, I haven’t heard of the guy but I would wholeheartedly agree that the US is a corporation. I believe it to be a subsidiary of the Corporation of London. Every President, bar two I believe, have been proven ancestors to the British Royal family. The first 13 colonies were corporations and funded by the City of London/monarchy and, if you read the Paris Treaty after the revolutionary war, it is clear that the King is “allowing” his corporations to act somewhat autonomously. However, you then had the War of 1812 which many forget about and that was to ensure the US adopted a central bank. All good and dandy since 1913 however. In addition, the constant friction between States and Federal government is down to the Federal government in D.C. being run (at a very high level through various organisations) by the City of London and its agent, the Fed. There are factions involved who disagree on certain things but the basic ship of state keeps moving in the direction dictated no matter Republican or Democrat “rule”. By the way, the City of London, freemasonry and the jesuit order of the Vatican – all clearly jewish through infiltration and intermarriage. But yes, “nobody” listens.

          • Ronny said, on May 26, 2020 at 11:28 pm

            Interesting… I am attacked for exclaiming that many of the Frankfurt bankers, the lot of them Jews, including swiss bankers such as the Seligman family who intermarried with Lehman, Warburg, Rothschild, Loeb, and Schiff, implemented the National Banking Act and then 50 years later the income tax and reconstruction of the banks via the FED Act. I have the lot of these bios saved locally and they’re all Jewish, but there are also industrialist lackeys and politicians like Stevens who I do not believe was Jewish. The thing is, the common Jew next door is NOT part of this scheme.

            However, I continuously get attacked for brining this up. For example, this video is often posted when I bring up the Jewish connection to usury:

            Title: International Banking: Catholic Dominated, not Jewish Dominated

            Rome Inc., a corporation, was always quite powerful and there were many court Jews that the Romans hired to account for their monies. However, the Jesuits are an interesting group. They were hired by the Vatican but then they were barred by a few popes. The Jesuits today push various globalist, futurist and communistic ideologies. But during the 16th century they were quite traditional and conservative in their beliefs and were certainly a military order. There were Jews within the society in its early formation and members later started a blood libel law to kick Jews out of the society. Did something change since then? Are crypto-Jews ie. Memorialists running modern day jesuitism? I don’t know.

            Joseph Seligman, an Ashkenazi Jew of Swiss descent as well as many other bankers, industrialists, lawyers and politicians including those who surrounded Lincoln; he himself being a pro-aristocratic Whig of whom has recently been discovered by a Rutgers University study to be of Jewish ancestry; this Lincoln and his lackeys having revoked General Grants act to expel specific Jews, set up the greenback system which was the covert forerunner to the establishment of the Federal Reserve banking scheme. The new Frankfurt school of bankers — Jewish, gentile and Catholic — including names such as Spaulding, Chase, Hooper, Sherman and Sumner planned the greenback scam, which was based on debt backed bonds and who implemented a system of permanent public debt that continues to this very day. Heroized by present day neoliberals and neoconservatives, the federalist Hamilton and the whig Lincoln, having centralized the government into a strong bureaucratic powerhouse — with vigorous effort — established a debt based incorporated banking enterprise currently in full swing today.

            >Far before the inception of the US constitution a contest developed between the curbstone brokers, the Jew brokers, the money-changers, and the men who speculate in stocks, and the productive, toiling men of the country…

            …this contest would determine the financial ruling power of the US who would lord it over their subjects.

            The banks included, in the erection of this system:

            Lazard Speyer-Ellissen & Co. —- Speyer & Co.

            Seligmann & Stettheimer —- J.&W. Seligmann

            Deutsche Bank —- Speyer & Co.

            Disconto Gesellschaft —- Kuhn Loeb & Co.

            Darmstaedter Bank —- Hallgarten & Co.

            Bleichroeder —-Landeburg, Thalmann & Co.

            add to this the Dresdner Bank —- J.P. Morgan & Co.

            • earthling said, on May 28, 2020 at 5:32 pm

              I agree the common jew is not part of this scheme. However, the common jew WANTS to be. The common jew also maintains an adherence to the jewish law in various forms AND the common jew gets his or her holocaust payments/pension they don’t wish to go without. So the common jew does not, generally, speak out against those who ARE part of the scheme. I have known some and worked with some and, to a person, they have the same characteristics which are not pleasant. As for jesuits: They are, by their actions, jews as well as having been originally formed by many. I have posts on this in this blog. You will ALWAYS be attacked for calling them out. I have dealt with it for over a decade. Yes, there are non jews involved but, of course, they have made their fortunes out of playing ball over centuries.

            • earthling said, on May 28, 2020 at 7:34 pm

              I just saw that hilarious video suggesting catholics are behind it all because 3 of the top banks are run by jesuits. Sad how ignorant people are willing to be. 1. They’re jesuits 2. Even if they were Hindus, they’d be corrupted hindus. 3. The men acting as President or Chairman are hardly “in control”. They simply administer. I just rolled my eyes.

              • Ronny said, on May 28, 2020 at 11:45 pm

                Yes, I agree. So which societies are really in control of global finance?

                • earthling said, on June 1, 2020 at 1:32 pm

                  Well it depends what you mean by “Societies” in this instance. Of course we have the World Bank and Bank of International Settlements; Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and a shedload of others. If you mean “do the jesuits totally control all of this?”, I think the answer is no. If you look at what we are in right now – this shit show called “Coronavirus” – it is a means (fake) to accelerate the climate change agenda and usher in the 4th industrial revolution while reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2050. The World Economic Forum (plus Prince Charles and The Club of Rome) have been very clear that, by 2020, they had to do something to create the means to achieve 50% (I think) reduction by 2030. Climate Change and Paris (COP 21) weren’t achieving the needed progress. The WEF or CoR are not filled with jesuits or jews and the CoR isn’t, specifically, an economic/finance organisation but it is through this entire network of organisations (and the people who control them – who all end up being the same names every time) that the strategies and tactics are formed. These, then, get delegated down to the working groups who are, essentially, compartmentalised and many thinking they are working for the good. I always say that the entire big picture can be seen easily once one has done enough study of it – like having 700 or more pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw fitted – but seeing the centre of the web or the top of the pyramid, precisely, always seems beyond reach. However that 700+ pieces are enough to expose, generally, who are the pawns, bishops, Rooks and Knights and give you a good idea who are likely the Queen(s) and King(s). However, is there a hand moving them? I honestly don’t know. I just believe that if we, as a whole, were intelligent enough to work together and stop letting them divide us, then we could destroy these chess pieces by destroying their system based upon corrupted legal and monetary infrastructure.

  6. Gazz said, on April 1, 2014 at 12:03 am

    Again ~ it all goes back to the corruption mentioned in the previous blog ‘ Love’.

    People are far too interested in small – quick – easy to grasp ‘what-evers’, even despite what You disseminate is of crucial importance, they simply cannot grasp this. Perhaps they should shoulder the responsibility for their own ignorance, but again You see . . . many of these people have Children, it is for their sake this must be carried on.

  7. Gazz said, on April 1, 2014 at 12:09 am

    Keep in mind earthlinggb ~ what You or others may perceive to ‘views – kit’ to the blog, is often times distorted by . . . ? What may appear as little interest may well in-deed be most popular – ‘THEY’ may prevent You recognising this. These things do occur ~ in this corporate playing field !

    • spartacus said, on April 1, 2014 at 11:48 am

      Good point Gazz. We do seem to be playing the match on their home turf, with their own ball, and a very dodgy ref. Also under their rules. Hell of a slope on the pitch too, why are we always the ones playing uphill and against the howling wind?
      Hang on just noticed there are four balls on the pitch and they have got three of them. also noticed they have four gatekeepers, er sorry, i meant goalkeepers.

  8. Gazz said, on April 1, 2014 at 12:10 am

    # be – views – hits #

  9. denk said, on April 1, 2014 at 8:53 am

    u r assuming the globalists already have total control of the chinese govt to pull off this caper.
    whereas in reality the chinese govt still retain a large measure of independence outside the evil vampire’s orbit.

    thats precisely why the mh370 ff is designed to weaken two independent entities , china n malaysia , one stone kills two birds so to speak.

  10. Pete Fairhurst said, on August 12, 2019 at 8:11 pm

    Hi Earthling

    I saw your recent 2 posts and I re-read this one as a result; I see that I commented in 2014, as above.

    And I still think that this is foundational knowledge, that everyone needs to understand. Ditto your accompanying post “Jewish banishment and the City of London”. Certainly all Brits should be taught these facts as a matter of course – fat chance!

    Sadly, I also realised that, in the intervening 5 years then, nothing much has changed. The level of understanding in the general population has probably deteriorated if anything. The damn “smart” [=dumb slave] phone has become ubiquitous and seems to take priority over the real world for so many now. Critical thinking skills are actually diminishing too. Seems that only those that buy a private education are actually taught how to think now. I was lucky enough to be a pleb who made it to grammar school in the early ’60’s and I received a pretty decent Liberal Arts education as a result

    Life is actually rather good for a fit and happy old giffer like me. I just wish that more people would wake the f*** up!

    Anyhow my best wishes to you and yours
    I hope the intervening years have been as kind to you as they have been to me

    • earthling said, on August 13, 2019 at 10:51 am

      Hi Pete.
      Good to know you’re still “looking in” from time to time. As you will have seen, I haven’t really added any substantial content for a couple of years now because of the comments I previously made about people not wanting solutions and a full understanding (generally speaking) and you reflect that thinking in your comment here.
      The intervening years have been up and down for me I’m afraid. However, even at my age, I still look toward a better future so there’s that. I have to say that I can only agree: The level of understanding has probably deteriorated. I used to care but that “care” has dwindled over the past few years. If the world wishes to be screwed (and that’s the only conclusion I come to now) then let it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: