I have blogged about the two major control factors which run this world – Money (the reality of it) and Law (the “legal personality”) for many years now.
Unfortunately, there is scant interest from the vast majority of the “unwashed masses” who forever wonder why things never get any better while they vote “left” out and “Right” in and vice versa for decades and centuries. They complain, they bitch and moan and EVERYTIME the controllers offer up a “New Messiah” speaking words that resonate with them (that is what they do and always have), those “great unwashed” swallow it all, gobble it up and, for a while, get all excited at the prospect – and forlorn hope (hope is ALL you ever get) – of change.
However, there never will be any. Why? Because as you have just shown once more, you’re so easily led into believing AGAIN that the new guy in the Oval Office really is “change”. I could go into why he’s not but that is not the point of this blog.
The point of this blog is to bring it to your attention, once more, that there are people in this world – even today – who know there is no need for the existing money system and that it is, in fact, a con and the scourge of humanity. It is the reason for all our ills, our depressions, our desperation, our murders, hate, anger and wars. Not ALL but most. Some will say “No, it’s religion” but what is organised religion? It is all to do with spiritual and temporal power over masses and that power is gained by riches (money). Remember, money is just a means, it is not the end goal.
This post is called “A ‘New’ Money system” but, in fact, it is not new at all. It has always been known of, just never put into practice because, if it were, those who have ruled would rule no more. The “legal personality” is the mechanism, in law, by which those who own and control the money system today, have been able to “engineer” it.
Yes, there are “bloodlines” and these bloodlines must maintain and further their power to the point that “The meek shall inherit the earth”. The “meek” is not you and I. The “meek” (in THEIR bible) is them.
So, onto the articles worth reading:
Well, first, let me re-post one of the most significant and telling responses from the US Federal Reserve Chairman ever put on record:
He doesn’t say HOW, of course, but he DOES say “Yes” it is possible for a nation to have a currency without a national debt. And it is NOT just because private banks could issue it. Private Banks are “legal persons”. YOU are a “legal person” (ignore, for the moment, that the legal person itself is a con). The point right now is that a LEGAL PERSON (of any nature) CAN ISSUE MONEY – so YOU can! This is not a theory, it is a FACT!
Now, to President Roosevelt:
Bighamton Press, Sept 14th 1934.
Just as a Corporation is given “Legal Personality” by the law/Government, Trade Unions also are afforded “legal personality”. You would think the, therefore, that ALL persons are equal before the law right? WRONG! Why? Well those who are the majority Stakeholders in Corporations also have majority stakes in Banks and the Federal Reserve Private Banks. So who do you think has the say toward government and the power of money behind them? You have to understand that Roosevelt knew this. He was not a stupid man! So while he talked a good talk…..
Now to Woodrow Wilson: An article from not long before he became President and ushered in the Federal Reserve Act.
From “The Sun” September 25th 1910 (not the British rag):
“Guilt is always PERSONal” but the Corporation IS a “person” in law, therefore, those who truly own and control the Banks (also “persons) and Corporations are as if they are protected by the greatest of force fields. They can direct policies of any nature which is anti – public or individual or environmental and it is PEOPLE who drive these policies. Yet, it is the Corporation itself (a fictitious “person” existing by means of its own “birth certificate”, the Articles of Incorporation agreed to by the State) which is sued – if at all. A Corporation cannot be committed to jail for fraud or any other crime but the actual flesh and blood persons could IF this “force field” was removed.
Did Woodrow Wilson remove it while President? Not at all. In fact, he strengthened it plus he oversaw the introduction of the Federal Reserve and the IRS!
So now, let’s turn to E.C.Riegel – a name that many will not have heard of (but you MAY have heard of a man by the name of Mike Montagne who has claimed the originator of the MPE – Mathematically Perfected Economy – idea). No doubt Mr Montagne has worked on the idea for many years in great detail but the reality of money was known to many others – well known and not so well known – many years/decades, perhaps even centuries beforehand. The above indicate why such a money system has never been allowed to be put in place. The following describes what that money system, essentially, is.
THE MONETARY PHILOSOPHY OF E.C.RIEGEL:
- For a Person to exert Money Power is natural and wholesome (for “person” assume individual and that no such “Corporate Persons” exist).
- For the state to exert Money Power is unnatural and perverse.
- Until the state acquired Money Power, the state was, at worst, a parasite upon the economy; with the Money Power, it became a perverter of the economy. Men no longer merely tolerated it, they sought the exercise of the money power in their favour.
- Thus, man’s attitude toward the state and the state’s power over man were completely altered.
- Out of man’s motive of winning benefits from the state grew various political “ideologies” designed to screen the acquisitive purposes of their proponents.
- Thus the acquisition of the money power by the state marked a politico-economic revolution as it gave to the state the power, through fiscal policy, to control the economy and turned men’s minds from private enterprise to methods of its political control and perversion.
- Our present type of state should be identified as the monetary state and distinguished from the pre-monetary state.
- Money power exerted by the state is inescapably perverse; the monetary state is a frustrator of all aims of economic and political liberty.
- In the exercise of the money power, the state is driven inevitably from the libertarian forms of democracy and republicanism to the autarchic forms of fascism, socialism and communism.
- These are distinguished only by the manner in which the state’s money power is exercised but derived from one theory – that the exertion of money power is a function of the state.
- The grand issue is between the monetary state of today and the de-monetized state of tomorrow, wherein man will assert exclusive money power under the principle that only producers may create money.
- Thereafter the politico-economic issues that now exist will be no more, for the state will have lost its power to inflect the economy either to the left or to the right.
- The aim is not to pose a political revolution but to induce a revolution in thinking of money and an evolutionary movement through local, non political, action to establish a private enterprise money system independent of the existing political money system.
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE MONEY
A Non-Political Money System
by E. C. Riegel
In the preface to the book, the author says this:
The life of modern man depends upon his mastery of money.
Our political money system is breaking down and must be displaced by one that serves the needs of modern exchange. Otherwise our civilization will perish.
As technological improvements tend to specialize and confine each man’s production, the need for the exchange of products increases, and, therefore, man’s dependence upon money makes the mastery of this vital agency more and more imperative.
Production grows more mechanical, while consumption, on the other hand, has no machine technique; it still operates by our hands and bodies. Therefore there can never be mass consumption to coordinate with mass production. Consumption remains private and individual. Production grows more interdependent——requiring the coordination of many machines and many hands——while the function of consumption cannot be shared or mechanized; it is human, individual, self-dependent.
To fulfill the function of consumption (without which production is purposeless) the individual must be, as buyer, a self-starter and self-stimulator, and therefore, money power, sufficient to buy his production, must be at the command of every man. Otherwise the people cannot coordinate their consumption with their production and this deficiency causes the production machine to clog and recoil with vicious consequences. Not only are these economic results painful in themselves, but they cause the people to turn to political intervention as a remedy, and this complicates the problem and increases the peril.
WE MUST HAVE LESS RATHER THAN MORE POLITICAL INTERVENTION AND THIS BOOK WILL SHOW THAT IT IS POLITICAL INTERVENTION THROUGH THE MONEY SYSTEM THAT BREEDS ALL OUR ILLS. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE MUST, IF IT IS TO BE PRESERVED AND PERFECTED, HAVE A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE MONEY SYSTEM. THE POLITICAL MONEY SYSTEM IS INHERENTLY ANTIPATHIC TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND INEVITABLY TENDS TO COMMUNIZATION.
Our mass production power must be balanced by our individual buying power and our buying power is dependent upon our individual money-creating power. Money cannot meet modern needs by descending to the people; it must rise from them. Until this is comprehended mass production must continue to miscarry. We, as consumers, must literally make money or be stymied. Government cannot assume this responsibility for us. Every individual producer must exert the right and assume the duty of creating money, if there be need therefore, to buy the value of his own production. There cannot be full distribution of wealth without full distribution of money power. He who would make must also take——in ratio. Each of us must have the ability to create fountain pen money with our own hands. Machine production must be coordinated with handmade money.
Recurrent business slumps, mal-distribution, over-production, unemployment, panics and depressions are but the gentler reminders that our industrial life is in danger. In the end war presses a gun against our head with the demand——money or your life. Must our economic and political maladies be compounded into periodic cataclysms and our civilization be destroyed before we master money?
Typical of the stress laid by economists upon the need for sustained purchasing power is the following quotation from “The Dilemma of Thrift” written in 1926 by William Trufant Foster and Waddill Catchings:
“In fact, adequate, sustained consumer-demand would do more than any other means now within human control toward increasing wealth, abolishing poverty, maintaining employment, solving labor problems, increasing good will among men generally, and maintaining the peace of the world. No means of preventing war holds out such large immediate possibilities as this… It is, therefore, difficult to exaggerate the importance of finding a means of sustaining purchasing power. The next world war, if it does come, may well be the last war——at least the last war in which the present nations will have any interest, for it may well destroy civilization itself.”
Well, “the next world war” has come and is upon us, and whether or not it is leading to the destruction of civilization will not be determined by the outcome of the military phase of the war. The issue cannot be determined by military victory. Its cleavage is not the battle front. Both Axis and Allied Nations are committed to the system of government-created purchasing power, whether they be classed as fascist, communist or democratic. The broad question that will determine the fate of humanity is whether the evil practice of synthetic buying power by governments shall continue to the inevitable collapse of the social order or whether the producer of wealth will exert his natural buying power and thus avert disaster.
Without reservation I assert that the whole fate of society hinges upon the one question of whether it can at this critical juncture gain mastery through the mastery of money and thus coordinate purchasing power with producing power. The issue is——money or your life.
——E. C. Riegel
In the introduction, his first words are:
Man has two major problems. His first problem is: HOW TO PROSPER. His second problem is:
HOW TO GOVERN GOVERNMENT.
The solution of one is the solution of the other. It lies in the understanding and exercising of his inherent money power through a non-political money system.
Because man has not mastered the problem of achieving prosperity, he has turned to government for its solution. Thus he has complicated his problem, for government offers no solution to the problem of prosperity, while its intervention in this primary problem brings the additional problem of how to govern government. When government undertakes to solve man’s problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant. Thus it has failed in both spheres. By intertwining the prosperity problem with the political problem man has snarled the threads and no solution of either is possible without separation.
EVILS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM
The present money system has three basic evils:
It permits money to be issued privately, only by a limited number of persons and
corporations who have bank credit, and makes such credit subject to fee. Thus it establishes credit as a privilege rather than a right, and makes it an object of profit rather than a utility to further the production and distribution of wealth. It denies to producers generally the right to issue money, thus making it impossible to expand buying power to potential producing power. This results in defeating the mass production system.
It permits the government to issue unbacked money. The only way the government could
back its money issues would be to go into the production of goods and services; and this would compete with private business. Thus the problem offers the two horns of a dilemma, both of which lead to socialization. If it backs its money issues with goods and services (and there is no other way it can be backed), it executes a frontal attack on private enterprise. If it issues money without backing it (as it is doing), it executes a flank attack on private business through inflation——since to issue money without creating equivalent values is to inflate.
It permits ambitious or designing or fanatical men who are in control of government to
light the fires of war, threatening the lives and fortunes of untold millions. This terrible power lies solely in the political money system since armaments spring from money and money springs from government fiat, whereas it should spring only from the fiat of the people who would thus hold the veto power.
It is a fantastic book which leads the reader to a far better understanding of what freedom actually means (Americans belief in their “Land of the free” is just so naive as they keep swinging between their Democrats and Republicans, just as we do here in the UK with Labour and Conservative and just about every other nation does. Even in the autocratic countries, the money power is still exerted by the state and controlled by the global banking fraternity.
Until we break this, you can vote to your heart’s delight and, as you, your parents and your parents’ parents have seen, nothing changes. Well. it does, but never positively. It takes two parents to work to keep a family afloat today while the feminists THINK they have done themselves and the world population a favour. They actually have no idea what they have done and how they were manipulated into doing it.
Schenectady Gazette, 26th December 1933:
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 29th 1913
Now, I’ve blogged long and hard over years about this subject – Money and law. I’ve introduced you to MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) and have strived to explain, again and again, what money actually is AND what “the law” and “legal person” actually are.
People say to me “Well, if you’re so smart DO something!” However, NOTHING can be done without this knowledge being imparted to everyone and and a vast number of people “feeling” it so much that they are determined to act, together. However, the vast number of people just want an easy life. The irony is they complain that their lives aren’t easy and guess what? THIS is why!
Oy veh! Just keep paying your dues!
NB: The quotes of Thomas Jefferson are oftentimes used wrt money and banking – such as follows:
“I sincerely believe… that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” ~Letter to John Taylor, 1816
But even Jefferson (and many today who keep talking about Gold and Silver and that money should be issued by the state tax free) either have gotten it wrong OR they have an agenda. Jefferson wanted the State to be in control rather than private bankers, however, as is clear and obvious from the foregoing, neither the state nor the banks – neither of whom are producers of any kind – should have the power of issue of money. We, the producers, have the only true right to do so.
Why? It’s very easy. Do your homework. But when you understand money and interest and the creation of it (and who actually creates it), you understand why the government will never sort out the world’s (or even the country’s) economic mess. You see, to you and I it’s a mess; to the government, they pretend for public consumption, it’s a mess, but it’s not for them. It is just how they like it.
If you wish to discard this information then, by all means, do so, but never complain about left/right and capitalism/communism/socialism/fascism and various leaders, parties and policies because, frankly, your complaints are a bore. 🙂
Now, a solution to your/our situation is available. All you have to do is understand it. Even then, it won’t get anywhere (just like your favourite party won’t unless you vote) unless you back it. Don’t talk shit and say it’s impossible and too difficult because it’s just as difficult as it was for the likes of the LGBT group to get themselves accepted in society and win the right to marriage. It took long years and significant lobbying/marching etc. The thing is, they were trying to change societal values as well as get political support. This wouldn’t be trying to change societal values but just getting as big a number of people understanding and/or supporting this for lobbying to government. 100K signatures cannot be ignored by Parliament can it? It can be not acted upon but it can’t be ignored. Get 500K in a fairly short period of time and that certainly cannot be ignored.
So here’s the question: How much do all you people out there actually want your “change” for the better for everyone?
Now the change would be along the lines of my blog “The New Economics will be mathematics”. Before you say anything (anything at all), I am more than aware that ANY purported solution would require work before implementation and retuning as it is implemented as we come to understand some of the finer nuances of it, so all I have stated, in the petition, is:
Allow open debate regarding a new, non interest based, monetary system.
It is the existing monetary system, and policy surrounding money creation, which is causing poverty worldwide while allowing a tiny minority of persons to capitalise from the system. Capitalism is neither to blame nor the panacea. There is a non-interest-based economy which can be implemented.
Captain Henry Kerby, during Parliamentary questions on April 15th, 1965, stated the following: “Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take steps to ensure that all government financial requirements should be provided by emissions, free of debt and interest…” Mr Diamond, the Chancellor, stated “No”. Mr Kerby also asked what steps were being taken to eliminate the National Debt. Mr Diamond responded: It is not the government’s policy to eliminate the debt. A system can be introduced to do just that
It does not go into the detail of what such a solution is because the petition site does not give enough words to do so. Getting Parliament to debate – even question what it is – is only a first step. To achieve that, even if you sign, you will have to share this blogpost and the link to the petition, as widely as possible since you are just as aware as I am what it takes to get thousands of signatures. “Change.org” gets the support because they have dozens of people working for them on a website. Similarly, “Positive Money”. This site is a one man band. So all I can say is help me to help you to help us to help all.
Please leave a comment letting me know if you signed.
You lose nothing but potentially, gain enormously (with no money involved) so what the hell are you waiting for? 🙂
Rodrigo Rato. Finally one caught and, hopefully, put away for a very long time.
Now, please see my blogpost from 2010 regarding Rato and Emilio Botin (now dead) of Santander. Of course, at the time of writing this blog 5 years ago, it was branded “Conspiracy theory”. Now, because it has been proven what a rat he is, it’s a “scandal” because us Conspiracy theorists are never allowed to be considered correct. Otherwise it might just catch on you know? People might actually start listening to us!
I WANT TO SEE THE “WHITES” OF UKIP’s EYES!
Dear Mr Taylor,
I have created a “Change.org” petition regarding the need for a discussion/debate around the issue of money issuance in the UK. Please see the link:
On your website, it is stated:
SOMETHING TO SAY TO US?
Do you want to tell us anything?
Ask a question? Complain about something?
Get us to do something for you?
Whatever it is, we value your input and will always respond.
Norman Taylor (chairman UK Ashford branch)
Tel: 01233 822 132
What I would like you, and all members of the UKIP party to do, is sign this petition. While I speak of a solution to the problem known as “Mathematically Perfected Economy”, I realise many people will not be accustomed with the term and, as such, I am not asking that people support the implementation of it but simply that they support the necessity for there being a public discussion of the matter of money issuance. From this, it would then be possible to assess and discuss in greater detail, how money works presently and how that is the underlying issue which impacts every facet of life from austerity to war. All wars are resource wars in one form or another. The reason for such is due to the debt interest applied to nations and the fact that the interest portion of the debt does not circulate in any economy. Since it does not, it is necessary for nations to compete but not only compete but to war. The only way for one nation to pay off (or, I should say, continue to service) its debt is by acquiring the principle of another nation’s economy.
The accumulation of wealth by the few is through what is, in fact, insider trading. The use of Hedge funds and other vehicles make this possible.
Alan Greenspan joined Paulson & Co just before the crash in 2008 (he joined around Jan 2007) and advise Paulson on the mortgage market (insider knowledge of course) and Paulson’s Hedge Fund made a killing (one of the largest if not THE largest gains a HF had ever made) by shorting the market.
In addition, on this side of the Atlantic, Ken Clarke joined Centaurus Hedge Fund around the same time.
Our Cabinet Ministers, Prime Ministers and Corporations and Banks, write the legislation which they obviously know will impact certain industries and even nations. People like Tony Blair (and many others) then, having pushed through legislation on others’ behalf then find themselves paid off by being provided with jobs with the like of J.P.Morgan. None of this is difficult to comprehend or see.
I could write a script on this but I will stop there. I’ll just end by saying that it is the present monetary system whereby banks issue currency (not create it) and charge interest upon money they don’t actually have (thereby they bring no consideration to the contract/loan) but have been given a legal privilege to issue. That interest does not exist anywhere in any economy, therefore, it is easily seen why and how all countries are in debt. There is a net global debt which is actually impossible to exist unless there is some entity which that debt is owed to. That debt is due to interest and due to the fact that both, governments and individuals all have to use a form of currency which is legally owned by a global banking system. The fact is that it is individuals who create money (its value) and that banks are unnecessary middlemen in any transaction between two individuals. All banks do to make a profit is demand that our promissory obligations to one another go through their system and they “re-present” these obligations to one another with their versions (electronic or cash) of our promissory notes.
They obfuscate the true nature of what is going on and it is, in fact, outright fraud.
I would appreciate your, and Gerald O’Brien’s response to this. I would hope UKIP would positively support such a discussion since it is this issue which is causing many of the symptoms your party and this country is concerned about.
PS: I have a background in both, University level Physics and Business Studies.
Of course I understand what I will get (if anything) is some wooly worded thank you and “that’s interesting” and “UKIP are committed to….” etc.
Just wanted it on record. Another party (of the people) ignore the real issues and core problem.
Because to be a party, you must adhere to the establishment rules otherwise you would never BE a party (or last as one).
All good fun! Keep putting your X in the box. After all, that’s how they see you – as an X, a thumb print, an idiot.
This documentary has been created by Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson family. In his late 20s (circa 2007) Jamie’s displaying a social conscience – like his old man did when he was Jamie’s age – but look who he has access to and watch and listen very closely to those he interviews, including his own family. Just as us 99% generally say “there’s nothing that can be done about it”, so does the 1%. The difference is that, while we say it because we believe (and it IS only a belief) that we have no power (and also we can’t collaborate because we’ve had our differences of opinions drilled into us for so long that we still hold on so tightly to what the 1% – through government and media – have brainwashed us to believe), the 1% say it because, in part, they recognise that, even if some of them actually tried to change it, the rest of the 1% wouldn’t allow them to and they’d be destroyed for trying and, generally, they see – I think – equality as meaning they would have shit lives. They don’t perceive the possibility that it could mean the whole population could have better lives. But perhaps it’s more than that also. Perhaps it’s genuine fear that, having been raised in what must be considered anti social environments which has led to them actually being unable to relate to a world and people where they would need to collaborate and integrate [imagine the similarity with the armed forces personnel who find it so difficult to re-integrate into “civvy street” – they’d rather stay in the forces and have that ordered life and the respect etc].
Imagine you had the lifestyle these people did – I even consider the lifestyle I used to have in comparison to today and I hate having “fallen” – you’d wish to maintain it if you are honest. You (and I) WANT what they have and that is just a fact. However, we’d be content even with a genuine fraction which would offer us the opportunity for a comfortable life, not necessarily an opulent one. If you had what these people had and, considering the present system as it stands, someone came along and said “We’re going to tax you more and redistribute your wealth” (let’s ignore just for a moment that a lot of these people have made their wealth corruptly – even though we all make what we make corruptly in what is a corrupt system – remember that even the money you make here in the UK is to the detriment of someone in Africa or another developing country), you wouldn’t be happy. Don’t say you would because you would NOT! There is already a redistribution of wealth going on from us to third world countries and we are complaining to the government because there are people in need in this country. It is exactly the same thing just on a macro rather than micro scale.
So, no, they don’t wish to contemplate a world where they don’t have their fences and large areas of land where they can be apart from the rest of society and why? Because society IS a wreck at the moment and has been for a very long time. Honestly? If I could live off money in the bank and have my own island away from the “madding crowd” of a world full of assholes, I would. However, if the world could change and society change and everyone recognise each other as worthy of respect and love then that may be a different thing and I wouldn’t have that wish to isolate myself.
That all said, there are some REAL assholes on here which give you a good glimpse into the mind of the 1% and one of them is Milton Friedman himself (I wouldn’t even say he IS a 1%er but he does live in that general world). His point about although the equality gap was getting wider but the people at the bottom were still progressing is total bullshit and I’ll tell you why:
50 years ago and even less, a family could live off a single wage earner quite comfortably. It cannot even live comfortably off two wage earners today! As the rich get richer, they also raise the general cost of living through the ever increasing addition of money into the system (i.e. inflation). They get to use that money first before the economy adjusts (i.e. before the inflation) and IF it does trickle down (and it isn’t even doing that today), that £1 which was a £1 in THEIR pocket, is now – once we get a hold of it – worth a fraction of that £1.
Imagine standing on a huge rubber band and 5 feet away – still on the rubber band – there is a basketball net.
Imagine Mr 1% is standing on a similar rubber band next to you with the net 5 feet way.
Both bands are connected to the same pulley system which is stretching both rubber bands at the same rate.
There’s a machine which keeps pumping out basketballs but it shoots the basketball at Mr 1% everytime and you have to retrieve that ball once he’s netted it.
By the time he’s netted it and you’ve retrieved it however, the rubber band you’re standing on has been stretched and now the net is 6 feet away from you.
You’re going to net far less balls than Mr 1%.
Ok a crap analogy but I was making it up as I went along and sometimes I’m just too lazy to sit and think of something better but you get the drift.
Basically, Milton Friedman is an asshole.
That said, if the global population embraced the reality that it is YOU and I who create money and we can issue our own promissory obligations to each other WITHOUT interest, then we’d have the solution. But as I said before, we’re all too busy arguing about crap and the symptoms rather than focusing on the core issue which is what I have literally just said.
Would Jamie Johnson be interested in learning the solution? Would he hell.
“I’ve got the ‘talking heads’ on TV on my side” said the Devil.
“Do you want to have this job or not?” said the Devil
“Do you wish to travel outside your country or not?” asked the Devil
“It COULD save your life” said the Devil (without saying it could also end your life)
“Do you wish to buy and sell?” said the Devil.
We’re now literally on the precipice my dear family. And I was “nuts” for a while. Indeed!
But you love your technology don’t you? The macs, the ipads and ipods and Androids and GPS and all of those apps. It’s not a stretch. You can just walk into the room and automatically switch your lights on and off too and lock your doors because your apartment or house recognises you! – said the Devil!
Religious difficulties with a world currency currently exist. According to the Futurist view, to overcome the extant difficulties the Antichrist will use forced religious syncretism (i.e. in the name of counterterrorism and world economic stability) to enable the creation of the supranational currency. Some interpret the mark as a requirement for all commerce to mean that the mark might actually be an object with the function of a credit card, such as RFID microchip implants. In Christianity, some believe the implantation of chips may be the imprinting of the Mark of the Beast, prophesied to be a requirement for all trade, and a precursor to the events of the Book of Revelation.
Revelation 13:16-18English Standard Version (ESV)
16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[a] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.
And “Uncle Joe” Biden – Obama’s 2nd in command – knew it was coming of course. “I am a zionist” says Joe. “You don’t have to be jewish to be a zionist!”
And yet, you call yourself “Christians”
“What are the muslims doing in our country?” you say and yet the muslims know of this far better than you do! Funny that isn’t it? Isn’t it also strange how the muslims are still anti usury also? While your christian Jesus was anti usury and yet you allow it every day in life.
You’re not Christians! You’re quasi jews! That’s why Cameron and friends (AND UKIP) all speak of our “Judeo-christian” beliefs and culture.
Christians? You’re ignorant fricking idiots!
And you’ll accept it. You’ll welcome it. You haven’t a goddamned clue while your god will, in fact, damn you!
In Kabbalistic Judaism the number 666 represents the creation and perfection of the world. The world was created in 6 days, and there are 6 cardinal directions (North, South, East, West, Up, Down). 6 is also the numerical value of one of the letters of God’s name.
So there you have it: Christian and jew, once more, separated by 180 degrees of belief.
Enjoy your “judeo-christianity” as it swallows you up and spits you out!
King James Bible
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
You know? I’ve never been homeless. I’ve had a few times I’ve been made redundant or sacked (particularly since 2001 and the dotcom crash). I’ve had a pretty damned good life all in all and I can’t say I’ve ever been even close to this situation (I was getting pretty close just approximately a year ago but, luckily, the clouds broke and the sun shone again).
I’ve lived in 5 different countries around the world.
I’ve had the BMWs and the 4x4s.
I’ve had the 5 star hotels and flying first class and business class.
I’ve lived in relative opulence and never had to even look at my bank balance.
I’ve spent almost two decades never having to take a loan for anything (except a mortgage) and paid cash for cars etc.
And yet, I watch this and it brings tears to my eyes as I think of all the people – millions upon millions (in fact billions) – on this earth who are in this position or worse WHEN I KNOW THE GOVERNMENTS KNOW (as do the banks) THAT IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY FOR ANYONE TO GO THROUGH THIS! And a tear is shed because I recognise that most people want to actually help others and feel the joy of giving and helping another (even a stranger) but the bastards who run this world has made that emotion and that connection with others, something which should be driven out of us and they do it by creating the desperation, the lack of cultural and community cohesion and the creation of a system which they ensure means we have no time to think (or feel) but just enough time to think of “me”.
But, if you shed a tear for such, in that knowledge – or if you shed a tear about something else you feel an empathy for (or a sympathy) – there are literally people out there who think there is something deeply wrong and disturbed about you emotionally. And be careful, because among those people who do think that way could be your wife, your mother, your brother or sister, you best friend, your nephew, your cousin……
And they may just say something like “You have unresolved emotions”. But you know why some people will say that? Because, as I once was told “Don’t bring me down because I may never be able to get back up”. These people need to live their lives in a straight line like a D.C. current. A.C. current is just far too dangerous for them because they don’t have the strength to ride any sort of rollercoaster. At the fair, yes but if life throws them a curve ball, they lose it and it seems difficult for them to regain their composure and their path.
And why does it get to me so much and anger me that these bankers and governments are getting away with allowing this (actually not allowing it but making sure it actually happens) and how can I say that it is absolutely unnecessary? Well that’s what REALLY angers me – because it is SO simple and no matter how many times I’ve brought peoples’ attention to this one single video of Ben Bernanke acquiescing to the reality of it being unnecessary, it just seems to (and does) go right over people’s heads and YET, it is the simplest – while most explosive – admission a man has ever made. If the world took him (and them) to task on this simple admission, the world would put him (and them) in jail for the rest of their natural lives and we would get on with rebuilding this world into something far more beautiful.
And I know even people who work in banking and consider themselves intelligent who just cannot grasp this. Crazy isn’t it?
But hey! I have “unresolved emotions”. Deep and shallow don’t mix. They can for a while but then the shallow starts to irritate and, for the shallow, the deep starts to irritate. My only angle on it is this: Depth has a shallow surface but shallow never has any depth. And some do have the depth but are so scared of it to dive. A marriage counsellor once told me I could strap on an oxygen tank but the other was finding it difficult to even snorkel.
It’s all misperceptions and misunderstandings whether intended or unintended.
General Jackson who had, in his first inaugural, declared that a national debt was “incompatible with real independence”….
Scotland voted for it’s “independence” (its political independence but nowhere near true sovereignty) and it voted no. It doesn’t matter either way because, as these American writers tell you, once more, you have no true independence, liberty, freedom or sovereignty as an individual or as a nation, for as long as the debt and interest on that debt, exists.
But this is not about Scotland because Scotland DOES NOT MATTER! NO single nation matters! Many nations have split and the remaining entities declared their independence over many decades and centuries AND YET we remain – and they remain – within a system, within which, no man, woman nor child nor nation can ever achieve true independence or sovereignty. And this is why I laughed at my dear scots ‘countrymen’ as they paraded in their saltires and sang their songs and went to the polling booths to tick a box which said “Yes” but a box provided to them by the existing hierarchy while that existing hierarchy would only ever give them a vote for something which RETAINED them in a box!
You will NEVER get out of that “box” until you understand how to destroy their system. You will never understand how to destroy their system unless you take it upon yourselves to learn how they have created that system and how the vast majority do not even question it! As long as this situation remains, there will NEVER be sovereignty and freedom (or love) for any single individual on this planet.
THAT is why I laugh!I’m sorry of this upsets you!
It takes YEARS of research to understand this stuff. It takes those years of close to 24 hours a day (yes I’m not exaggerating) to be able to just “see” things for how they are and to be able to see the transparency of everything from immigration to beheadings. From Presidents selling ebola to ISIS. From 9/11 to the next financial bubble.
We’re called “Conspiracy theorists” and “extremists” who need to be taken care of by the state now (according to David Cameron) and silenced. Not because we promote extremism at all or violence on anyone but because we know and god forbid YOU (the wider public who still vote and still swallow the BBC and the mainstream news) start to figure it all out because your senses are telling you there’s something wrong with the world and you’re looking for answers and you come to blogs like mine and others’ searching for them.
If you wish to demonise a group of people, you make fun of them. If that doesn’t work, you start to suggest they’re “Dangerous extremists”. If that doesn’t work, you start to set them up with false accusations or charges. You knock at their door with your paid thugs (Police) working for the state and you remove their capability to communicate with the wider world. Yes they’ve done that recently with that guy Christopher Spivey but, before him, they did precisely the same to yours truly! But I tend to work on more fundamental issues than Chris. Chris focuses his attention on, generally, today’s newsworthy items. Those news items, however, are simply symptoms (important to expose as they are, absolutely) of what fundamentally underlies everything.
My “State thug” visit came on the heels of communication with the SNP/Scottish government which they didn’t seem too happy about, along with communications with my MP and MSP at the time and it was suggested it was all because a jew in England complained to the MET Police that I was being anti semitic (in his view). So the Police confiscated (Stole) £2000 worth of Apple MAC computer, recording equipment and a sundry of other stuff. Never to be returned and yet, no charges but told “You don’t wish to speak to me” (the Detective) “because you know my job is to take whatever you utter and use it against you”. Well, at least he was being honest and giving me a warning.heads up. So I left it and let them steal my property and went out and bought a whole new set. I think they expected I was some sort of dope smoking, benefits scrounger. Perhaps on realising they were dealing with someone just a little more “elevated” than that (NO disrespect to those of you on benefits – I am talking in terms of how I would see THEM looking at various “legal persons”), they decided to just take the stuff and let it be. However, rest assured, if I started making noises about it, they’d be sure to make my life hell. That is how Her Majesty’s constabulary and courts work on behalf of the ruling class.
But back to the subject: I’ve written quite a number of blogs relating to the money/debt/interest issue now – as well as the fundamental jurisprudence of law which supports the legal person, corporation, money and overall system in place – and here, we go back to the 1800s in America. The same singular issue has been known about for centuries and yet we still allow our “ELECTED OFFICIALS” (owned and sold by the Banking community who really call the shots) to keep our attentions on left and right and levels of taxation and black and white. When we don’t like one government/elected party, we swing back the other way to the other one. We hated Tony Blair (but loved him to begin with – well I didn’t but the country obviously did) and we “swung” back to tory. Now that we have come to the point of hating the tories it looks like we’re going to swing back to Labour. But there’s been a new kid introduced on the block called Farage and UKIP. Oh yes, a new kid but every bit as controlled as the others, just newly packaged because the elite of this country recognise we’re getting a little jaded at the “centrist” ideologies of the old school. Nothing changes and, how can it when UKIP are now simply stealing tories and others and getting them seats in parliament but it’s still guys who were part of the existing structure! So what “change” do you really think that will bring? Answer? NONE!
But you’ll believe it will. You’ll believe (desperately) that it will. And the beat goes on!
And always remember: They call it “The British system”. Why? Because it originated here and the same old names maintain it. Now think about it. If you own the system, the house never loses. One of those “Houses” is the House of Rothschild among others.
So, again, the British system and the British government state it has never been, isn’t and never will be its intention to ever pay of it debt. This is because the “British” who OWN this system, owns this country by way of the debt and always have done. Coming clean on this and then paying the debt WOULD be an act of “treason” by the British government because it would be against “Her Majesty” and remember also, it is “Her Majesty’s Government” and the Crown OWNS this place!
I received the following from “POSITIVE MONEY” today in my email. I think it is important that we look at exactly what these people say, who they collaborate with, how they gain access to The Bank Of England in the first place and how they gain access to Parliament. Also, who funds them and what their overall message is. Then we must also recognise that the bottom line of “Positive Money” is to maintain the Banking System, the Bank of England, Government spending/borrowing and, therefore, government debt. For even if they were to remove Private debt from the equation and have money spent into the economy by the government, they still promote the maintenance of the Bank of England, a tax regime, the control of the money issuance to those who a small group of people decide to issue to and, we have to assume, they do not intend, then, looking at the ownership of property, the legal control of money and property and how, still, those who have created and maintained this system of money (which “Positive Money” themselves know has been a corrupt creation from the beginning, otherwise they would not be doing the work they do) will continue to benefit from a still existing Central Banking system they created.
I’ll make comments throughout in blue and discuss the video and what is said while trying to point out the obvious (but unstated) result/reality of what is being said.
We have some seriously big news to announce!
1) Huge milestone in our campaign
When we launched the Positive Money campaign 3 and half years ago and started talking about the fact that banks create money, we were faced with disbelief and shock. A common response was: ‘I don’t believe you. I think you just made that up.’ We had to spend a lot of time and energy to convince people that this is the way the system works. And there is the first and most basic piece of misinformation – that the Banks create money. They do not create it, they are given licence to ISSUE it. This is an absolutely fundamental and important point to fully understand. It appears a subtle difference but it is not.
At that time there was no official document by the Bank of England describing how the money system really works and serious factual misinformation in economics textbooks.
That was a time when we could only dream of these kind of tweets from the Bank of England:
YES, it looks like it was copied from the Positive Money website… and NO, this is not a spoof …These are real tweets from the real Bank of England’s twitter account!
Now, after 3 and half years of hard work, after we teamed up with the New Economics Foundation and wrote “Where Does Money Come From?” in order to have something to back our arguments, now – at last – the Bank of England has released official papers explaining that money is created by commercial banks! And there’s even an official video about it!
[As an aside but perhaps an important one nevertheless, notice that this guy is reading from a script. It doesn’t appear as if he is from what you see but what you hear from his answers and the intonation of his voice and the deliberate, slow way he is speaking, he IS reading from a script. He is like an auomaton. There is another “interview” with another guy from the B of E and he is doing precisely the same. The Bank of England itself is wanting this change in the monetary system as are many “charities”/Foundations such as The New Economics Foundation and The Hadley Trust who fund “Positive Money”. However, they want to control how that change is effected and what it leads to. I suggest you look very closely at these Foundations and “Charities”. “Positive Money” while telling you 90% truth, is once more, a change agent still keeping within the remit of “Banks create money” in one way or another. Yet, they explain pretty much how it all works but still in the hope that that penny doesn’t drop]
The Bank of England is the first major central bank in the world – that we know of – to publish something as clear and explicit as this.
This means a huge milestone in our campaign for a just and fair money system. Finally, there’s a simple video and a paper to send to all those economists, academics, politicians and anyone shaking their head in disbelief! It should reduce drastically the time wasted in persuading people of all types to accept our analysis of the problems.
We’d like to say a BIG Thank you to all of you who helped us to get to this point!
2) Positive Money’s Chief Economist leaves now that Bank of England knows where money comes from…
In March 2011, Andrew Jackson joined our team and has led our research ever since. He co-authored the books “Where Does Money Come From?” and “Modernising Money“ and several Positive Money publications.
Andrew is now starting a full-time PhD with the highly regarded Professor Tim Jackson (author of Prosperity without Growth)and will be stepping back from work with Positive Money.
In a strange coincidence, on Andrew’s last day in the office, the Bank of England published the new paper mentioned above explaining exactly how money is created in the modern banking system. The paper actually references “Where Does Money Come From?”, the first book that Andrew worked on. That’s a great finish to 3 years of hard work to educate people about the reality of money!
The Peerage: http://www.thepeerage.com/p30951.htm
You know what? I’m getting bloody sick of transparent, obvious shit where people are in bed with other people and promoting all of the “need for change” across all fronts AND YET, if you are at all quick on the uptake know who is who and have done ANY amount of homework, you can see, quite clearly, that the elite of this world WANT this “awakening” and they WANT us to scream for change and demand change and march and shout about it all. They are creating the conditions and they are publicising and propagandising about it all as they have their “actors” in place to be the pied pipers who will offer the solutions and make them SOUND just exactly what people want – like “The Reset’s “TEAL TAX” for instance. All they need say is “What if you didn’t have to pay tax but all the Corporations did at 1%? Then instead of the inland revenue taking in £500bn a year, they’d raise upwards of £1.4 TRILLION.” People will go ape about this because, on the surface, it sounds great.
IT ISN’T! The people shoving this idea toward you don’t expect the vast majority of you to think past the “headlines” (because people generally don’t in any circumstance). However, that’s another story for another time.
What is it that is staring us in the face now?
POSITIVE MONEY! God they don’t half get around huh? They don’t half get the foundations and charities funding them also. So much so that it isn’t just the UK Parliament they are into with their ideas and having MPs listen to them, they are spanning countries now.
What they’re also doing is bringing Martin Wolf to your attention and saying “Isn’t it great that this issue is finally getting attention and being debated”.
SURE it is! BUT, as I have said time and time again (it’s even the case with “everyone’s favourite” Max Keiser), the elite are pushing this information out there into the mainstream while, at the same time, they have their placemen (and that includes the likes of Keiser and Positive Money) to tell you what the solution is. Just like it is the same elite who own the world’s energy companies who are promoting Climate Change and Ecoscience etc.
MARTIN WOLF IS A BILDERBEGER FOR GOD’S SAKES! HE’S IN WITH THE BILDERBERG BRICKS AND MORTAR! AND POSITIVE MONEY DON’T KNOW THIS?
I attended a POSITIVE MONEY conference in Edinburgh a few years back. I was positive about going and my thought of supporting it in any way I could. I walked out that night having been effectively silenced for questioning them on one or two specific points and, of course, my support went no further. THESE PEOPLE ARE PLACEMEN.
I can’t help you see this if you do not fully, as yet, understand money and what it is. If you don’t then you will never get it – the penny will never drop (excuse the pun).
Rockefeller et al WANT their new currency system. The guy has admitted wanting a supranational banking government. There is NO NEED for banks to exist. Period! In fact, it is the existence of banks which is the problem along with their loaning you your own value and charging you interest on it.
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU, LIKE SO MANY, WILL THINK POSITIVE MONEY IS THE SOLUTION. AND IN DOING SO, YOU ARE WALKING RIGHT INTO THE TRAP THAT THE ELITE ARE BEGGING FOR YOU TO DO!
GOLD IS NOT MONEY!
SILVER IS NOT MONEY!
FIAT PAPER IS NOT MONEY!
THEY ARE FORMS OF CURRENCY WHICH ARE, THEMSELVES, INVESTABLE!
IT IS YOU WHO ARE MONEY!
YOU DO NOT WANT AN INVESTABLE CURRENCY!
YOU JUST WANT A CURRENCY RECOGNISED AS NOTHING MORE THAN A MEANS OF EXCHANGE AND ONE WHICH HAS NO INTEREST ASSOCIATED WITH ITS ISSUANCE!
IT IS VERY VERY VERY SIMPLE!
Stop being so fucking lazy and expecting to be spoonfed! You want spoonfed? POSITIVE MONEY AND MARTIN WOLF (in sheep’s clothing) will be happy to spoonfeed you – CRAP!
You wanna get fucked in the ass again and again? Be my fucking guest!
Don’t worry I can hear you now: “How can such an uncouth character with language like that expect to be listened to?”
I’m uncouth bud because I’m bloody sick of your laziness and/or your ignorance. While if you wish to be spoken nicely to then you go ahead and listen to the Tony Blairs and David Camerons of this world. Heck! Listen to Her Majesty! They’ll massage your fragile little ego for you
AND FUCK YOU UP THE ASS WHEN YOU’RE BUSY TELLING YOUR FRIENDS HOW LOVELY YOU FOUND THEM TO BE!
You’re so fucking easily fooled. You’d rather someone smile in your face and screw you without your knowing than have someone say you’re a fucking idiot while trying to help you out!
Make your choice!
I think I might be just about to step back into the matrix anyhow. I’ll leave the blog up for posterity or, alternatively, you can stick it up your posterior.
Learn Mathematically Perfected Economy or forever be bullshitted!
HC Deb 11 July 1995 vol 263 c527W 527W
§Mr. Llew Smith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. 
§Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Freeman [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.
Nice eh? To make sure they didn’t have any problems with British export licencing and to keep their name out of the Iran -Iraq war issue as far as possible, the Rothschilds sent arms (Chemical WMDs? Although it doesn’t matter what they were) to Iran/Iraq (probably both) from their globalists little outpost in China. And you think, when thinking about world geopolitics and wars, that it’s all to do with the west versus the east, the US or UK versus China or Russia?
Listen and listen good! It’s a globalist V the rest of us issue. The globalists get the job they want done from anywhere on planet earth! That’s why they’re CALLED “GLOBALISTS” and that’s why Rockefeller speaks about “conspiring with others (internationalists as he calls himself and them) around the world”.
Meanwhile, here’s another Rothschild thing from Parliament archives:
Note how Tam Dalyell (and this goes for all other parliamentarians) shits himself at the idea of stating what he has stated outside of parliamentary privilege because he knows Rothschild would come after him in litigation. And you wonder why these guys keep their mouths shut most of the time? If Rothschild doesn’t know they shag babies then the Rothschilds will destroy them in court. NOT by necessarily winning but by the sheer knowledge they have the money to keep the case going on and on and bankrupting the other party.
Official Secrets Act (Prosecution Policy)
HC Deb 06 February 1987 vol 109 cc1291-8 1291
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter LLoyd.]
§Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent 22 minutes of the previous debate on human rights deploying the same arguments as I anticipate he is likely to deploy in the Adjournment debate. Is it possible, in those circumstances, that those of us who were not able to make a speech on the Human Rights Bill because of the hon. Member for Linlithgow’s actions should be able to take part in the Adjournment debate and deploy some of the important arguments that we were seeking to deploy on the Human Rights Bill?
§Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I cannot rule or make a judgment on a hypothesis.
§Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will be disappointed, because there is another, different aspect to the issue.
Charmingly, the Solicitor-General began his speech this morning with what he said was a platitude. I should like to start with a non-platitude. While not being his easiest parliamentary colleague, and, trying though he may find me from time to time, being over-inquisitive, I have had every courtesy from an approachable and forthcoming Attorney-General. It is no platitude to wish him a speedy return to full health.
I heard the Solicitor-General this morning and I thank him for attending the Adjournment debate. In my opinion, in the 1950s he was the most eloquent Oxford president ever to come to the Cambridge Union. He was extremely eloquent this morning.
May I say at the outset that I gave the Attorney-General a copy of my speech in relation to the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild and Mr. Bernard Sheldon on Monday, since it raises issues of byzantine difficulty and daunting delicacy, which should not be sprung out of the blue on any Minister. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I am sure that he will respond to this in the same spirit of considered seriousness.
The purpose of the first part of my speech is to give the Law Officers an opportunity to tell Parliament—these issues are ultra-party— what on earth they propose to do to clear up the Augean stables of inconsistency in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. The Law Officers will understand that my deep interest in these matters was born during the 11 days that I spent in the Old Bailey, in Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan’s court, during the trial of Clive Ponting.
Why prosecute Clive Ponting and dither, understandably—I do not use that word in a pejorative sense—over prosecuting Victor Rothschild? Why send Sarah Tisdall to prison for months and do nothing about Bernard Sheldon, albeit he is approaching retirement, in relation to Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West? Why fail to prosecute Bernard Ingham for the selective leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter? It looks as if there is one prosecution policy for the influential, the famous and the distinguished and another prosecution policy for the more junior, hitherto less famous, civil servants.
1292 Compared with what Victor Rothschild set in train, with Peter Wright and Harry Chapman Pincher, anything that Clive Ponting put in my way melts into insignificance, in terms of national security, if not political embarrassment. There is an apparent inconsistency of policy, and it would be helpful to the House to know on what principles those discriminating practices are justified and on what basis discrimination is authorised by Ministers.
It is to the position of Lord Rothschild that I wish to refer. If, for the first time, I shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, it is because Lord Rothschild can be a litigious man and, secondly, I do not think that what I am saying is to his discredit. I refer to 26 November—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait and hear what I shall say. I refer to 26 November, when I asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to proceeding against …. Mr. Arthur Franks, formerly head of MI6, and …. Lord Rothschild for breach of confidence in relation to information on matters of state security given to authors. The Attorney-General replied: I am considering with the Director of Public Prosecutions the allegations made in respect of the two named individuals.”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol 106, c. 268.]
I returned to the subject on 1 December 1986, and the Attorney-General said: The matter remains under consideration.” — [Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]
On 18 December 1986, I asked the Prime Minister whether she will now release Lord Rothschild from his obligations of confidentiality as a former member of the security services; and if she will make a statement.
The Prime Minister replied: All present and former members of the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. They may not make unauthorised disclosures of information acquired in their work. Any requests for authorised disclosure would be considered in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 613.]
Let me offer necessarily truncated points. First, in the 1930s, international Jewry, of which the Rothschilds were one of the leading families, were aghast at the anti-semitism that was then rampant in Germany. Secondly, Victor Rothschild may, as the author Douglas Sutherland suggests, have recruited Guy Burgess for a minor role in one of the Jewish intelligence services. Thirdly, as an understandably passionate anti-Fascist, Victor Rothschild may have had relations with Comintern agents. Talk of spying is jejune nonsense. Anyhow, a good agent is one who gets from foreign powers more than he gives.
Fourthly, the events of long ago fade into the past. Sleeping dogs from the 1930s and 1940s were rightly, in my view, allowed to lie. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But in 1979, Britain gets a new species of Prime Minister. On 15 November 1979, the new Prime Minister makes a statement on Blunt, against advice, with the aplomb of a cow in a china shop. Sir Charles Cunningham tells me that Sir Anthony Blunt’s activities as an agent of both sides many years previously were fully known to successive permanent secretaries at the Home Office.
Fifthly, I believe that Lord Rothschild was extremely angry about the Prime Minister’s reaction on Sir Anthony Blunt. Some of us believe that Sir Anthony Blunt’s memoir, given to his brother, and now lodged in an institution in London, will reveal a complex story, part of which is that Sir Anthony Blunt was asked by a former member of the security forces whose name I have given to 1293 the Attorney-General, and by Guy Liddell, to help get Burgess and Maclean, by that time embarrassments both, out of the country.
Sixthly, in the summer of 1980, Lord Rothschild had the Prime Minister to his flat in Saint James’s. He is subsequently quoted in the press as saying: She does not understand intelligence matters.
Seventhly, Lord Rothschild then came to believe that his own reputation was at stake, especially after the Prime Minister’s statement on Sir Roger Hollis on 23 March 1981, which appears in the Official Report at column 1079. At his own expense, Lord Rothschild brought Peter Wright from Australia. He discussed with Wright certain material which appeared to constitute a contravention of section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Section 7 states: Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour or a summary offence according as the offence in question is a felony, a misdemeanour or a summary offence, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offence. If the Attorney-General would decide to prosecute Lord Rothschild in open court, it would be possible to ask questions which are causing much public concern and which Lord Rothschild would then have to answer on oath. These are some of the questions that might be asked. First, how does Lord Rothschild explain his involvement with Sidgwick and Jackson over the Pincher-Wright book? While it is possible that Sidgwick and Jackson would consult Sir Arthur Franks about possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, that would not explain Lord Rothschild’s involvement.
Secondly, why should Lord Rothschild expose himself by suggesting an unlawful enterprise to Mr. Wright, namely that he should breach the Official Secrets Act and then procure a writer, Mr. Pincher, to act as a channel for royalties?
Thirdly, why should Lord Rothschild fly Wright to London if, as has been suggested, all he needed was a testimonial to protect himself against suggestions that he had been a Soviet agent?
Fourthly, why pay Wright? Why introduce him to Harry Chapman Pincher? Why should Mr. Pincher pay him half the royalties?
Only by proceeding in open court on oath can obscurities be made less obscure. Only by proceedings in open court can there be an end to doubt and to the suspicion of discrimination.
I ask the Law Officers why they will or why they will not prosecute Victor Rothschild. If they decline to prosecute, apologies should be winging their way to Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting.
Even more clearly, the Law Officers owe Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting an explanation as to why they take no action against Mr. Bernard Sheldon for briefing Mr. Rupert Allason — alias Nigel West — who incidentally, and I do not intend to make much of this, is Conservative candidate for Torquay, for his books. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to enter the argument about Mr. Allason being Conservative candidate for Torquay.
If I am asked in general terms after my comments this morning about sources, part of my reply would be that 1294 there is an urgent need for an appeal body to which civil servants, policemen, service men or people in the intelligence services can go without jeopardising their careers if they believe that they have been abused. That is the official policy of the Labour party put down by the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment at the party conference at Bournemouth on the Sunday. I was interested to hear on the radio that Nigel West — alias Rupert Allason—said at 8.15 am on 5 February that he supported the idea of such an appeal body.
Finally, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the Interspace articles with regard to Zircon. The question was whether the knowledge of Zircon or Skynet IV was in the public print at least two years ago. The Leader of the House said that he would draw that matter to the attention of the Solicitor-General.
I will leave the matter there, because the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have a very serious interest in these matters.
§The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind good wishes for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for his kind remarks about him, which are much appreciated. May I also thank him for his kind reference to me. I am grateful to him for having given the Law Officers advance notice of the contents of his speech, which was a helpful gesture. Even so, he made several allegations to which, as I shall explain, I shall be unable to respond.
The main theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was whether Lord Rothschild should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1986, the police were requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate allegations that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Chapman Pincher had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act. The police investigation is continuing and no decision can be taken until the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the police report, which will then be sent to the Attorney-General, or to me if the Attorney-General has not yet returned to his duties.
In those circumstances, and in accordance with the normal practice of the Law Officers, I cannot comment, except to say that I am satisfied that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the police officers who are carrying out the investigations. As far as I can recollect, most, if not all, of the allegations formed part of the evidence given by Mr. Wright in the proceedings in Sydney and, as allegations, they are common knowledge.
I emphasise once again that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no discriminatory policy in considering cases submitted to him under the Official Secrets Act. Each case is considered openly upon exactly the same criteria, and there is no foundation for a claim that importance or seniority in rank provides a person who is under investigation with any advantage.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question today which is already the subject of a question on the Order Paper for priority written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It relates to the publishers of the Interspace newsletter in respect of an article or 1295 articles that might be considered to refer to the Zircon project. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter raised in the written question and which he has raised today will be the subject of consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, on having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter” — [Official Report, 23 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 451] —that matter being the one raised by the hon. Gentleman a considerable time ago relating to the Westland affair. I mention that in relation to the name which he mentioned today of Mr. Bernard Ingham. I do not recall that, in the copy of the speech which he furnished to the Attorney-General, he said that he would make allegations against Mr. Bernard Ingham to the extent that he has done today. The words that I have just uttered formed the basis of a statement on 23 January 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
In the context of remarks about the book, “A Matter of Trust” written by Mr. Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Bernard Sheldon, who is an official. He asks why the Attorney-General has not prosecuted Mr. Sheldon. The answer is simple and I trust that it is welcome. I am informed that there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Sheldon has committed any offence under the Official Secrets Act. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mr. Sheldon in connection with the recent searches of BBC premises. I am informed that neither that official nor the security service had any involvement at all in any decisions or actions relating to this matter. During the last debate the hon. Gentleman made allegations about my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his Department in connection with the search of BBC premises. Having had no notice of the allegations made in that debate, perhaps I may be permitted to say that in his answer in another place on Wednesday 4 February my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate set out the circumstances in which the search warrants were applied for and granted.
I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation that the Crown Office, alarmed at the enormity of what it was being asked to do, made a direct or indirect approach to the Prime Minister’s office and that the Crown Office was told by the Prime Minister’s office to allow special branch officers to take everything and anything from BBC Scotland. I am informed that at no time was the Crown Office in communication with the Prime Minister’s office. I understand that yesterday the hon. Gentleman told my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would not expect him to be in his place today for this debate. Therefore, I find the allegations made earlier today a little surprising.
§Mr. Dalyell That was simply because as a Scottish Member I know that it is difficult to be here on Friday.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that, and no doubt it is an explanation. When officials enter the public service they know that throughout their service they will be unable to speak in their own defence to answer criticism and that they must rely on their Ministers to do that for them, especially when 1296 criticism is unfounded. The hon. Gentleman thinks it justifiable to allege that named officials should be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I have already repeated the Prime Minister’s words about Mr. Bernard Ingham and I should now like to say something about Mr. Bernard Sheldon.
The hon. Gentleman earlier made a speech about human rights, but has not provided a scrap of evidence to support his allegation about Mr. Sheldon. Either he has evidence, as The Independent reports him as claiming he has, in which case it is disgraceful that he has not provided it, or he has none, in which case it is disgraceful to allege an offence.
§Mr. Dalyell This is part of the problem and the reason why I said in my speech that it is of great urgency to institute some kind of appeal body to which civil servants, service men, intelligence officers or policemen who think that they are being maltreated can go without jeopardy to their careers. That is important and that is why I raised the subject at my party conference and was one of those who made it helpful to be the policy of the party.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew Civil servants must be defended by their Ministers when they have no means, at present at any rate, of speaking in their own defence. However, officials are entitled to rely on more than defence by their Ministers. They are entitled to expect that hon. Members, protected as they take pains to be by privilege, will treat officials fairly. I regret that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Ingham, both of whom have had careers of great dedication and distinction with successive Governments, have been unfairly treated in the Chamber.
§Mr. Dalyell Before the Solicitor-General sits down, may I remind him that I am talking about men of considerable power. I worked closely with the late Dame Evelyn Sharp and know how civil servants should properly be treated. The difficulty arises when civil servants become so powerful that they are not accountable in the normal sense of the word. That is why I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister’s press officer, saying that we were dealing with the most powerful “man” in British politics. Later several of the Solicitor-General’s colleagues vouchsafe to me—that I was quite right arid that he is the most powerful—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention. He cannot speak for a second time.
§ 3.5 pm
§Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Solicitor-General to speak?
§Mr. Dalyell Most certainly.
§The Solicitor-General Yes.
§Mr. Cash I am most grateful for an opportunity to speak. We have just had a debate on human rights in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a speech which stretched the procedures of the House. He has now made a series of apparently groundless allegations against certain people. I was not privy to that speech and I can only form a judgment on the basis of what he said. He said nothing specifically and he substantiated nothing with evidence.
1297 There are times when we have reason to be worried that the hon. Gentleman is as much interested in grabbing headlines as in getting at the truth. I suspect that that is true of what happened earlier this morning.
Campaigns such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an appeal body, which was apparently endorsed at the Labour party conference, raise central questions about the nature of authority and where it resides.
§Mr. Dalyell That is absolutely right.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman says that I am absolutely right, but I suspect that we disagree fundamentally about where the centre of gravity must remain.
Self regulation and the constraints that people impose on themselves to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities and, by contrast, the right to speak, are issues which go to the heart of the matter. We have become increasingly fed up — I am sure that is true for the country as well — with people who believe that their unsubstantiated opinions which appear in the media or here, and which are drawn from a fairly limited range of information, can be used to make assertions and inferences—
§Mr. Dalyell rose—
§Mr. Cash I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later. Such clashes of opinion ought to be resolved in the proper and normal way, which is within the framework of law prescribed by our procedures and Acts of Parliament. We are increasingly fed up with invasions of privilege.
§Mr. Dalyell The hon. Gentleman says that I have made unsubstantiated allegations. That was the type of speech which was made against me for 18 long months before the Old Bailey Clive Ponting trial substantiated everything that I had tried to say.
I named Colette Bow in the House and there was the matter of the Solicitor-General’s letter. Who has since been proved right about that? The Solicitor-General will not comment but, with regard to his letter, I was attacked time and again by Conservative Members, but who now thinks that I have been wrong?
§Mr. Cash I have a straight and simple answer. If the hon. Gentleman was proved right in the courts before, he should make the unsubstantiated allegations that he made today outside the House and prove his point in the courts. That is my direct and simple answer to him. Will he reply to that?
§Mr. Dalyell If I go to a court of law and name names, people’s careers are in jeopardy — not mine, other people’s careers. I have to make a judgment whether what I have been told is the truth or not. From my inquiries in Scotland, I believe that every word that I am saying is true.
§Mr. Cash The record has to stand for itself. The only person’s reputation that will be harmed by what has been going on here this morning is the hon. Gentleman’s. I have offered the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, which he is not prepared to take up. If he thinks that making statements and allegations within the privilege of the House will enable him to be able to justify what he has to say, when what he is doing—because he knows perfectly well that everything he says will be splashed over the newspapers tomorrow — is not damaging people’s reputations when they cannot reply to him, then he is absolutely wrong and we are fed up with it and the way that he carries on.
§Mr. Dalyell If there is going to be anger, I am exceedingly angry about what was done in BBC Scotland, which was a wholly un-British thing to do. What happened in Glasgow was horrific. That was something that has never happened in Britain before. I have been here for nearly a quarter of a century and previous Prime Ministers — the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Mr. Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home—know that I have behaved impeccably towards them. This is a different kind of Government and a new species of Prime Minister. As a Member who has been here for a quarter of a century, I do not like it.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is shielding himself behind the privileges of the House.
§The question having been proposed after half-past Two o’clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§Adjourned at eleven minutes past Three o’clock.
Ever wondered why these sorts of people intermarry? Well, when you combine wealth you protect yourself enormously because those who would wish to attack you don’t dare because they know you can spend them into bankruptcy. Whereas, if you were to marry a pauper, you just have what YOU have and your spouse brings no further protection to the table. If you wish to maintain your class as the ruling class, you continue to marry within it.
HC Deb 20 June 1995 vol 262 cc231-2W 231W
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. 
§Mr. Freeman In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. 
§Mr. Freeman As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. 
§Mr. Freeman The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. 
§Mr. Freeman It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. 232W
§Mr. Freeman It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Freeman The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. 
§Mr. Freeman All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.
In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; 
(2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. 
§Mr. Freeman The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.
Just take these two points and recognise them for what they are telling you. It couldn’t be more succinct:
1. From the Office of the historian US State Department archive. Take particular note of 1980.
2. Introduction of the legal person providing for economic reforms in China from 1979 onward…
“Concerning private enterprises, promulgate later in the same year………In the early 1980s, the fact that the legal person was a notion of the capitalist law….The economic contract law (1981) was the first law in which “legal person” was formally employed.”
The year the globalists took hold of China. They needed the legal person concept to do it. The two economic/finance and investment systems cannot integrate without the concept of the legal person. It is the law which enables the monetary and economic system and the economic and monetary system which controls the law. It is a symbiotic relationship. It is law which states what money is (and it could be anything as proscribed by law – anything at all can act as a means of exchange but ONLY “money” which is a true reflection of value (assets/labour) is non corruptible) but the money wich is in use at the moment is not considered purely as a means of exchange but as an investment commodity in itself (exchange rates, money markets) just like gold, silver, bitcoin, any other present commodity money. Even gold is corruptible and is used as an investment and would be even if those gold and silver supporters go their way in making it “real money”. It is all owned by the very same people who own the existing FIAT money. FIAT is NOT the problem. FIAT essentially means it is recognised as currency by the people. There is nothing wrong with that AS LONG AS, as a currency, it is ONLY a means of exchange and represents the real economy in terms of the real assets and labour in that economy. The currency can, therefore, be digits on a screen and that is precisely what you would want in such a case.
But back to China. As crystal clear in a short few sentences as it is possible to be. The globalists got China to accept the legal person concept and, from there, Chinese Banks and Chinese corporations are heavily invested in (and therefore controlled) by globalist vehicles – Nominee accounts. Globalist multinationals can also invest capital into China and benefit from the immensely reduced wages. Americans and British (and many countries in the west) lose their jobs and careers, wealth, homes, assets etc and need to accept lower and lower wages until there comes a point where wages achieve a balance across the globe. The intention is NOT to improve living standards to any substantial degree for the east but to depress living standards to a point where the slight increase in the east meets the west.
Meanwhile, the globalists, in having sold you the “dream” of improving everyone’s living standards across the world, actually capitalise from the reducing standards in the west and, by raising the east’s slightly on aggregate, they have a more mature market with a population able to buy “trinkets” and insurance.
It’s bloody brilliantly conceived I’ll give them that.
The previous blog “Capitalizing China” can be condensed into the following simple facts:
1. From 1979 onwards the west gradually had closer and closer talks with China on their integration with the rest of the world from an economy and market perspective.
2. There was a fundamental problem which existed in China (from a globalist perspective): China did not recognise or use something called “THE LEGAL PERSON”. Such a concept did not exist in China.
3. The non existence of the legal person concept meant that the west and China could not “speak” to one another and the legal rights (invariably termed “human rights”) which were applied to CORPORATE PERSONS in the west DID NOT exist in China!
4. There was a need to integrate two very different legal systems which had two very different fundamental jurisprudences. The west using a concept called the LEGAL PERSON and China not. Someone had to “give”. That someone was China.
5. There are a multitude of what are called “Nominees” Accounts which exist as PRIVATE “subsidiaries” of Public organisations such as the Bank of England and what I have just found in Hong Kong (but US owned): HKSCC which is a PRIVATE subsidiary of the Hong Kong stock exchange.
6. Remember Hong Kong, although given back to China, is NOT fully integrated with China. It still has its own government.
7. These “Nominees” accounts DO NOT divulge who the beneficiaries are of the shareholdings which are bought through them. It is acknowledged formally, however, that those who have used BOEN (Bank of England Nominees) have been Heads of state of any and all countries. That is just the Bank of England Nominees however.
8. The HKSCC is a similar account to the BOEN (as all “Nominees” accounts are). They are entirely private (secret) accounts where the elite heads of state can invest in everything from the world’s banking institutions to the world’s largest energy and resource corporations.
9. Since the Chinese accepted the “legal person” as a fundamental of their jurisprudence, it has allowed our elite (our Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchy etc) to invest in Chinese banks and corporations entirely secretly.
10. Having achieved this change in the Chinese legal system and now having their money investing and controlling shareholdings in Chinese banks and corporations, they can also offshore the jobs of the west’s multinationals thereby reducing labour costs to a minimum.
11. Ok this is obvious as we know. BUT our elite have “sold” to us the idea of globalism as being to create ease in doing business and, therefore, creating jobs for us and allowing an easier flow of people between countries (ala the EU). Certainly the ease of flow of people is obvious and documented BUT has it provided more opportunity and wealth FOR any of these people? Yes for those coming into Britain and America – relative to their home state – but it has not had the effect of increasing prosperity on the aggregate, It has had the opposite effect.
12. The reality is that, yes, the “globalism” has made doing business easier but for whom? The BUSINESS/CORPORATE/MULTINATIONAL OWNERS.
13. It has reduced their costs by offshoring – made capable by introducing the legal person into chinese law.
14. It has, therefore, reduced the numbers of employed in the west. This results in people taking jobs which pay peanuts just to live and make ends meet.
15. Who OWNS the CORPORATIONS? The investors do! Who are the investors in the major chinese banks and corporations? HKSCC – a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON and, of course, the Chinese government and elite.
16. The western leaders “cry” about the rise of China BUT it is THEIR personal investments in it which has created that rise. They then turn to us and say we must be more competitive – which means our salaries go DOWN! So they are then the investors in corporations and businesses at home and achieve reduced costs and higher and higher profits therefore. PLUS, they are invested in China in their banks and corporations and make even bigger profits due to the low wages. They work on this over time and the result is this: The world’s labour costs are evened out across the board and they are at the LOWEST common denominator.
It’s like this:
The investor class (elite) take ownership shareholdings in banks worldwide. It is, of course, these banks which provide the liquidity (including interest) to the corporations of the world which these same investors are invested in. They, therefore, own the capital AND the labour. Why do multinational corporations hardly pay an ounce of tax? Because the banks want all the profit. Who do governments borrow from? The Banks!
The Nominees accounts are secret because what is happening is that our elite are absolutely destroying people’s lives for their own profit. YES we know that but what I’m showing you here is HOW they do it. These nominee accounts have VAST sums invested in all banks and all corporations. To ensure that the corporations make the profits they make, the elite destroy the “mom and pop” businesses, the small and medium businesses, by “choking” their liquidity cashflow. That’s why our high streets are dying and it is the large TESCOS and major multinational hypermarkets which are providing everything from clothes to food. furniture (IKEA) etc etc etc.
THE NOMINEE ACCOUNT SHAREHOLDERS MUST BE SECRET BECAUSE, IF THEY WERE NOT, PEOPLE – THAT IS THE MAN IN THE STREET WHO HAS LOST EVERYTHING AND ALSO THE SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSMAN (PERHAPS WORTH A MILLION OR TWO) WOULD SEE THAT THE VERY PEOPLE SAYING TO THEM “THE PROBLEM IS CHINA” (OR WHATEVER OTHER COUNTRY) ARE THE VERY PEOPLE INVESTED IN CHINA AND CREATING THE MISERY!
THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” FOR THESE NOMINEE ACCOUNTS TO HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND WHY YOU HAVE THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT COVERING PARAGRAPHS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1946.
AND FOR THE COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT PLAY BALL – I.E. DO NOT ALLOW THEIR ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL/LEGAL STRUCTURE TO BECOME FULLY INTEGRATED WITH GLOBALIST/WESTERN (AND EASTERN) INTERESTS – THEY WILL FIND THEY HAVE A PLANE GO MISSING AND THE REST OF THE WORLD CHASTISE THEM – INCLUDING ONE OF THEIR MAJOR ECONOMIC PARTNERS (CHINA) – OR, THEY WILL FIND THEIR “REGIME” DEMONISED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND THE US AND NATO START DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM!
But the bottom line is this: Our own Heads of state and elite (bankers/politicians) are SCREWING US while they smile in our faces.
ASIA TIMES 2003 THEY ARE ADVISED WHEN IT’S COMING AND WHERE TO INVEST
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.
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.
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)
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (UK)
The Royal Bank of Scotland
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) 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) 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).
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!)
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)
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, http://www.legislation.gov.uk
(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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Higham_(biographer) 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:
Now let’s turn to Australia for a moment:
Who owns the largest share of Australia’s Top 4 Banks
POSTED BY NESARAAUSTRALIA ⋅ JULY 15, 2012 ⋅
FILED UNDER BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, MEDIA
**Data taken from SYB
Top 4 ANZ Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED 446,984,331 17.46
2 J P MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED 371,451,021 14.51
3 NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED 343,611,753 13.42
4 CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED 98,249,488 3.84
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
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.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc (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
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!
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.
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup 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. http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar10c_en.pdf (2010) http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar09c_en.pdf (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
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.
AND WHAT THEY WANT, IS TO TAP INTO APPROX 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE!
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”:
Now, here is another bank on that list:
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):
OUR HEADS OF STATE AND OUR POLITICIANS AND SO CALLED PHILANTHROPISTS AND “TITANS” OF BUSINESS OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN THE BANK OF CHINA AND ITS COMMERCIAL BANKS! BUT IT’S WORSE:
THEY OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN CHINA’S BIGGEST COMPANIES. SOME OF WHICH ARE TOP TEN IN THE WORLD TODAY!
This is Petrochina’s annual report:
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.
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?