Global Warming II. The Fraud Has Dangerous Geopolitical and Expensive Consequences for Us

Global Warming II. The Fraud Has Dangerous Geopolitical and Expensive Consequences for Us

Print Post

Posted by Anders under English, Euromed

Latest news: The Telegraph 12 Oct. 2009: The BBC has made a U-turn on climate, quoting  Prof. Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University, as saying, the Pacific is cooling – and this guarantees us 30 years of climate cooling. Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, said: “Possibly some people in the BBC have worked out that the whole shooting match will collapse and they had better be ahead of the game.”  More often than not they (the BBC) put forward the brainwashing views of CO2-driven, man-made climate change. He said climate change was a “weapon of mass taxation.”

Summary: The U.S. DoD, prompted by Hillary Clinton and NATO, see great risks in the alleged “global warming”: ice-free Arctic Ocean and conflict with Russia over sea lanes and minerals. Moreover, they eye floods from melting glaciers and rising sea level. This will result in poverty, the toppling of governments, terrorism. So, the military must arm further. Pres. Obama sees this ghost as a central point. However, since the 1800s, periods of peaceable shipping through the Arctic Ocean has taken place in periods. A German warship sailed through during WWII despite the severe winters. Variations in Arctic ice quantity has nothing to do with global warming – but are due to changes in warm sea currents in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the associated sea winds. Polar bears seem to thrive splendidly – and the Arctic ice has since 2007 increased by 1 million km2. Satellite photos of the North Pole ice cap is often deceitful, because under the surface of melted water there is plenty of ice. Animated satellite photos show no change 1979-2008. Greenland´s ice sheet is reported to have increased by 63% in 1958-2007. In England, deduction from wages of employees exceeding a fixed limit on total CO2 emissions, is being made by a firm now selling the idea. The Prince of Wales has encouraged big energy companies to require reductions in CO2 emissions globally by 50% in 2050, invites people to not use their cars – and drives around in a 40-year-old fuel guzzler, himself. Cows and sheep must be placed on a diet, in order not to let so much methane out.
David Mayer de Rothschild is now setting out to save the planet and to stuff more into his family´s very roomy wallet – to continue the profitable lie, his relative, Edmund, launched in 1987. David’s only argument is the truthfulness of the IPCC, the nature and basis of which has repeatedly been shown to be a lie. But if a lie is big enough and expensive enough, it is believed by everyone, when it is repeated often enough in the Rothschild / Rockefeller media.
As soon as a coin in the coffer rings/the Planet from purgatory springs.”

This blog has just described McIntyre´s revelation of the non-existent basis of the fraudulent pseudscience/antiscience political climate ideology. The non-existing “global warming” is a dangerous instrument in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and a satanistic UN driven by Luciferian corporations and bankers and highjacked by an illuminist NATO, the self-appointed UN military force, opposing an equally greedy Russia. 

Global-warmingThe New York Times 8 Aug., 2009, the flagship of Rockefeller´s illuminist media: Climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change. Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response. A growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA (fraudulent James Hansen´s GISS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Obama administration has made it a central policy focus. Arctic melting also presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition.
The National Intelligence Council concluded that climate change by itself would have significant geopolitical impacts around the world and would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments.
The intelligence community is preparing … a study of alternative fuels and a look at how major power relations could be strained by a changing climate
Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report: “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. “Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives”. 29 Jan. 2009  “Responding to the changing environment, several Arctic Rim countries are strengthening their capabilities, and military activity in the High North has been steadily increasing,” NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told alliance officials attending a meeting in Iceland about the rapidly shifting geopolitics of the Arctic. Russia’s dramatic assertions of its Arctic interests — including increased northern military activity, a series of bold statements about its polar territorial claims and the high-profile planting of a Russian flag on the North Pole sea floor in 2007 — have been the primary source of concern about possible conflicts with other countries in the Arctic region.

The Telegraph 19 Sept., 2009  There was much warmist trumpeting last week, led by The Independent and the BBC, over a German businessman’s claim that two of his ships had managed to sail round the Arctic coast of Russia. “A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind” proclaimed The Independent. It was not long, however, before my colleague Richard North, on his EU Referendum blog, tore the story to shreds. The Arctic journey round the top of Russia, it emerged, had been made scores of times before. These went back at least to 1935 when the trip was made by four Soviet freighters. In 1940 a German raider used it to sink seven merchantmen in the Pacific. Since 1979 the Arctic route has been regularly used by ships sailing between Russia and Vancouver. It turned out that the German shipowner was a rabid warmist. His ships needed the services of a Russian icebreaker and there is no way such a route could be used by any ships larger than 20,000 tons.

 A shipping channel in the Arctic Sea? It happened before, as you see! Scientists see natural causes for receding arctic ice: “Changes of Pacific and Atlantic sea currents without Polar_bea-babyconnection with global warming: similar Arctic ‘warmings’ have taken place before, and are recorded for the 1800s, for the 1930s, and for the 1950s. Current warming in Greenland does not appear to have reached the levels of these earlier events. With global cooling now seemingly underway, the media appear to be even more desperate than usual to continue to hype up ‘global warming’, so expect lots more about the Arctic decline, drowning polar bears, and melting ‘tipping points’. It is very complex, and we have very little notion of what is actually happening. Two new studies summarised in a news article in Science magazine point to wind-induced circulation changes in the ocean as the dominant cause of the recent ice losses through the glaciers draining both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, not ‘global warming. Satellite photos of the arctic ice are elusive, since  there is often plenty of ice below photographed, melted surface water.” 
The Jakobshavn glacier so often shown by Danish environmental bilderberger, Connie Hedegaard, to foreign politicians as a result of global warming  – is not breaking away due to global warming – but due to a change of the Irminger current, a branch of the Gulf Stream.  Besides, the warmists do not record cooling Nuuk-temperaturerand expansion of Antarctic ice. At least on Oct. 27 since 1979–2008 there has been no change in the extension of the North Pole ice cap on  this animated survey by the University of Illinois.

NASA´s temperatures, Nuuk, Greenland 1880–2008. Where is Greenland´s warming? Where is the global warming?  The Belfast Telegraph 21 Sept. 2009 The four major global temperature-tracking outlets (Hadley UK, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa) have released updated information showing 2007 global cooling, ranging from 0.65C to 0.75C, a value which is large enough to erase nearly all the global-warming recorded over the last 100 years. This occurred in a single year. In addition, the alarm of some people over the Arctic ice-caps is misplaced. The extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this time last year, which was in turn 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007.
As regards Antartica and Greenland, most of their ice sheets are growing, rather than shrinking. TERRI JACKSON Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Bangor.


CO2-Science  With respect to the stability/longevity of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Ettema et al. state that “considerably more mass accumulates on the Greenland Ice Sheet than previously thought, adjusting upwards earlier estimates by as much as 63% 1958-2007,” which suggests that the Northern Hemisphere’s largest ice sheet may well hang around a whole lot longer than many climate alarmists have been willing to admit.
(Canadian) Globe And Mail 20 Aug. 2009 Experts say the summer sea ice has lasted longer than it has in years, which has given more than 1,000 bears in the region extra time to hunt, feed and raise healthy cubs.
Paul Watson 20 Aug, 2009Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, even claiming that “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts.” However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.

Polar-bear-waltz  The Times 14 Sept. 2009: People who emit more than their fair share of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace, leading to fines deducted from the pay for exceeding the limits. The rationing scheme monitors employees’ personal emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights.
The maximum that an employee can earn or be fined has been capped at £100, but is likely to rise once staff have grown accustomed to the idea.

WSP, the global engineering consultancy, has been conducting the rationing scheme among 80 of its British employees for almost two years. In the first year the overall carbon footprint of participants fell by 10 per cent. The company is discussing its scheme with several FTSE 100 companies. The idea of personal quotas for carbon emissions is being advocated by the thinktank, the Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Washington Times 22 Sept. 2009Some UN members are envious, arrogant beggars.The most devastating consequences” would be enactment of Al Gore’s nightmare vision, to give the bureaucrats of the world all the taxes they can spend while bankrupting the most productive countries of the West.

None of the delegates here will hear any dissent from the mantra that the sky is falling, that only socking it to the taxpayers of the West can save us from being boiled in saltwater. But  inevitably, verifiable facts are dissolving the fondest fantasies of Al Gore’s hired scientists.

A new book by an Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, argues that scientific fact has overwhelmed the doomsday scenarios of sinking islands, rising temperatures and collapsing ice shelves. He argues that global warming, which has naturally occurred over the billions of years of the Earth’s life, has often been a cycle of wealth and plenty. The Romans grew lemons, limes and oranges as far north as Hadrian’s Wall.

Ko-metan-udslipThis naturally causes heartburn in certain labs and faculty lounges.

A fact sheet has been produced outlining how farmers can adjust their animals’ diets to reduce methane emissions. In total, methane is thought to contribute about 18 per cent towards the global warming effect, with cattle and sheep the main culprits. The New Zealand government briefly considered taxing farmers on their herds’ methane output but the proposal had to be dropped following opposition. 

The Telegraph 21 Sept., 2009   Shell, BP, the energy suppliers EON and EDF, Coca Cola, eBay, Starbucks and Virgin are among the household name companies which have been persuaded by the Prince (Charles) to sign a communique calling on world leaders to commit to cutting emissions worldwide by at least 50 per cent by 2050. 
The statement is the latest move by the Prince of Wales to try to ensure the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen in December delivers positive results and is not just a talking shop. The Prince has already warned that the world is in the “last chance saloon” in its attempts to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Charles_aston-martinHere the hypocrisy becomes clear: The Prince of Wales is still driving the old, highly petrol consuming Aston Martin given to him by his mother on his 21 st birthday. At the same time he calls on people to give up their cars and walk/use public transport!!!

Reuters 22 Sept. 2009 UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday at which U.S. President Barack Obama was among the top speakers, describing it as propagandistic and undignified. In his book “Blue Planet in Green Chains: What Is Under Threat — Climate or Freedom?”, Klaus said global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world’s economic and social order.

China View 2 Oct. 2009  GOTHENBURG, Sweden, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) — European Union (EU) finance ministers on Friday discussed the idea of introducing a carbon tax across the 27-nation bloc as a way to help fight climate change.  The new carbon tax is likely to be applied to transport, agriculture, forestry, households and others.

Actually this speaks for itself. We have seen how the world uncritically accepted the Briffa-Mann global warming deception. How the Prince of Wales demands ofhis underlings what he would never dream of doing himself.  We see how almighty NATO, self-appointed UN military force, is preparing to intervene in the entire world and for war with Russia over the Arctic Sea which was declared by Green Peace to be ice free soon – although its leader doesn´t even believe it himself. It´s just such a profitable lie. We see how any small increase in temperature – sometimes forged – is declared a consequence of global warming, which stopped 11 – years ago or rather much sooner – as a natural recovery from the “little ice age”. We see how polar bears are said to be dying, although they seem to flourish, and we see the farting cows and sheep being made criminals. What about the climatists themselves? Well, Rockefeller´s depopulation programme has a solution for them, too!

David-mayer-de-rothschildI dare hardly speak the name any more: Rothschild! Sir Edmund de Rothschild (1987) – 28.53 Min started the CO2–hoax back in 1987. Now comes David Mayer de Rothschild – left (video) – like Don Qijote setting out to save the planet from the global warming disaster. Asked on what science he bases his belief, he refers to the 2.500 “specialists” of the IPCC. When such distinguished “experts” (paid by Rothschild´s henchmen) say so then it must be correct. He can produce no better arguments!  
Alex Jones then tells him that many of these “specialists” have their names added to IPCC´s statements without ever being asked. Well, isn´t that indifferent when the “experts” are people like pea nut grower Jimmy Carter – only 20% having worked somewhat with climate, and the IPCC chairman Johann-tetzel-wcpd-217pxalone decides what is true science to be passed on to the politicians?

Fortunately, we taxpayers of the West can save the planet by means of EU´s CO2–taxes and Rockefeller – Rothschild´s ETS/ECX and CCX/CCFX and here according to the Johann Tetzel´s Motto: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the Planet from purgatory springs.” Besides, the communist UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon eyes an opportunity to send our warmth money down to the Muslim world which is sinking more and more deeply into poverty because of its enormous birth surplus and the Koran. I have a suspicion that the money would not go south – but west – into the pockets of David´s family.
What we see here is the New World Order (see videos on right margin of this blog).


6 responses to “Global Warming II. The Fraud Has Dangerous Geopolitical and Expensive Consequences for Us

  1. FFS HRH GFY!!!

    BIG EAR’S…


    Charles puts staff on bikes in bid to become ‘green prince’
    Last updated at 10:07am on 16.11.06
    Add your view

    Green prince: Charles wants staff to get on their bikes
    Prince Charles has told some of his staff to use bicycles in the fight against global warming. He is even prepared to travel to London by commuter train from a station near Highgrove.

    Charles wants to be remembered as the “Green Prince” and is making a personal statement by planning a radical shake-up of his travel plans.

    It comes after the Government outlined its Climate Change Bill and follows David Cameron’s calls for a legal limit on harmful carbon emissions.

    Charles will stop using royal helicopters and private jets on official engagements whenever possible.

    He intends to make more use of the royal train and has ordered his chauffeurs to leave their cars behind and travel by bicycle when they check arrangements ahead of his appointments in London.

    Charles has also told aides to find a more environmentally friendly fuel for his fleet of cars.

    He has even suggested commuting to London on the train from Kemble station in Gloucestershire instead of driving or going by helicopter.

    The Prince wants the new system in place for him and Camilla by February. But it is causing a headache for palace staff and some senior courtiers fear his green plans could embarrass the Queen and other members of the royal family who continue to use helicopters and jets.

    Other senior palace figures have warned him that while they agree with his bold plan in principle it could prove difficult to implement logistically. They claim the security implications could also prove difficult.

    It is understood that Charles’s office at Clarence House had planned to unveil the radical changes at a showpiece media briefing but it was put on hold while aides try to smooth over the ” contradictions”.

    One senior figure said: “He wants to be known as the Green Prince and to leave what he calls a small carbon footprint and there is a lot of support for that. But there has been quite a bit of hairpulling over this one.

    The source said: “It is all well and good saying we have to go totally green but there are a lot of difficulties involved in sorting this out and smoothing away the contradictions.

    “After all, this is a man who repeatedly warns about global warning yet he owns a classic Aston Martin and flies on private aircraft around the world.” The move will put the Prince in direct conflict with other royals – particularly the Duke of York who has been called Air Miles Andy for his frequent use of royal flights.

    In the past Charles has been stung by criticism of his spending on royal travel – last year his trip to the US cost the taxpayer more than £500,000. The travel bill alone for the week-long trip came to £330,000 after the couple flew to New York on a private jet.

    The increased use of the royal train – a favourite mode of transport for Charles, its biggest user, will come under close scrutiny as it is hugely expensive to run.

    Royal accounts for 2005-06 show that a single journey for Charles and Camilla in October last year from Euston to Burnley cost the taxpayer £16,491. The return trip by helicopter to Buckingham Palace cost £7,849. Another trip to Northampton cost £22,931.

    Some senior MPs have called for the royal train to be scrapped. They want the Queen and Charles to lease a train from a commercial operator when necessary or attach a private carriage to an ordinary train.

    In 2002 Edward Leigh, as chairman of the public accounts committee, said: “The days of the royal train are numbered.” But it was given a reprieve despite costing an average £35,000 per trip – twice the price of royal air travel.

    Charles has been outspoken on the threat of climate change through global warming. He even took his message to the White House. He delivered a stinging rebuke of America’s record on the environment in front of President Bush.

    In a rare TV interview, he told CBS: “If you look at the latest figures on climate change and global warming … they’re terrifying.” In the past President Bush has questioned the existence of global warming and the US has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions, saying it would harm their economy.

    But Tony Blair, along with Mr Cameron, have backed green taxes and insisted Britain must take the lead on saving the planet.



    It’s all right for you lot on your side of the pond praising the Green Prince, but over here we’ve got to live with him and all the other idiots who actually believe in the garbage being spewed out about global warming. This is just another example of tax increases being advocated by devotees to the New World Order.
    Check your facts and you will discover that global warming and cooling are as natural as night and day. I haven’t read of any records of disasters occurring during the Mediavel Warm Period in Europe from 700 ad to around 1300 – have you?

    – Gordon Duncan, Leicester UK











    Miss Mandy’s great-great-great-grandfather was Naphtali Felthusen. His son Nathan changed the family name to Mandelson while on the run after a failed coup against Tsar Nicholas I (the Decembrist Revolt). Felthusen/Mandelson claimed that he had been promised the Polish crown for a day, as payment for his treason. This fantastic genealogy is unproven.

    Miss Mandy

    In 1830, Nathan married Phoebe, daughter of Jacob Levy Cohen, of Leicester. The Leicester Cohens were related to a woman named Hannah Cohen who married Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the first Lord Rothschild. Mandelson is then also related to Karl Marx, via the Rothschild connection. Miss Mindy is also a Communist.

    Miss Mandy’s grandfather, Deputy Prime Minister Herbert Morrison was a friend of the Honorable Nathan’s grandfather, Lord Victor Rothschild. Lord Victor was a colorful character, who showered his tender affentions upon a great number of Homintern spies (”Cambridge Apostles”) in those carefree days of yore. According to Simon Sebag “if only all straight weddings could be somehow gay-ified” Montefiore, the Rothschilds once employed Stalin and helped fund Stalin and Lenin’s revolutionary activities. So it’s hardly surprising that Lord Victor was so intimately acquainted with what the English refer to as “Stalin’s Poofter Club” — Guy Burgess, Harold “Kim” Philby (who was in charge of Soviet Affairs at MI6), Donald Maclean, Sir Anthony Blunt.They were apparently True Believers, and sincerely thought they were helping the forces of world communism against the feudal capitalist powers, blissfully unaware that they had just shifted their loyalties from one faction of Judeo-Masonic globalism to another.


    It was during his Greek romp with fellow homosexual Geffen and Lord Nathaniel that Miss Mandy came up with the idea of banning the internet for anybody who downloaded his pals Geffen, Spielberg and Katzenburg’s entertainment products without permission. In fact, Chateau Rothschild on Corfu seems to be where “British” policies are conceived. It was there that Lord Mandy met with the heir to the Libyan throne, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, to work out the release of framed NWO puppet Al-Meghrahi, and where he met up again with his old friend, the oligarch mobster Oleg Deripaska, said to be the richest man in Russia. Deripaska is married to Boris Yesltsin’s granddaughter. It was Yeltsin who delivered Russia to Deripaska, the Rothschilds, Roman Abramovich, Boris Berezovsky, Arkady “Badri” Patarkatsishvili, Larry Summers, George Soros and all the other “shock therapy” parasites. In a rare turning of the tables, the Israelis accuse Deripaska of having used Russian Jewish immigrants to spy on Israelis (inc. Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman). Still, it’s rather impolite of the Israelis to investigate Natty and Jacob’s friend, considering the Israelis are living on land granted by Jahbulon to the Rothschilds. That raises anouther point, the Theodore Herzl, God rest his soul, once that the point of Israel was that all the Jews were supposed to go there. He wrote that “the countries they abandon will revive to a new period of prosperity”, because they will be free from Jewish oppression. And he wrote that “there will be an inner migration of Christian citizens into the positions evacuated by Jews,” So how come the likes of the Rothschilds — who were opposed to Zionism until they began to see an angle in the whole racket — haven’t stepped aside to allow for this migration? Well may you ask! The loophole is that Herzl planned that Jews would vacate the nations according to class, starting with the lowest of the lower classes, until “last of all the wealthy” should go, there inferiors having fluffed there migratory nests for them. Therefore, the likes of the Rothschilds will be on the very boat of Britain

    Lord Mandy helped Deripaska save only a few hundred thousand pounds a year when he reduce tariffs favorable to his Russian buddy when he was Russian Trade commissioner, so that’s not really worth mentioning.

    Also at the Corfu get-together was Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s bag-man, Andrew Feldman, who just happened to be in the neighborhood. Also present was the Anglo-Irish Baron of Ballentaylor, George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Osborne is Natty Rothschild’s old chum. Lady Rothschild dropped £190,000 on Osborne last year.

    Zionist media mogul Rupert Murdoch also dropped by, completely out of the blue, as he just happened to be on Corfu, celebrating his daughter’s birthday, as one does these days.

    David O’Sullivan, the European Commission’s director-general of European trade, said: “Decisions regarding these cases have been taken in full transparency and are firmly rooted in EU law and in the interests of EU companies,” so actually it’s all above board. You can go back to sleep now. Nothing happening here.

    Mandy had previously resigned, in 1998, when it was discovered that he’d received a small, undisclosed, £373,000 interest-free loan from another minister. But that’s all just water under the bridge now. Mandy’s back in good with Grey Brown now that Blair’s off spreading Fabian pseudo-Catholicism through his Middle East. The important thing is we can be proud that Britain and Ireland are democracies.

    Letter from Lord Natty Rothschild, heir to the United Kingdom and the City of London, October 21, 2008:


    Since your paper – along with your sister publication the Sunday Times – has made much out of what may or may not have happened at a private gathering of my friends this summer in Corfu – I thought I should make the following observations.

    I am surprised that you focus on the fact that one of my guests, Peter Mandelson, is a friend of another, Oleg Deripaska. Not once in the acres of coverage did you mention that George Osborne, who also accepted my hospitality, found the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Deripaska so good that he invited the Conservatives’ fund raiser Andrew Feldman, who was staying nearby, to accompany him on to Mr. Deripaska’s boat to solicit a donation. Since Mr. Deripaska is not a British citizen, it was subsequently suggested by Mr. Feldman during a conversation at which Mr. Deripaska was not present, that the donation was “channeled” through one of Mr. Deripaska’s British companies. In a subsequent phone call in mid-September about one month later, Mr. Feldman again raised the issue of the donation with me. Mr. Deripaska decided that he did not wish to make any donation.

    I mention this because it turns out that your obsession with Mr. Mandelson is trivial in light of Mr. Osborne’s actions. I also think it ill behoves all political parties to try and make capital at the expense of another in such circumstances. Perhaps in future it would be better if all involved accepted the age old adage that private parties are just that.

    – NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD Klosters, Switzerland

    Conservative Party response:


  5. The Enemy Within the Empire A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND By ERIC D. BUTLER. INTRODUCTION Most orthodox history that is crammed into the heads of our children is one long list of contradictions. There is no real background to our social development because the main underlying factors have been completely ignored. The part played by the money system in the growth of society has been tremendous; yet how many of our historians mention it? We teach our children about the development of the British Commonwealth of Nations, although the real basis of this growth has been either neglected of distorted, while the development of that powerful, private and anti-social institution, the Bank of England, is very rarely mentioned. If we are really desirous of preserving and developing British culture, it is essential that we attempt to gain at. least an elementary knowledge of the attack which was launched against the British people at the time of Cromwell. It is significant that the introduction of what has been termed a “spurious Whig culture,” marked the origin of the present banking racket in Britain. This cultural and financial attack has been going ever since, although there is sound reason to believe that the enemy is at last being turned on both flanks However, as yet, there is no sign of a rout in the enemy’s ranks. Even the London “Times,” one of the chief mouthpieces of the financial oligarchy, offered the following criticism of “Whigism” in its issue of August 4, 1840: “There is certainly in ‘Whigism’ an inherent propensity to tyranny; and of all the methods which tyranny ever invented for sucking out the essential vitality of free institutions, without appearing materially to touch their forms, this centralising system is the most plausible and the most pernicious. . . If it shall be fully carried out, British liberty … will rest no longer on the possession of constitutional power by the people, but upon the sufferance of a majority of those who, for the time being, may call themselves the people’s representatives.” The man who wrote the above lines, 100 years ago, had a deep insight into the principles of social organisation. Those who seek to re-write history find it a very formidable undertaking, because it has become a “vested interest” with the official historians. Any historian who refused to portray Cromwell as a saviour of the British people, pointed out that his real name was Williams, and that he belonged to a small group of men who had been enriching themselves at the expense of the Monarchy and the people, while bringing a group of foreigners from Holland to batten on the British people, would not find his books recommended for use in our schools or universities. Our “Whig” historians tell us about the tyrannies of Charles I. and Charles II, and how they reigned without Parliament. The impression is given that Parliament in those days was similar to what we have to-day. Nothing is further from the truth. It was comprised of. a group of wealthy men who were not very responsible to the British people. The real fight was between the Money Power and Monarchy, with the victory of the Money Power in 1688 when James II was driven off the throne by his son-in-law, William III., who was brought to Britain at the behest of the financial interests. The Bank of England was formed six years later – 1694 – and with it began the National Debt. The Bank was formed for the purpose of lending money to the crown and was modeled on the Bank of Amsterdam, founded in 1609, the first bank in Northern Europe. The part played by Jews in this formation of the modern banking system, together with the modern Stock Exchange, was considerable. THE PRELUDE IN BRITAIN It is essential that we make ourselves conversant with the growth of the forces which paved the way for the establishment of the Bank of England and the debt-system. Anyone who cares to study British history during the six and a half centuries from the Norman Conquest, until the financiers arrived at the invitation of Cromwell, will find that the Monarchy did exercise its sovereign right of issuing money. There was adequate money for the people’s needs. Modern history books fail to tell us of the general standard of prosperity and culture which existed prior to the banking swindle. It has remained for such writers as William Cobbett and Thorold Rogers to give us a true picture of those times. Writers like Sir John Fortesque (about 1460) give detailed evidence of the general prosperity of the English people. There is no need for me to deal with the Trades Guilds and the great architecture of which the British people still have much evidence – although aerial bombing has wrought much destruction. With a population of three millions, there were ten thousand students at Oxford University. In Queen Elizabeth’s reign Britain produced some of the finest minds the world has ever seen. Both Bacon and Shakespeare have had a tremendous influence on Western civilisation – particularly Bacon, to whom we chiefly owe the modern system of experimental science based on inductive reasoning. In 1655, the Jewish influx under Cromwell started. Cromwell first called Councils to consider the matter, but all were against it. Cromwell dismissed his counsellors and allowed the Amsterdam Jews to enter Britain surreptitiously. The following extracts from “The Jewish Encyclopedia” are most instructive on this matter: “Toward the middle of the seventeenth century a considerable number of Marrano merchants settled in London, and founded there a secret foundation at the head of which was Antonio Fernandez Carjaval. They conducted a large business with the Levant, East and West Indies, Canary Islands and Brazil, and, above all, with the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.” “Outwardly, they seemed as Spaniards and Catholics, but they held prayer-meetings at Cree Church Lane . . . meanwhile, public opinion in England had become prepared by the Puritanical movement for a sympathetic treatment of any proposal by the Judaizing sects among the extremists of the Parliamentary Party for the readmission of the Jews into England”. This is a most interesting admission, confirming what I have mentioned concerning the attack on British culture by the Puritans, or Whigs. It was in 1650 that Manasseh ben Israel, the man through whom the Jews had financed Cromwell, published his “Hope of Israel,” in which he said that the Messiah could not appear until the Jews had settled in every country. He said that if England would only admit them the Messianic Age might be expected. Further extracts from “The Jewish Encyclopedia” will prove of interest: “Meanwhile the commercial policy which led to the Navigation Act in October 1651, made Cromwell desirous of attracting the rich Jews from Amsterdam to London so that they might transfer their important interests from the Spanish Main from Holland to England . . . the mission of St. John to Amsterdam, which had previously proposed as an alternative to the Navigation Act a coalition between the English and Dutch commercial interests had negotiated with Manasseh ben Israel. . . .” M. ben Israel then left for London where he “printed his ‘humble address’ to Cromwell . . . as a consequence, a National conference was summoned at Whitehall. Both the divines and the merchants were opposed to the re-admission and Cromwell stopped the discussion in order to prevent an adverse decision.” “The question came to a practical issue through the declaration of war against Spain, which resulted in the arrest of Antonio Rodrigues Robles and forced the Marranos of London to avow of their Judaism as a means of avoiding arrest as Spaniards, and the confiscation of their goods. As a final result, Cromwell appears to have given informal permission to the Jews on condition that they did not obtrude their worship on public notice. Under cover of this permission Carjaval and S. de Carcerces purchased a piece of land for a Jewish cemetery . . . and Solomon Dormido, a nephew of M. ben Israel, was admitted to the Royal Exchange as duly licensed broker to the City of London without taking the usual oath involving faith in Christianity.” This somewhat surreptitious method of solving the Jewish Question in England had the advantage of not raising anti-Semitic feeling too strongly, and it likewise enabled Charles II., on his return, to avoid taking any action on the petition of the merchants of London asking him to revoke Cromwell’s concession. Although several determined attempts were made to have the Jews removed, they maintained rather a precarious position until the arrival of William III., in 1688. He was surrounded by Jewish bankers from Amsterdam. In an article in “The Jewish Encyclopedia” on Holland, we read that the reign of William III. marked a “period of exceptional prosperity for the Jews . . . the prince employed Jews in his negotiations with foreign kings . . . and Isaac Lopez Suasso (who lent 2,000,000 gulden to William for his descent upon England).” The following extract is from Sir Archibald Alison’s “History of Europe”:- “The Prince of Orange brought from the Republic of Holland, where it had been already practised and thoroughly understood, the secret of governing popular assemblies and extracting heavy taxes from popular communities. . . . His whole efforts were directed to gain the majority of the constituencies by corruption, and of votes in Parliament by patronage. . . . It was then that the National Debt began; and government was taught the dangerous secret of providing for the necessities, and maintaining the influence, of present times by borrowing money and laying its payment on posterity.” THE FORMATION OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND The modern banking system did not exist in Britain until Cromwell’s regime. In his history of England, Macaulay says that banking had not started at the time of the Restoration (1660). Merchants had their strong-boxes and paid out honest coin on demand. A. E. Feaveryear, in “The Pound Sterling” (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1931) fixes the origin of English banking as 1662. Goldsmiths started to give receipts for money held. These were passed about, and thus the cheque and banknote were born. The goldsmiths began to find that they could make more loans than they had cash. Macaulay quotes a pamphlet, published in 1695, as saying: “Indeed, no goldsmith had in his vaults guineas and crowns to the full value of his paper”. In other words, the goldsmiths were swindling their customers by lending, or pretending to lend, what they did not possess. William was finding that his war against France was not very popular. Money was hard to obtain. It was at that stage that William Paterson, a Scottish economist and financier, hit upon the brilliant idea of forming a Bank, to be called the Bank of England, for the purpose of lending the King money. Whatever the present supporters of the banking swindle may say, the man who was primarily responsible for the Bank of England frankly admitted what he was doing. In a plan for forming the bank which he drew up at that time, he said: “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” This Scot knew the real basis of banking, and, unlike his successors, did not bother to conceal it. The merchants of London were very keen on the idea, although the Government of the day was not very enthusiastic. In his “History of His Own Times” (1693), Bishop Burnet wrote: “The fear of centralisation of the money power was indeed the grounds upon which the Tories and Commons fought so bitterly against the founding of the Bank of England, thinking that the bank would grow to be a monopoly. All the money in England would come into their hands, and they would, in a few years, become the masters of the stock and wealth of the nation.” Needless to say, the majority of the Whigs favoured the establishment of the Bank. The first Governor was Sir John Doublon, a Dutchman. The formation of the Bank in 1694 was incredibly camouflaged in its authorisation by ‘The Tonnage Act.” As far as I am aware, there had been no attempt to have the Charter of the Bank revoked until August 13, 1940, when Mr. Stokes, Labour Member for Ipswich, asked the Prime Minister whether there would be time made available to discuss a motion to that end standing in his name. Mr. Attlee, replied, and said that no time for discussion was possible. Which indicates quite clearly that there is very little hope of financial reform from the British Labour Party. Mr. Stokes’s resolution read as follows: “That this House calls upon His Majesty’s Government to revoke the Charter of the Bank of England, whereby the right to issue money was passed to private interest in the reign of William and Mary, and to repeal all Acts of Parliament passed in support thereof since its granting, so as to take back for the benefit ” of the people the power which rightly belongs to them. . . . The ownership of the Bank of England has always been a matter of much speculation, although its close contact with International Jewish finance is well known. In 1696 the law laid it down that stock in the Bank might be held by “any and every persons, natives and foreigners, bodies politick and corporate, who may so subscribe.” Later legislation has required that the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and Directors must be “natural-born or naturalised” British subjects. In 1847 a British Parliamentary Committee took evidence about the Bank of England. One witness, a Mr. Samuel Gurney, was asked a question concerning the functioning of the Bank in the public interest. The question was as follows: “Is it not a principle laid down by the Act of 1844, that in all its dealings with the public the Banking Department of the Bank of England is to carry on its transactions with reference to its own interest alone, arid not with any view to the public advantage?” Mr. Gurney, known in his time as “the bankers’ banker,” replied: “That is one of the principles to be followed under that Act.” The following interesting report in connection with the Bank of England appeared in the “Manchester Guardian” on December 28, 1839, and was republished in that paper on January 6, 1940:- “A special general meeting of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers was held at their offices, Town Hall Buildings, King Street, on Thursday last, to receive a report from the board of directors on the effects of the administration of the Bank of England upon the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country. (The report of the meeting, which ran to five and a half columns, contained the lengthy report of the directors on the Bank, the concluding paragraphs of which were): “Although it scarcely comes within the scope of their present object, the board will add a reflection upon the subject of the undue privileges possessed by the Bank of England. That such a power over the property, and, as has been seen, the health, morals, and very lives of the community should be vested in the hands of 26 irresponsible individuals for the exclusive benefit of a body of bank proprietors, must be regarded as one of the most singular anomalies of the present day – that the secret of these individuals, veiled as they are even from the eyes of their own constituents, should decide the fortunes of our capitalists, and the fate of our artisans – that upon the error or wisdom of their judgment should depend the happiness or misery of millions – and that against the most capricious exercise of this power there should be neither appeal nor remedy; that such a state of things should be allowed to exist, must be regarded as a reproach to the intelligence of the age, and as totally irreconcilable with every principle of public justice. If instead of having been handed down to us from our ancestors, it had been proposed in the present day to create a joint stock bank, to be endowed with the powers and privileges enjoyed by the Bank of England, the common sense of the country would have revolted against the attempt to establish so dangerous a monopoly.” At the famous Macmillan Commission in 1929, the evidence of Sir Ernest Harvey, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, dealt with this same. point. He said: “The Bank of England is practically free to do whatever it likes. . . . ” In the “Manchester Guardian” of May 23, 1940, the financial editor wrote: “. . . It still remains to be seen whether the Treasury, with all the enabling powers in the world, can make the views of the War Cabinet prevail over the views of the Bank of England.” As we trace its influence on the affairs of the British people, and practically every country throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations, we will see that this private monopoly is the greatest internal enemy the British people have in their midst. BANK ASSESSES ITS OWN INCOME TAX One of the outstanding features of the Bank of England is the manner in which its history and operations have been shrouded in secrecy. A very good orthodox history was published in 1908, but revealed nothing. Research in regard to this institution has not been simple. There are no publicly available files of the Bank of England. Since it is not a limited company, but operates under Parliamentary charters, it has no registered offices, and, therefore, no place where, by law, its accounts may be examined. The following is a reply to one enquiry: – “In reply to your recent letter I have to inform you as follows: (1) The list of stockholders published by the Bank is for internal use, and is available to proprietors of Bank Stock only. (2) The Bank has no Statutes or Articles of Association; the constitution being based upon a Charter of 1694 and various Acts of Parliament, of which the chief is that of 1844. “I may mention that a Statistical Summary, compiled by the Bank of England, has recently been made available at an inclusive charge of 12/- per annum, payable in advance.” RONALD DALE, Secretary. One of the most remarkable facts about the Bank is that it assesses its own profits for Income Tax. The following extract is from the British “Hansard,” dated June 13, 1940: “Mr. Stokes asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Bank of England assesses its own profits for Income Tax; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to have them assessed by an independent authority? ” Sir Kingsley Wood: “I would refer the hon. Member to Section 68; the actual computation of liability is subjected to examination and check by the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue.” Mr. Glenvil Hall: ‘How can they make an assessment if they do not issue a balance-sheet?” Sir Kingsley Wood: “That is another matter.” It was by Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, that the Bank of England, a private institution, was empowered to assess and tax itself with no other person or body in control. The present authority for this is contained in the Consolidation Act, the Income Tax Act, 1918, Section 68, from which I quote the opening paragraphs: “For the purposes of assessing and charging Income Tax and in the cases mentioned in this Section, the following persons shall be commissioners, and shall have all the powers of the general commissioners for that purpose, and shall make assessments under and subject to the provisions and rules of this Act, that is to say: (1) The Governor and directors of the Bank of England and Bank of Ireland respectively, in respect of interest, annuities, dividends and shares of annuities, and the profits attached to same, payable to either bank out of the public revenue of the United Kingdom; (2) The Governor and directors of the Bank of England and of the Bank of Ireland respectively, in respect of: (a) Interest, annuities, dividends and shares of annuities, entrusted to either bank for payment; (b) Profits or gains of either bank chargeable under Schedule D; (c) All other interest,, annuities and dividends, and salaries and pensions payable by either bank; and (d) All other interest profits chargeable with tax arising within any office or department under the management or control of either bank.” These important concessions not only indicate that the Bank has something to hide; it is definite evidence that the Bank of England has power over the British Government. THE MACMILLAN ENQUIRY The Macmillan Committee was appointed by a Labour Government in 1929 “to enquire into banking, finance, and credit, paying regard to the factors, both internal and international, which govern their operation, and to make recommendations calculated to enable their agencies to promote the development of trade and commerce and the employment of labour. ” The list of members on this committee is particularly interesting: The Rt. Hon. Lord Macmillan (Chairman)-Lawyer. Mr. Ernest Bevin – Trade Union Official. The Rt. Hon. Lord Bradbury – Treasury Official; President, British Bankers’ Association. The Hon. R. H. Brand – Managing Director, Lazard Bros., Merchant Bankers; Director, Lloyds Bank; Vice-President, International Financial Conference, League of Nations, 1920; member of Expert Committee advising German Government on stabilisation of the mark, 1922. Professor Theodor Emanuel Guggenheim Gregory-Bankers orthodox economist. Mr. J. M. Keynes – Orthodox economist; Treasury, 1915-1919; Principal Representative of Treasury, Paris Peace Conference, 1919. Mr. Lennox B. Lee – Chairman, Calico Printers Association; member of Advisory Council, Board of Trade; President, Federation of British Industries, 1929. Mr. Cecil Lubbock – Director, Bank of England. The Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna – Chairman, Midland Bank since 1919; Chancellor of Exchequer, 1915-16. Mr. J. T. Walton Newbold – Fabian Society 1908; Independent Labour Party 1910; Plebs League 1917; left I.L.P. to join Communist Party 1921; member of the Executive, Labour Research Department 1922-26; member of the Executive of the Communist Party and Communist International 1921-23; resigned from Communist Party and International 1924; Labour Party candidate (Epping), May, 1929. Sir Walter Raine – Coal Exporter; ex-President, Association British Chambers of Commerce; ex-Chairman Coal Exporters Federation of Great Britain. Mr. J. Frater Taylor – Associated with various industrial undertakings in England, India, Canada, U.S.A.; Director, International Power and Paper Co., Newfoundland; Director, Canadian and Foreign Investors, Ltd. Mr. A. A. G. Tulloch. Sir Frederick Leith Ross – Entered Treasury 1909; British Representative on Finance Board Reparation Commission, 1920-25. Mr. Paul Einzig, in his admiring biography of Mr. Montagu Norman, wrote: “The efforts of the Macmillan Committee to throw more light upon the machine of the Bank of England failed almost completely. . . . Indeed, the evidence of Mr. Norman is a study in non-committal and evasive answers.” However, some significant facts were brought to light. Mr. A. N. Field, the New Zealand author, writes as follows: “The Bank of England is controlled by a Governor, a Deputy Governor, and twenty-three directors elected by holders of £500 or more of Bank Stock. The Court of Directors is not required by law to meet more than twice a year. Sir Ernest Harvey explained that the Bank is really managed by what he called ‘an Inner Cabinet,’ known as the Committee of the Treasury. This Inner Cabinet consists of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and nine directors elected from among their number by the Court of Directors. The rest of the directors stay outside.” From the questions asked of Sir Ernest Harvey, some members of the Macmillan Committee were strongly under the impression that certain powerful firms had permanently reserved seats on the Bank of England. Mr. J. M. Keynes, the economist, asked whether ‘the class of merchant bankers from whom the directors of the Bank are largely drawn historically, by reason of ancient tradition, is suited to modern conditions.’ Sir Ernest Harvey replied that recent tendency ‘has not been to follow quite the old historical tradition.’ He doubted whether it would be possible to collect by any other method a body of men ‘so absolutely unbiassed and disinterested in judgment,’ and ‘if the names of the representatives of certain firms do appear it is generally the result of seeking for somebody of the very highest financial standing in the City of London,’ etc., etc Mr. J. T. Walton Newbold, another member of the Committee, chipped in with a remark that: ‘It is very strange how certain merchant bankers have members of their firms appearing on the Court of Directors over a period of fifty years. As fast as one goes off another comes on.’ Sir Ernest Harvey replied that this was not true in recent years except in one case. Mr. Newbold rejoined that there had been a continuity in merchant bankers since 1889, adding, ‘I checked it the other day.’ Sir Ernest Harvey said: ‘No, pardon me, there has always been an interval, except once.’ Whether the ‘interval’ was in the nature of hours, days, months, or years, was not disclosed, the matter being dropped at this point. The ‘merchant bankers’ referred to as sitting so continuously on the directorate of the Bank of England and thus controlling the British Empire were later on described to the Macmillan Committee by Sir Robert M. Kindersley, himself a director of one of these firms, that of Lazard Brothers. They are also known as ‘issuing houses’ for big loan flotations and as ‘acceptance houses.’ ‘Practically every acceptance house of long standing in this country,’ said Sir Robert M. Kindersley, ‘commenced purely as merchants trading with foreign countries, and a great many of them, most of them, I think I may say, are of foreign origin. If you take the names, Goschen, Hambro, Klienwort, and Lazard, and Brandt, you can go through the whole list of them, and I think you will find a very large number, the majority, are people of foreign origin. . . . It is only the origin . . . some people might think they are still very largely, perhaps, under foreign influence, which, of course, is not so.’ In spite of Sir Robert Kindersley’s assurances, the fact remains that when the Great War broke out in 1914, the head of one prominent firm of merchant bankers, long represented on the directorate of the Bank of England, was discovered to have omitted even the easy formality of naturalisation. This was Baron Bruno von Shroeder, who, according to statements by Lord Wittenham in the House of Lords on July 26, 1918, had to be naturalised after war was declared in order to save the solvency of the City of London. Having got so far in our glance at the Bank of England, which governs our Empire in its monetary affairs, we have next to note another pleasant little trait in its habits. It is answerable to nobody, and never explains its actions. On Mr. Keynes asking Sir Ernest Harvey if this was the case, the reply was, ‘Well, I think it has been our practice to leave our actions to explain our policy.’ What about the reasons for the Bank’s policy? asked Mr. Keynes. ‘It is a dangerous thing to start giving reasons,’ said Sir Ernest Harvey. HOW WAR DEBTS ARE JUGGLED People who urge that the present disastrous financial policy of needless debt and taxation should be abolished in order to allow the British peoples to win this war FOR THEMSELVES, in the shortest possible time, are sneered at by our financial “‘experts,” who tell us that “we must pay the cost of the war.” I agree. But the real cost of a war is the sacrifice in men and materials. This cost is paid as the war is fought. Under the present financial swindle the people are sacrificed in order to pay financial tribute in the form of taxation for all time. To ask men and their families to pay the interest bill for all time on the materials they used to defend themselves is little short of treachery. Those who think that we should be sacrificed to an insane financial policy at the end of the war might note that Britain, during the last war, actually increased her assets by 25 per cent. This was done in spite of the millions of men taken out of production and doing the fighting in France. When these men had won the military conflict, they came back to civil life and started producing further goods. In 1919 Britain possessed the greatest industrial machine in the world. She was in the position to give her people the highest standard of living the world has yet seen – in fact, a land really fit for heroes to live in. But, as we have seen previously, while the British people were standing up to the German military machine, the financiers were plotting to obtain ever a greater control of the nation. No wonder that William Jennings Bryan, the famous American statesman, once said: “The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity.” We should always remember the sinister Cunliffe Committee, and its recommendations to put Britain back on the gold standard after the war. Dealing with these recommendations, Mr. A. N. Field, the New Zealand writer, has stated: “The recommendation of the Cunliffe Committee was ‘for the maintenance of a complete and effective gold standard.’ In plain language, this simply meant that the enormous debt incurred in 8/- and 10/- pounds should be paid back in 20/- pounds. The nation was saddled with a debt more than ten times that existing in pre-war days, in nominal value; but in actual value, in consequence of. the depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound, about five times the pre-war debt. This committee recommended that the load on the back of the people should be doubled by a restoration of the pound to the value it had possessed before the banks had lowered its value by lending thousands of millions of imaginary money. To realise the enormous fraud which was perpetrated by this juggling with money it is sufficient to take one example. An important item in munitions manufacture was copper. A good deal of this was purchased from the United States. In a publication at hand it is stated that the average price for copper in the United States during the ten years preceding the war was 16.2-3 cents per pound; the war price was 27 cents per pound. Commodities bought with 8/- and 10/- pounds at wartime prices of this sort were lumped in the huge bill tied round the nation’s neck, to be paid off in 20/- pounds. In the words of Mr. Reginald McKenna, in his annual address as chairman of the Midland Bank at this time, the whole proceeding was ‘repugnant to every principle of equity and economic propriety.’ Dealing with the recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee in a series of articles in the London “Times” from May to October 1918, Mr. Arthur Kitson said: ” . . . The nation should be on its guard to see that the war debt is not enhanced by some jugglery with our legal tender after the war. . . . The method is so insidious and can be accomplished so easily that the public may be cheated before they are aware of it. The war debt has been incurred in cheap pounds, and honest dealing requires repayment in pounds and commodities of the same value as when the debt was incurred. To raise the value of money after the war is an old trick of the financiers. . . . At all costs a repetition of such jugglery should be prevented.” MONTAGU NORMAN TAKES CONTROL In spite of the warnings of Kitson and others, the policy of deflation was introduced in 1920 by the new Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Montagu Norman. He introduced Wall Street’s deflation policy. Norman was a former partner in the banking house of Brown, Shipley and Company, the London end of Brown Brothers and Company, international bankers, New York. He was partly trained in America. He became Deputy Governor of the Bank of England in 1915, and Governor in 1920. Immediately upon his rise to the Governorship, Dr. Oliver Sprague, of the Federal Reserve Board, which is dominated by the Wall Street group, Warburgs, etc., was sent over from America to help him with his task. Within three years of Norman taking control, Britain was reduced to chaos unemployment figures rose to approximately 2,000,000. Men who fought to beat the German military gangsters were stabbed in the back by the financial gangsters. Shipbuilding yards closed, never to open again. Slum areas increased, while the defences of the nation were whittled away. There was no money! Millions of British people have lived in hell under the dictatorship of Norman and his Wall Street friends. It is a magnificent tribute to the millions of people in Britain who have been crucified by the financial system for so long, that their morale remained unbroken under the Nazi blitzkriegs. In 1922 Mr. Norman went to America with Stanley Baldwin to fix the American debt. The result of this visit was to “fix” the British people more firmly under the heel of the Wall Street group. Stanley Baldwin immediately afterwards had a meteoric rise to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain, and played a traitor’s role in introducing Planning and Boards – part of the Bank of England’s program of Socialism, as we will see later – and acquiesced in the reduction of Britain to a second-rate Power. When Mr. Montagu Norman returned from America with the Debt Settlement, Mr. Bonar Law, Prime Minister of Britain at that time, is reported to have said: “If I sign this I will be cursed for generations.” Nothing more prophetic could have been uttered. That Mr. Norman had the “right” outlook for his job of controlling the British Empire will be seen from the following significant extract from John Gunther’s book, Inside Europe: “Once, amiably chatting with a banker friend, he (Norman) listened imperviously to the argument that the gold standard would impoverish Britain in the long run. ‘Tell me,’ Norman is reported to have said, ‘do you think it better to be rich than to be poor?’ His friend replied: ‘Well, I have been poor, and now I am fairly rich, and I hope to be richer.’ Norman replied that he was not sure but that countries which were too rich went to pieces; he pointed to the examples of Periclean Athens and Imperial Rome. His friend did not reveal the substance of the conversation; the indication that the Governor of the Bank of England might consider it his duty to impoverish his country for the country’s ‘benefit’ would not have been too popular.” Just like Hitler and other gangsters: “I know what is good for you.” “I will have you thrown into a concentration camp and have you beaten to death with a rubber truncheon,” says Hitler . Norman and his associates are more subtle. The British people are much harder to deal with than the Germans. “I will have you living on the dole in slum areas. It is good for you,” says Norman. Civilisation will never be safe until the Hitlers and Normans are removed from control. SOME INTERESTING QUOTATIONS Apart from the actual history of what took place after the last war, the following quotations, which I have selected from a variety of sources, leave no doubt that even many orthodox people realised that the control of the financial policy of Britain had been transferred to Wall Street: “The City, the financiers and the moneylenders in New York. and Paris, refused to put up credits in support of a balanced budget.” ‘They wanted humanity crucified on a cross of gold. We declined absolutely, and resigned. . . . Twenty men and one woman – a British Cabinet – waited one black Sunday afternoon in a Downing Street garden for a financial decision from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.” -Thomas Johnston, M.P., Civil Defence Commissioner for Scotland, and Lord Privy Seal in the Ramsay Macdonald Labour Government. “Many nations may laugh at our State Department, but all must tremble before our Federal Reserve Board. . . . High money rates in the United States of America early in 1929, for instance, forced an increase in the official bank rates at once in England, ten European countries, in two Latin-American countries, and two in the Far East; and in almost every case that action restricted business and brought suffering to millions of foreign workers. That blow hit Britain hardest of all.” -Mr. Ludwell Denny, well-known American banking authority, in his book, America Conquers Britain, published in 1930. “Never in the history of the world has so much power been vested in a small body of men as in the Federal Reserve Board. These men have the welfare of the world in their hands, and they could upset the rest of us either deliberately or by some unconscious action.” Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of Bank of England, reported in the National Bank Monthly, February, 1926. The memoirs of the late Lord Snowden, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Ramsay Macdonald Labour Cabinet, reveal the fact that during the 1929-32 depression Wall Street demanded a reduction in the British unemployment dole. Lord Snowden said: “On Saturday, the 22nd August, the situation was hectic. The Bank of England submitted to Mr. Harrison, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the tentative suggestion for a reduction of unemployment payments, . . . Mr. Harrison replied by telephone that, while he was not in a position to give the answer until he had consulted his financial associates, his opinion was that it would give satisfactory assurance.” “The interdependence of the money policies of the U.S. and Great Britain, or – not to put too fine a point upon it – the dependence of the latter upon the former, has been dramatically demonstrated. We are informed that the bank-rate must certainly be raised from 4 to 5 per cent. next Thursday. There is nothing in the present position of British Industry which would in itself call for an increase in the rate. . . . The incident seems to show clearly who it is that cracks the whip and who obeys the signal.” Sir Josiah Stamp, in a letter to the Times, London, February 3, 1923. “Nor is the growing importance of American finance in international trade an assuring event. One of the things that can be assumed as a certain consequence of the war is that finance is to hold a more important grip on international industry than hitherto, and that in their own interests communities must protect themselves so far as possible against an imperious international financial trust. In any event, it is quite clear that this country will have to watch not only Lombard Street, but Lombard Street and Wall Street. . . . For finance can command the sluices of every stream that runs to turn the wheels of industry, and can put fetters upon the feet of every Government that is in existence. Those who control finance can paralyse the nation, can make it drunk, can keep it normal. And in all their transactions their own interests are put first. Of course, these interests are ‘involved in the general interest. They cannot flourish in a dead economic state. But they fix exchanges, bank rates, capital values; they can tighten or loosen the purse strings of Governments and manufacturers; they control the means upon which the political and industrial State depends for its existence.” Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in Socialism, Critical and Constructive. “The Prime Minister, at his interview with the junior Ministers on Monday, said the proposals which the Government submitted to the Bank of England had to be telephoned to America to see if they could be approved of there.” Mr. Ernest Thurtle, Labour Government Whip, in the “Daily Herald,” August 27, 1931. Speaking in the British House of Commons on September 10, 1931, Mr. W. Graham explained how the British Government was forced to reduce the dole rates at the instigation of Wall Street: ” . . It was specifically put to us (the late Ministers) that. unless one item in particular – a 10 per cent. cut in unemployment benefit, to yield £12,250,000 – was included in the program, it would not restore confidence, and we were told that no other item could be put in substitution. . . . Let the House be under no misapprehension. It was because of an outside insistence upon that specific point that the late Government broke.” “To propitiate Wall Street, British industry is to be taxed another 1 per cent. From the list of directors of the Bank of England we publish (under the heading of ‘Our Masters: Who’s Who at the Bank: Who are the Financial Dictators of Great Britain?’), it will be seen how few of them are engaged in the daily uphill task of making goods and finding markets. Their eyes and minds are more on the ends of the earth than on the troubles and needs of their immediate fellow-citizens. The voice of Wall-street is heard and obeyed in their councils. . . . The Governor of the Bank has followed his customary line by leaving industry to shift for itself, while he moves his pieces on the board as though credit, and all that depends on it, were merely favours in a game of international chess. We have to face the fact that the power of the world today is in the hands, not of kings or governments, nor of armies or navies, but of financiers.” Sunday Dispatch, August 16, 1931. On the previous day the Dean of Winchester had written in the Times: “The recent experience of Australia shows us that the banking community is at long last a very effective Second Chamber.” When we study the control of Australian Governments by the local representatives of the Bank of England we must agree that the Dean of Winchester was right. On September 25, 1929, following a rise in the London bank rate, the editor of the Daily Express said, in an open letter to the Governor of the Bank: “Among your colleagues are several who are closely identified with large foreign interests, and who may be tempted to consider questions of current policy from the standpoint of international finance. But the Bank of England is, or should be, a British institution serving British interests.” The questions which every Britisher, loyal to the principles upon which the British Commonwealth of Nations has been built and the sovereignty of the Monarchy – particularly in the issue of the nation’s money supply – should ask: “Are the British peoples still controlled by a financial policy dictated by a group of aliens? Can we hope to preserve British institutions and British culture under such domination?” THE FINANCING OF NAZI GERMANY In the British House of Commons on April 16, 1940, Mr. Stokes asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would introduce legislation to alter the charter of the Bank of England, so as to enable the names of the bank proprietors, together with the capital holding of each of such proprietors, to be published. Sir John Simon: “No, Sir.” Mr. Stokes: “In view of the disastrous policy followed by the Bank after the last war and the part it is believed to have played in the re-armament of Germany, does the right hon. gentleman not consider it time that the people knew a bit more about the proprietors of this unique concern?” The following humorous item, which appeared in the News-Chronicle on May 10, 1940, is very pointed: “Germany is an ungrateful beast, and I don’t care who hears me say it,” declared Miss Ruby Fossicks, the Bank of England May Queen for 1940, at Brighton yesterday, opening the £500,000 Golden Calf Rest Home for Tired Usurers. A wane smile from a Mr. Skinner and frantic applause from 5000 City usurers, each with features more brutally degraded than the last, rewarded this stinging attack. ‘Heil der interest on der Unprodugtif Loan!’ cried Sir Henry Glockenspiel, a leading British financier. A resolution never to arm the Prussian Spirit with money ever again till the present war is over was carried unanimously.” Le Canard Enchaine for August, 1939, published the following interesting item: “In 1933 there appeared in Holland a book, written by a certain Sidney Warburg, which quickly disappeared from booksellers’ windows. In it the author stated that in the preceding year, 1932, he had attended meetings in the United States of financial gentlemen who were seeking means of subsidising Hitler. It appears that among those present were Sir Henri Deterding, representatives of Morgan’s Bank, Mr. Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), and representatives of the Mendelssohn Bank.” Mr. Montagu Norman was openly in favour of supporting the new Hitler movement by 1931. By 1935 the Bank of England was openly pro-Nazi, as revealed even in the Financial News of May 15 of that year. In 1937, the “Banker” said that “we regret to have to admit that from a small but influential circle in the City of London there flows a constant stream of propaganda in favour of credits for Germany.” The following report appeared in the Sydney Sun on April 3, 1941: “A sharp attack on Mr. Montagu Norman is made by the foreign editor of the conservative ‘Financial News,’ urging a public enquiry into the governship of the Bank of England. ‘We ought to probe more deeply into Mr. Norman’s apparently unending reign as Governor,’ he writes. ‘Any criticism of this reign from financial quarters is still regarded as something akin to sacrilege, but we ought to ask ourselves whether it is to Britain’s advantage that Mr. Norman remains Governor at such a critical period. . . Mr. Norman was largely responsible for our ill-advised return to the gold standard in 1925. He strongly opposed the Treasury’s “cheap money” policy, which he reversed. Shortly before the outbreak of war he pursued a policy of financial appeasement towards Germany. Until the outbreak he allowed the City to over-lend to Germany. He did not exert his influence to obtain a reduction in excessive German bank debts . . .’ ” As anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the present financial system knows, the Bank of England did not send millions of pounds to Germany. These millions of pounds – created out of nothing by the Bank of England – were written up as a credit to Germany in Britain. Germany could then buy goods in Britain to this amount. A loan of £80,000,000 to Germany would mean that Germany could buy that amount of materials in Britain. The terrible fact emerges that the British people were working to re-arm their future enemies because they did not control financial policy. The same individuals who were building up Germany were keeping Britain weak by telling the people that there was a shortage of money. Stanley Baldwin, one of the chief puppets of the Bank of England, openly admitted on one occasion that he kept the fact concerning German re-armament from the British people in order to win the general elections. Mr. Paul Einzig says, in “World Finance, 1918-36,” that “there can be no doubt that practically the whole of the free exchange available to Germany for purchase of raw materials was supplied, directly or indirectly, by Great Britain in giving her enemy free exchange for the purpose of raw materials. If the day of reckoning ever comes the liberal attitude of the British Government in this matter may well be responsible for the lives of British soldiers and civilians.” These facts are widely recognised by responsible authorities all over the world. Unfortunately, the people and their governments have very little say concerning policy. The following is an extract from a report of an interview which Mrs. Lillie Beirne, of Sydney, had with Mr. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, while she was lecturing in Canada. (Reported in the New Era, February 14, 1941): “Mrs. Beirne: ‘Why on earth, Mr. Prime Minister, did you not keep these promises?’ (She was referring to one of Mackenzie King’s statements in 1935, when he said that he would take control of the issue of credit and currency on behalf of Canada.) ‘The people would have immortalised you.’ Mackenzie King (rather sadly and in a slow tone): ‘Well, we do the best we can, Mrs. Beirne.’ Mrs. Beirne: ‘Well, it is a terrible position we are in. English and American finance gave Hitler the money and metals and chemicals to slaughter our men, women, and children, and destroy the British Empire – forgive me, Mr. Prime Minister, for speaking so hotly!’ Mackenzie King: ‘I agree with you. I never did agree with financing Hitler.’ The following extracts are from a sensational article which appeared in Ken (Chicago, U.S.A.), November 3, 1938. The article was reprinted in many journals throughout the world and caused a considerable stir:- “In the spring of 1934, a select group of city financiers gathered around Montagu Norman in the windowless building of the Bank of England, in Threadneedle Street. Among those present were Sir Alan Anderson, partner in Anderson, Green & Co.; Lord (then Sir Josiah) Stamp, chairman of the L.M.S. Railway System; Edward Shaw, chairman of the P.& 0. Steamship Lines; Sir Robert Kindersley, a partner in Lazard Bros.; Charles Hambro, partner in Hambros Bros.; and C. T. Tiarks, head of J. Shroeder Co. . . . But now a new power was established on Europe’s political horizon-namely, Nazi Germany. Hitler had disappointed his critics. His regime was no temporary nightmare, but a system with a good future, and Mr. Norman advised his directors to include Hitler in their plans. There was no opposition, and it was decided that Hitler should get covert help from London’s financial section until Mr. Norman had succeeded in putting sufficient pressure on the Government to make it abandon its pro-French policy for a more promising pro-German orientation.” Immediately the directors went into action. Their first move was to sponsor Hitler’s secret re-armament, just about to begin. Using their controlling interests in both Vickers and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), they instructed these two huge armament concerns to help the German program by all means at their disposal. . . . In the same year English armament firms placed huge advertisements in the Militaerischer Wochenblatt, offering for sale tanks and guns, prohibited by the Versailles Treaty. A statement made by General Sir Herbert Lawrence, chairman of Vickers, furnished the necessary evidence that the British Government knew about and approved these advertisements. When, at his company’s annual meeting, he was asked to give the assurance that Vickers arms and munitions were not being used for secret re-arming in Germany, he replied: ‘I cannot give you an assurance in definite terms, but I can tell you that nothing is done without the complete sanction and approval of our Government.’ The excuse has been made that, although this financing of Nazi Germany did take place, it was for the purpose of building a rampart against Russian Communism. I quite appreciate this viewpoint, and believe that many sincere British interests were made the victims of a carefully drawn-up program of propaganda. The fear of Communism was deliberately played upon. Little did many people know that the real controllers of the Bank of England – the Jewish oligarchy of Wall Street – were also very interested in Russia. I believe that the opposition between Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy was for the deliberate purpose of making the British people acquiesce in a policy which was weakening the foundation of the Empire. The following extract from an article by D. E. Faulkner-Jones, in The Fig Tree (England), June, 1937, is almost prophetic, when we see the position today: “Secret fear makes us seize eagerly on the comfortable assumption that the three militaristic Powers (Russia, Germany and Japan) to be reckoned with are arming for internecine conflict. Common sense would suggest a very different view; the view that it would pay the three to unite, at least temporarily, for the dismemberment of the British Empire. An appearance of mutual enmity between two of the three conspirators would recommend itself as a simple and politic means of delaying British re-armament as long as possible, and should, therefore, be discounted by prudent statesmen.” Russia’s pacts with Germany and Japan – although only of a temporary and expedient nature, as demonstrated by Hitler’s attack on Russia – confirm the above viewpoint. (Clashes between Hitler and Stalin must not blind us to the fact that National Socialism and Marxist Socialism are only different sects of the one “religion.” An overwhelming victory for either sect would be a further danger to the British way of life.) While Britain’s defences were being depleted – particularly her navy – the totalitarian countries were being built up. Dictator Montagu Norman kept the British shipbuilding yards closed. It is not without significance that the Governments of both Ramsay Macdonald and Stanley Baldwin – dominated by Wall Street and the Bank of England – played a big part in destroying Britain’s naval power. By no stretch of imagination could it be suggested that the British Navy was ever likely to be used in an aggressive role. It was essential for the defensive purpose of keeping the trade routes of the Empire open. Writing in the Fig Tree, March, 1937, D. E. Faulkner-Jones said: “If America had insisted strongly and openly on the repayment of our immense debt to her, there would have been no alternative but to expose the real truth. The so-called ‘investors’ in America no more desired this exposure than our own rulers; but they pressed their advantage home and made Britannia give up her title of Mistress of the Seas. . . . If we are now unable to protect our coasts, let alone our food routes, future historians may well find a very potent cause in the financial control exercised by America (the writer is referring to Wall Street) over us in the first years immediately after the War, when our financial policy was watched over directly by an American adviser. This control existed not because we owed America money; it existed because our Government could not pay America the true debt we owed her – which was a debt in goods, not money – without explaining to the public the secret of credit-creation. It was quite easy to persuade the English to weaken fatally their first, and essentially unaggressive, line of defence: their Navy. The instructed press ingeniously ‘smote the chord of self, which, trembling, passed in music out of sight.’ There was a shameless press exploitation of every generous emotion, every heart-throb of repentance for the four years’ butchery, which a healthy instinct made us feel to be a common responsibility of all the participants, enemy and Allies alike. During the high tide of this emotion, our Navy was quietly shorn of its strength.” In view of the seriousness of Britain’s shipping position in this War, the following extract from an editorial in Social Credit, of September 20, 1935, a typical attack launched by loyal Britishers against the treacherous policy of the Bank of England, is well worth quoting:. “By a strange twist of irony a Bank of England concern which has probably done more in the last few years to undermine Britain’s security than all the Communists and all the machinations of foreign Powers put together, is called National Shipbuilders’ Security Ltd. A more suitable name would be International Bankers’ Security, for this concern is engaged in making ship-owning safe for bankers who now control the ‘British’ mercantile marine. It is ‘rationalising’ the shipbuilding industry by scrapping so-called redundant yards. According to its annual report, this company has spent, in the last three years, a total of £1,153,387 to buy shipbuilding yards for the deliberate purpose of scrapping them. To replace this destruction would cost at least twenty times as much. This is but one more instance of the sabotage of real wealth in the attempt to make facts fit an archaic financial system. Those who remember the submarine blockade of the last war, which resulted in the loss of millions of tons of ships and thousands of human lives, and nearly resulted in starving this country into surrender, should ponder the dangerous activities of National Shipbuilders’ Security, particularly at the present time. We trust that if, unfortunately, war comes again, no plea of ignorance or ‘sound’ financial reasons will enable those responsible for this sabotage to escape the penalty of traiters, should Britain suffer for lack of these yards to build ships to replace those sunk.” And yet we are told that the Bank of England is today more powerful than ever! This sabotage of Britain’s shipbuilding industry was referred to in the British House of Commons on January 21, 1941: “Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly): . . . ‘I came into this House very largely because of the way industry was being neglected. We are paying the price for the last 20 years in allowing our industrial equipment to rust and to rot. For 20 years we lived in a period when coal mines, workshops and shipbuilding yards were being closed down. By whom? By the financiers of this country. . . . I cannot give way, as I have not much time, and I am entitled to make my point. I want the nation to remember that for 20 years we have pursued a policy of restricting and cutting down production, and now we are paying the price for it. I will give one example. What would this nation give today for a shipbuilding yard at Jarrow? Who closed down Jarrow? . . .” Jarrow was closed by the Bank of England! Looking back over past history it is almost beyond comprehension that the Bank of England. should be allowed to continue its domination of the financial policy of an Empire fighting for its very existence. All loyal Britishers will make every effort to make these facts as widely known as possible in order that this internal financial cancer can be removed and thus allow the British Empire to develop its tremendous potential strength. Such a step would bring us real victory within a remarkably short time. MR. NORMAN AND DR. SCHACHT Dr. Hjalmar Schacht was the financial adviser in Germany; he was connected with the interests responsible for the financing of Soviet Russia; was closely connected with some of the “Left” movements in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler; helped bring Hitler to power and, if International Finance accomplishes its objects, will be still in a position of power long after Hitler has been swept from the world stage. However, we are determined to sweep them all out. That is one of our major objectives in this war. Dr. Schacht has been intimately connected with Mr. Montagu Norman. In July, 1925, they both were at a conference of international financiers in Nice. They were discussing how “to save France” from financial collapse. In answer to a question by the Chairman of the Macmillan Committee, Mr. Norman said, in outlining the proposals to form a Central World Bank: “But, . . . there were at that time outstanding individuals, as I believe, in the Central Banking World, who made co-operation possible in the earlier stages, and pre-eminent among them were Governor Strong and President Schacht. They were both dominant men, extremely interested from different sides – and very differently they were – in co-operation. They were the most wholehearted supporters of the idea and did, in its early stages, I believe, a great deal in trying to bring about a common policy as between the various banks.” In May, 1934, a private conference took place between Dr. Schacht and Mr. Norman. They met again at a “secret conclave” at Badenweiler, in the Black Forest, while on their way to a meeting of the Bank of International Settlements at Basle. A loan for Nazi Germany was being negotiated. A further meeting between the two bankers took place in October of the same year. Towards the end of 1935 Mr. Norman was again in secret discussion with Dr. Schacht. Already the Bank of England had pledged itself to a financial scheme for stabilising the Nazi regime! The Times Basle correspondent reported, April 5, 1936: “For the first time since the existence of the Bank of International Settlements a board meeting was held today in a country other than Switzerland. Dr. Schacht had invited all the Governments to meet at Badenweiler, a German health resort in the Black Forest, where Dr. Schacht has several times spent weekends with Sir (!) Montagu Norman.” After Munich, Dr. Schacht went over to England and was a guest of Mr. Norman. In January, 1939, Governor Norman was on his way to the monthly meeting of the B.I.S.; he called on Dr. Schacht in Berlin on the way. War was declared in September, but, as questions in the British House of Commons on September 17, 1940, revealed, the Bank of International Settlements is carrying on, with representatives of the bankers from all the belligerents. The following is taken from the British “Hansard”: “Mr. Parker asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in the report of the Bank of International Settlements, dated May 27, 1940, the names of Mr. Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, and Dr. Funk, German Economic Minister, are included together amongst the list of directors; and as it is not desirable at the present time Mr. Norman should be listed in a public document as a colleague of a German Cabinet Minister, he will take the necessary steps to terminate this country’s connection with the Bank of International Settlements?” Mr. Craven-Ellis asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the enemy gain no advantage from the Bank of England’s association with this bank, which is now controlled by representatives of enemy countries, he will take steps to ensure that all connection with the Bank of International Settlements is revised? . . . ” Mr. Shinwell: ‘Is it desirable to retain this informal association between Mr. Montagu Norman and Dr. Funk, and if the arrangement which was previously operative is now inoperative, could not this association be brought to an end?” Sir K. Wood: ‘No, sir, I do not think so, because, as I have said, I think there are advantages to this country in retaining the connection. We have a little money there. . . .” Mr. Gallacher: ‘Does the right hon. gentleman remember the words of the Prime Minister, that the gold sent through this bank by Montagu Norman to Germany would come back to this country in the form of bombs; and in view of the correctness of that prophecy is it not about time to put an end to this bank?” Sir K. Wood: ‘I have already said we have some interest there.’ THE FINANCING OF RUSSIA It is now common knowledge in well-informed circles that certain German-American-Jewish financial interests were directly associated with the financing of the Russian revolution and the exploitation of that country. The same interests seek to foist International Socialism on the entire world – particularly the British Empire. The same interests were responsible, both directly and indirectly, for Hitlerism. Hitlerism and Communism are almost synonymous terms – as the world was shocked to learn when the Russo-German Pact took place just prior to the outbreak of the present war. The fact that Germany has since attacked Russia does not alter the underlying fact that International Finance is gaining more in power at the expense of the British peoples. We can only judge who wins a war by asking “Who benefits?” In 1921, a certain Krassin – who had been a direct representative of the International Financiers in Russia after the revolution – went to London as leader of the Soviet Trade Delegation – the negotiations for which had been initiated by persons in the City of London with powerful international financial groups behind them. The “Morning Post” of December 16, 1921, claimed that this delegation was for the purpose of arranging a project for the combined exploitation of Russia by British and German financial interests. Mrs. N. Webster, reviewing these facts in The Surrender of the Empire, says: “Viewed from this angle the Trade Agreement with Great Britain and Russia in 1921 takes on a different aspect. No longer a compact with a derelict empire, but with the most formidable Power in the world, the Power of International Finance, it is seen not as an act of folly, but as a surrender to forces with which its authors were either unable or unwilling to contend.” The forces behind Russia are forces which have consistently sought to destroy the British Empire; far too many of our Empire’s “leaders” have been prepared to betray us to these alien forces. In his book, The Alien Menace, the late Colonel A. H. Lane, one of the most patriotic Britishers who has ever written on this matter, said: “Our financial crisis in July, 1931, was largely due to the international financiers in the City of London having granted large credits to Germany, which Germany declared herself unable to repay. The newspapers described these loans or credits as being ‘frozen’ in Germany. Germany had passed on these loans, or a good portion of them, to Russia, and it was in Russia where they were – or are still – ‘frozen.’ The financial collapse of Germany, or even of Great Brita
  6. Pingback: Global Warming II. The Fraud Has Dangerous Geopolitical and Expensive Consequences for Us · Hottest 2009 Trends

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s