Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:08:26 -0800
From: Jerry Nicolas Organization: Fraud Magazine
When people think of England such terms as 'Great Britain,' 'The Queen,'
'The Crown,' 'Crown Colonies,' 'London,' 'The City of London,' and 'British
Empire' come to mind and blend together into an indistinguishable blur.
They are generally looked upon as synonymous, as being representative of
the same basic system. During the 1950s and 1960s the author lived in
England (London for five years) without even beginning to realize the vast
difference that exists in the meaning of some of the above terms.
When people hear of 'The Crown' they automatically think of the King or
Queen; when they hear of 'London' or the 'The City' they instantly think
of the capital of England in which the monarch has his or her official
To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must
define our terms:
When we speak of 'The City' we are in fact referring to a privately
owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of
677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater
London' area. The population of 'The City' is listed at just over four
thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is
approximately seven and a half million.
The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the
independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City'
is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not
under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a
separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world.
The City, which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth,"
is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britian's great
financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the
privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd's of
London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading
international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid
you not]. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the
newspaper and publishing worlds.
The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in
the City. As Aubrey Menen says in "London", Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: "The
relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen]
is curious and tells much." It certainly is and certainly does !
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord
Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks
for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State
visits "the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval
costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no furhter than
service uniforms." The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The reason should be clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen
is his subject ! The monarch always leads the way. The subject always
stays a pace or two behind !
The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament.
It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britian is ruled by a Prime
Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These 'fronts' go to great
lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in
reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy
characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime
Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'israeli wrote: "So
you see... the world is governed by very different personages from what is
imagined by those who are not behind the scenes" (Coningsby, The Century
Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book:
"The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the
mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget
Director] is only expected to understand them when he introduces the
budget. Both are advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury, and these
listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government
will [back-fire]... it is no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask
if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one
ambassador complained to me, diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and
slow ones at that.
"The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will
tell the Prime Minister. Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most
striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime
Minister, Sir Anthony Eden... launched a war to regain the Suez Canal.
It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he
would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped
the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister
rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will
put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboard"
History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of
the "invisible and inaudible" force centered in the City. The City calls
the tune. The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance to
that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite
of all the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the
HISTORY of the 'CITY'
From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth
century the British Monarchs ruled supreme - their word was law. They
truly were Sovereign in every sense of the word.
As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end
of the 1600s the wealth, strength and influence of the elite merchants in
the City also grew - only at a faster pace. In 1694 the privately owned
Bank of England (a central bank) was established to finance the profligate ways
of William III. The bank was financed by a group of City merchants who used
William Paterson as a 'front.' The names of the founders have never
been made public.
It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to
dominate and control the affairs of Britain. Their influence and wealth
grew in leaps and bounds in the century that followed. "The
Illustrated Universal History," 1878, records that "Great Britain emerged from her
long contest with France with increased power and national glory. Her Empire
was greatly expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was
undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased... But with all this
national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk
in extreme wretchedness and poverty, having been bled dry during the
struggle of the previous twenty years.
It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized
control of the British economy, the Bank of England and the City - and, through
their other branches, control of the other European nations.
Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the
far-flung reaches of the globe. Having been thrown out of the Western
Hemisphere, Britain now concentrated on acquiring and developing
additional possessions elsewhere.
During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all
international trade was carried in British ships. Other shippers had to
pay the Crown royalties or commissions for the 'privilege' of doing business
on the high seas. During these years 'Britannia Ruled the Waves' through
the domination of the most modern and powerful navy known up to that time.
TWO SEPARATE EMPIRES
To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the
fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the
British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire.
All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign -
i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the
Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under
British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up
the inhabitants of the British Empire.
All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Eqypt,
Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Sinapore, Hong
Kong and Gilbraltar (those areas inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks)
were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British
parliament had no authority over them. They were privately owned and
ruled by a private club in London, England known as the Crown. The Crown's
representative in such areas held the absolute power of life and death
over all the people under his juristiction. There were no courts and no
method of appeal or retribution against a decision rendered by the
representatives of the Crown. Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown
colony was subject to the Crown law. He couldn't appeal to British law
as it didn't apply.
As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there
was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military
forces to maintain the Crown's supremacy in these areas. Any revolts were met
with terrible retribution by the British navy at no cost to the Crown.
The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under
the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn't British commerce and
British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and the
British aristocracy who were part of the 'City' machine accumulated vast
fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their pursuit of prestige and
standing in British Society. Had the wealth been spread out among all
the people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. [I am not
suggesting that this should have been done, the thefts from the
exploited should never have occured to begin with - ralph].
In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority
of the British people were barely making ends meet. Many were impoverished
to the point of despair. The elite lived in regal splendor. The poor
British peasants were never given a chance to get a cut of the action.
Simon Haxey in "England's Money Lords Tory M.P.," drew his readers'
attention to the "total disregard or open contempt displayed by the
aristocracy" towards the British people. He also asked, "What part do
the colonial people play in the battle for democracy when they themselves
have no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant
such rights" (pp. 114,115) [we all know the difference between democracy and
republics I hope - ralph]
David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the
City and its total contempt for the "wretches" who were not part of the
'club.' In a 1910 speech he stated: "We do most of the business of the
world. We carry more international trade - probably ten times more -
than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely. The international
trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our
shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that
wretched foreigner. I'm taxing the foreigner for all I know... You've
heard a good deal of talk here, probably, about the exportation of capital
abroad. There is no way in which we can make the foreigner pay more... We get
the foreigner in four ways by that. The first way we leave to Lord
Rothschild..." ("Better Times", published 1910).
About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that
"...financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the
responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of
the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and
another, involving international friendship and mistrusts... Loans to
foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with
no thought whatsoever of the nation's welfare but soley in order to
increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich... This
national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one
country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the
press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a
semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted
to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a
glass darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in the public
interest to divulge'..." (E.C. Knuth, "Empire of 'The City'", p. 65).
All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83
and 84 of "Pan Germanism," written in 1913: "The London and Paris bankers
[the international bankers] control the available resources of the world at
any one moment, and can therefore practically permit or prevent the
undertaking of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred million
dollars actual value..."
The international bankers "own probably the major part of the bonded
indebtedness of the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan,
and South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in
London or Paris. Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by
the pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of
the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands
of the agents of the English and French bankers. In addition, a very large
share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of
the world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the
world's enterprises dictated by their financial heads. The world itself, in
fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living
by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making them still
In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: "The bulwark of the British financial
oligarchy lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range
planning and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its
opponents. The transient and temporal statesmen of Europe and
particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all
been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence. Obligated to show
action and results in a too short span of years, they have been
outwitted and outwaited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually
obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few who have opposed them in
Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end, but many, who served
them well, have also profited well" ("Empire of 'The City,'" p. 65).
== END of CHAPTER 6 from the book "DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin
You have just completed reading the sixth chapter of ""DESCENT into
SLAVERY", by Des Griffin. If you would like to obtain a copy of this
excellent book, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org