The City of London and the British Imperial/Zionist Empire
(Condensed from “Descent Into Slavery” by Des Griffin, Chapter six)
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 residence.
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 Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions:
– Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London,
– The London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. [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.
TWO MONARCHS
The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City.
As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: “The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does !
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City.
She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State.
During such State visits “the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval
costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The 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 Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers.
These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes.
As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin Disraeli 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” (p.18).
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 financial elite.
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.
(This is not exactly accurate, as the monarchs were the subjects of the Papacy, of the Roman Catholic Church, precisely as the bankers of London, who have always, and are always under the same subjugation.)
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. (The knights templar, Jesuits, founded the Bank of England.)
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.
(The Rothschild’s are employed, in partnership, as the bankers for the Roman Catholic Church, along with the shareholder, the English Monarchy.)
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, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar (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 jurisdiction.
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 occurred 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 splendour.
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 solely 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 wealthier.”
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 out waited, 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).
INFORM OTHERS IT Is YOUR DUTY
Like this:
Like Loading...
