- Here at the Horwich Nationalists we like to offer unedited views on history here is one view , which some will state is anti Semitic, but to label something as racist or homophobic or some some other silly "ism" of some kind, simply ignores the fact that people must be offered all historical evidence and theories no matter how outlandish they seem. And that they must come to a conclusion in their own minds, as to what the facts really are! And not told by others that they should only study only certain evidence and come to a pre determined conclusion at the risk of prosecution, I site he case of the controversial Historian David Irving whom I may disagree with but i wish to study his views and shine the light of inquiry onto them in order to seek the truth, As it is widely known that to seek the truth is to set ones self free. So I give none of my opinions on this subject, I only offer you the chance to view and credit or discredit them.
The City Of London - Who The 'Crown' REALLY Is
By Dick Eastman
In which we learn the unsuspected and very important difference between "The Crown Empire" and "The British Empire" -- but not the name of the current ruling Lord Mayor of The City...which is a well kept secret.
Jewish Banishment And The 'City' Of London
February 26, 2011
Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:
WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE'S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.
Henk Ruyssenaars' article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book "Descent into Slavery" by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term "City of London" is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.
"To the majority of people the words "Crown" and "City" in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.
This is not the truth. The "City" is in fact 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.
"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. 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 further than service uniforms."
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.
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 D'Israeli wrote:
"So you seeÝ 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.
Rothschild gold bought supplies for the Duke of Wellington before Waterloo, financed Disraeli's purchase of the Suez Canal and bankrolled 19th century Imperialism
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 is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of 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 said: "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 EdenÝ 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 sideboards."
The British government is the bond slave of the "invisible and inaudible" force centred 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 the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.
It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.
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 Britsh 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 were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.
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.
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 those members of the aristocracy who were part of the "City" machine accumulated vast fortunes .
About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :
Ý."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 mistrustsÝ Loans to foreign countries are organised 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 richÝ"
In "Empire of the City" E. C. Knuth said:
" 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 and it would not be in the public interest to divulge."Ý
The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.
At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. They are names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.
In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word "Jew" or "Conspiracy" and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?
The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.
Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, "The American Hebrew," expressed the following similar sentiments:
"It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.
(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.) Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people? Well, in England, it's very interesting:
IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews' crime of blood ritual murders.
The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:
- "At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands." - Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:
1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.
1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion. 1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy's mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.
1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )
JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell's New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.
A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin's Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:
Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam, 16th June 1647:
- "In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape." - To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
- "Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences." -
Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649. Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )
JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William's elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.
The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.
To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.
In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L'Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.
The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers' chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.
Since the state's debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.
ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS
MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.
The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna. In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington. A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington's courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington's victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated. With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices. This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy - now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control. (See Sources #4 Below )
ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN (As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as "The City." It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.
A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as "The Crown." The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State. The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:
* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City. * All major British banks have their main offices in The City. * 385 foreign banks are located in The City. * 70 banks from the United States are located in The City. * The London Stock Exchange is located in The City. * Lloyd's of London is located in The City. * The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City. * Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City. * The London Metal Exchange is located in The City. * The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City. Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain's financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.
The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds' know for sureÝ (See Sources #5 Below )
Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.
Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England
Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange
Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby
Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery
In 1875, the Khedive of Egypt, forced by financial stringency, was anxious to sell his interest in the Suez Canal. Disraeli must have known of this at once through his friend and master Rothschild. A Mr. F. Greenwood, Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, received private advices that the shares might be acquired for England, and patriotically refusing to make a journalistic "scoop" of the information, hastened to Lord Derby with the news. Lord Derby consulted with his Hebrew Prime Minister, and the latter then bought the shares. Parliament was not sitting at the time, and Disraeli borrowed ¬£4,000,000 from his colleagues the Rothschilds, who made a profit of about ¬£500,000, which no doubt earned for Disraeli a considerable commission. It was, of course, to the Jewish interest that Britain should hold the Suez Canal (until the Jews got Palestine out of the Great War). Disraeli had written to the Queen saying, "We have scarcely time to breathe, we must carry the matter through." He was very, very anxious that Rothschilds should handle the loan! Now, read this extract from a letter from the Hon. G. M. Kinnaird to The Times dated 20th March, 1930.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild also funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and the De Beers diamond conglomerate. He succeeded him as General of the Society of the Elect and later administered Rhodes's estate after his death in 1902 and helped to set up the Rhodes Scholarship scheme at Oxford University. He worked as a partner in the London branch of the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons and became head of the bank after his father's death in 1879. During his tenure he also maintained its pre-eminent position in private venture finance and in issuing loans to the governments of the USA, Russia and Austria. Following the Rothschild's funding of the Suez Canal a close relationship was maintained with Benjamin Disraeli and affairs in Egypt and the Middle East.
Disclaimer Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files,
Highest Quality Live Programs