by David Astle
On November 12th, that same year, Charles was given the opportunity to escape. He was, of course, recaptured. Hollis and Ludlow, authorities on this chapter of history, are both on record as considering the flight as the stratagem of Cromwell. After Charles had been recaptured, events moved apace. Cromwell had the British Parliament purged of most of the members he knew were loyal to the King. Notwithstanding this drastic action, when the house sat all night on December 6th, 1648, the majority agreed ‘That the concessions offered by the king were satisfactory to a settlement.’
Any such settlement would have disqualified Cromwell from receiving the blood money promised him by the international money barons through their agent E. Pratt, so Cromwell struck again. He ordered Colonel Pryde to purge Parliament of those members who had voted in favour of a settlement with the King. What then happened is referred to in history books as ‘Pryde’s purge’.
When the purge was finished, fifty members remained. They are recorded as the ‘Rump Parliament’. They usurped absolute power. On January 30th, 1649, he was publicly beheaded in front of the banqueting house at Whitehall, London. Oliver Cromwell received his blood money just as Judas had done.”[230]
On the same somewhat obscure page of history, Professor Andreades pointed out in his History of the Bank of England,[231] that Cromwell’s best known historians pay little attention to the subject of his relations with the Jews and their return to England. Carlyle and Morley devoting no more than a page to this highly controversial event.[232] The reader gains the impression that more was to be said on the subject. He asserts himself: “It is certain that as soon as Charles I was dead, the Jews attempted to return to England.”[233]
The following statements by Benjamin Franklin in reference to the causes of the American Revolution are equally illuminating:
“About this time (the time of the Treaty of Paris, 1763), Benjamin Franklin made a visit to England. While there he was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions of the colonies. His reply was: ‘That is simple. It is only because in the colonies we issue our own money. It is called “Colonial Scrip” and we issue it in the proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry.’” (See Senate Document No. 23, Page 98, by Robert L. Owen,[234] former Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate.)
Robert L. Owen continues: “It was not very long until this information was brought to the Rothschild’s Bank, and they saw that here was a nation ready to be exploited; here was a nation setting up an example that they could issue their own money instead of the money coming through the Banks. The Rothschild’s Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English Parliament., therefore, which provided that no colony of England could issue its own money. They had to use English money. Consequently the colonies were compelled to discard their ‘scrip’ and mortgage themselves to the Bank of England (the Amsterdam Bullion Brokers!) to get money. For the first time in the history of the United States our money began to be based on debt.”
“Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed, because when England exchanged with them, she gave them only half as many units in payment in borrowed money from the Rothschild as they had in ‘scrip’. In other words, their circulating medium was reduced 50%, and everyone became unemployed according to Benjamin Franklin’s own statement.”
Continuing the quote from Senate Document No. 23: “Mr. Franklin went further than that. He said that this was the original cause of the revolutionary war. In his own language: ‘The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction’.”[235]
The French Revolution, so called, left much less evidence of its origins than the so-called Russian Revolution 120 years later, though the instigating factor is clear enough. The French Revolution by Nesta Webster, The Life of Napoleon by Sir Walter Scott, almost unobtainable, and above all the chapters in God and the Goldsmiths by McNair Wilson, on Napoleon Bonaparte, give some light on this matter. A study of Louis XV and his relations to the Pâris Brothers, the state tax farmers, especially through Madame Du Pompadour, formerly Poisson, possibly illegitimate child of Pâris Duverney and god-daughter of Pâris Monmartel, yields impressions. The writings of Necker, front man for the international bankers of the time, and who Mirabeau described as “the Hero who arrived by famine” should be read, and also the writings of Turgot, finance Minister to Louis XVI, who fought against Necker and the evil fraternity behind him, and who nicely summed up the situation in his first memorandum to Louis XVI as follows:
“So long as finance shall be continually subject to the old expedients in order to provide for state services, your Majesty will always be dependent on financiers, and they ever will be the masters, and by the manoeuvres belonging to their trade they will frustrate the most important operations. Thus the government can never feel itself at ease, it can never be acknowledged as able to sustain itself, because the discontents and impatience of the people are always the means made use of by intriguing and ill-disposed men in order to excite disturbance.”[236]
Clearly the Minister Turgot was a man of sincerity and integrity, a true God-servant, and the fact that it was only after prolonged scheming on the part of the international bankers, who mostly lived outside of France, that he was dismissed,[237] would suggest that his master also sought to do that which he was borne to do, that is, love, guide, and protect the people. But neither master nor man understood the strength of the undercurrents which flowed, nor, it is to be feared, the true meaning of l’etat c’est moi! which in essence means “I am the fount of Life. I am that point through which the Almighty God injects your money amongst you that binds you together as one. I, and no other; not my steward, nor servant, faithful or unfaithful.”
The men of intrigue he referred to, were such stewards, the international bankers. These men, standing behind thrones intercepted that God-Power from on high which was the force behind l’etat c’est moi!, and, controlling the value of money of whatever kind, and therefore international price levels, with responsibility only to them and theirs, confused the nations with their sly schemes of fatuous purpose.
The instigating factor of the Russian Revolution so-called is common knowledge and is detailed in a hundred books. Perhaps one of the best sources of information relating to the financing of the same Russian “Revolution” is the book Czarism and Revolution written by Arsene De Goulévitch, a former officer of the Czar’s army and founder of the Union for the Defence of Oppressed Peoples.
According to information deriving from the French Secret Service, one of the principal sources of finances for the International Revolutionary Movement prior to 1917, was Jacob Schiff of the International banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, based in New York City. It was recorded that twelve million dollars had been donated to the revolutionaries by Schiff, in the years preceding the war of 1914-1918. This fact is apparently confirmed and amplified from sources other than the French Secret Service.[238]
The main funds for the so called “Revolution” and towards the steps which led up to it, do not appear to have come from that class of nouveau riche bred into being in Russia out of the activities over the previous 50 years, of the joint stock banks, and the men such as Sawa Morozov, and Tereschenko,[239] the socialistic sugar magnate. The extensive funds so necessary towards the effective disruption of a major state appear to have come from certain British and American circles, which it seems, had been lending their support to the Russian revolutionary “cause,” for a long time. In his book, My Life, Trotsky speaks of a large loan granted in 1907 by a “Financier” belonging to the so-called “Liberal” Party in Britain. This particular “British” financier was apparently not alone in his monetary support of the “Revolution” in Russia.[240]
The conduct of Jacob Schiff, previously mentioned, towards Czarist Russia, once he was instal
led as head of the New York “International Banking” firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, was that of an apparently unyielding enemy. References to his anti-czarist activities exist in the book by Cyrus Adler: Jacob Schiff, his Life and Letters.[241]
Further verification of the activities of Jacob Schiff is afforded by the New York “Journal American” of February 3rd, 1949; a time when pro-revolutionary activities were “The Thing” in New York City:[242] “today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000.00 for the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”[243] According to Goulévitch (p. 231), various other persons well known in the world of international banking, whatever the expression “International Banking” might mean,[244] were also known to be associated with support of revolutionary activities. The ruin to the states of the world set on foot by these immensely rich, but otherwise trifling persons, whose solidarity, however, had enabled them to so profit from the unbelievable expansion of the use of Ledger Credit Page Entry Money in the Anglo-Saxon banking systems, could not better demonstrate the absurdity of allowing private, and therefore irresponsible, persons to exercise that power which should belong to the gods alone, the power inherent in the creation and issuance of the Unit of Exchange amongst the peoples.
In a speech made six weeks before the fall of the Kerensky Government, Lenin made one of his most significant recommendations and perhaps the one most suggestive of the possibility of his sincerity, even if in the rest he seems to have been misguided. It was the one recommendation most indicative of his awareness of the deep-seated causes of the conditions that had given rise to himself and what he stood for. Additional to proposing nationalization of the great monopolies already existing in Russia, (primarily as the result of the admission of joint-stock banking into the country as concession to the victors of the Crimean war), above all he recommended the total nationalization of banking. In his own words he says: “all banks to be merged into one and the state control its operations, that is the nationalization of the banks.”
“To talk about regularization of banks,” continues Lenin, “means either to betray complete ignorance, or to fool the simple folk with high sounding words, to control the delivery of bread, or in general, the production and distribution of goods, without controlling banking practices, is an absurdity (Collected Works [1964], vol. 25, p. 329).[245]
Of course, six weeks later, when Lenin had physically seized power with the aid of his “armed bandits,” it was a small matter to set up printing presses in the major cities in Russia that commenced to pour off paper roubles by the billion. Some fourteen or fifteen thousand workers were busily engaged in the government printing shops of Moscow, Leningrad, Penza, Perm, and Rostov-on-Don, turning out tons upon tons of paper money. The printing of notes was simplified to a point where counterfeiting became easy.[246]
At the same time safety deposit boxes were seized, all accounts frozen and the banks were closed, so that there was no addition to the circulation existing outside of banks at the start of this “operation,” a great part of which circulation would have been gold; and no new money came on the scene other than the paper roubles of the Bolsheviki printing presses which immediately took the place of that Ledger Credit Page Money by manipulation of which the banks had previously controlled a great deal of trade.
For a year or two the Monarchist roubles were printed as if there was intention to keep the people half expecting that the Czar would be coming back, then for a short while a ‘Kerenki’ rouble was printed, presumably issue of the short lived Kerensky government, as if to prepare the people for total resignation, and then finally, the Bolsheviki rouble which let the people know that all was indeed lost. This continuing the money of a destroyed king seems to have been no new policy of international money power, especially in the case of those kings, its particular enemies. An illustration of which, occurring in ancient times, was the continued minting at the Sardis mint of the sigloi of Croesus long after he had been destroyed. The printing press money of the Russian Revolution entered the circulation against government expenditures and against gold coin which it became illegal to possess, no doubt being accompanied by an equal amount of counterfeit, also exchanged against gold.
These vigorous moves must have been cause for some misgivings amongst the bankers who continued to finance the “Revolution” so far as went Bolsheviki needs in foreign exchange. But no doubt so closely surrounded was Lenin by their agents,[247] they would have been justified in reasoning that they would come out on top again without too much trouble, especially with the new roubles being so easy to counterfeit. And during that period of the so-called “New Economic Policy,” approximately 1920-24, they did so come out on top.
In the archives of the State Publishers of Moscow is recorded the following eulogy to the printing press as being as great a force in the so-called revolution as armies:
“Paper money of the Soviet Republic gave support to the young regime at the most critical period of its existence when there was no possibility of raising direct taxes to meet the outlays of the civil war. Hail to our printing press! It is true that its days are numbered but it has already completed three quarters of its work. In the archives of the proletarian revolution along with the cannon, rifles, and machine guns of our epoch that vanquished the enemies of the proletariat, the place of honour will be given to the printing press, the machine gun of the commissariat of finance that poured fire into the rear of the bourgeois system and that made use of the laws of currency and circulation of that regime for the purpose of destroying it, and of financing the revolution.”[248]
Typically enough the “Tyrant” himself, Vladimir I. Lenin, saw little or no profit out of all this, for himself, the Russian people, or that ideal of world revolution in which it appears he sincerely believed. If he truly was the author of the above statements regarding banking, then, when he died not so long after all these events, it was as a weary and disillusioned man. For that gold, still very much the base for total control of world finance, which was wrung from the Russian people during the period of terror between 1917 and 1922, seems to have almost all found its way back to the “Benefactors” of the original revolutionaries, Messrs. Kuhn, Loeb, and Company of New York (Jacob Schiff’s firm), and it must have been clear to Lenin by the time he died in 1924 that he was but agent of a force that regarded him as merely another tool to be used towards the making of that which they designed.
“Mr. Bakhmetiev, the late Russian Imperial Ambassador to the United States, tells us that the Bolsheviks, after victory, transferred 600 million roubles in gold between the years 1918 and 1922, to Kuhn, Loeb, and Company (Schiff’s firm)”[249] which makes pretty good return for the mere 20,000,000 dollars granted by the philanthropic Mr. Schiff and which would have been as credits against purchases at that!
At that time such amount of gold could be used to form the apex of an inverted pyramid of abstract money equal in amount to beyond thirty times the number of units such gold represented in U.S. currency according to its official price.
Potsherds and other fragments
The glimpse at these cataclysmic events of relatively modern times, as in the previous chapter, will assist towards understanding of the implications of similar events in ancient times of which but the most fragmentary information exists. As was written three thousand years ago: “Is there anything whereof it may be said; See this is new? It hath been already of old time which was before us.”[250]
So returning to that smaller world of ancient days, the theme of this book, it may safely be said that similar conspiracy and secret manoeuvre led up to all that fast changing sequence of social events that clearly followed a definite design, in Attica; particularly from the collapse of hereditary kingship in 683 B.C.; which date marks, it most reasonably may be assumed, the commencement of rule by Money Creative Power either international or home grown. A king created annually by vote has even less chance of ruling effectively than the so-called presidents of today, elective
kings as they really are, though sorry enough spectacles some of them may be, and who have as much as five years to serve the purposes of whoever they front for.
Some writers dismiss the idea of a capitalism in antiquity, but accepting definition of capitalism as the condition of the unrestricted promotion of human activity through the instrument of the driving force of that power of creation, and loan against collateral, and at interest, of the unit of exchange, or of promises of the unit of exchange as denoted by Ledger Credit Page Entry, and which function as the same thing in exchanges between persons dealing with the same banker or interlocked system of banks, very little analysis of the circumstances that gave rise to the tyrants will show that a form of “capitalism” did exist, even if more local in character, and restricted to the individual city, or state, as a rule. The tyrant was front man towards the total monetization of the state, the land and its labour, and towards the transfer of that independent labour formerly firmly placed in the Natural Order of God-Life, to a condition of dependence on a wage of money, directed towards being able to keep on living as with the notion of being a free man.
Today we but repeat the mistakes of the past; however today it is not merely disaster to a small city or state and its way of life, but with the existing refinement of that which can only be described as the money swindle as it was conducted in ancient times by the trapezitae at their bench in the market place, made possible by mass paper manufacture and the printing press, and the enormous potentialities therein towards quickening the speed and drive of human life and endeavour, it almost certainly will prove to be, one way or another, total disaster, and to all mankind.
Those lines of Solon say enough: