Invading Britain: Then and Now, It Always Comes Down to Treachery! Part 3

William Finck's program notes follow (other resources are linked below):

A HISTORY OF THE MONEY CHANGERS, by Andrew Hitchcock

1558 Queen Elizabeth I succeeds Queen Mary I, her half sister, to the throne in England. During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I decided that in order to wrest control of the money supply she would have to issue her own gold and silver coins. She did this through the public treasury and successfully took control of the money supply from the money changers.

1609 The money changers in the Netherlands establish the first central bank in history, in Amsterdam.

1642 Oliver Cromwell is financed by the money changers for the purposes of fomenting a revolution in England, and allowing them to take control of the money system again. After much bloodshed, Cromwell finally purges the parliament, overthrows King Charles I and puts him to death in 1649.

The money changers immediately consolidate their power and for the next few decades plunge Great Britain into a costly series of wars. They also take over a square mile of property in the center of London which becomes known as the City of London.

1688 The money changers in England following a series of squabbles with the Stuart Kings, Charles II (1660 - 1685) and James II (1685 - 1688), conspire with their far more successful money changing counterparts in the Netherlands, who had already set up a central bank there.

They decide to finance an invasion by William of Orange of Netherlands who they sound out and establish will be more favorable to them. The invasion is successful and William of Orange ascends to the throne in England as King William III in 1689.

1694 Following a costly series of wars over the last 50 years, English Government officials go, cap in hand, to the money changers for loans necessary to pursue their political purposes. The money changers agree to solve this problem in exchange for a government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money created out of nothing.

This was deceptively named the, "Bank of England," for the sole purpose of duping the general public into believing it was part of the government, which it was not.

Like any other private corporation the Bank of England sold shares to get started. The private investors, whose names were never revealed, were supposed to put up £1,250,000 in gold coins to buy their shares in the bank, but only £750,000 was ever received. Despite that the bank was duly chartered and began loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest.

Although the Bank of England's private investors were never revealed, one of the Directors, William Paterson, stated, “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”

Furthermore the Bank of England would loan government officials as much of the new currency as they wanted, as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the British people. The Bank of England amounted to nothing less than the legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain, and thus any country that would fall under the control of a private bank would amount to nothing more than a plutocracy.

Soon after the Bank of England was formed it attacked the talley stick system, as it was money outside of the power of the money changers, just as King Henry I had intended it to be.

________________________ 

The primary players in our discussion today are Charles II, James II, William III of Orange, and the Jews. Some further background is necessary, because as we tried to elucidate in our discussion of Oliver Cromwell, there was much division in England between Protestants and Catholics, and the Jews took full advantage of this situation in order to gain the advantage. We shall discuss all of this a little later on, but in the meantime this immediate background from mainstream sources will be sufficient to acquaint us with the main characters:

Charles II was born in 1630, and restored in 1649 after the death of Cromwell. James II, his brother, was 3 years younger. Both were born to Charles I and the Catholic Henrietta Maria of France. His grandmother was Marie de Medici, so Identity Christians should perceive that his bloodline is questionable.

Upon his restoration Charles II was very kind to the Jews, and granted many charters of naturalization. He also, allegedly upon their advice, had married a Portuguese princess, Catherine of Braganza who came to London with many more Jews in her entourage, and a dowry which consisted mostly of Jewish debts. He had no children with her, but is said to have had at least 15 children with perhaps a dozen or so different mistresses. He died in early 1685 at age 54, and poison was suspected although it is doubted today.

In 1670, Charles II entered into a secret alliance with his cousin Louis XIV, who helped him in the war against the Dutch, and supposedly Charles is said to have secretly promised to convert to Catholicism. In 1672 he sought religious freedom for Catholics and Protestant dissenters in England with a Royal Declaration of Indulgence, which the Parliament then forced him to withdraw. In 1679 came the Exclusion Crisis when it was found that Charles's brother and heir, James II, was a Catholic. The crisis caused the formation of the Whig party, which was pro-exclusion, and the Tory party, which was anti-exclusion. Of course, Charles sided with the Tories, and after the discovery of a plot to murder both Charles and James in 1683, some Whig leaders were executed or forced into exile. Charles dissolved the English Parliament in 1681, and ruled alone until his death on 6 February 1685, where he is said to have converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.

The brother of Charles, the Catholic James II, ruled for 3 years and 10 months, until he was deposed in the so-called Glorious Revolution in December of 1688. In April of that year, James re-issued his brother's Declaration of Indulgence, and in June his newly born son and heir was baptized a Catholic. Religious tensions increased, bishops were tried for sedition, and a group of British nobles communicating with William III of Orange invited him to invade and overthrow the Stuart King. James II allegedly turned down help from his cousin Louis XIV, being confident of victory, but when William III invaded James had instead suffered defeat and capture. William then allowed him to escape to France, where he lived out his life under a pension provided by Louis.

However William III had asked the British nobles for the invitation to invade England. William III was James' son-in-law and cousin, and had designs on the English throne for several years. The circumstances of James' reign gave him the opportunity. One of the seven nobles was Sir Thomas Osbourne, as Earl of Danby. He was later the First Duke of Leeds. During the reign of Charles II, it was Osbourne who had helped end the Dutch war, and promoted the marriage of Mary, the daughter of Charles' brother James (who was Duke of York while his brother ruled), to William III, which happened in 1677. Several writers depict Osbourne, a life-long politician and bureaucrat, as a quite nefarious figure in several ways, and a very corrupt administrator.

But all of this was a part of a greater struggle at the time between Catholics and Protestants on the continent, and Protestant princes against the Catholic Kings of France and Spain. Here is a brief synopsis from an article online entitled Calvinism and Arminianism:

It was Charles V who presided over the Diet of Worms, and who, at its convening, intended to have Martin Luther burnt at the stake for heresy…. Charles V's son, Philip II succeeded him and sought to outdo his father in exterminating the heretics from Netherlands. In 1568, he sanctioned a sentence, passed by the Inquisition of Madrid, which included the whole population of the Netherlands in the crime of treason against God and the King. The chief Inquisitor was zealous to carry out the sentence, remarking: "His majesty had rather see all his territories deserted and uncultivated, than to suffer one heretic to remain in them." The inquisition in the Netherlands grew in intensity, as it did in France, but despite this, the number of Protestant Christians grew. Under the leadership of William of Orange [brother of William III's great-great grandfather], the northern provinces [of the Netherlands] revolted against this bloodthirsty tyranny and gained independence, forming a federation in 1579.

In my ongoing series on Martin Luther at Christogenea, it has been shown that Martin Luther would never have gotten anywhere without the assistance of the German humanists, and that the German humanists were always friendly and had even been staunch defenders of the religious liberties of the Jews. So here we have William of Orange, and Oliver Cromwell before him, who were also allies of the Jews. While it is true that the Stuart kings were friendly to the Jews, the Jews themselves had been much better accepted, and deem to have been granted much greater liberties, under the Protestants. At this very time, Catholics in Spain and France were persecuting Jews, and the Jews were supporting the Protestants. The Protestants seem to have been willing partners with the Jews because Protestants were also the target of the Inquisition.

This is the two-edged sword. We appreciate our Protestant heritage, which freed us from the tyranny of the Medieval Catholic Church. However the Protestants being in league with the Jews we are now under a tyranny of the Jewish Central Banking system. We went from one tyrant to another, and thinking that we are free, we are only slaves to a different master. Because of the victory of Protestantism over the Roman Church, not all writers aware of Jewish treachery are even hostile to William III. An example is John Beaty, who in his book “Iron Curtain Over America”, writes “The Hohenzollern monarchy was the strongest Protestant power on the continent and its relations with the governments of both England and America were intimate and friendly. The royal family of England several times married into the Prussian dynasty. Frederick William II of Brandenburg-Prussia, later to be Frederick, first King of Prussia (see preceding paragraph) helped William of England of Orange, the archenemy of Louis XIV of France, to land in England, where he became (1688) co-sovereign with his wife, Mary Stuart, and a friend and helper of the American colonies.”

I have a passage from a book written by a Protestant minister in New York in the late 1890's whose name was Madison Peters, and it is called “Justice to the Jew”. The entire book is a grovelling panegyric applauding the Jews for all of their wonderful contributions to society, as if we would have accomplished nothing without the devils. In it he says:

With the settlement in the seventeenth century of the Spanish and Portuguese exiles in Amsterdam and Hamburg began the prosperity of those cities. Isaac Suaso, created Baron Avernes de Gras, advanced two million guilders to William of Orange when he went to England to seek the crown, saying: “If you succeed you will repay me; if not I shall lose it.” Francesco Melo assisted the State of Holland with his wealth, while De Pinto left several millions for charitable purposes, not only to Jewish institutions but to the State, to Christian orphan- ages and to priests. The Texeiras and Daniel Abenser of Hamburg advanced money to the King of Poland, while Solomon de Medina, the London merchant, was knighted by Queen Anne.

So even Protestant so-called pastors who worship the Jews (as Madison Peters is certainly a type of ptoto-Hagee) agree that revolution in Europe was financed by Jews, although they do not perceive the evil.

The following is from the book, Deadlier Than The H-Bomb, by Leonard Young. The author joined the Royal Engineers in 1919 and ended his career as a commander in the RAF in 1945. The subject of the book is the destruction of Britain under the thumb of the Jewish bankers.

Chapter 4, The Jews in Britain

THE JEWS now come into the British story. In 1066 when William of Normandy came to England he had Jews in his train. It is pretty certain that these Jews would have been responsible for the idea of compiling the Doomsday Book in order to acquire a complete inventory of the country to give information to guide them in exploiting it by means of usurious money-lending.

They became unpopular with the English but appear to have stayed in the country under the protection of successive kings who probably found them useful for revenue purposes until, in 1290, that great king and man of vision, Edward I, decided that it was necessary to expel them from the country for many grave offences endangering the safety of his realm and lieges. Twenty years later, Edward II suppressed the Knights Templar who were the bankers of the period and also the ancestors of Freemasonry. As a result England was prosperous during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries and was known as `Merrie England'.

Later the Jews were also expelled from France, the Knights Templar having also been suppressed, as in England. The result in France was also great prosperity until the end of the 18th century when the secret societies and Ashkenazim Jews ruined it with the French Revolution. After that the Jews got a grip on the country and it has been in trouble ever since. A study of Nesta Webster's books on Secret Societies and Subversive Movements and The French Revolution are of the greatest importance in connection with this. They are a most exhaustive study of the subject and one which is essential to our understanding of what is going on in the world. One slight criticism of Mrs. Webster's work is that she does not seem to have realised the anti-Christian significance of British Masonry or its real connection behind the scenes with other secret societies, such as Grand Orient.

It would probably astonish at least 99 per cent of British Freemasons to be told that it is anti-Christian and, in essence, Judaic. The vast majority just become Masons and leave it at that. They have no understanding of fundamental values and do not think of investigating. Most of them join because they have been told it is a good thing and that it will help them in their trade or profession. But, unlike all other secret societies it is, in the final resort, under Jewish control and can therefore be used to exert influence on men in all walks of life and usually in leading positions, to take courses which are designed to lead, in the long run, to the destruction of Gentile and, in particular, of British and Nordic power and prestige and the eventual complete domination of the world by the Sanhedrin, or the inner ring of international financiers, or the Elders of Zion — or whatever you like to call the body of about 300 men referred to by Disraeli and Walter Rathenau.

Investigation shows that movements like Theosophy, Grand Orient, Free-masonry, Illuminism, The Templars, Rosicrucians, etc., derive their ideas from the Jewish Cabala. It is true that many of the leading lights in these movements have been Gentiles. In fact Adam Weishaupt, the Bavarian Illuminist, seems to have been the chief architect of the modern secret society movements, but the control in all cases eventually passes into the hands of the Sanhedrin. In fact, in the final analysis, it all comes from Satan, as is proved by the black magic basis although, normally, this is only known to the most secret and advanced adepts. It is to be noted that the works of these secret societies never advance but are always detrimental to the Nordic peoples. They are always against individual and national sovereignty. On the other hand they always work to further destructive purposes by means of Nihilism, Socialism or Communism. Also, they are always in favour of World Jewry purposes and were, for some time, of Pan-Germanism, because Germany was the base of the Jew financiers and Pan-Germanism was a means of greatly weakening the Nordic peoples and of spreading the chaos necessary for the breeding of Communism.

It has been stated above that the Reformation was really the result in England of the age-long resistance of the British Church to Roman domination but this does not mean that Britain was not influenced in any way by the Continental movements of Luther and Calvin. Calvin went to Geneva from France where his name was spelt Cauin, possibly a French effort to spell Cohen. The Jews claim that he was of Jewish extraction. An unfortunate result of his efforts, as far as Britain was concerned, was that he organised great numbers of revolutionary orators who were spread about western Europe, with a good sprinkling in England and Scotland. These men laid the ground-work for revolution under a cloak of religious fervour.

It should be noted that this religious fervour did not show much of the love of Christ. It was much more inclined to display the rigid legalism of Mosaic Law and of the influence of The Talmud and to contract all religion into rigid observance of the "Sabbath", a Jewish ordinance and regarded as such by Calvin. In fact it was more like Judaism than Christianity. And Judaism, be it remembered, was based on The Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch and inculcated a spirit teaching that all non-Jews are animals.

Although they had been expelled, it is clear that the Jews retained, or in time regained, contacts in England because, during the reign of Charles I, they organised the English Revolution by similar methods to those used later to organise the French Revolution. In both cases the revolutions were brought about by the activities of secret societies and the use of "mobs", organised and paid from behind-the-scenes in London and Paris respectively. In the case of Paris, at least, the men who made up the ruffian crowd were definitely imported into Paris for the purpose.

Cromwell was financed by the Amsterdam Jewish Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel and Fernandez Carvajal, "The Great Jew" as he was called, was the chief contractor of the New Model Army. It was the Jews who insisted upon and had the power to bring about, through the control of money, the `execution' — in fact, murder — of Charles I, in order then to be able to regain admission to England which they did, illegally, under Cromwell.

The "Levellers" and the "Rationalists" in the army had the same doctrines as the French Revolutionaries and they were what we, today, know as Communists. The evidence for all this is available from Jewish sources, e.g.: the writing of Isaac Disraeli (father of Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield); the writings of Benjamin himself and in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which fell into Gentile hands in 1897 and in which is the sentence: "Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was entirely the work of our hands."

But Cromwell, even with the assistance of his Geneva sympathisers, dispensing Judaic barbarity, failed to subdue Scotland where Charles II was still called King. It is of interest that Charles accepted the Presbyterian form of Christianity for Scotland and that this form is probably more like the old British Church than that of any other kind in modern times. Steadily the feeling in England came round to the Scottish point of view and, on Cromwell's death, all Britain welcomed the restoration of Charles II.

Unfortunately, Charles had no idea of the Jewish problem or plans. The wisdom and experience of Edward I had become lost in centuries of segregation from the Jewish poison. And the enemies of kingship were now entrenched within his kingdom. Charles was, however, aware of the dangers of a "Popish Plot" cry and worked against it but, with the accession of James II the Jews developed propaganda against the Papacy and got the people divided on it, while, under cover of it, plans were prepared for placing the control of finances of both England and Scotland in their hands.

The chief figure amongst those who deserted James at the crucial moment was John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, this duke, for many years, received not less than £6,000 a year from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.

For further evidence on what is said above, reference should be made to The Nameless War by the late Capt. A.H.M. Ramsay M.P., Nesta Webster's books and Isaac Disraeli's two volume Life of Charles I, published in 1851, and referred to by Ramsay.

Here we shall present a different Jewish source which corroborates Leonard Young, which is a Jewish Encyclopedia article on England (click here for a screenshot if the page disappears) written by a Jew named Joseph Jacobs and available on the internet. The source is quite candid in many aspects concerning the readmission of the Jews to England.

William III., though it is reported that he was assisted in his descent upon England by a loan of 2,000,000 gulden from Antonio Lopez Suasso, afterward Baron Avernes de Gras [William III later made him a “baron”], did not interfere when in 1689 some of the chief Jewish merchants of London were forced to pay the duty levied on the goods of aliens; though he refused a petition from Jamaica to expel the Jews. His tenure of the throne, however, brought about a closer connection between the London and the Amsterdam communities, and thus aided in the transfer of the center of European finance from the Dutch to the English capital. [The project which was initiated under Cromwell. The fact that it continued more fervently after his death proves that Cromwell was not the plan's true author.] Early in the eighteenth century the Jewish community of London comprised representatives of the chief Jewish financiers of northern Europe, including the Mendez da Costas, Abudientes, Salvadors, Lopezes, Fonsecas, and Seixas. A small German contingent had arrived and established a synagogue in 1692; but they were of little consequence, and did not figure in the relations between the Jews and the government. The utility of the larger Jewish merchants was recognized. Marlborough in particular made great use of the services of Sir Solomon de Medina, and indeed was publicly charged with taking an annual subvention from him. These merchants are estimated to have brought into the country a capital of £1,500,000, which had increased by the middle of the century to é5,000,000. As early as 1723 a special act of Parliament was passed which permitted them to hold land on condition of their taking oath when registering their title; they were allowed to omit the words "upon the faith of a Christian." Some years later (1740) an act was passed permitting Jews who had resided in the British colonies for a period exceeding seven years to become naturalized (13 Geo. II., cap. 7). Shortly afterward a similar bill was introduced into the Irish Parliament, where it passed the Commons in 1745and 1746, but failed to pass the Irish Peers in 1747; it was ultimately dropped. Meanwhile, during the Jacobite insurrection of 1745 the Jews had shown particular loyalty to the government. Their chief financier, Samson Gideon, had strengthened the stock market, and several of the younger members had volunteered in the corps raised to defend London. (Click here for the screenshot in case the page disappears.)

After the Amsterdam Jews had successfully financed the rebellion against James II in 1689, the chief of them, Solomon Medina, followed William of Orange to England. The result was to bring about a closer connection between the London and Amsterdam Jewish communities and the transfer of the centre of finance from the Dutch to the English capital. According to Benjamin Disraeli its practice in England has been equally injurious. (Sybil, Book 1.)

The real objective of the "Glorious Revolution" was achieved in 1694 when the Royal consent was given for the setting up of the Bank of "England" and the institution of the National Debt. This Charter handed over to an anonymous and private committee the Royal prerogative of creating money and converted the basis of wealth to gold. The money thus created was "negative money", a book entry, a debt which, by virtue of the mechanism itself could never be repaid. The Charter enabled the international money-lenders to secure their loans on the taxes of the country instead of on the doubtful undertaking of some ruler or potentate which was all the security they could previously obtain.

From then on economic machinery was set in motion which ultimately reduced all wealth to the fictitious terms of gold which the Jews control and drained away the life-blood of the land which was the birthright of the British peoples.

Shortly afterwards the political and economic union of England and Scotland was forced on Scotland with wholesale corruption and, in defiance of the adverse vote of every county and borough. The main objects of the Union, suppression of the Royal Mint in Scotland and Scottish responsibility, too, for the National "Debt", were then achieved. The grip of the money-lenders was now complete throughout Great Britain but there was a danger that the members of the new Joint Parliament might, in time, in the spirit of their ancestors, challenge this.

So, to provide against this, the party system was brought into being, thus frustrating true national reaction and enabling the wire-pullers to divide and rule. The financiers used their newly-established power to ensure that their own men and their own policies should secure the limelight and that they should have sufficient support from their newspapers, pamphlets and banking accounts to carry the day. This state of affairs is still in full blast today.

As Capt. Ramsay points out, gold was soon to become the basis of loans, ten times the size of the amount deposited. That is £100 in gold would be legal security for £1,000 of loans. At 3 per cent therefore, £100 in gold could earn £30 interest annually with no more trouble to the lender than the keeping of a few ledger entries. The owner of £ 100 of land, however, must still work every hour of the day-light in order to make perhaps 4 per cent. It is inevitable that money-lenders must become millionaires and those who own and work the land, the Englishman and Scotsman, must be ruined. The process has continued inexorably till now, when it is nearly completed. It has been hypocritically camouflaged by clever propaganda as `helping the poor by mulching the rich'. In reality it is nothing of the kind. In the main it has been the deliberate ruination of the landed classes, the leaders among the Gentiles and their supplanting by the Jew financiers and their hangers-on.

The Whig philosophy, descended from Calvinism and other Puritan movements, is always the attack of the black-coated theorist on the practical man, such as the farmer, the sailor, the engineer and the pioneer. Basically it denies personal initiative and judgements and substitutes a set of transcendental values incapable of and, indeed, almost resenting any attempt at proof. Once this is understood, it becomes clear how the philosophy is essential to the supremacy of the financial system and those who control it. What appear to be failures of policy are really the greatest successes. Words become reversed. Stealing is a crime but unnecessary taxation is statesmanship.

With the return of the Jews, Freemasonry also started and developed to such an extent that the country is now riddled with it, particularly in the higher grades of Government Service and the Church of England.

- End of quote from Deadlier than the H-Bomb