Thoughts on our circumstances...: The secret power behind the pirate City of London

Editor's note: This essay is worth revisiting. Why? Because the pirate City of London corporation ("the Square Mile") is a harvesting machine in this predator and prey ecosphere. The model of central banking is war. Start to distinguish the difference between the English and the British. The communist foot soldiers created in the City of London grafted onto and now destroying America today see nothing wrong here, nope, not at all. The state has credit. Distribution is effected by little pieces of paper. It's not that complicated.
________

1666 - The Year the Bankers Set Fire to London

By Donny Ahzmond

First published March 27, 2021

My working title doesn’t exactly bury the lede, so let's get right to it. The Great London Fire was the clandestine operation of the City of London's banking and business cabal, its purpose being 1) to divert public attention from the cabal’s legislative schemes and 2) to accelerate the national debt and ultimately achieve a "great reset" of the financial system. More on that later. The connection is almost too obvious to avoid, yet virtually every historian avoids it, since they are paid to. I'm not going to convince you by painstakingly unfolding the details of the event. My method will be much simpler and more convincing. All I need to do is show you the lasting financial and political impact of the fre and who were its beneficiaries, and it will become apparent that those same actors must have had a hand in its creation. Nowadays all history must be read backwards in this way, starting with effects to get at the cause, since we know that historical events are dominated by a very small cadre of actors, mostly bankers and other rogues from ancient lines.

Speaking of Bankers and Other Rogues, the first clue that sparked my interest in this topic came from a little book of that title by Alexander Del Mar. Del Mar was the Director of the Bureau of Statistics and the Mining Commissioner to the US Monetary Commission of 1876. Del Mar doesn’t say anything about the London free, but he does point our attention to the significance of the year 1666 for the banking system. In his own words:

From the remotest time to the seventeenth century of our era, the right to coin money and to regulate its value and by limiting or increasing the quantity of it in circulation, was the exclusive prerogative of the State. In 1604, in the celebrated case of the Mixed Moneys, this prerogative was affirmed under such extraordinary circumstances and with such an overwhelming array of judicial and forensic authority as to occasion alarm to the moneyed classes of England, who at once sought the means to overthrow it. These [means] they found in the demands of the East India Company, the corruption of Parliament, the profligacy of Charles II, and the influence of Barbara Villiers. The result was the surreptitious mint legislation of 1666: and thus a prerogative – which, next to the right of peace or war, is the most powerful instrument by which a State can influence the happiness of its subjects – was surrendered or sold for a song to a class of usurers, in whose hands it has remained ever since.

Del Mar goes on to detail exactly how this was done:

The object of the East India Company, their backers the landlords of England, their colleagues the goldsmiths of London, and their agents in Parliament…was: First, to remove the restriction upon the exportation of coins and bullion. Second, to get rid of the State seigniorage upon the coins. Third, to usurp the prerogative of coinage for themselves.

These objects they accomplished by means of separate measures… By this device the extent and importance of the alteration escaped attention.

In other words, by tucking the necessary language into separate pieces of legislation spread over many years, the British citizenry were kept in the dark about the full implications of these Parliamentary acts. Sound familiar? They use this same tactic to this very day. The first two goals were accomplished by the 1663 Staple Act, while the third and final nail was hammered in by the 1666 Coinage Act. The stated goal of these laws, as Wikipedia puts it, was "to facilitate the overseas operations of the charter companies." That's a delicate way of saying these laws essentially gave the East India Company completely unchecked freedom to import and export as much gold and silver as they wanted for their own proft, and even minting their own coins with the EIC logo rather than the royal English seal. Put simply, the EIC became its own sovereign nation, which has since proliferated into the all-powerful corporatocracies that shape our modern world.

Here is an Indian Half Anna from 1835. Notice the insignia looks like an official government seal; but it isn't. It's the crest of the EIC, which was a private, for-profit company. just like the Federal Reserve insignia printed on every U.S. bill looks like, but is not, an official government seal – since the Federal Reserve is an unregulated consortium of private, for-profit banks. The whole modern central banking system can be traced back to the EIC and its close associates in the goldsmith's guild, the peerage, and Parliament. The motto of the EIC (shown in abbreviated form on the coin) tells you as much: Auspicio Regis et Senatus Angliae. This is usually translated "by command of" or "under the authority of" the king and senate of England, but of course the literal translation is "under the auspices of". In case you don't know, that means with the support and approval of. Legally, it does not have to mean you are doing it for them or that you even answer to them. That means the entire country of India was not ruled by the British government but was in fact the property of a private corporation for over two centuries. (India is still owned by private interests, of course, unless you are naïve enough to believe its citizens actually gained "independence" in 1947.)

But the fact most pertinent to our topic is that 1666 marked the legislative replacement of sovereign money with private money in England, and only months before the Great London Fire. To understand how these events connect, let’s jump ahead to 1683, when the City of London Corporation defaulted on its loans. This is the first major default in modern history that is well-documented. I refer you to the research of Nathan Sussman. Here is his reconstruction of the City of London's financial situation:

This graph is worth a thousand words, as it clearly shows the cause and effect of the 1666 fire and the 1683 default. In case you didn't know, the City of London Corporation was not (and to this day is not) a government body, but a private, for-profit corporation as its name suggests. It was to land what the EIC was to sea. The City of London is essentially a sovereign nation located geographically within – but totally independent of – the political entity known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. As Sussman notes, it "enjoyed privileges and rights, especially lack of control by Parliament and lack of accountability to any other institution in England." Inside the City of London are the corporate headquarters of the banks and their various financial operations centers.

So, the Great Fire was directly responsible for the 1683 default of the City of London. So what? Well, the City of London's financial issues led to the Parliament initiating a Quo Warranto trial against it beginning in 1681. In other words, terminating its charter and thereby revoking its sovereignty. They accomplished this in June 1683. Sounds like a good thing, right? Except that revoking its sovereignty meant the Corporation was no longer a legal entity responsible for its debts. When it defaulted a few months later, there were no repercussions for any of its shareholders. No one went to jail and no one paid a dime. Who was hurt in all of this? The taxpayer, of course. Look at the previous graph again, and you’ll see the Corporation had been receiving government funding through the Orphan Fund, a.k.a. taxpayer money. And yes, the Orphan Fund was supposed to be going to orphans, not to rich capitalists and aristocrats. What's more:

The informed and wealthy managed to bail themselves out before default.

If you're lost at this point, let me unwind it for you. Rebuilding London after the Great Fire caused an explosion in the City of London Corporation's debts, forcing it to default 16 years later. But through some legal maneuvering none of its shareholders were ever held responsible for this unpaid debt, much of which was borrowed directly from the Treasury and the Orphans Fund. Of the remaining loans provided by private individuals, the average Joes were left holding the bag while the well-connected investors got all their money out in time.

But it gets worse. The default of the Corporation was only one of two major defaults precipitated by the Great Fire. The other was the default of the Crown itself in 1672, which triggered the Great Stop of the Exchequer. The king at this time was Charles II, a descendent of the northern crypto-Jewish Jagiellonian dynasty that Miles has formerly traced all through the royal lines of Europe.

Please go to Updates to continue reading. But then don't just read. Disengage anyway you can from the City of London corporation.
________

Here is a very good explanation of what is behind the pirate City of London. The secret power behind the City of London:

Esoteric history of the establishment of central banking (the private Bank of England established 1694) related to the ritual Battle of the Boyne involving Charles II discussed in the above essay. The ground work was prepared for the control of private money: