Translate

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Who Owns The Bank Of England?



"The essence of the contemporary monetary system is creation of money,out of nothing, by private banks"Martin Wolf,Financial Times,9th November 2010. quoted by www.positivemoney.org.uk

LATEST UPDATE - banks directors named

You ask the question, Who Owns The Bank Of England? to one thousand Britons, and I kid you not, all of them will say that it is owned by the Government.

They would be wrong.

The Bank Of England was originally a private bank, which contracted to lend money to the British Government in a financial crisis. It was privately owned at its foundation and remained so until the post-war Labour government nationalised it in 1946.

So it is owned by the government?

No.

Here is how Wikipedia explains it.


In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited, (BOEN), a private limited company, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are:- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”

Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.” The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act.


In other words, you and I are not allowed to know who the shareholders are who own the company which carries out Central Banking in the UK. Some people say that Mandelson's buddies, the Rothschilds are major shareholders. Also the Queen. But the information is secret. We are not allowed to know.

But what would surprise everybody is that the Bank Of England, which is entitled to issue cash, then lend it and charge interest to the government, is still essentially a private business.

What would also surprise people is so is the Federal Reserve of America a privately owned bank, and all central banks of the world, including the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland, which is the Central Banks' clearing house.

(For a history of central banking - http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2010/12/remember-1920s-easy-loans-big-debts.html)

If the One World Government actually had an address, this would be part of it - the B.I.S, another privately owned bank, the central bankers' central bank, beyond the control of democracy or government, able to influence events secretly from behind the scenes. One thing is for sure is that in times of financial crisis, these central banking networks become supremely powerful, as those like Gordon Brown allow their countries to become effectively indebted to the point of loss of control.

The people wielding this power see the world's financial crisis as their moment of opportunity to seize greater power. The scary part of that is that hardly a living soul even knows they exist. Now that's real power.

What's all this about?

Professor Carroll Quigley wrote a book on who ruled the the USA and Britain between 1870 and 1960, called Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time.  His publisher MacMillan, was taken over as they first published his book, and the plates and the manuscript were destroyed.  But not before a handful of them had been sold.  In this book, Professor Quigley wrote  -

The power of the Bank Of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers.  In January 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been Chancellor Of The Exchequer in 1915-1916, as Chairman of the Board of The Midland Bank, told its stockholder:"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow in their hands the destiny of the people."


Quigley also wrote -

..the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole."


Another book continues the story, Secret Records Revealed  by Dr Dennis Cuddy -

On August 5th 1995, the New York Times published an article by Keith Bradsher, in which he wrote -
In a small Swiss city sits an international organisation so obscure and secretive...Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: the heads of thirty-two central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars at the stroke of a pen."


On June 28th 1998, The Washington Post published an article about the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) titled, "At Secret Meetings in Switzerland, 13 people shape the world's economy", which described these individuals as "this economic cabal...this secretive group...the financial barons who control the world's supply of money."


Quigley again -

Each Central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."


They are not all Jewish by the way.

Dr Stan Monteith in The Brotherhood Of Darkness (Anomolos) writes -

Anti-Semitism is a smokescreen created to conceal the identity of the true enemy.


He explains that the objective of the secretive groups is to bring about the surrender of sovereignty and of national independence.

THE BANK OF ENGLAND AND THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

The Bank of England has played a prominent role in American history -- without it, the United States would not exist.

The American colonists considered themselves loyal Englishmen to a man, but when they began to enjoy unequalled prosperity by printing and circulating their own Colonial scrip, the stockholders of the Bank of England went to George III and informed him that their monopoly of interest-bearing notes in the colonies was at stake. He banned the scrip, with the result that there was an immediate depression in the commercial life of the Americas. This was the cause of the Rebellion; as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, the little tax on tea, amounting to about a dollar a year per American family, could have been borne, but the colonists could not survive the banning of their own money.


Early descriptions of the shareholders of the Bank of England identify them as "a Society of about 1300 persons". They included the King and Queen of England, who received shares to the value of 10,000 pounds each; Marlborough, who invested 10,000 pounds -- he also invested large sums from his "commissions" in the East India Co. in 1697, and later became Governor of the Hudson Bay Company, which paid a 75% dividend; Lord Shrewsbury, who invested 10,000 pounds; Godolphin, who invested 7000 pounds -- he predicted that the Bank of England would not only finance trade, but would carry the burden of her wars, which was proven true in the next three hundred years. Virginia Cowles writes, in "The Great Marlborough": "England emerged from the war as the dominant force, because the Bank of England's credit system enabled her to bear the burden of war without undue strain."

WASP

FACTS ABOUT BANK OF ENGLAND

EXTRACT -

The Bank of England and the Rothschilds continued to play a dominant role in the commercial life of the United States, causing panics and depressions for the Rothschilds whenever their officials were instructed to do so. When the Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836, and President Jackson refused to renew it, [thus] creating great prosperity in the United States when government funds were deposited in other banks, the Rothschilds punished the upstarts by causing the Panic of 1837. As Henry Clews writes in "Twenty-Eight Years on Wall Street", p. 157: "The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of England when it in one day threw out all the paper connected with the United States."

By refusing to credit American notes and stocks, the Bank of England created financial panic among the holders of that paper. The panic enabled Rothschild's agents, Peabody and Belmont, to reap a fortune in buying up depreciated stocks during the panic.

The Bank of England has played a prominent role in wars, revolutions, and espionage, as well as business panics. When Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, the London gold market jumped overnight from 4lb.6d to 5lb.7d. The leading buyer was Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who was under orders from the British Treasury to dispatch gold to the Duke of Wellington, grouping to stop Napoleon. After Waterloo, the price of gold dropped.

During the twentieth century, the most important name at the Bank of England was Lord Montagu Norman. His grandfather, George Warde Norman, had been governor of the Bank of England from 1821-1872, longer than any other man; his other grandfather, Lord Collet, was Governor of the Bank of England from 1887-89, and managing partner of Brown Shipley Co. in London for twenty-five years.

In 1894, Montague Norman was sent to New York to work in the offices of Brown Brothers; he was befriended by the W.A. Delano family, and lived with the Markoe family, partners of Brown Bros. In 1907, Norman was elected to the Court of the Bank of England. In 1912, he had a severe nervous breakdown, and was treated by [Carl] Jung in Switzerland. He became deputy governor of the Bank of England in 1916, and later served until 1944 as Governor. The Wall Street Journal wrote of him in 1927:

"Mr. M. Collet Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, is now head and shoulders above all other British bankers. No other British banker has ever been as independent and supreme in the world of British finance as Mr. Norman is today. He has just been elected Governor for the eighth year in succession. Before the war, no Governor was allowed to hold office for more than two years; but Mr. Norman has broken all precedents. He runs his Bank and his Treasury as well. He appears to have no associations except his employees. He gives no interviews. He leaves the British financial world wholly in the thick as to his plans and ideas."

above from WASP


EARLY DAY MOTION from AUSTEN MITCHELL

Early day motion 1297
Print version
ENFORCEMENT OF BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1694
Session: 2008-09
Date tabled: 20.04.2009
Primary sponsor: Mitchell, Austin
Sponsors: Cohen, Harry Cryer, Ann Illsley, Eric McDonnell, John Taylor, David
That this House, observing that the intention of the founding Act of the Bank of England in 1694 was `that their Majesties' subjects may not be oppressed by the said corporation', notes that those subjects have been seriously oppressed by the Bank's failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system over which it presides; and therefore suggests that this oppression should be dealt with as the Act provides by fines three times the value of the abusive trading.

ENDS

As a hundred years have gone by now, with the move to One World Government, which were started in earnest a century ago, reaching the advanced stage, the confusion from hereon can only get much much worse.  The best thing the One World Government, which does already exist, could do, is start telling the world who they are, how they got to where they are, and what they intend to do.  Only then will the growing chaos of secretive groups running the world out of sight start to unravel.  There are of course, many ugly secrets to be told, and some of those secrets might well be to do with this man.  Why doesn't Prince Charles tell us more of what he knows?

And what is his brother Andrew up to in Khazakstan?




WASP writes -

The book I referred you to THE WORLD ORDER by Eustace Mullins, is very informative, but many of your viewers might prefer to look at a video.



I found this You Tube Interview regarding this same book.
This will round off the subject, as the words come from 'THE HORSES MOUTH' so to speak.
Consider this w/r/t paying off debt
If $1/sec paid back taking a year as 365.25 days it would take to pay back $100,000 ...... 31.5576 years
or $100,000,000 ...31,557.6 years
& so on, but this is a better way of looking at it as per video.
I believe the USA Deficit is c.a.
$14.7 Trillion

YOUR NAME IS ON AN I.O.U FOR MORE THAN
14.7 TRILLION DOLLARS

A million seconds have elapsed in less than 12 days
A billion seconds took more than 35 years to tick away
A trillion seconds ago was bacck in the Stone Age,
in the year 29,607B.C.

132 comments:

Mike Spilligan said...

I appreciated this article, and that on the IMF very much - yes, even on a Saturday afternoon.
But what about the IMF's twin sister, the World Bank; where does that fit in?
Thanks ...

tapestry said...

I would have a few comments on that Mike, but it'll be tomorrow or Monday! Good idea to include - more part of the US power structure. The IMF is controlled from the European sphere.

The World Bank make poor countries borrow to the hilt, paying off their elites to keep their countries poor and dependent. (HIPC is the acronym, I believe)

If the elites don't cooperate or resist, the CIA sorts the situation out instead.

It worked as a way to stop the Soviets gaining ground in the third world.

Read 'The Confessions Of An Economic Hitman' when a World Bank insider (from a sub-contractor) spilled the beans.

The idea of overpowering countries with debts and paying off their leaders with money or position, makes me think of Blair, Brown, Prescott and Mandelson...and the IMF is trying to build empire in the same kind of way.

In a democracy this should not be happening, but as the electorate don't know who the players are, and what the game is, it's hard for democratic leverage to become a factor. It's all going on behind the scenes.

If we can find out what's going on, write about it and get people informed enough to ask questions, we might stand a chance of re-democratising the world.
At least we can try.

Stuart Fairney said...

This is what wiki had to say about it when I checked?

"Bank was privately owned and operated from its foundation in 1694 until it was nationalised in 1946. In 1997 it became an independent public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, with independence in setting monetary policy"

The government do own it don't they?

tapestry said...

In a strict legal sense, but the ownership of the 'subsidiary' which carries out the Bank's role is not government-owned. The nationalisation was neatly side-stepped. In sheer logical terms, a government cannot owe money to itself. Central Banks all over the world are private banks. It's just that no one knows.

James said...

Hi tapestry Im trying to get my head around how central banks work at the moment. Can you tell me a little more about what this subsidiary of the bank of england is? Cheers

tapestry said...

This lady has a very interesting set of videos explaining central banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEJdeWvGIZU

Anonymous said...

hi there have a read of this.........


http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html



i think you will find alot of your answers here as i did.

Merve the Swerve said...

What a load of bollocks. If you can't even be bothered to read the Bank of England's own website where it explains it's ownership then get your tin foil hat on really quickly.

The Bank of England is a limited liability company totally owned by it's shareholders. And ta da !! it's shareholders are HM Treasury. That's right the UK government

Tapestry said...

Nominal ownership of shares is not the same thing as equitable ownership. It is ownership on behalf of someone else. Normally you are allowed to know the ultimate owners or the equitable (the real) owners.

As explained, the Bank Of England is exempted from that requirement.

Albiontyke said...

Trying to get my head around this so please bare with me. Does Nominal ownership mean that if MR A starts up a business then forms a limited company & puts say 3 directors in charge to run the business they are the shareholders ? So if they are the share holders then does that in effect mean their shares are in fact worthless if the business was sold ? Does mean that the nominee would receive 100% of the sale in £ss

Tapestry said...

Directors are not necessarily owners of shares. More usually they are not owners, but are paid a salary on a contract to ''direct'' the business.

Nominal ownership is more to do with a relationship of trusteeship. You can set up a trust to hold your assets in name, while you or your delegated beneficiaries receive the benefits of ownership, and are therefore the beneficial owners. Trustees have to administer the trust according to the rules and stipulations as arranged by the original owner who created the trust.

Anonymous said...

From what I understand, the ownership of the Bank of England has been obscure (or frankly opaque) ever since it was set up.

There are somefairly sensational videos on Google Video that focus on the BofE - 'The Money Makers' is quite involved.

PAUL said...

Thanks Tapestry. Yes I understand the laws on directorship, but as nominees can they then if they so wish stipulate that they (the nominees) can take a what is in effect a dividend from the profits the trust makes ? ie can the BoE nominees take a bonus or dividend from the BoE ?

Tapestry said...

Nominees are usually paid a fee and would not expect to share in the profits or benefits of the trust.

Anonymous said...

If the BOE is owned by HM Treasury, ie the UK government why does the government pay interest on the amounts of money it borrows from the BOE? This would be like me lending money to myself and paying myself interest on my loan! This would be dumb to say the least.

Tapestry said...

Yes but not quite as dumb as what is happening now whereby a private business creates the money from nowhere, then lends it to the government, which then pays interest on the loan.

The problem with governments being allowed to create money is that they'd never stop creating it. They are congenitally irresponsible and short term. The bankers who are entitled to issue new money by agreement with the government, have literally a licence to print money. It is the least bad system that has been devised.

The problem is that the issuers of money have become excessively powerful, and they are also involved in manipulating the world's markets. They have milked them so efficiently that the world's banks like Barclays, BNP Paribas etc are broke, governments are having to bail them out, with money issued by the people who traded against the clearing banks and won the game, driving them all to the wall.

The central banks have effectively created totalitarian power, but they don't know what to do with it. They now have the problem of the financial system they have effectively destroyed needing bailing out on an ongoing basis, and they are frightened.

That's why they are trying to offer large sums free to the British government to build Crossrail, to hold up property prices, which are falling and undercutting the security of the banking system.

steve said...

You are perpetuating misinformation.

1) The BOEN does not own BOE or its assets or profits, they are merely in charge of the decision making. This is to prevent manipulation by party political motives of any particular govt.

2) The BOE doesn't lend the govt money, and consequently doesn't charge it interest. The government owes interest to purchasers of bonds sold on the financial markets that have been issued by the BOE

Tapestry said...

That's alright then.

The parties who are not identified by your version, Steve, are the lenders and issuers of the money. If money is not issued or lent by the BOE, it is issued or lent by someone else unknown on their behalf. That hardly seems an improved scenario.

It seems more likely that the possessors of the ability to issue money are in a far stronger position to manipulate than political parties who depend on the money being issued to fund their programmes.

Anonymous said...

people should watch the docu-film zeitgeist it has some far fetched ideas in it but it's an interesting watch and it explains the way a central banking system works. I'ts rediculous how missinformed most of the population is about how our countries are being crippled by a select few companies who are becoming ever more powerful.

Tapestry said...

The problem is that none of us knows who is pulling the strings and from where. We just see the evidence that strings are being pulled, and games played. The shadowy world of central banking offers some kind of start point for searching out who pulls the strings, but the network of power is secretive and impossible to penetrate. All we can do is ask questions and try to find some answers.

Steve said...

tapestry,
"hardly an improved scenario"?

Firstly, the 'lenders' are purchasers of bonds, they have no influence over govt. policy! You can buy them yourself at the NS&I if you want to!
Secondly, I did not mention the issuing of money. The BOE does issue money under the direction of the law makers and their owners, the UK govt.

Your argument is baseless and subjective. You clearly were unable to even accurately read my comment

Opinion offered in conspiracy theories like zeitgeist are far from objective and balanced, No two central banks work the same way. To compare ours with the american system is over-simplistic and inaccurate.

Yes, we are at risk from very real risks from the financial sector, but the artificial under-valuation of the Yuan and the interdependencies of the shadow banking system are the real areas of concern, not some tired old mumbo-jumbo theory perpetuated by isolationist right-wing militia groups who hoard guns in US mountains waiting for the rapture.

Tapestry said...

That's right, Steve. I'll order £200 billion worth right now. That's the point. The government cannot sell debt unless there are buyers. That might require confidence in the market, and in a financial crisis there might be little enough of that.

That would put the central bankers into a very powerful position, able to use their negotiating power either in price terms to up the rate of interest, or in diplomatic terms.

If the central bankers were also involved in politics such as Rockefeller in the UN, and the Rothschilds in the environmental movement, the price the government would have to pay could be to increase the price of electricity, and fuel. Funny! That's exactly what's happening.

The central bankers don't need to own the bank to be able to exert power. They just need vast financial reserves which the government needs to borrow. They then can call any tune they desire.

BRIT said...

instead of just nibbling around the edges of the issue, why don't you all read the booklet "who makes our money?". The bankers don't have vast financial reserves. The following paragraph is a small exert from said book "Question to Minister of Finance; Is it true that when our Government borrows cheque book credit which has no physical existence and becomes available through fractional reserve banking by a simple book entry or by printing it, it has to hand over Bonds on which we taxpayers have to pay interest in perpetuity?. If our Government issued this money there would be no debt and no interest to pay.

Tapestry said...

Nicely put, Brit. Jim Corr and the Irish are ahead of us on this one. They have seen how they've been stitched up by the central bankers. In Britain the realisation is dawning more slowly.

BRIT said...

Thank, Tapestry,
Sorry about your Tory/Ukip slant on things. You must have realised by now that Lib/Lab/CON are all one and the same with the same policies (stay in EU, keep fighting illegal wars,de-industrialise the UK, keep UK in massive debt, suck up to Obama/ america, pursue the One World Order evil, etc). As regards the BoE (and the Federal Reserve Bank of America) I cannot stress hard enough that all commentators (especially Steve) get hold of the book "Who makes our money" by F.J.Irsigler. All the blogs on this page do not know the half of what is going on . May I also ask all who have access to the RT news channel to watch Max Keiser "keiser report" on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Tapestry said...

I would point out that our democracy is all we have to fight back. The best con of the One World Government is to persuade fringe parties to make voters abandon hope.

The only way out of the EU is via one or more of the major parties. Never forget that. That is the key battle ground. Someone has persuaded you to surrender the key ground before a shot is fired.

Play your belief that all Conservatives or Labour MPs are useless carefully. They are your only bridge to freedom. Yes the bridge is badly damaged, and treacherous, but there are some strong planks left along which we could yet walk. Each good plank is very precious, or potentially very precious to our freedom.

BRIT said...

Sorry, Tapestry,
All the evidence is against you. Lets took at the three main parties. The Lib Dems are ardent EU advocates who forsake any of their policies for a stab at power.Open door immigration is a key policy.
New Labour could not care less about the British, especially the English.Lying and stealing,passing anti-British laws, squandering the nations money (when the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves a message on his desk, telling the next Chancellor that he is too late, the money has all gone, then we know that evil has been busy). The list against New Labour war lords is endless.
The Tories are no better Referendum promises, immigration caps, massacre of the armed forces, and(because of New Labour)worse to come. Having studied all the parties, only one represents my personal view, in spite of all the trash and lies put out by the establishment and the medias (Sky and BBC THE WORST OF THE LOT). I am, of course, a proud BNP member.

BRIT said...

Sorry about the politics, Tapestry. To return to finance, the early America settlers printed their own money and managed it quite successfully. First it was Pennsylvania (1723), followed by New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. When Benjamin Franklin visited England and told of this,the bankers were outraged and pressured the House of Commons to declare their money illegal and forbade the printing of more (1764).Two years later Benjamin Franklin reported to the House that their law had inflicted grave unemployment and poverty (having to buy English notes AND pay interest). The resentment caused by all this, along with taxes,was what really what caused the War of Independence.
The State of North Dakota has started it's own bank, and is doing very well. Any bets as to how long this will be allowed?.

Anonymous said...

The main problem with all this is all Central Banks give every single penny to the governments with added interest! FACT! Only one winner. And it's not the public.

Anonymous said...

after a while on this money as debt subject I've decided it's the most true conspiracy.

These guys have started a campaign and produced a very good video explaining BOE money creati
on

www.positivemoney.org.uk

I've met them and checked thier sources , I urge you to check it out before we all waste more of our lives

Anonymous said...

oh by the way Brit the North Dakota thing has been going on a while

http://vimeo.com/8754146

ellen hodgson vid from her book web of debt ( I like internet if it has books behind it) all those a goo especially the money comedy routine by swami bettathananyadda

Dark Lochnagar said...

You are perfectly correct in what you say, the Government does not own the Bank of England. It is owned by the Rothschilds, who also own the Interalia Group, who own RBS. We are bailing them out and then they are lending us money back to pay for bonds. Unbelievable! We should have let the whole lot go and bankrupted them once and for all and started again.

Tapestry said...

OK Loch. Even worse, we took them into public ownership, so that the debts created by the bankers now belong to us, our children and grandchildren. Had we reneged on the debts, I am sure they would bring about hell on earth to teach us all a good lesson. Ireland faces the same as do most nations on the face of the earth. Between freedom and slavery lies catastrophe. We may yet have to live through that.

Anonymous said...

As the largest creditors in the world, how does the Peoples Bank of China fit in to all of this?

BRIT said...

Although it is not mentioned on the traitorous bbc, rumour has it that Ben-Ali (ex-president of Tunisia, Mubarak (ex-president of Egypt) and the King of Saudi are all in dire straights in hospital. All were considering setting up state banks to get from under the World Central Banks (the Rothschild group).

BRIT said...

Dark Lochnagar,
Hitler was initially financed by the jewish banks in his re-armament program, but when he took over control of the finances of Germany,excluding the bankers, the second world war was a certainty. The power of these hideous people can be seen in the holocaust myth. The internet is the last free source of information, and a lot of this is "false flag" or a big lie with a coating of truth, but diligent research will usually get you there in the end. One start is on the Lawfull Rebellion site, where a copy of a Statement under Common Law is drawn up that needs to be sent to every MP.

Tapestry said...

Brit, Hitler was financed by American Bankers and industrialists. Ford built his trucks, and Fokker who built his best fighters, was owned by ITT. The Americans were the monopolistic partners of IG Farben, locked into a worldwide agreement to keep Germans out of oil, and Americans out of chemicals, and both to share technology.

The Rockefellers had gone from an oil monopoly to a banking monopoly, controlling all corporations. As making money was their goal, and it was not thought that Amnericans would be involved in a European war, US comopanies decided to back Hitler and made fortunes doing so.

I say American, but in truth they were multinationals, whose loyalty is to profit, not to any country.

Tapestry said...

Brit, do you have a source for your information about the three dictators/kings all being in hospital?

Anonymous said...

Tapestry, I read your blog every day because it's quite compelling.
But BRIT does have a good grasp on what is going on in the world. As for his comments on the dictators in a coma I too saw the article on Russion TV. It is also on a site called 'rumour mill'. It's an american rumour site so you takes your chance with it. But they go one step further and say one of them is already dead and the west is not putting out the news so not to stoke the fires. Im not sure of that one either.
One final point I would like to make is a question " if these dictators/kings all die and all their money is in american banks - WHO GETS IT ALL ???".

Tapestry said...

Sometimes a little patience is preferable before looking to understand events. Russian TV could be wrong, and as you say, Rumour Mill is not a rock solid source.

What is not in question is that CIA fronts like Freedom House and NDN were involved in preparing the ground for the overthrow of Mubarak. Money buys whoever they want, in the end of the day. And democracy, which can be manipulated so easily now, with rigged elections and media control, is now seen by the CIA as a preferable system to putting dictators in place.

Blair was a far more loyal stooge than Mubarak, as he would only get his payoff by giving the Network all it demanded. Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a caving in to the EU, were the price we paid for Blair's inclusion amongst the world's tax free mega-rich.

Mubarak, like Saddam Hussein, thought they could keep themselves in power, and only cooperate partially. It seems unlikely that the OWE would bump off its dictators so openly, other than Saddam. I suppose a convenient outbreak of dictator virus might be a possibility. Let's see.

BRIT said...

Tap,
One advantage of RT is that they are not pro-American, which puts them in pole position as regards news. This was obvious in the last week of June when the BBC did not once mention the Bilderberg meeting in Sitges, Spain. RT mentioned it every day of the week that it lasted. As for the three dictators, I did mention that it was a rumour. I will always endeavor to be as honest as I can in my correspondence to you, Tap.

BRIT said...

Tap,
Returning to RT, the latest horror story is about genetic engineering of all foodstufs and virtually all creatures being cloned and patented.Just one of these stories is the financing of this scientific work in a major American university by BP to the tune of $500 million. The labs are fenced off, BP dictates the sylabus, no research notes are published, the list goes on. A number of high profile scientists who have raised the alarm about what is going on have been sacked or severely admonished.

Anonymous said...

No doubt there is elements of truth to these theories, infact there are inevitably countless secrets,coverts, monopolies, and heinious things occurring all the time, Surely this is just human nature but on global level, think of your own life, relationships, communities and see that nothing you do is black and white - now magnify that to a global scale with trillions at stake and power over millions/billions and are you really surprised? Its our fault for being sheeple, and its also just globalisation...maybe if we weren't so wimpy and easily led then the true nature of things could be done overtly and not behind closed doors as it is. a good example is the Iraq war, look at all the idiots crying because they didnt find any WMDs...of course they didnt, we never went there for that, it was for oil and to establish roots and destabilise the contradictory regimes in that region, which lets be honest, should eventually benefit us all...but could they just come out and say that? course not, you all would have cried like wimps, so rather they invent the WMD story and still most cry like wimps..lol. This is all just globalisation, is that really such a bad thing? at the end of the day someone has to control things, if you want it to be a fairer system stop spending on credit and start becoming more self sufficient..until then stop moaning that the banks control us. Yes they do, do i like it, no not really, do i accept it as part of life? yes. Sorry folks but life is a bitch, there never was an eden and there never will be. Survival of the fittest, dog eat dog and all that..again think of life/society on a micro scale and then times it exponetially...stakes are high indeed. Do something about it, educate people...dont scare them and stick to tangible facts that can be proven.

BRIT said...

Tap,
Relevant to previous blogs, Bloomberg TV have just announced that Ben Broadbent of Goldman Sacks is to take over as Bank of England policy maker.

Tapestry said...

Goldman Sachs.

Anonymous said...

What concerns me is that matters such as this are sometimes hijacked by fascists, such as the BNP and in the US the Tea Party.

Conversely, BRIT is partially correct. Politics is an insidious and malign game. The BNP are no different to the other parties, and feed on hate.

Tapestry said...

I am not a BNP supporter. I see them as more muddled than anything else.

If they are a party of hatred, then why are they the only party to stand for the ending of the wars in Afghanistan etc? That makes them the party of peace.

Anonymous said...

The manifestos of political parties, by in large, seek to appease or even assuage members of the public.

The BNP are a racist party. If they ever got into power, I can say without doubt, that they will foment violence and clashes, etc. Some fanatics may even propagate eugenics. In essence, they believe themselves to be superior, both genetically and culturally. This to me is plain wrong.

Btw, i did not accuse you of supporting the BNP. I admire your endeavour to spread the truth. I was highlighting the pressing issue, of conniving people to taint libertarian economics.

Tapestry said...

There is no evidence that the BNP would be interested in eugenics. That is the preserve of the One World Government, who, as Agenda 21 states, would take all children away from their parents and have them raised by the state. They admire the NAZIs methods. The BNP does not, although they are portrayed as NAZIs by the media. They advocate the end of Britain's involvement in OWG wars. That's what worries the OWG.

Euphrates said...

i'm somewhat confused as to who owns the central banks. are you saying the government owns the bank of england however this ownership is nominal ownership. therefore the equitable owners are unkown and their identity is protected by law?

furthermore, i don't understand how government bonds operate. so we purchase government bonds from the central bank and the government pays us back?
if the central bank was foreign owned, then why would they allow this?

Tapestry said...

Eurphrates - para one. That is one interpretation that is highly probable.

para two - the bano of england can issue money aghainst an I.O.U. from the government, i.e us. Or against I.O.U.'s of municipalities or corporations depending on its terms of reference.

The national central banks appear to have merged into a single operation under the aegis of the BIS - the privately owned Bank Of International Settlements, which was officially created in 1930c, but which was probably a rubber stamp of what was happening anyway.

The BIS has associations with other cartels, the oil and chemical as well as the financial. Take the view that the world is ruled by a single cartel, in effect, and you are not far from the true position.

The power of the cartels is being refocused onto the United Nations, which will become the official seat of One World Government, replacing the nations and the regional blocs such as the EU.

The EU is probably a temporary device to facilitate the destruction of the nations before it itself gives way to global government.

The disappoionting thing about the OWG is that its power is based on cartels which have grown so powerful that they can in effect dictae their terms to all of us, even though they are few in number.

Theri preferences are to collectivise humanity, bring an end to nations and private property, and destroy family-based living. See Agenda 21 and Habitat 2 of the United Nations on youtube and on www.radioliberty.com

BRIT said...

Tap,
A new bank is to be started in the UK initially. It will be different to other banks in that it will be interest-free to borrowers. Information can be had at www.lawfulbank.com
Let's hope that this is the start of something good.

secretscience said...

How a Few Familys control the worlds Money. In 1694 a private institution, the Bank of England, was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised
in twelve days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy, If goverment
owned the Bank of England would they be in debt to them selfs Most
people Sold a version of history from school... and media that never tells them who is in real control of their money

secretscience said...

Their objective isn't to control the conflict, it's to control the
debt that the conflict produces. You see, the real value of a conflict,
the true value is in the debt that it creates. You control the debt -
you control everything. this is the
very essence of the banking industry, to make us all - whether we be
...nations or individuals, slaves to debt.
Andrew Jackson refusing to renew charter knowing the real power behind saying.
"You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out." He went on to say: "If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." Jackson said that if such a Bank would continue to control "our currency, receiving our public monies, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy
On January 8, 1835, Jackson paid off the final installment on USA national debt, and it was the only time in history that there national debt was reduced to zero, and were able to accumulate a surplus, $35 million of which was distributed to the States. Nicholas P. Trist, the President's personal secretary, said: "This is the crowning glory of A.J.'s life and the most important service he has ever rendered his country." The Boston Post compared it to Christ throwing the money-changers out of the Temple.

secretscience said...

Jekyll Island and the Federal Reserve

On the night of November 22, 1910, a small group of surrogates of the most powerful bankers of the World met, under the veil of utmost secrecy, at specific little-used tracks of the railway station in Hoboken, New Jersey, Each of these secret banking agents had his own private railway car with new servants who would not recognize the identity of these men. The men travelled in silence to their secret destination, the elitist resort island off the coast of Georgia named Jekyll Island. Over the next few weeks these men would perpetrate, under the orders of there masters (men such as the Rothschild, Rockefeller and Morgan bankers) perhaps the most colossal and devastating fraud ever inflicted upon the American People. This ultra-secret fraud is known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 concocted legislation, to be foisted upon the People’s Congress of the United States, that empowered and commissioned this secret cabal of the World-dominant bankers to PRINT UNITED STATES CURRENCY, a usurpation of our Constitution’s explicit edict empowering ONLY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT to print and coin currency. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S tax payer’s interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed: 1. Rothschild Bank of London 2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg 3. Rothschild Bank of Berlin 4. Lehman Brothers of New York 5. Lazard Brothers of paris 6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York 7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy 8. Goldman, Sachs of New York 9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam 10. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America where our forefathers were fighting there own government, it is believed that they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt.

in December 1961, Joseph Kennedy suff ered a
stroke that left him totally incapacitated. His son now held the nation’s
highest office with no real control over him.
By mid-1963, Kennedy was beginning to exert his autonomous infl uence
over the most powerful—and violent—groups in U.S. society. He
was threatening to disband the CIA, the homebase of many Nazis;
withdraw U.S. troops from South Vietnam; close the tax breaks of the
oil-depletion allowance; tighten control over the tax-free foreign assets of
U.S. multinational corporations, many with connections to the Bormann
empire; and decrease the power of both Wall Street and the Federal Reserve
System. In June 1963, Kennedy actually ordered the printing and
release of $4.2 billion in United States Notes, paper money issued through
the Treasury Department without paying interest to the Federal Reserve
System, which is composed of twelve regional banks all controlled by private
banks whose owners often are non- Americans.
Obviously, persons affected by these moves felt that something had to
be done.
Today, most people agree that the assassination of President Kennedy
was the result of a conspiracy, the full details of which are still not known
due to a cover-up at the highest levels of the federal government.

secretscience said...

This is from the book called THE EMPIRE OF “THE CITY” The Secret History Of British Financial Power by E.C.Knuth published in 1944 and republished in 2006 all about the British international financial oligarchy the reason why I like old books like this is because they give so much away to what is going on now in the banking scam if a government ran there own monetary system why would we be in debt to our own bank ? theres so many points like this to make so many anomalies in history most people do not see how inflation is there to make a paper note worth some thing as the whole system is based on debt
George Burton Adams, late Professor of History, Emeritus, Yale University, authoritatively develops in his "Constitutional History of England" that the members of the British Cabinet are strangely impotent; are not permitted to make any written notations of proceedings of the Cabinet; have no access to records of proceedings, if any, made by the Prime Minister; are not permitted to make reference afterwards to anything that had transpired at a meeting of the Cabinet (page 493). He further develops the utter lack of power of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords (pages 472-474); states "The House of Commons no longer controls the Executive; on the contrary the Executive controls the House of Commons." (Page 495.) There is a distinction between the Government of Great Britain, which is largely confined to the internal government of the British Isles, and the British Government which controls the British Empire.
Referring to "Great Britain, Banking In" in the Encyclopedia Americana, it appears that the Bank of England is not subject to any control by any governmental agency of Great Britain, and that it is above all government, despite the fact that it is privately owned and its directors are nominated by its proprietors. In the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1891 it is termed "a great Engine of Government." It is obvious that this privately owned foreign institution is now in grave financial difficulties with its loans and bonds and mortgages disavowed all over the world, and that it is being bolstered by huge funds being syphoned into it out of the treasury of the United States.

secretscience said...

The 1943 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 13) makes this stunningly significant statement of the Bank of England, that full partner of the American Administration in the conduct of the financial affairs of all the world: "... Its weakness is the weakness inherent in a system which has developed with the smallest amount of legislative control ... its capital is held privately, and its management is not in any way directly or indirectly controlled by the state. On the other hand, during its whole history, it has been more or less under the protection of the state; its development has been marked by successive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of its privileges, and it still continues to exercise powers and owe responsibilities delegated by the state ... The bank of England is controlled by a governor, deputy-governor and a court of 24 directors who are elected by the proprietors on the nomination of the directors ..." (This is a description of a privately owned structure of government, sovereign in its own right, and over and above the laws of England. A status admittedly attained by bribing dishonest officials of the Government of the British Isles through the years to gradually extinguish the freedom and rights of the people.)

That the nature of this strange bank is actually that of a secret holding company of colossal size is indicated by a reference in "England's Money Lords Tory M. P.", by Simon Haxey, to (page 158) Lancastshire Steel Corporation, subsidiary of the Bank of England.


The startling aspect of the dual nature of the British Government has the support of many eminent authorities on the subject, despite the fact that millions of American school textbooks and works of popular reference, and the books of thousands of pseudo history experts, have woven a fabric of deceit and created popular acceptance of an illusion and a fallacy by the cumulative live force of constant repetition.
The impeachment of this dual structure of government by Prof. Adams is fully supported by the authoritative "Laws of England" of the Lord of Halsbury, massive work of many huge volumes, and by the specific statements and writings of David Starr Jordan, late president of Stanford University, Gladstone, David Lloyd George, J. Ramsay MacDonald, Vincent C. Vickers, director of the Bank of England and of Vickers-Armstrong armaments works, Harold J. Laski and many others. "Better Times" by the Lloyd George in 1910 is particularly revealing. (See note)

secretscience said...

look for website called America's Forgotten War Against the Central Banks The New World Order (Paperback)
by Pat Robertson (Author)
it fitted together with other books like,
Eustace Mullins - The World Order
Eustace Mullins - The Secrets of the Federal Reserve
Jacobson - Mind Control in the United States subliminal programming
Hagger - The Syndicate - The Story of the Coming World Government (2004)
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy - Antony C Sutton,
War is a Racket by Brigdier General Smedley D Butler,
The New Rulers of the World by john pilger,
Web of Deceit britain s real role in the world Mark Curtis
E_C_Knuth-The_Empire_Of_The_City the secret history of british financial power,1944.
Confessions of a economic hitman by john perkins,
Tragedy and hope by Carroll Quigley,
Wall Street and the rise of hitler by antony sutton,
Edward Griffin s book Creature From Jekyl island,
Williams - Syndrome of Control - The Plot of the International Financiers to Create Oil Wars
Drugs Oil and War by Peter Dale scott
The Best Democracy money can buy Greg palast
Jim.Marrs.The.Rise.of.the.Fourth.Reich
Michael Parenti Blackshirts and reds
Michael Parenti to kill a nation the attack on yugoslavia
Coleman - The Rothschild Dynasty
Antony Sutton - Wall Street and The Bolshevic Revolution
The Mass Psychology of Fascism WILHELM REICH
Coleman - The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations - Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of The United States of America
Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country
Greider, William
The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance
Chernow

secretscience said...

Lets change goverment to global elite the goverment is just a bunch of functionaries who are getting there salaries and playing by the rules, behind all that are the global elite control patterns, who operate through government Banking ect, now i think when it come's to those Guy's i think they are playing with these realitys all the time because these realities are extremely creative and very powerfull and i think most of what they do is try to get us to not figure this out, the ones at the very top of the pyramid are a bunch of Magicians who know exactly what's going on they juggle our hope's and fears our emotions, one of the reason's reality is so tough right now is because we are breaking through the next level and they don't want us to because they can't control us any more. - Barbara Hand Clow

From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

secretscience said...

politicians are administrators in reality soldiers and police enforce there corporate interests who are they the Globlists who bought England out in the 1800s, and America in 1913 which took Europe in to 1st world War, Central Banks have only ever been about WAR From the First one in Europe in Holland in 1600's to Fight war with Spain and England years later to fight France after UK lost at Beechy Head, England had no choice but to build a powerful navy; as there were no funds available, in 1694 a private institution, the Bank of England, was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in twelve days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy. Each Cuntry is a corporation and you are used in life or death to fuel it.

secretscience said...

economic collapse is planned to have three major phases:(1) To crash the economy (done); (2) To have governments borrow extraordinary amounts of money from the very banking and financialcartel that the same ‘money’ is being spent to ‘bail out’ (being done);(3) To crash the economy still further when government options are exhausted
and leave them with no way of responding (waiting to be done).Then they step forward to 'save us' with a globally centralised Bank

secretscience said...

Funny Money
. the new paper money system

This reveals the primary reason why the inflatable paper
money system was created: it enables nations to fight and
prolong their wars. It also makes the human struggle for
physical existence in a modern economy more difficult due
to the massive debt and parasitic absorption of wealth that
the system causes. Furthermore, steady inflation reduces the
value of people's money so that their accumulated wealth
is gradually eroded.
The initial success of the Bank of Amsterdam encouraged
similar banking arrangements in other nations. The most
notable offspring was the Bank of England, founded in
1694. The Bank of England established the pattern for our
modern-day central banks by refining the inflatable paper
money system of Holland. The Bank of England system
was subsequently spread from nation to nation, often on
the backs of revolutions led by prominent Brotherhood
network members. The worldwide reformation announced
in the Fama Fraternitis was well underway by the end of
the 17th century, and the "new money" was a big part of
it
The
Bank of Amsterdam the precursor to, the first true central bank what
Wikipedia don't tell you is why it was set up to win the long standing
War with Catholic spain by issuing notes four times in excess of the
banks asset base, The rise of Funny Money kept value through inflation

secretscience said...

each time a countrys Central bank was invented it was to fund a war from Ban...k of Amsterdam War with Catholic spain 1609, Bank of England 1694 to win war with France The Federal Reserve System First World War help lend money to England and reshape society same as Second world war reshape the world divide up more countries forward planning for World War III set it all off aganist each other backing as many sides as, Banking system is to feed of us in life or death then to hold goverments in debt, then people through their goverment, over the years i had people laugh at me saying why do you care well they will soon the less money they have and are put out of a job, like we said on the phone those in power are gutted they could not control Chaos in Egypt more so to have people fighting each other more so west could overtly be more involved, but they have a way to bring each country down from IMF and central banking system or any other disaster, with out world banks you cant have world wars Napoleon said: "When a government is dependent for money upon the bankers, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes ... financiers are without patriotism and without decency..." Karl Marx said in the Communist Manifesto: "Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history.

secretscience said...

Consensus history teaches that capitalism and communism are at opposite ends of the political-economic spectrum, and that communism is the bitter enemy of capitalism. In some ways this may be true. But those at the top of the global banking system -- who are often labeled "greedy capitalists" -- are not by any means classical, free-market capitalists. They are monopoly capitalists who are after complete control. They exercise their control over the people by their control over the money supply. Perhaps this can all be best summed up by one of the conspirators themselves; for instance, John D. Rockefeller, who once stated "competition is a sin."

secretscience said...

Communism IS monopoly capitalism. Lenin once stated that "communism is socialism in a hurry." Communism is often brought about through violent and bloody revolution, whereas socialism often takes a more incremental and stealthy approach. However, the end game is still the same. For the past many decades, the countries of the West have been gradually moving in the direction of socialism, as people are losing more and more of their freedoms while government becomes bigger and ever more encroaching upon people's rights, often under the pretense of solving the problems the system itself creates (poverty, crime, terrorism) to gain more control.

secretscience said...

Communism IS monopoly capitalism. Lenin once stated that "communism is socialism in a hurry." Communism is often brought about through violent and bloody revolution, whereas socialism often takes a more incremental and stealthy approach. However, the end game is still the same. For the past many decades, the countries of the West have been gradually moving in the direction of socialism, as people are losing more and more of their freedoms while government becomes bigger and ever more encroaching upon people's rights, often under the pretense of solving the problems the system itself creates (poverty, crime, terrorism) to gain more control.

In order to have monopoly control over the people, you must first gain monopoly control over government through the issuance of credit (debt creation). This is what the international bankers have done.

the role that the Anglo-American financiers played in fomenting the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, marking the rise of communism in Russia, and a dialectical antithesis to capitalism that would play out on a global scale, moving us ever closer to the "third way" synthesis of a one world government, currency and military.

secretscience said...

In each case a privately-owned bank or group of banks was legislatively chartered or authorized to issue money most of which was created by the bank out of nothing. A government can and should do that, for the common good – but never should such economic power be delegated to private persons or their privately-owned corporations, The BIS is the most obscure arm of the Bretton-Woods International Financial architecture but its role is central. John Maynard Keynes wanted it closed down as it was used to launder money for the Nazis in World War II. Run by an inner elite representing the world's major central banks it controls most of the transferable money in the world. It uses that money to draw national governments into debt for the IMF

Tapestry said...

15 comments, secretscience, and I read every one. thanks. excellent.

This one resonated the most -

Communism IS monopoly capitalism. Lenin once stated that "communism is socialism in a hurry." Communism is often brought about through violent and bloody revolution, whereas socialism often takes a more incremental and stealthy approach. However, the end game is still the same. For the past many decades, the countries of the West have been gradually moving in the direction of socialism, as people are losing more and more of their freedoms while government becomes bigger and ever more encroaching upon people's rights, often under the pretense of solving the problems the system itself creates (poverty, crime, terrorism) to gain more control.

Henry North London 2.0 said...

The Bank of England owns the federal reserve of America

I know that much. Yes the rothschilds own the bank of England and the Queen does too.

Its all very murky. The reason North Korea is in the axis of evil is because it does not have a Rothschild operated bank in it.

Anonymous said...

What about Lybia? Has it a 'Central Bank' or just very large gold reserves that the central banks want control of?

Tapestry said...

Gaddafi had set up his own central bank. He had set up an independently managed gold-backed currency. The 'rebels' set up a Rothschild central bank and a separate currency the first week of the invasion.

Anonymous said...

My question is what is the central banking families ultimate goal? and why they are causing so much destruction? Money? well they've got shit loads. Power and control? but to what benefit if its just to make more money? Their wealth is off the map.
I understand that some feel that enough is never enough and will bulldoze on regardless of what they have.(greed)
If its purely money orientated then why does it matter? it doesnt really affect my day to day living. it will only affect me if we do indeed turn into police states, (big brother) Or is it possible that by keeping the masses focused on money, material welath we are slowly loosing the reality we are all in. We're focusing more on what we want rather than what we need. without getting too spiritual money is destroying culture and religion.Would it be a bold statement in saying that poorer countries are more led by religion where as richer countries by science? but to even hide truth i still see no benefit apart from money which leads me back to my first question, WHY?

Thunderhawk said...

The Bank of England Act 1946 states that "(4) After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October,
[a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such
other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree.]"

Who gets the remaining 75 per cent of the profits? If the BOE is fully government-owned shouldn't 100 per cent of the profits less operating expenses etc go to the Treasury?

Anonymous said...

I personally have not found evidence for a Jewish holocaust..,,two good sources out there are video documentary http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/ and the book, or rather online book, the printed copy is banned, did 6 million really die http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd01.html

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as actual money,just a concensus of belief of
an object having the power to act as money.
There is no such thing as democracy, only a concensus of belief that certain people heve the power to act in the favour of the electorate.
Behind these barriers who knows
what nebulous plans are being drawn up, or indeed, if any at all.
May be we are in slavery, or maybe a new brighter dawn awaits.

Manoftheworld said...

The thing that really gets me is not that everybody thinks the government own the bank of england, its the fact that the interest charged on the money is never mentioned....

The biggest lies are always out in the open. The elephant is in the room.

Anonymous said...

G-morning TAP maybe this will interest you & your good visitors
surely deserves a page?

"Wakeup World"

Gets the truth over in fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=player_embedded

George Carlin ~ The American Dream
wutdaflek

HETT

BRIT said...

Tap,
As the B of E issue has been extensively studied by your readers, may I ask them to also log on to "the lawful bank"?. This is run by The British Constitution Group and is an ideal way to beat the banking cartels that steal of us on a daily basis. I will say no more as I want readers to find out for themselves but this really is the one way to beat the evil system foisted upon us.

Anonymous said...

There is only 1 "one" WAR worth fighting.

If these people are behind all wars my for fathers spilt blood.

Then let me at them,

I'll press the button,

I'll do it let me in the front of the que.

WAKE up world.

bullseye the target you mustn't miss. "URGENT"

check this out:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61OZnl914P4

HETT

MickGJ said...

The Bank of England's only shareholder is the UK Treasury, which has owned it outright and continuously since 1946 on behalf of the government (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/1946act.pdf) and receives half its profits in lieu of a dividend as recorded in its annual report (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2010/2010full.pdf). There's no confusion or mystery about any of this.

Bank of England Nominees was precisely that, a nominee company set up to hold shares on other organisations (ie not the Bank itself) but it no longer owns anything nor are its operations a secret. Its accounts are publicly available from Companies House where it is listed as a dormant company.

Tapestry said...

The nominees are the legal owners. The beneficial owners are not the government. Their identity does not have to be disclosed, and is not disclosed.

Anonymous said...

If you do a very thorough search into the history of the BOE you will notice it was indeed controlled at one time by a single person. This was over 200 years ago was in most newspapers and financial publications. There is no record of it changing hands since.

the_last_name_left said...

The author makes a serious mistake in his argument.

This is what the author gets wrong:

The BankOfEngland owns the subsidiary BOEN.....NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The author has it back to front claiming that the Banks subsidiary owns the bank.

Tosh.

Wrong.

The Bank is wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Government.

Moreover, BOEN is a dormant company.

Wiki even says ...... though you left it out of your misleading article.

" BOEN is a vehicle for Governments and Heads of State to (subject to approval from the Secretary of State) invest in UK companies, providing they undertake "not to influence the affairs of the company".[15][16] BOEN is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[17] Although a dormant company,[18] dormancy does not preclude a company actively operating as a nominee shareholder.[19] BOEN has 2 shareholders: the Bank of England, and the Secretary of the Bank of England.[20]"
---------

the_last_name_left said...

Here's the link to the accounts of BOEN - see for yourself:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56089866/BANK-OF-ENGLAND-NOMINEES-LIMITED-Company-accounts-from-Level-Business

The accounts say

1) the ocmpany was dormant
2) it is a wholly subsidiary of the BankOfEngland.

Therefore the premise of this whole article is wrong.

Tapestry said...

Does the British Government issue its own money? No it doesn't. It borrows it from other parties, and pays interest to them.

As the country borrows the money, it issues a promissory note to pay back the capital at a certain date in the future, and meantime pay interest at a fixed rate.

These promises are tradeable as gilt-edged stock, or gilts as they are known.

Who are the parties who issue the money against the gilts?

We are not allowed to know.

The legal structure disguises the operations of the bank to the point where it is not possible to get to the bottom of who it is who is lending the money to our country.

Unless you'd care to enlighten us....

the_last_name_left said...

Don't quibble. Your claim is simply wrong.

And yes, the government *can* print its own money, all day and every day ..... if it chooses to do so.

There is no need to borrow - but the present doctrine is monetarist, and they hold that printing the money (rather than issuing bonds, as now) is inflationary.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of that policy, but.....the point is, the BankofEngland is owned by the Government. It is NOT privately owned, and it is certainly not owned by its own subsidiary (BOEN).

Holding companies own subsidiaries, not the other way around.

Tapestry said...

The words Who Owns The Bank Of England? are the words people search under. The topic that I address is who lends the money to the UK.

Many commenters have offered the same opinion as you. I am happy to be wrong about any legal aspects, but not about who lends the money to the government.

I repeat the government does not print its own money in the sense you are saying. It issues debt instruments called gilts, against which 'others' issue money to it.

One of the terms of the Maastricht Treaty incidentally is that no EU country will issue its own money. The Euro and Sterling are part of the Rothschild central banking system.

No quibble, my friend. I

the_last_name_left said...

UK is not a member of the Euro - it has financial sovereignty over its currency.

Yes, the government issues bonds - IOUs against which they borrow money and on which they pay an interest fee. But they don't have to do so. They choose to do so.

Tapestry said...

The government signed away its sovereign rights to run its own currency in The Maastricht Treaty. The British Government hasn't issued its own money since the Bank Of England was founded. No British Prime Minister has dared even to suggest that we might do so.

It's the same in the USA, the government does not issue its own money since the creation of The Federal Reserve Board. The Presidents that try to end the tyranny of central banking end up dead, like JFK.

If governments issued their own money for their own disposal, there would be no need to charge interest.

That is why central bankers became so powerful and control the political systems of our so-called democracies.

the_last_name_left said...

UK is not in the Euro. The UK has sovereign control over issuance of its currency.

The BoE was NATIONALISED in 1946.

You're determined that your view is right, no matter the facts.


You say "If governments issued their own money for their own disposal, there would be no need to charge interest."

What interest do you mean?

Let's assume the UK is running a PSBR of zero, or a surplus - ie tax revenues exceed spending.

Each year the government destroys old and retired banknotes. And prints more.

So, it prints more, as it destroys some.

Where exactly does the government pay "interest" - and to whom - in this process?

Tapestry said...

No. I'm always happy to be proved wrong and learn new things. As for the Maastricht Treaty, which Britain signed, its real name was not the Maastricht Treaty. In all other countries of the EU, it is given its proper name - The Treaty Of European Union.

While Britain received a dispensation from joining the single currency immediately, we agreed to run our economy according to the Euro Convergence Criteria. And we agreed was all other EU countries that our government would never issue its own money (recycling old notes for new is not what we mean by issue). Issue means increasing the quantity of money at the disposal of the government to spend, lend or invest.

Who do we borrow the money from?

Try reading The House Of Rothschild, in The Tap Blog's recommended books.

The world's central banks are private businesses. Their power and wealth is indescribable. In 1850 the Rothschilds owned more than half the wealth of the whole world. By some estimates, today, the private families that they are connected to, own more than 80% of all the wealth in the world.

The operate in league with the world's security agencies like the CIA, MI5/6, Mossad, and eliminate any threat to their position.

Essentially there is another level of power which operates the nations in its own interests. It is to these people that we pay interest, or rather our government does. And it is to pay the interest that we pay taxes. Otherwise we would all live to a far higher standard than we do.

the_last_name_left said...

You also say both of these things:

1) The British Government hasn't issued its own money since the Bank Of England was founded.

and

2) The government signed away its sovereign rights to run its own currency in The Maastricht Treaty.

====

If the government hasn't issued its own money "since the BoE was founded", then how could it have signed away that right in the Maastricht Treaty?



Government can't sign away something it doesn't have, right?

So at least one of your statements is incorrect, right? ;)

the_last_name_left said...

No, the BofE is not a private bank.

It simply is not. You keep saying it, but it isn't.

I'm sure you're well intentioned, but you're simply insisting that "it is so" when there's no reason to believe it.

the_last_name_left said...

Issue means increasing the quantity of money at the disposal of the government to spend, lend or invest.
=====

Yes. Let's take QE as an example. The BoE simply writes up an electronic balance and uses that to buy gilts from the market - thereby raising the money supply.

But all it does is enter the balance on an account, electronically - which it transfers to a (really) private bank, in exchange for the gilts.

That raises the cash the private banks have.....at absolutely no cost to the BofE - it simply created the balance out of thin air. Whoosh!

Where's the "interest" paid there?

Tapestry said...

It's lucky I'm not busy tonight, last name left!

The practice of raising money through central banks, and not issuing our own money started (as I understand it) as The Bank Of England was formed. William Of Orange came over from Holland and brought the Dutch system of finance with him. The Royal family were original shareholders of the Bank, and there is no record of them having sold their shares since.

Britain could have legally issued her own money since 1794?, but the practice was that she did not, backed up with menaces. Since Maastricht, it would now be held illegal by a European Court if the British government were to issue her own money.

The Bank Of International Settlements, the Central Bankers' Central Bank in Switzerland is privately owned. The IMF is their subsidiary.

The legal position of the Bank Of England is whatever it is, but the key fact is that the British Government does not, has not and now cannot issue its own money, as is the case with nearly all countries in the world today. Libya and Iraq issued their own money and were hammered for doing so.

So was Hitler.

It's the surest way to bring down the wrath of the elites who control the world to issue your own money. In the USA, Presidents who did were either assassinated or were lucky to survive assassination.

The War Of Independence in the US, and the Civil War were all a bout money issuance, not slavery as people are incorrectly told. Money issuance is why Lincoln was assassinated, not slavery.

That's how powerful these people are, they even rig the history books.

Chris said...

I love a conspiracy story but this is too much! :)
If these people are so powerful and controlling they wont like you tapestry spilling the beans. If they can bring down countries then they can swat you like a fly.
This blog is like the Daily Mail on magic mushrooms.

Anonymous said...

Well I don't believe any of this n00bs!

Chris X said...

This is rubbish. The Bank of England was created by William of Orange as a depository account for the nations taxes. The reason at the time for the excessive taxation which was against the rights of the citizens was to in essence pay back on a loan, a loan levied against the English common man. The Bank was set up as a current account. Opening balance if £0. A substantail loan + interest is paid by excessive taxation from the people. A national debt is born and is still owed to this day. Oh and in case you wondered about the excess monies from the taxes after loan payments, that was creamed off for the aristocrisy, they used the peoples money to buy the peoples land and have a ball while they did so. George Orwells Essay England your England details this extreme division of wealth, the greatest in Europe and possibly the World, that continues to this day.

the_last_name_left said...

Appreciate the Orwell reference, but careful about suggesting he agrees with what you claim.

If a national debt is owed for the reasons you claim, then how much is it? Where is it? Whom gets paid? How?

And how do you know?

Anonymous said...

The Bank of England was created as a branch of the Bank of Rome. Google "Does the Vatican Hold Your Mortgage?"

wasp said...

"Does the Vatican Hold Your Mortgage?" THE ANSWERS YES

Look up References within the Site, such as The Treaty of Verona, & various other stuff I have sent in.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Tap has far more patience than I have explaining to the MYOPIC such as t_l_n_l, how The System Works. If you can't see through the Smoke Screen You Are Another One of The Brain Dead.

Why do you think there are so Many Central Banks, they stopped fighting in Egypt to setup a Central Bank. Libya has just been added, Syria, Iran & Korea are now the only ones without a Central Rothschild Bank. Putin kicked the Illuminati out of Russia, & efectivly took control of his own Money Situation.

Abe Lincoln, & Hitler & Kennedy, tried to take control of their own money supply, Stalin never did so, was never a real threat, although he killed off thousands of Illuminati Agents to consolidate his hold on power. He was the Biggest Mass Murderer in History, clocking up over 90,000,000.

This should give you some idea of their order of priorities.

If you cant see it then you haven't done enough reading on the subject.

REGARDS ....... WASP

the_last_name_left said...

WASP said:

If you can't see through the Smoke Screen You Are Another One of The Brain Dead.
---------------

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is......a zombie.

You are seeing the entire world and history through a very particular prism - and you use it to explain everything.

Careful with that, I'd say.

wasp said...

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is......a zombie. Well you said it t_l_n_l

Everyone uses the same Prism, Light when entering is Refracted & Split into it's Spectoral Components.

IF YOU THINK WHAT YOU SEE, IS ALL THAT IS THERE YOU WOULD BE WRONG.
The visible spectrum is what we detect with our eyes, EMR in the range 390 - 750 nm & is called Visible Light.
Many Species can see light in the range 300 - 400 nm outside the human "visible spectrum"
JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE IN THIS RANGE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT THERE.

TO DENY ANY THING OUTSIDE OUR DETECTABLE RANGE IS OF NO USE, OR WRONG WOULD SHOW EXTREME MYOPIA.

I am using the full visible spectrum, & trying to use 'Tools' to detect that which is ouside me detectable capabilities, where as you are using a cohearant source, if you only beleive history you are told is true. Far cleaverer people have said that only 5% of written History is True. viz Eustace Mullins, Carole Quigley, William James Guy Carr, Dr. John Coleman

REALITY IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS. THE HUMAN BODY IS A MOBILE ELECTOMAGNETIC FIELD, & ALL THE COMPONENTS WHICH ARE COMPRISED OF ATOMS, ARE IN A CONSTANT STATE OF Vibratory Motion, EACH PART HAVING CHARACTERISTC FREQUENCIES.

IT DOESN'T TAKE A QUANTUM LEAP IN THE THOUGHT PROCESSES TO REALISE THAT INTERACTIONS WITH THE BODY CAN TAKE PLACE VIA THE EM SPECTRUM, & AUDIBLE ENERGY SOURCES. THIS IS NOW OCCURING ON A REGULAR BASIS, & IS BEING USED TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER HUMANS., AS A TRANSITION STAGE TO BECOMMING A 'TRANS HUMAN' You Are being Sprayed Like An Insect to put BioAPI Chips into you. ALL HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT.

JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS STUFF DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT HAPPENING, IT IS, & THEY DO, AND THEY ARE IN CONTROL. THE OCCULT & RELIGION ARE IMPORTANT ASPECT OF KNOWLEDGE RELATING TO THIS.

WE SHOULD ALWAYS TRY & INTERPRET IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WE OBSERVE, NOT WHAT WE ARE TOLD WE SHOULD OBSERVE.

I Only Beleive What I Beleive I Beleiveable, Not What I Am Told Is Beleivable.
That is why I have never beleived in The Cargo Cult Science of "Global Warming" Observation tells me it A'int Happening. If you take the trouble to research this you will know the reason why they thought it up.

Those who can't observe from 'outside the box' need to do a lot more reading, to enable them to 'DROP THEIR HOT POTATOES' Some Will Never Be Able To Achieve This.

In closing I would say I fail to be impressed by your LOGIC.
Money in its self has no value. It is produced out of THIN AIR the only thing that gives it value is the fact that everyone is registerd on the Stock Exchange, you are a salable asset, given away at birth when you were Registered as a "STRAW PERSON", its all done by the Magic Mirrors of Corporations, that operate via Commerercial Law UCC.
Read about it I have sent in enough information on the subject. YOU ARE OWNED BY THE VATICAN - LOCK STOCK & BARELL, LIKE IT OR NOT.

REGARDS ............. WASP

the_last_name_left said...

Well, there you go.

BTW - you mention Eustace Mullins.....and how not all is at it seems.

Well, your source Mullins was a Nazi for 50 years.

Don't drink the (Nazi) Kool Aid. But clearly you've already gulped a lot down.

Oh well. Good luck with that.

pal-ladio said...

tap - shine a light,I am new to this but let me summarise; there is a power above governments The Central Banks. They operate as far as possible in secret but much of their dark history is recorded. developed by the Rothschild dynasty and the aristocracy of europe (BlkNob. their modus operendi is to control the money supply of nations. They manipulate governments and markets, cause war, assassinate presidents and monopolise industries. Their primary means of control is to put governments into debt and by extension the people. They are without empathy for the masses. Who are the significant players outside the Redshield Cabal? Russia, China, India, Brazil? The EU wants to regulate banks, is this just clearing banks?

Anonymous said...

Because Satan rules the world via these willing human agencies. It is HIS hand that is directing the puppets, below, which accounts for the evil being simultaneously carried out along with this agenda. Obviously, not everyone will agree with me, but that's their business, not mine. You asked why? That, is why.

JW.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't just the Jews who suffered in the holocaust. There were plenty of others, a few of which I've met, myself.

They allowed the holocaust to take place in order to justify creating the political state of Israel in that strategic place, not only for commercial and geopolitical interests, but also to foment the Arab Israeli conflict until a nuclear bomb is dropped, which will (in conjunction with the global economic chaos) cause such panic, the nations will be "persuaded" to hand over all their sovereignty to the united nations, thus fulfilling Bible prophecy. As soon as the counterfeit NWO is "one" and they declare their false Orwellian cry of "peace and security", then it's game over for them, and this system will be destroyed.

Call it far fetched if you wish.. but it's the bottom line. These last days began in 1914 and the control system, headed by Satan through his agents, only have a short period of time. And their time is almost up.

JW.

Anonymous said...

Serial failure of political class,
dont change the way you vote
if you are happy with:
Unregulated banks
Civil servants bonuses
Media domination and abuse
Police corruption
Invasion of countries
Civil servants & BBC avoiding tax
Unequal justice - not one banker
Parliamentary expenses
PFI, LIBOR, PPI, ERswaps
Offshore cabinet ministers
Rich tax avoiders
Loading debt on future generations
Eurocrats
Unaccountability
All our problems have been caused by politicians not doing their job.
How do we communicate this to the electorate?

pal-ladio said...

De-regulation of the banking sector resulted in London becoming the global centre of financial crime. Politicians did not monitor their creation nor did they act to correct their mistakes when the bankers came needing tax payers money. Brown could have secured deposits and bought those banks for £1. The wild west of banking led to sub-prime and the Lehman banking collapse. An industry without boundaries targeting any money they can find. And now the useless politicians hand over future tax payers money to banks over which they have no control who think it is fine to keep taking their bonuses. You couldn't make it up. People wake up and stop voting for major political parties. It is up to you to effect change. Take care to consider what the media are feeding the electorate unless you think Mr Murdoch knows what is best for you.

StoryPlay.co.uk said...

Interesting. So is the following all lies then?

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Pages/parliament/default.aspx

the_last_name_left said...

Which would you believe - the statutory legal position or the ramblings of people going on about Satanism and anti-semitism?

lol. tough choice.....

Tapestry said...

you can make a law that the rothschilds are not more powerful than the law or the government or the legal system, or you can face the reality that if one family owns 80% of all the wealth of the whole world, and have all governments heavily in their debt, the power relationship is other than it appears on neat documents filed in the desks of obedient pension-dependent civil servants.

Anonymous said...

Failed leaders

Why do we repeatedly have bad leaders the world over?
Any grouping will naturally form a hierarchy. Those at the top of the pyramid are self serving and have a lesser drive to benefit the majority. It is in their interest to manipulate the majority in order to retain privilege and power. The veneer of democracy has little effect on this. The rich get richer and greed knows no bounds.

pal-ladio said...

American destruction of global banking system.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why the Americans chose to spread toxic debt bombs into global banks?

American rating agencies gave AAA green light to toxic mortgage bundles which have destroyed the western banks balance sheets with unknown liabilities.

Was this because US wealth was diminishing?

Anonymous said...

Why has no authority taken the Rothschilds to court for conspiracy to economically destroy countries by economic instruments and make them open their accounts and prove their innocence we will then I believe put them away for a long time.The trouble is our country justices are chicken shit and of coarse are in the grip of the Rothschild.If this situation is not sorted out the third world war will be upon us soon and the Rothschild will make millions more,unless their blown up as well,it will never end until we do something about it ,talk is no good.action is needed by our justice system and some good honest MP's if there is such a thing.

Henry North London 2.0 said...

@ Anon 11.21 Our justices are paid by their masters the Rothschilds.

Good Honest MPs? You wont find them. There are a handful and they are never let near the Cabinet.

the_last_name_left said...

No they're not paid by the Rothschilds. They're paid by the taxpayer.

Tell me, why do people keep voting in support of all this?

There are alternatives - especially if the world is as corrupt and conspirational as you lot believe.

And yet people don't vote for alternatives.

Why?

According to people here it's all so obvious - and evil - and even Satanic. Yet the general public vote and consume as they do.

So why?

And then, considering people do vote as they do, why do you need to posit a grand conspiracy (Rothschilds etc) which is needed to keep it all going along?

It doesn't really make sense, does it?

Just like this thread - asserting private ownership of BoE when all the evidence says it is state-owned.

the_last_name_left said...

BTW - I agree with the sentiment in Tapestry's first comment.

I just think democracy (and everything else) is better helped by accurate information, not rubbish.

There is surely some fine sentiment behind some of the comments here, but there is also an awful lot of ignorance and myth.

And anti-semitism......

One needn't invent problems to justify seeking a more just world.

Indeed, chasing phantasms will surely breed injustice.

http://www.occupythebanks.com said...

For a lot more about banking, finance, fake fiat reality, real reality, economics, and indeed, exopolitics, please feel free to pop over to our website:

http://www.occupythebanks.com

For what it's worth, I can confirm the facts in this article.

People interested in this article, would be well advised to spend a week going through our Bankster Briefing sections (particularly in this context, the first set; central banks.

Oops, almost forgot, we have another site live now, we hope you understand it, but if not, you soon will: http://www.open-transactions.com

Anonymous said...

The shareholders are kept secret for a good reason. It is a trust and the equitable shareholders must be kept secret for their own security. It is my belief that the living people born on English soil are the equitable shareholders, just as we are the shareholders in our own government. They hold our birth right in trust. They gave us the birth certificate so we could work for them because we had to get valuable consideration.

the_last_name_left said...

Anon says the shareholders are kept secret.

So, the evidence which supposedly shows it is privately-owned is secret......yet you still conclude it is privately owned.

But how can you know that's true if the supposed information saying so is "secret" and unknown?

And why ignore all the available evidence which says IT IS NOT PRIVATE?

The US FED is private - no secret about that.

The BoE is NOT private - no secret about that either.

If you purposely ignore the evidence which actually exists, and instead choose to believe in things for which there is no evidence, then you can reach whatever conclusion you like.

This is what you are doing here.

You have no evidence for it being privately owned but plenty for it having been nationalised.

Yet you choose to believe WHAT YOU WANT - that it is private.

What's the point in just believing whatever you like?

Tapestry said...

The element of secrecy leaves many things open to question. Legal ownership is not the same as beneficial ownership. In whose interests is it that the bank issues and lends money to the country or other banks and charges interest for doing so?

Or borrows money from others through the BIS and pays the interest to them? Either way private people make the gains, not the people who elect the government of the UK.

We imported the Dutch central banking system when William of Orange came over, and pushed out the last of the kings who thought he had to raise taxes to make war.

the_last_name_left said...

But the claim isn't merely that the private-owners' identity is a secret - rather the claim is that the private-ownership is a secret (as is their identity, also).

Absent any evidence at all -- such as the identity of the owners -- why believe it is privately-owned? Why?


You said:
---
"In whose interests is it that the bank issues and lends money to the country or other banks and charges interest for doing so?"
--

But the BoE doesn't "lend the country money." It isn't allowed to.

The BoE raises financing for government by issuing government bonds *to the market*. The private market provides the funds.....and it's they that receive the interest.....not the BoE.

And if the BoE lends money to private banks (or holds some of their deposits) why should it not charge or pay interest from and to those banks? [And isn't that a critical part of BoE's role in setting interest rates?]

You say:

-
"Either way private people make the gains, not the people who elect the government of the UK."
-

That's not strictly true. If the BoE lends money to banks it charges them interest. That's effectively income for the Treasury ie the taxpayer/citizen.

The problem running through this page is that several things are getting mixed up together - such as the ownership of the BoE, and how it operates. They're entirely different things: ownership is distinct from operation.

The big idea here is that supposedly the ownership of the BoE effects its behaviour - it is supposed to be serving the interests of this cabal of malignant owners, rather than the people of the country. To great cost etc.

And the evidence (supposedly) is that the bank is privately-owned, and run as if it were -- by charging the country interest to pay for its currency -- and privately pocketing all the real dough for themselves.

Except, none of that happens -- the BoE doesn't operate as claimed, and there is simply no evidence for private ownership.

So why believe it?

People believe this stuff because they believe in some grand conspiracy....and peoples' belief in grand conspiracy leads them to believe this stuff. It's an (obviously?) circular form of belief.

Nevermind there's actually no evidence for something.....the 'real' evidence is all secret, apparently. Ah. How neat.

Alongside denial of the evidence which really does exist, such a reliance on "secret evidence" is simply a contrivance for believing anything at all.

Tapestry said...

Last name left wrote -

The BoE raises financing for government by issuing government bonds *to the market*. The private market provides the funds.....and it's they that receive the interest.....not the BoE.

TAP - correct. That's the point we're making here. If the bank was allowed to issue money, there would be no problem. The interest would accrue in the country's favor. As it is, it accrues to the Rothschilds, who own 80% of all the wealth in the world. The one who derives the benefit is indeed the real owner, the beneficial owner, whoever the legal or paper owner may be.

The legal ownership is partly secret, as it is.

the_last_name_left said...

I'm sure I have said it already, but I do respect this blogger in so far as s/he will actually allow dissenting views.

There aren't many places out there that support this kind of stuff but which also allow dissent.

That's one reason I am so skeptical about such places and their pronouncements.

At the very least, this blog allows reasonable dissent. I appreciate that and commend you for it. (even if little else ;))

the_last_name_left said...

"If the bank was allowed to issue money, there would be no problem."

What do you mean?

How would/should the BoE "issue money" in your view?

Do you want the Bank to hire helicopters and start dishing the stuff out of the window?

If not by helicopter, then how?


-
"As it is, it [interest] accrues to the Rothschilds
-

And yet there is no evidence that the BoE is owned by the Rothschilds.

If you had some evidence that the BoE is actually owned by the Rothschilds that might help.......but in fact there's only evidence that the BoE was nationalised long ago.

-
"The one who derives the benefit is indeed the real owner, the beneficial owner, whoever the legal or paper owner may be."
-

But if that is the case, why does it matter whether the BoE is privately owned or not? It seemed important to you, but now seemingly none of that matters as it is "the real, beneficial owner" whom gains, no matter what the legal or paper-ownership" might be"!

Well, again that's awfully useful for your argument, isn't it?

Nevermind that the evidence says the facts are otherwise to what you claim - you just say the facts are suddenly irrelevant.

What you're saying is, it doesn't matter what any evidence might suggest .....the facts are that Rothschilds will gain from an essentially dishonest foundation of the BoE, and the rule of law, and documentary title to property, and blah blah blah.

All actual evidence which says otherwise is discarded - just so you can support your prejudice that Rothschild gains....somehow.

Tapestry said...

Ownership is divided in law -into the legal or nominal holder of title, which is officially secret to some extent, and denied with fervor by or on behalf of potential other owners, in the case of the BoE. The other part of ownership is the beneficial ownership, which is the party to whom the benefits accrue.

This arrangement allows the money to flow to the next generation of beneficial owners without it affecting the legal or nominal title, when parties die.

Those with the power to exercise authority within the organization are the Directors whose job it is to act in the interests of the beneficial owners who are the private parties who receive the interest on the bonds issued.

If the country could issue its own bonds, then the interest would accrue to the country not to a group of elite bankers, who lurk in secret behind the front door of the Bank Of England. It is misnamed. The bank should be called The bank of Rothschild. They are the ones who receive the interest.

the_last_name_left said...

"If the country could issue its own bonds, then the interest would accrue to the country not to a group of elite bankers"

--

The country does issue its own bonds.

It's just not allowed to buy them off itself because that would be a licence to print money - unconstrained by markets.

Seems to me the exact reason the BoE can't buy the bonds the Government issues is because that would be self-evidently stupid under the market system - as it excludes the market entirely.

If OTOH you want to propose a social remit for the BoE then that's fair enough - let's have the BoE buy all the British government debt.....problems solved! But that's quite different to complaining it is owned by the Rothschilds and set upon exploiting the people of Britain for narrow, self-serving, private interests.

So, against all the evidence, you're arguing the BoE is owned by the Rothschilds and that the BoE should be able to fund UK Government debt, as it wishes........or rather, as the public wishes, perhaps? That's what socialists would want from a central bank, you know?

I tend to support a socialist position, but if a central bank supplies its own government with money, without any market intervention, what will be the likely outcome?

We'd need rely on management overcoming self-interest (via the market).

You don't strike me as a socialist.

Yet you want to remove the market from being a factor in how much money a government can borrow?

By allowing it to lend to itself.

Are you sure?

the_last_name_left said...

"The bank should be called The bank of Rothschild. They are the ones who receive the interest."
----

Except you don't have any evidence that they do.

You don't have the (supposedly secret) list of shareholders, remember?

And the list of shareholders doesn't even matter though, as you say the beneficial owners are all that count.

So why believe any of it?

You say Rothschilds......and claim evidence doesn't matter.

That looks like a serious prejudice against Rothschilds. oh well.

Tapestry said...

Countries that issue their own debt and receive the interest, normally are extremely successful financially. Those that permit growing debt to outsiders, well, most kids of eleven and up, can understand that problem.

I suggest a read of the History of the Rothschilds in recommended reading in this blog. They created the gilt edged market. That's the admitted official history of course. There is another version which might challenge many 'on the face of it' dressing up jobs such as who actually gets the interest from British taxpayers and who really runs British government finances. But at least let's start with the official history, which you might not yet be aware of.

Anonymous said...

It all make sense.
Who owns China money?
Does the BOE or federal reserve pays tax on the interest earned. If so, it makes sense to give some back. Also if shareholder dies, do they pay inheritance tax?
If a debtor goes bust, can they waive the loan?

Or are they exempt of their own/government laws?

Anonymous said...

This documentary explains a lot about debt based money systems and private central banks. as viewers will learn, The Federal Reserve in the USA, a privately owned central bank, follows very closely the models of the old European central banks.

http://youtu.be/aI3at6mQ_x0