The City Of London / NWO Central?

CHAPTER 6 from the book "DESCENT into SLAVERY
Unknown Des Griffin

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

THE CITY
========

When people think of England such terms as 'Great Britain,' 'The Queen,'
'The Crown,' 'Crown Colonies,' 'London,' 'The City of London,' and 'British
Empire' come to mind and blend together into an indistinguishable blur.
They are generally looked upon as synonymous, as being representative of the
same basic system.  During the 1950s and 1960s the author lived in England
(London for five years) without even beginning to realize the vast
difference that exists in the meaning of some of the above terms.

When people hear of 'The Crown' they automatically think of the King or
Queen; when they hear of 'London' or the 'The City' they instantly think of
the capital of England in which the monarch has his or her official
residence.

To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must define
our terms:

When we speak of 'The City' we are in fact referring to a privately owned
Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677
acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London'
area.  The population of 'The City' is listed at just over four thousand,
whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is approximately
seven and a half million.

The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the
independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.'  'The City' is
not part of England.  It is not subject to the Sovereign.  It is not under
the rule of the British parliament.  Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a
separate, independent state.  It is the Vatican of the commercial world.

The City, which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is
ruled over by a Lord Mayor.  Here are grouped together Britian's great
financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the
privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd's of London,
the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading
international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid you
not].  Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the
newspaper and publishing worlds.

TWO MONARCHS
============

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the
City.  As Aubrey Menen says in "London", Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: "The
relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is
curious and tells much."  It certainly is and certainly does !

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord
Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City.  She bows and asks for
permission to enter his private, sovereign State.  During such State visits
"the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval
costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no furhter than
service uniforms." The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.

The reason should be clear.  The Lord Mayor is the monarch.  The Queen is
his subject !  The monarch always leads the way.  The subject always stays a
pace or two behind !

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament.  It
tells them what to do, and when.  In theory Britian is ruled by a Prime
Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers.  These 'fronts' go to great
lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in
reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy
characters who dominate behind the scenes.  As the former British Prime
Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'israeli wrote: "So you
see...  the world is governed by very different personages from what is
imagined by those who are not behind the scenes" (Coningsby, The Century
Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book: "The
Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the
mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget
Director] is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget.
Both are advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury, and these
listen to the City.  If they suspect that some policy of the government will
[back-fire]... it is no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if
it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City.  As one ambassador
complained to me, diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow
ones at that.

"The City will know.  They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell
the Prime Minister. Woe betide him if he does not listen.  The most striking
instance of this happened in recent history.  In 1956 the then Prime
Minister, Sir Anthony Eden... launched a war to regain the Suez Canal.  It
had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would
have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse.  He stopped the
war and was turned out of office by his party.  When the Prime Minister
rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will put
more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboard" (p.
18).

History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the
"invisible and inaudible" force centered in the City.  The City calls the
tune.  The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance to that
tune on command.  They have no power.  They have no authority. In spite of
all the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the
financial elite.
 

HISTORY of the 'CITY'
====================

>From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth
century the British Monarchs ruled supreme - their word was law.  They truly
were Sovereign in every sense of the word.

As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end of
the 1600s the wealth, strength and influence of the elite merchants in the
City also grew - only at a faster pace.  In 1694 the privately owned Bank of
England (a central bank) was established to finance the profligate ways of
William III. The bank was financed by a group of City merchants who used
William Paterson as a 'front.'  The names of the founders have never been
made public.

It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to
dominate and control the affairs of Britain.  Their influence and wealth
grew in leaps and bounds in the century  that followed.  "The Illustrated
Universal History," 1878, records that "Great Britain emerged from her long
contest with France with increased power and national glory.  Her Empire was
greatly expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was
undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased...  But with all this
national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk in
extreme wretchedness and poverty, having been bled dry during the struggle
of the previous twenty years.

It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized control
of the British economy, the Bank of England and the City - and, through
their other branches, control of the other European nations.

Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the
far-flung reaches of the globe.  Having been thrown out of the Western
Hemisphere, Britain now concentrated on acquiring and developing additional
possessions   elsewhere.

During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all
international trade was carried in British ships.  Other shippers had to pay
the Crown royalties or commissions for the 'privilege' of doing business on
the high seas.  During these years 'Britannia Ruled the Waves' through the
domination of the most modern and powerful navy known up to that time.

TWO SEPARATE EMPIRES
====================

To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the
fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British
Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire.

All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign - i.e.
under the authority of the British government.  Such nations as the Union of
South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British
law.  These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the
inhabitants of the British Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Eqypt,
Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Sinapore, Hong Kong
and Gilbraltar (those areas inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks)
were all Crown Colonies.  These were not under British rule. The British
parliament had no authority over them.  They were privately owned and ruled
by a private club in London, England known as the Crown.  The Crown's
representative in such areas held the absolute power of life and death over
all the people under his juristiction.  There were no courts and no method
of appeal or retribution against a decision rendered by the representatives
of the Crown.  Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown
colony was subject to the Crown law.  He couldn't appeal to British law as
it didn't apply.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was
no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces
to maintain the Crown's supremacy in these areas. Any revolts were met with
terrible retribution by the British navy at no cost to the Crown.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the
protection of the British armed forces. This wasn't British commerce and
British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and the
British aristocracy who were part of the 'City' machine accumulated vast
fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their pursuit of prestige and
standing in British Society.  Had the wealth been spread out among all the
people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. [I am not
suggesting that this should have been done, the thefts from the exploited
should never have occured to begin with - ralph].

In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority of
the British people were barely making ends meet.  Many were impoverished to
the point of despair.  The elite lived in regal splendor.  The poor British
peasants were never given a chance to get a cut of the action.

Simon Haxey in "England's Money Lords Tory M.P.," drew his readers'
attention to the "total disregard or open contempt displayed by the
aristocracy" towards the British people.  He also asked, "What part do the
colonial people play in the battle for democracy when they themselves have
no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant such
rights" (pp. 114,115) [we all know the difference between democracy and
republics I hope - ralph]

David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the
City and its total contempt for the "wretches" who were not part of the
'club.'  In a 1910 speech he stated: "We do most of the business of the
world.  We carry more international trade - probably ten times more - than
Germany.  Germany carries her own trade largely.  The international trade is
ours.  Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our shipping
brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that
wretched foreigner.  I'm taxing the foreigner for all I know... You've heard
a good deal of talk here, probably, about the exportation of capital abroad.
There is no way in which we can make the foreigner pay more... We get the
foreigner in four ways by that.  The first way we leave to Lord
Rothschild..."  ("Better Times", published 1910).

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that
"...financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the
responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the
world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and
another, involving international friendship and mistrusts...  Loans to
foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no
thought whatsoever of the nation's welfare but soley in order to increase
indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich...  This national
and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country
against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the
press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a
semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to
render Democratic Government a mere nickname.  Today, we see through a glass
darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in the public interest
to divulge'..." (E.C. Knuth, "Empire of 'The City'", p. 65).

All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83 and
84 of "Pan Germanism," written in 1913: "The London and Paris bankers [the
international bankers] control the available resources of the world at any
one moment, and can therefore practically permit or prevent the undertaking
of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred million dollars
actual value..."

The international bankers "own probably the major part of the bonded
indebtedness of the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and
South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in
London or Paris.  Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by the
pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the
weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of
the agents of the English and French bankers.  In addition, a very large
share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the
world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the world's
enterprises dictated by their financial heads.  The world itself, in fact,
pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living by
utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making them still
wealthier."

In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: "The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy
lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature,  its long-range planning
and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its
opponents.  The transient and temporal statesmen of Europe and particularly
of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all
been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence.  Obligated to show
action and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted
and outwaited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged
to temporize and retreat.  There are few who have opposed them in Britain
and America, without coming to a disgraceful end, but many, who served them
well, have also profited well" ("Empire of 'The City,'" p. 65).
 

======  END of CHAPTER 6 from the book "DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin
 

You have just completed reading the sixth chapter of ""DESCENT into
SLAVERY", by Des Griffin.

To see a television series somewhat based on "The City", rent or buy videos of the cult classic 60's Brit. TV series, " The Prisoner" . (Patrick McGoohan stars in this mini-series as a British intelligence agent who angrily resigns, is kidnapped by persons unknown, and ends up in "The Village" where he is constantly prodded by his Orwellian captors to provide "information.")