I always wondered about the Russian revolution and in what way could the interests of a people and nation ever be said to have been served by the deaths of millions of people and the innumerable terrible atrocities committed against Russians by fellow Russians. It made no sense to me but I knew that there must be a reason for it because it happened after all and for something to take place some groups of very rich and powerful people must have a specific desire to make it occur.
The main thing that strikes me about the Russian revolution is that it seemed to hate Russians. It cut them down mercilessly, executed the best of the officers and generals, imprisoned the best of intellectuals and sent them to far off Siberian gulags where their intelligence could be safely contained and not a threat to the new regime.
The revolution seemed determined to kill the best of people, and had no compunction about bloodying its hands and without shame to achieve its goals and to a disinterested observer those goals appeared to be to murder Russians and strip their country of anything noble, valuable, intelligent and worthwhile. If one reaches the understanding and follows the evidence that indicates that the Russian revolution was not planned, funded and largely carried out by Russians, nor was it carried out for their interests but planned, funded and carried out by non-Russians who had their own reasons for destroying Christian Tsarist Russia, then working backwards one can examine all so called revolutionary movements: the French Revolution and even the English Civil war and the execution of King Charles I, we realise that there has always been some ‘other’ group operating on the world-stage, using their puppets, whether Oliver Cromwell one minute, a Duke of Orleans the next, then Lenin. In the case of Cromwell and Lenin, there is the lingering suspicion that their deaths were not entirely natural but were carried out once the puppets had served their turn and had literally outlived their usefulness. All of these revolutions were said to involve international banking interests. In Cromwell’s case, his great great grandfather, Morgan Williams married Thomas Cromwell’s sister. Thomas Cromwell as chief minister to Henry VIII is known for being the instrument of the schism from the church of Rome.
Thomas Cromwell, as a boy, left his family to travel to the continent and found himself joining the French mercenary army at 13. Leaving the army and starving on the streets of Florence he escaped destitution by taking up service in the household of Florentine banker Francesco Frescobaldi, whose family were said to have once financially conquered England:
"not only in holding the purse-strings of the kings of England, but also in controlling sales of English wool which was vital to continental workshops and in particular to the Arte della Lana of Florence." Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce (‘Civilization and Capitalism’).
The Frescobaldi family financed the wars of King Edward I and were also receivers of customs in England from 1307 and they were also collectors of the papal tax and helped finance the crusades. Amedeo de Frescobaldi absorbed many of the debts incurred by the King and after his death and negotiated all of the customs duty on wool from Ireland and Scotland, no doubt in service to the late King’s debts. However, with the fall of King Edward II and suspicion of foreigners he was eventually arrested and had all his goods seized. He fled England and the royal debt was never paid and the Frescobaldi’s went bankrupt. It seems curious then that such a man as Thomas Cromwell, on the verge of absolute destitution should be ‘rescued’ by a member of the family who once had had such a powerful hand in the Kingdom of England only to lose everything, on the turn of politics. Did they sponsor Thomas Cromwell to return to England and manoeuvre him into setting up a continental mercantile and legal network and to return to London a very influential man with extensive contacts, destined for power by his own evident usefulness. In a sense was the advent of Thomas Cromwell the first time the bankers had wrestled control of the course of England and its destiny, whispering policy into the ears of the king. If so then what do the bankers want? What is their policy?
If we look at what Thomas Cromwell ultimately did to England, we might be able to trace a course which might outline their ultimate agenda and motivations. Renowned English historian Dominic Selwood, Fellow of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, in his book Spies, Sadists and Sorcerers states that Thomas Cromwell pursued an agenda of destruction:
“No one can be sure of the exact figure, but it is estimated that the destruction started and legalized by Cromwell amounted to 90% of the English art then in existence. Statues were hacked down. Frescoes were smashed to bits. Mosaics were pulverized. Illuminated manuscripts were shredded. Wooden carvings were burned. Precious metalwork was melted down. Shrines were reduced to rubble. This vandalism went way beyond a religious reform. It was a frenzy, obliterating the artistic patrimony of centuries of indigenous craftsmanship with an intensity of hatred for imagery and depicting the divine that has strong and resonant parallels today.”
This was a period of time when the so called ‘dark-ages’ were perhaps still brightly illuminated in the cultural memory, a time before what I would term the European banker Conquistador: William the Conqueror. What would be the purpose of effacing more than a thousand years of history leaving nothing but darkness and giving the impression that British history began in 1066?
The first Jews arrived in the country in 1066 and the first written record of a Jewish settlement in the country dates to 1070: there is no record of Jews in England before this time. During the reign of Henry I, Jews tended to represent the King’s financial interest and they had supremacy over Christians: a Jewish person’s oath was worth that of twelve Christians, so in effect, Jewish people during this period had a kind of diplomatic immunity and Jews were to be treat with special consideration as if they were the King’s own property.
One of the oldest town-houses, if not the oldest town house in England is known as the Jew’s House in Lincoln and was built in the 12th Century. It was in Lincoln in 1255 that one of the first instances of the ritual murder of a Christian child occurred. Nine-year-old Hugh disappeared from his home on 31st July and was discovered in a well on 29th August. He had been tortured and crucified in a re-enactment of the crucifixion of Jesus according to the confessions of those found guilty. There have been at least 150 accounts of children sacrificed by Jews as part of a ritual murder; though now all such accounts are now classed as ‘blood libel’ and antisemitic canards, as if these children never existed and their murders never happened.
From a logical and rational perspective, not to mention a scholarly and academic one, it is one of the axioms of historical research that the closer you are to the time the events took place the more accurate the recording of the facts. Conversely how can we be expected to believe an analysis that these events never happened 800 years after the facts? On this sound logical basis alone the canard of ‘blood-libel’ should be summarily dismissed as some kind of deliberate mental distortion of reality.
The accounts of these murders have endured for hundreds of years and such reports pervade history throughout the centuries and the different countries of a whole continent. To imagine that tens of thousands of people, for the past thousand years in all the countries of Europe where these blood-sacrifices have been reported have all been engaged in some huge and coordinated plot against Jews is possibly the most paranoid conspiracy theory anyone could imagine, but the Jews are permitted their paranoid conspiracy theories and even questioning them has become a criminal offence in many countries throughout the world.
Blood libel is a contemporary concept which has been summarily invented in order to efface these truths which expose the nature of a people who are not only actively opposed to our best interests, but are hostile to us and will seek to kill our people at any opportunity, whether they pick off a lost child or manage to slay millions in an organised a murderous organisation of engineered social revolution and destruction of institutions and civilisation. It is a common evil to be murdered by an antagonistic force, but to demonise the victims and victimise the demons, this elevates the whole story to a kind of infernal satire and such a level of evil to be permitted in this world convinces me indeed that this world is literally under the thrall of a supernatural diabolical force of malicious evil constantly seeking human blood through revolutions, genocides and wars which seems to have sided with a particular human group claiming ethnic and religious privilege and supremacy, at the expense of everybody else on Earth whose blood is let as remorselessly and without a second thought, as the butchering of animals.
There is an enormous effort to conceal and obfuscate these crimes and call them ‘blood-libel’ and insinuate that they are not true, or were invented in order for certain royal elements to profit by the confiscation of Jewish property. This alone is interesting and a fact worthy of note, and perhaps indicates how deeply our culture and society is controlled by elements which do not share our well-being and interests but instead the preservation and supremacy of their own. If reality can be rewritten to the extent that historical torture and murder of children by known parties can be spun into some kind of bizarre accusation of antisemitism then we are living in a world where a caste system obviously exists and we are not at the top of that system. It might be the kind of behaviour one might expect in a strange parallel world where a literal slave-race comprising 99.8 percent of the world exists, while the other 0.2 percent are the master-race. Any crime reported by the slaves against the master-race would face the full force of the master-race’s machinery of control to silence the complaints of the slave-race.
Thomas Cromwell weakened Europe by encouraging the great schism which would riven it in two and lead to hundreds of years of wars, intrigues and conflict. If there were another force, neither part of England nor of Europe which did not have their interests in mind, then it would likely want to encourage a policy in England of supporting the Protestant reformation and weakening the power-base of the Roman Catholic Church.
It seems strange that on his execution, the man who had been so instrumental in taking England out of the Roman Catholic Empire would declare:
“And now I praie you that be here, to beare me record, I die in the Catholicke faithe, not doubtyng in any article of my faith, no nor doubtyng in any Sacrament of the Chirche.”
He says of Cromwell whom he describes as Henry VIII’s ‘chief enforcer’:
“..one whose record for looting, murder and destruction ought to have us apoplectic with rage.”
He goes on to describe some of the outrages against history and culture which Thomas Cromwell committed and with this analysis, which we being remote in the far distance of history, can see that what Thomas Cromwell achieved was hardly different from the work of the French or Russian Revolution and indeed, could well be seen as part of a single continuum or ongoing project against the religion, culture and lives of the state’s citizens.
As hypothesised before one wonders whether Thomas Cromwell was acting as an agent of the Frescobaldi banking family all along; it is certain that their returns on their investment in the person of Thomas Cromwell had proved highly profitable, aside from any ideological and political agendas they may or may not have had the sequestering of the whole wealth of the Roman church in England must represent one of the world’s greatest booties, and any losses the family may have incurred as a result of the Barons acting against what they considered corrupting foreign elements in the English court had been well and truly repaid with interest, I therefore consider Thomas Cromwell to be an instrument of banker-vengeance:
“Flushed with the success of engineering Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn, Cromwell moved on to confiscating the Church’s money. Before long, he was dissolving monasteries as fast as he could, which meant seizing anything that was not nailed down and keeping it for himself, for Henry, and for their circle of friends. It was the biggest land-grab and asset-strip in English history, and Cromwell sat at the centre of the operation, at the heart of a widely-loathed, absolutist, and tyrannical regime. When Anne Boleyn pointed out that the money should be going to charity or good works, he fitted her up on charges of adultery, and watched as she was beheaded.”
And whether there is something innate in human nature or something innate in the ‘revolutionary’ system which has historically always been sponsored by international banking fraternities, the same casual attitude to the liquidation of perceived political opponents with the detached nonchalance of the administrator or clerical functionary.
“With lazy strokes of his pen, he condemned royalty, nobles, peasants, nuns, and monks to horrific summary executions. We are not talking half a dozen. He dispatched hundreds under his highly politicized ‘treason’ laws.”
It is also strange that the barbarousness of the French Revolution is closer to us in time and there are more cultural connections with our present day since there are constant cultural reminders through Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities or musicals like Les Miserables which evoke the post-revolutionary period, there has been a recent interest in the Tudor period through the work of popularising historians such as Dr David Starkey and the television programme Wolf Hall, but these media portrayals serve only to show how remote and estranged from our present period these distant bloodthirsty and quarrelsome Tudors were, it’s almost as if a certain level of barbarity is expected of our mediaeval kings and queens, but what if they were only following the instructions of their advisors and chief ministers, what if the barbarity of tortures and summary beheadings were really the work of some other group with their own interests. This is what I believe.
I do not believe that monarchs have the level of intelligence or malice necessary to have created the deep rivers of blood which have led us to our present moment, nor do I believe their motivations would be so great to kill so many people. Most people are content enough to get through their life with the least possible grief as long as they receive a reasonable degree of respect, understanding and value from other people. A monarch has little to prove to acquire that respect, but they have every chance of losing it by acting poorly, what if they were guided into acting poorly? Then faced with the consequences of popular discontent, the monarch feels alienated from his people, resentful, even possibly fearful, then his minister is on hand to suggest the correct punitive dissuasive remedies.
Thomas Cromwell was an example of one of the ‘Manipulators’ of his day using a puppet king to do his bidding and the bidding of his owners. We can only speculate as to what kind of international merchant banking fraternity might have existed in the middle-ages, or whether he was indeed really employed in some way by the Frescobaldi family nursing old grievances and eager to exploit an opportunity to train and infiltrate an agent into the very highest echelons of the English royal court. What is known is that both Edward I and Edward III defaulted on their loans and led to the bankruptcy of several large Italian banking firms; Edward I had sought more loans from the banker Ricciardi of Lucca for his war with France in 1294 but they were either unable or unwilling to extend him more credit whereupon he seized their English assets, bankrupting them.
King Edward III defaulted on a debt of 900,000 gold florins to the Peruzzi banking family and 600,000 to the Bardi banking family, this led to the collapse of several Italian banks, along with the ruination of the wealthy patrons who held their money with the collapsed banks. It is argued that this led to a general Europe-wide economic decline, also termed a ‘great depression’ which began in 1340. Considering the toll three terms of English Monarchs had had on the Florentine banking industry and the vast quantity of unpaid debts is it really so unusual to make the suggestion that a member of this deposed banking empire uses an English agent to belatedly settle the bill with ample interest. It’s just an idea, but it is a strongly persuasive one, at least to my reasoning. In history a ‘coincidence’ is often a sign that there is a conspiracy, and can it be a conspiracy that we have witnessed several bloodthirsty attacks on Christian nations in which the priority seems to be the destruction of the church and the murder of fellow Christians? The French Revolutionary moto was based on the phrase of French philosopher and Freemason, Denis Diderot ‘hang the last noble with the entrails of the last priest’.
Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich was a Jewish communist and Stalin’s ‘chief enforcer’ responsible for the deaths of millions of Christian Russians and Ukrainians in the Holodomor along with the destruction of Christian monuments, churches and over a thousand years’ of Russian history, perhaps most notably the great Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow when he proclaimed “Mother Russia is cast down. We have ripped away her skirts.” This is clearly a victory cry of triumph against Russia and the Russian people, along with her culture and history by the outside element which is antithetical to their existence and will employ all the machinery of the modern age to create horrors of bloodshed and destruction.
Like the Guillotine of the French Revolution, named after a French Freemason who was not the actual inventor of the machine, as guillotines had been in use as a means of execution in England since 1280, but as the man who first suggested its use in the Revolution, we find the endless need for piles upon piles of heads of Christians in these revolutions.
This is echoed back in the time some two hundred years previously where Selwood describes, what I would term the ‘revolutionary legacy’ of Thomas Cromwell:
“We only have to survey the smashed up medieval buildings the length and breadth of the country, or contemplate Cromwell’s record of public beheadings and other barbarous executions.”
Thomas Cromwell was eventually beheaded at Tower Hill on the 28th July 1540 prior to his execution he begged the king for mercy, perhaps he asked for the same mercy he had shown those he had executed for there was none and for once justice was done, although Henry apparently regretted killing such a useful and important minister. It is curious that on the same day as his death one of his protegees, Lord Hungerford of Heytesbury, who had reached his position through the patronage of Cromwell, was also executed, ostensibly for buggery but he was also known to have been part of a seditious group which had even practiced magic to attempt to shorten King Henry’s life and ascertain the chances of success of a Catholic rebellion in Lincolnshire.
This brings us to another strange element to this story which might cause us to wonder that perhaps Cromwell was just employed to disrupt the Kingdom and had no particular deep ideological reasons for causing the split from the Roman Church since he (and even King Henry himself) confessed that they had remained Catholic.
The man who was executed: Lord Hungerford, whom Cromwell brought to prominence and patronised, was connected to people sympathetic to The Pilgrimage of Grace rebellion against Henry’s break with the Roman church and the policies of Thomas Cromwell himself. This uprising began not far from where I was born in Lincolnshire in a pleasant market town called Louth at the Saint James church and as many as 40,000 people marched on Lincoln to demand the freedom to practice as Catholics (just like King Henry and Thomas Cromwell himself) and protection for the Church treasures of Lincolnshire.
Ultimately Hungerford was executed for his suspected involvement or sympathy with the Pilgrimage of Grace rebellion since he employed William Bird his chaplain, and it was claimed that Hungerford knew the man to be a traitor, and such associations, along with the Rector of Fittleton and the Vicar of Bradford, cast doubts on his loyalty to the king.
Oliver Cromwell, like his great great grand-uncle, was a pawn and puppet of international finance. Why was King Charles murdered? Follow the money. He had angered the merchants and bankers by seizing gold coins from the Royal Mint which were destined to the merchants and creditors of Government debt and just as King Henry had ordered Cromwell’s death, Oliver Cromwell ordered King Charles’ death. There are no coincidences in history, instead, evidence of an underlying agenda.