(Photo of Dr. Schacht (of the German Reichsbank) and Mr. Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England) talking things over before the Second World War.)
"In view of the disastrous policy followed by the Bank of England after the last war and the part it is believed to have played in the re-armament of Germany, does not the right hon. gentleman (Sir John Simon) consider it time that the people knew a bit more about the proprietors of this unique concern?"
— Mr . R. Stokes, in the British House of Commons, April 16, 1940.
Most orthodox history that is crammed into the heads of our children is one long list of contradictions. There is no real background to our social development because the main underlying factors have been completely ignored.
The part played by the money system in the growth of society has been tremendous; yet how many of our historians mention it? We teach our children about the development of the British Commonwealth of Nations, although the real basis of this growth has been either neglected or distorted, while the development of that powerful, private and anti-social institution, the Bank of England, is very rarely mentioned. If we are really desirous of preserving and developing British culture, it is essential that we attempt to gain at least an elementary knowledge of the attack which was launched against the British people at the time of Cromwell. It is significant that the introduction of what has been termed a "spurious Whig culture," marked the origin of the present banking racket in Britain. This cultural and financial attack has been going ever since, although there is sound reason to believe that the enemy is at last being turned on both flanks. However, as yet, there is no sign of a rout in the enemy's ranks.
Even the London "Times," one of the chief mouthpieces of the financial oligarchy, offered the following criticism of "Whigism" in its issue of August 4, 1840:—
"There is certainly in 'Whigism' an inherent propensity to tyranny; and of all the methods which tyranny ever invented for sucking out the essential vitality of free institutions, without appearing materially to touch their forms, this centralising system is the most plausible and the most pernicious. . . . If it shall be fully carried out, British liberty . . . will rest no longer on the possession of constitutional power by the people, but upon the sufferance of a majority of those who, for the time being, may call themselves the people's representatives."
The man who wrote the above lines, 100 years ago, had a deep insight into the principles of social organisation.
Those who seek to re-write history find it a very formidable undertaking, because it has become a "vested interest" with the official historians. Any historian who refused to portray Cromwell as a saviour of the British people, pointed out that his real name was Williams, and that he belonged to a small group of men who had been enriching themselves at the expense of the Monarchy and the people, while bringing a group of foreigners from Holland to batten on the British people, would not find his books recommended for use in our schools or universities. Our "Whig" historians tell us about the tyrannies of Charles I. and Charles II., and how they reigned without Parliament. The impression is given that Parliament in those days was similar to what we have to-day. Nothing is further from the truth. It was comprised of a group of wealthy men who were not very responsible to the British people. The real fight was between the Money Power and Monarchy, with the victory of the Money Power in 1688, when James II. was driven off the throne by his son-in-law, William III., who was brought to Britain at the behest of the financial interests. The Bank of England was formed six years later—1694—and with it began the National Debt. The Bank was formed for the purpose of lending money to the crown and was modelled on the Bank of Amsterdam, founded in 1609, the first bank in Northern Europe. The part played by Jews in this formation of the modern banking system, together with the modern Stock Exchange, was considerable.
It is essential that we make ourselves conversant with the growth of the forces which paved the way for the establishment of the Bank of England and the debt- system. Anyone who cares to study British history during the six and a half centuries from the Norman Conquest, until the financiers arrived at the invitation of Cromwell, will find that the Monarchy did exercise its sovereign right of issuing money. There was adequate money for the people's needs. Modern history books fail to tell us of the general standard of prosperity and culture which existed prior to the banking swindle. It has remained for such writers as William Cobbett and Thorold Rogers to give us a true picture of those times. Writers like Sir John Fortesque (about 1460) give detailed evidence of the general prosperity of the English people.