The word revolution is a banker’s term. It was used by the owners of the East India Company when they launched their first revolution, in England, in 1688. A revolution is a well-planned, well-financed affair that succeeds and is permanent in nature. It is always part of a bigger plan for a better world. The Glorious, Industrial, American and French Revolutions are all interrelated, and they opened the door to the great world we live in today. A war, an uprising, a rebellion, a revolt, or a military coup can only be called a revolution if it succeeds and is permanent in nature, in other words, if it has the international financiers’ approval.

When the owners of the East India Company entertained the idea of financing the construction of the chateau de Versailles, they were working on a way to get rid of their reviled enemy, the Roman Christian Empire, and they were starting with the most obvious target, France, its crown jewel. The construction of the chateau was the first step in a long series of events that would lead to the French Revolution. Construction of the chateau began in 1661, and by 1678, it looked like the chateau we know today. Once things were well under way in France, the owners of the East India Company had more time to organize the revolution planned for England, the one that would lead to a new form of government, democracy.

After his father’s execution in 1649, Charles II of England had fled to the Netherlands where he lived in exile until he was invited back in 1660. He subsequently wore the English crown from 1660 until his death in 1685. Much of England grumbled under his rule because he was for letting Catholics sit in parliament, and because he had befriended King Louis XIV of France. The owners of the East India Company, who effectively ran the Netherlands, were quite annoyed with Charles for associating with the French divine right king, but when, in 1672, he did Louis XIV a favor by having England declare war on the Netherlands, that was the last straw.

Since Charles II had no legitimate heir, his younger brother, James II, was next in line. While they waited for Charles’ reign to end, the financiers did their best to stoke the anti-royalist feelings among the English parliamentarians. And since James II was catholic and his daughter was being raised as an Anglican, arranging a marriage between his daughter Mary and William III of Orange seemed to be the answer to their long term goal. James II being a devout catholic would be easy to overthrow when the time came, and the crown would then be handed to his Anglican-raised daughter Mary who was next in line.

In 1677, the marriage between Mary II of England and William III of Orange was celebrated in St. James Palace, and it wasn’t a happy affair. At fifteen, an arranged marriage with a much older and repulsive William was not meant to make Mary happy, and she cried throughout the whole ceremony. She had a very unhappy life, especially while in the Netherlands, where she lived for the first eleven years of her marriage. William was a homosexual who spent most of his time leading a double life away from home, and Mary spent all that time in a big cold castle on the outskirts of The Hague. She returned to England in 1688 after the mysterious  “Immortal Seven” invited her and her husband to come to England to wear the crown. After William landed in England with a small army financed by his benefactors, he marched on London without firing a shot. James II was forced to go into exile, and parliament subsequently declared the crown vacant. William and Mary were then both crowned after signing the Bill of Rights which precluded that they submit to parliament’s authority and have no catholic offsprings. That series of events is known in the history books as the Glorious Revolution.

However, that was only half of what was to be democracy, England now needed a financial institution. And as it so happened, not about to throw in the towel, and wanting James II to reclaim the crown of England, the Roman Christian Church gave the financiers the perfect opportunity to create the Bank of England. France’s divine right king and his powerful navy had just given England a good drubbing and was in the process of invading England by way of Ireland. Naturally, the English parliament was asked by King William to retaliate by building a strong navy. But since no public funds were available, and since the credit of William III’s government was non-existent, it was impossible for parliament to borrow the huge sums needed. To induce subscription to the loan, the private subscribers were to be incorporated into a company known as the Bank of England. The Bank was given exclusive possession of the government’s debt, and was the only corporation that would be allowed to issue bank notes. The owners of the East India Company were quick to subscibe and the necessary funds were raised in matter of days. That’s how the private financial institution known to this day as the Bank of England was created

For the first time in the history of mankind, the bankers were sure of being repaid in an orderly and just fashion. Parliament was to get rid of the antiquated tax collection method inherited from France, the Farmers General system, and it was to develop the country’s infrastructure in order to facilitate tax collecting without outside help. The owners of the East India Company had also wanted an autonomous parliament because they wanted it to withstand the test of time. They were banking on a human foible whereby the people’s representatives, once their political campaigns, elections and salaries properly funded, would want to prove their worth and do things before taxes were collected. Since the Bank of England controlled the monetary system, its shareholders now well established in the City could accept or refuse to finance the parliamentarians’ projects thereby having the last say. That was democracy then, just as it today, and it’s the owners of the East India Company who created the concept.

If democracy has proven itself to be the best political system in the world for more than three hundred years, it’s because people representation and monetary control are separate. The people’s representatives manage things while the bankers decide what’s to be managed. Elected individuals can’t possibly control a monetary system, for if the one who prints or coins the money is the same as the one who borrows and spends it, the system cannot endure.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s