The Bloody Mill of International Banker Backed World Revolution in Mediaeval England





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

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.”

Dominic Selwoood in
his book Spies, Sadists and Sorcerers is very critical and states frankly that:
“Thomas Cromwell was the Islamic State of his day”.


He says of Cromwell whom he describes as
Henry VIII’s ‘chief enforcer’:

“ 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

“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 s 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

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner