The English Revolution

There is of course no dispute that King Charles I of England was executed by being beheaded at the scaffold erected outside the Guildhall in the City of London in January 1649.  However, the events that led to his execution, as is often the case with many historical events have been twisted to fit the sanitised version of history that is always presented to the masses by our ruling Elite, in order to conceal the real truth.

“It was fated that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not yet finished.”  Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin Disraeli, former British Prime Minister, 1851

In London in the latter years of the decade of the 1630s, immediately prior to the English Revolution now more expediently known as the ‘English Civil War’, there were many minor, armed uprisings of the ‘people’, usually involving the same ringleaders and ‘agents provocateurs’, as is often the case today.  These armed ‘mobs’ caused panic and fear in the streets wherever they went, including the sometimes-violent intimidation they inflicted upon members of both houses of Parliament.  This in fact was a very similar modus operandus as that employed by the ‘Sacred Bands’ and the ‘Marseillaise’ of the French revolution 150 years later.  Indeed, the striking similarities between the two events are most noteworthy.

There were illegal print operations being instigated all around the city, producing inflammatory leaflets inciting the good citizens of London to revolt against the ruling powers that be.  This period of unrest led directly to the conflict between ‘the people’ or in effect Parliament and the Monarchy, that was to be the defining attribute of the English Revolution or the Civil War as it is more commonly and yet misleadingly called.  So who was behind this movement that was to culminate in the ‘legalised’ murder of the reigning British monarch and the abolition of the monarchy for a period of eleven years which came to be known as the ‘Commonwealth’ at the time and later, the ‘Interregnum’?

Within the pages of works such as the ‘Jewish Encyclopedia’ and ‘The Jews and Modern Capitalism’, it is possible to discern that at this time, Oliver Cromwell, the prime-mover behind the conflict was in constant contact with and actually being financed by the powerful Jewish/Dutch banksters behind the Bank of Amsterdam scam that in effect usurped the control of currency issuance from the Dutch government in the early seventeenth century.  Through such figures as Manasseh ben Israel and Fernandez Carvajal, both prominent Jews of the times, the whole of the English Revolution was funded.  Carvajal himself was the paymaster of the entire ‘New Model Army’ or the ‘Roundheads’, as Cromwell’s fighting forces were disparagingly named as a direct result of the round metal helmets they wore.

In the 12th century, some 500 years prior to the English Revolution, all Jews had been summarily expelled from England for various reasons but primarily because of their general propensity for usury, the lending of money at interest which at the time was totally contrary to the fundamental tenets of Christianity.

In the January of 1642, the attempted arrest of five Members of Parliament, had led to even more extreme mob violence and subsequently to the King and the royal family leaving their palace at Whitehall for security reasons.  The five MPs backed by the mobs returned in triumph to Westminster and thus was the stage now set for the Jews to make their moves using none other than Cromwell himself to front their movement.

“1643 brought a large contingent of Jews to England; their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador de Souza, a Marrano Jew.  Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor.”  Excerpt from ‘The Jews of England’

The actual bloodshed and open warfare between the two factions began in earnest at the Battle of Edgehill, Warwickshire later that year in 1642 where a contingent of Royalist troops commanded by Prince Rupert, a nephew of King Charles, fought against a Parliamentary army commanded by Cromwell.  The outcome of this battle was totally inconclusive, both sides subsequently claiming victory and over the course of the next several years, a series of major battles and minor skirmishes took place at such locations as for example, Marston Moor, Oxford, Worcester, Newbury and finally Naseby amidst much bloodshed in an ongoing conflict that often pitted father against son and brother against brother in an attempt to gain ultimate supremacy by each of the respective ‘sides’.

Eventually after years of attrition, it was Parliament who emerged as victor following the Battle of Naseby.  Charles was taken prisoner and remained under house arrest at Holmby House in Oxfordshire awaiting a decision on his fate which at the time was fully expected to be no more serious than foreign exile, a fate befalling many a defeated ‘royal’ in the past.  However, in June 1647, things were about to take a major turn for the worse for Charles.

On 4th June 1647, Cornet Joyce, acting on secret orders from Cromwell himself and unknown even to General Fairfax, Cromwell’s army chief of staff, descended upon Holmby House with 500 picked revolutionary troopers and seized the King.

According to Isaac Disraeli… “The plan was arranged on May 30th at a secret meeting held at Cromwell’s house, though later Cromwell pretended that it was without his concurrence.” 

This move coincided with a sudden development in the army; the rise of the ‘Levellers’ and ‘Rationalists’ whose doctrines were identical in almost every facet to those of the French revolutionaries in the 1780s and 1790s.  In fact, they were identical in most aspects to what is now known today as ‘Communism’.  These were the infamous regicides, the King-killers, who ‘purged’ Parliament until there were only 50 members remaining, all ‘communist-like’ themselves and who were ultimately responsible for Charles’ execution around eighteen months subsequently.  This was the Parliament that came to be known colloquially as the ‘Rump Parliament’.

However, back to the main story; in constant collusion with his Jewish benefactors throughout the duration of the war, Cromwell wrote to them again at Mulheim Synagogue in Holland in a letter received by them on the 16th June 1647…

“In return for further financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living.  Charles cannot be executed without trial on adequate grounds which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.”

To which the following reply was sent to Cromwell on the 12th July 1647…

“Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted.  Assassination too dangerous.  Charles shall be given opportunity to escape.  His recapture will make trial and execution possible.  The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.”

The source of this dialogue was a weekly review, ‘Plain English’ published by the ‘North British Publishing Co.’ and edited by Lord Alfred Douglas, in 1921.

And so it duly came to pass that on 12th November 1647, Charles was ‘allowed’ an opportunity to escape in order to bring the plan to fruition and he duly absconded to the Isle of Wight, to where he was followed and quickly recaptured by Cromwell’s men.

“Contemporary historians have decided that the King from the day of his deportation from Holmby to his escape to the Isle of Wight was throughout the dupe of Cromwell.”   Isaac Disraeli.

Now all that remained at this time to complete the blood-bargain was to stage the ‘show trial’ of Charles and sentence him to death and the Jews would have attained their goal of being allowed to officially set foot on English soil for the first time in almost 500 years.

It soon became apparent that even though the members of the ‘Rump’ who were allowed to remain in situ in Parliament, were broadly speaking anti-monarchists, most were still nevertheless in favour of a peaceful and amicable settlement with the king.  On 5th December 1647, the house sat through the night in debate and finally carried the motion ‘that the king’s concessions were satisfactory to a settlement’.   This of course was unacceptable to Cromwell and his plans for the Jews, not to mention his own bank balance and so he arranged for yet another ‘purge’ of the house, this time undertaken by one of his army officers, Colonel Pride in an action which has subsequently come to be known to history as ‘Pride’s Purge’, on the 6th December 1647.  And then on the 4th January 1648 the remaining 50 members of the house finally invested themselves with the supreme power required to usurp the role of the king.

However, Algernon Sidney warned Cromwell that…

“First, the King can be tried by no court.  Second, no man can be tried by this court.” And further added that… “…no English lawyer could be found to draw up the charge, which was eventually entrusted to an accommodating alien, Isaac Dorislaus.”

It is probably superfluous to reason for me to report that Isaac Dorislaus was exactly the same ‘type’ of alien as Carvajal and Manasseh Ben Israel and the other financiers who paid Cromwell his blood-money.  And so were the Jews thus permitted once again to live freely in England despite protests by the masses (who were of course ignorant of all the background machinations) and by the sub-committee of the Council of State which declared them to be… “…a grave menace to the State and the Christian religion”.

“The English Revolution under Charles I was unlike any preceding one … From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution.”  Isaac Disraeli

This was actually just the beginning.  The English revolution was followed by the American, French and Russian versions of the same ‘trick’ all at the behest of and funded by the same group of people, albeit for differing reasons.  In 1897 the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion surfaced and this document contains this noteworthy sentence… “Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was entirely the work of our hands.”  Protocol No.3 – 14.  This statement could easily have referred to all of the above named events.

However, the real objective of the revolution was realised around half a century later with the formation of the Bank of England in 1694 and the instigating of the National Debt.  The charter that provided for this, handed-over to an anonymous committee, the previously Royal prerogative of minting money and enabled the international banksters to secure their loans on the taxes of the country rather than simply upon a monarch’s personal undertaking thus enslaving the people of Britain forever.

The Act of Union passed by Parliament shortly afterwards in 1706, was simply an expedient way of tying Scotland into the great scam in addition to England.  Of course, up until that point in time the two countries were distinctly separate, both politically and economically.  This then had the effect of making redundant the Scottish Mint and also to bring it under the umbrella of the English national debt as a whole.  Thus was the grip of the banksters extended over England’s neighbours in one succinct move.

To safeguard against a possible negative reaction from Parliament, the party system was then brought into being, frustrating true national reaction and enabling the puppeteers to divide and rule using their newly-established financial power to ensure that their own henchmen and their own policies would predominate.

This was then the beginning of the bankers highly dubious practice of fractional reserve banking whereby gold became the basis of loans, ten times the size of the amount deposited.  In other words, £100 pounds of gold would be legal security for a £1,000 loan. At 3% interest therefore, £100 pounds in gold could earn £30 interest annually with no more trouble or inconvenience to the lender than the keeping of a few ledger entries.  The owner of £100 worth of land however, still had to slave, often around the clock, in order to make a paltry, subsistence-level living.

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top