City of London: Dark Heart of Britain – Plutocracy, Pure and Simple – Stinking Rich Old Boys’ Network – Vast Pool of Cash, Enormous Property Portfolio – Opening Doors at the Highest Levels – Extensive Partnership Work with Think Tanks – Network of Tax Havens – Laundering Loot of Oligarchs, Kleptocrats, Gangsters, Drug Barons

Source: The Guardian

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance

George Monbiot
The Guardian, Monday 31 October 2011 21.00 GMT

It’s the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it’s the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, “among local authorities the City of London is unique”. You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You’re most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don’t even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you “must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery”. You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a “contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year”. This is, in other words, an official old boys’ network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.
The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation’s unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.
The Lord Mayor’s role, the Corporation’s website tells us, is to “open doors at the highest levels” for business, in the course of which he “expounds the values of liberalisation”. Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it “handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City”, such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts “extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services”. But this isn’t the half of it.
As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London’s mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.
Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster”. The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.
It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it’s colluding with Babylon.
If you’ve ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. “The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds … .”
The Corporation’s privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK’s dependent tax havens.
But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor’s Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.
 Lord Mayor Michael Bear in Israel, July 2011
 Financial Ties: Lord Mayor of the City of London in Hong Kong 

Lord Mayor of London’s visit to South Africa
City property deals benefit a developer linked to lord mayor
Former developer faces conflict of interest charge over office projects
The Guardian, Sunday 6 November 2011 20.53 GMT
The lord mayor of the City of London, Michael Bear, on his first procession upon taking up the office, in 2010. Photograph: Ben Cawthra / Rex Features

The City of London Corporation has invested at least £100m of public money in land purchases that opponents claim will enhance the value of neighbouring developments by the property company that employs the lord mayor.

Documents seen by the Guardian show how the Corporation has dipped into its funds to buy a series of east London sites on the periphery of the square mile.

Hammerson, the property firm that employs Michael Bear, the lord mayor of the City of London, is simultaneously developing a range of neighbouring sites as part of what critics characterise as large-scale expansion of the City into new areas.

Bear has taken a year-long sabbatical from his role at the firm while he serves as mayor but the Corporation’s website still lists a Hammerson email address for him.

Community campaigners opposing plans for the construction of high-rise tower blocks regard the developments as a blurring of the lines between the interests of the Corporation and those of powerful business interests.

Bill Parry-Davies of the action group OPEN, who is also a solicitor in Hackney, said: “The City has been discreetly investing in speculative land acquisitions, in combination with acquisitions of neighbouring land by Hammerson, to assemble large sites in Hackney’s City fringe for comprehensive high-rise office redevelopment. The City has been working closely with Hammerson.

“The City has also been investigating, with Hammerson, ways to defeat challenges by local residents and businesses who regard the City’s expansion as predatory.”

While the Corporation denies that developments and investments on its periphery are part of an expansion, its officials have described land it has bought as part of a “path of progress” from the City’s existing boundaries.

Documents seen by the Guardian reveal that the Corporation has spent at least £60m acquiring lands in the Tabernacle street area of east London, and at least £40m acquiring several nearby properties on a site known as Nicholls & Clarke after a builders’ merchant which partly occupies it. The acquisition of the sites was described as being for redevelopment to provide large-scale offices “for City type occupiers”.

The money for the Nicholls & Clarke acquisition came from the Corporation’s “City cash” fund, which is known to have holdings of at least £1bn but whose assets remain closed to public scrutiny because the Corporation describes it as a commercially sensitive “private fund”.

An internal Corporation document says that redevelopment of the Nicholls & Clarke site is likely to be in conjunction with “other major land owners on the site”, naming Hammerson.

It adds that the site is located on “the path of progress” from the Spitalfields market area through to the Bishopsgate goods yard. Hammerson is developing the goods yard, a large brown-belt property with vast development potential that could provide the basis for what opponents claim is further expansion by the City’s financial services industry.

In response to the suggestion that there could be a conflict of interest involving the mayor, a spokesman for the City of London Corporation said that all sites had to be openly marketed in a clear process.

“Members’ interests are registered,” the spokesman said. “They declare them at meetings and, where appropriate, withdraw.” He pointed out that Bear did not serve on the property investment board, which determines property management and investment issues.

The spokesperson insisted the City had “absolutely no plans to expand its local government boundaries”, but added: “It does, however, have a responsibility to assist the competitiveness of London by ensuring there is high-quality office capacity available.”

The City of London has been targeted by Occupy the London Stock Exchange protesters over what they claim is lack of transparency and accountability. The Corporation last week backed down from its attempt to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s Cathedral.

Hammerson told the Guardian that it was originally involved in a management role with the Corporation on the Nicholls & Clarke site and that it had put in a planning application for the Corporation. The company says it owns land to the north of the site and has the chance to work with the City on that. The two have held discussions. The Corporation’s purchases of the Nicholls & Clarke, and Tabernacle Street sites were made before Bear began his term as lord mayor.

Previously, Bear’s dual identity – as an elected local authority representative and as an executive working for Hammerson – was illustrated by his role in the contentious development of Spitalfields market. Bear had been chief executive of the Spitalfields Development Group (SDG), a property consortium which had been developing the area since the 1990s. He remained in that role when Hammerson bought a majority stake in SDG, entering into a joint venture with Corporation.

The City’s involvement in the project was key in allowing the development to prevail in the face of local opposition.

Bear went on to become Hammerson’s regeneration director in 2003, the same year he was elected as a “common councilman” at the City of London Corporation. He rose in the Corporation’s political seniority, becoming an alderman, then sheriff of the City of London and, last year, lord mayor. By 2007, when Spitalfields was complete, he was writing to other councillors “on behalf of Hammerson and the City of London Corporation joint venture”.

Elsewhere, residents who had fought against another City of London-Hammerson joint venture, near the Barbican, told of their frustration at having to go through a local authority that was also effectively developer of the project they opposed.

Despite objections, the Corporation’s planning and transportation committee in June approved the high-rise office scheme on the site of the 1950s St Alphage House, at London Wall.

“We feel that the Corporation is pretty conflicted over this,” said Tim Macer, deputy chair of the Barbican Association, the residents’ group which was involved in opposing the big development of the London Wall/St Alphage site.

Macer added: “The commercial viability of the scheme was based on how much Hammerson had to put into it and how much the Corporation had to put into it. Because of the way planning works, there was all this pre-planning consultation. But it was basically the City having conversations with the City. It was bizarre and of course it meant that they had the inside track.

“We went in with loads of objections but the problem was that anything that we could object to, they had within the letter of the planning law come up with answers. We knew it would be very difficult. [Hammerson is] trusted by the City of London and there are multiple connections, not least that the lord mayor worked for Hammerson.”

Campaigners plan to mount a symbolic challenge this week to the role of the lord mayor by attempting to upstage this Saturday’s Lord Mayor’s Show marking the transfer of the office to Bear’s successor.

Anti-cuts activists from the Reclaim the City campaign, which is involved in the St Paul’s protest, will arrive at the show and present three demands for democratic reform of the Corporation, before acclaiming their own “alternative lord mayor”.

Philip Goff, of the Reclaim the City campaign, said: “In the absence of democratic accountability, conflicts of interest are inevitable. What is the connection between Mike Bear, head of a local authority in the heart of our capital, and Mike Bear, property developer for Hammerson?

“This question is especially difficult to answer when the local authority and Hammerson are working together on multi-million pound projects. It’s high time a clear light was shone on this murky world.”

Spitalfields: Opportunity Through Regeneration – Michael Bear, The Lord Mayor of London

Please follow and like us:

The Anatomy of a British Geopolitical Assassination – The ‘Dark Art’ – Libyan Embassy 1984 – Yvonne Fletcher – Guma El-Gamaty – St. James’s Square

The Anatomy of Political Assassination; the Case of Yvonne Fletcher; the eventual lynching of Muammar Gaddafi

Yvonne Fletcher (1958-1984)

WPC Yvonne Joyce Fletcher (15 June 1958 – 17 April 1984) was a British police officer fatally shot during a protest outside the Libyan embassy at St. James’s Square, London, in 1984. Fletcher, who had been on duty and deployed to police the protest, died shortly afterwards at Westminster Hospital. Her death resulted in the Metropolitan Police Service laying siege to the embassy for the next eleven days, and the United Kingdom severing all diplomatic relations with Libya. Two years later it became a major factor in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s decision to allow U.S. President Ronald Reagan to launch the U.S. bombing of Libya in 1986 from American bases in the United Kingdom.

Abel Danger Libya notes: In memory of Yvonne Fletcher (British female Police Constable) who was shot with a high velocity military round through the back upper right shoulder which vectored down through her torso at a 60 degree angle at horizontal exiting her left side leaving a gaping hole under her left rib cage (she later died in surgery of the wound). It was a very quick short burst of three rounds (it sounded as if only one round was fired from videos that are available; later under sound analysis it was shown to have been three distinct very rapid rounds that were fired) fired from a military assault-type rifle.

The British police were briefed that morning on April 17, 1984 of the planned demonstration outside the Libyan Embassy that they would be facing a potentially dangerous crowd. The police were instructed to keep the groups separate on opposite sides of the street to avoid any possible violent confrontations between them from breaking out. Previous police experience would have called for Yvonne Fletcher, a small unarmed female officer, to be positioned on one of the flanks of the police line in front of the anti-Gaddafi protestors.

Clearly this was not the case. After one carefully views the images and video, it becomes evident that Yvonne Fletcher was deliberately positioned on the apex of the curve in front of the Libyan Embassy, she was the only female police officer in St. James’s Square that day, and she was the shortest police office on the force. She was placed directly in front of professionally operated television cameras, which is where the forensic sound analysis came from used in the discovery of the number of rounds fired, and she was positioned directly in the chosen line of fire from 8 St James’s Square.

Going back into the history of the ‘dark art’ since the time of Caesar, when a victim is targeted for murder in cold blood, and in the case of Yvonne Fletcher on television in broad daylight, the resulting emotional impact on the public has a particularly devastating yet well planned propaganda effect, in this case the video taped murder (snuff film) of Yvonne Fletcher. Just as the same devastating effect resulted in Iran when a beautiful young female, 27 year-old Neda Agha Soltan (Caution advised: this is a very disturbing video), was targeted for assassination in a huge crowd of protestors who was subsequently shot to death on June 6, 2009 in Tehran to incite further violence and rioting in Tehran.

The British at that time in 1984, went to great lengths to secure in the public’s mind the safety of their unarmed police officers. The impact of an unarmed police woman being gunned down on the streets of London would have generated enormous anger and even raw hatred towards Libya from the British public, as the purposely planted perception took hold of Fletcher’s Libyan killers. This was the obvious intended effect: the British public remained unaware of the real killers as the traumatizing sight of Yvonne Fletcher lying in agony on the street in St. James’s Square, dying on national television, was beamed into millions of British homes. Two years later in 1986, the Reagan Administration commenced a bombing attack on Libya, after another ‘dark art’ operation saw a bomb blow up in the La Belle discothèque in West Berlin, Germany, an entertainment venue that was commonly frequented by United States soldiers. Several US Military soldiers were killed and once again it was blamed on Libya.

The anti-Gaddafi protestors led by Guma El-Gamaty (who today is the British co-ordinator of the interim National Council of Libya), who can be seen in the above video, were injured by the three fired rounds that ricocheted along with apparently fragmented concrete hitting twelve anti-Gaddafi protestors. Yvonne Fletcher was the only person killed in the shooting. Today, there is better and far more accurate information on this event that can now be readily accessed through the internet which was not available back in 1984, to better assess what happened on that day in April, 1984 in St. James’s Square in London outside the Libyan Embassy.

Yvonne Fletcher after being shot in St. James’s Square in London in front of the Libyan Embassy (April 17, 1984)

At the 4:58 point in the previous video, Guma El-Gamaty can be clearly seen on a bus supposedly headed for St. James’s Square outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984, along with fellow ‘anti-Gaddafi demonstrators.’ In the reporting for this video, the reporter only mentions that Guma El-Gamaty is a “businessman and writer on Libya”, but does not mention the fact that El-Gamaty is the British co-ordinator of the rebel interim National Council of Libya.

Pay close attention at exactly the 1:02 point in the preceding video: observe the shadow of a man who later walks into view from the left to the right carrying an umbrella and a briefcase. He walks past the now downed Yvonne Fletcher surrounded by policemen coming to her aid, until he disappears off camera to the right. The man appears to be some kind of an intelligence operative; his job might have been to walk through the scene as if nothing had happened, to immediately monitor for police reaction to the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher, or to assess her death. Understand that shots have just been fired and the crowd is beginning to panic, not knowing immediately what had happened; yet this man strolls nonchalantly past the camera and close to the downed Yvonne Fletcher. A woman has just been shot and the man walks through the scene unmolested by anyone – including the police – as if he were out for a Sunday stroll, or on his way to work in St. James’s Square?

In the previous video, Guma El-Gamaty can be seen on the bus; in 1984, in London, he was the leader/organizer of the anti-Gaddafi Libyans outside the Libyan Embassy when Yvonne Fletcher was gunned down. Now, 27 years later and aged – and well-dressed too – Guma El-Gamaty discusses in the following video (dated April 2011) the circumstances in Libya, emphasizing his concern for the 10,000 Libyans who have been supposedly killed by Gaddafi. In the interview, Guma El-Gamaty becomes angered at Sukant Chandan, another Libyan, because Chandan won’t agree with El-Gamaty on the 10,000 Libyans Gaddafi has apparently killed – all good theatre, of course – and storms off the set where the television interview is taking place; or so the viewer is led to believe.

Guma El Gamaty was present in London when Yvonne Fletcher was assassinated as the head of an anti-Gaddafi organization (resistance), and now here he is twenty-seven years later working as the British co-ordinator for the rebel interim National Council of Libya. Makes you wonder who butters Guma El-Gamaty’s bread: the Libyan people he keeps displaying so much perfunctory concern for in the video interview he cuts short by walking off – or the British? Nice tailor-made suit and jewelry, Mr. El-Gamaty: where did you buy them? From one of the expensive shops in St. James’s Square?

This recent Sky News interview with Muammar Gaddafi reveals that he expressed his condolences for the death of Yvonne Fletcher, and wished to convey that he would also like to know who the killers of Yvonne Fletcher were. There has been very little objective news from Libya over these intervening years since Muammar Gaddafi came to power. Whatever news has been made available it has consistently been from western sources and horribly biased constantly slamming Libya when ever the opportunity arose to place Muammar Gaddafi always in a negative view in the public’s mind.

In the book ‘Hitmen and Assassinations’ by Richard Belfield, a completely different scenario presents itself, quite contrary to the official boilerplate investigation: proof, according to Belfield, that the bullet that killed Yvonne Fletcher did not come from the Libyan Embassy, but from another building (top floor of 8 James’s Square?). In Belfield’s book, he also mentions that the British MI5 had for some reason (although this wouldn’t be entirely suspicious, since the Libyan Embassy would have been under constant surveillance by MI5 anyway) rented out the floor of a building close to the Libyan Embassy (8 James’s Square?) – one which apparently corresponded to the trajectory of the fatal bullet which hit Yvonne Fletcher in the back upper-right shoulder.

At the Crown inquest into Yvonne Fletcher’s death, the usual media deception “proved” that Yvonne Fletcher was killed by a shot fired from the first floor of the Libyan Embassy on her left-hand side, at only 15 degrees from the horizontal. This was a contrived report and investigation, because the 15 degrees from horizontal direction of the round that hit Fletcher would mean that it was fired almost horizontally from the first floor of the Libyan Embassy. Why is this important? Because one diligent investigator remarked:

Just four minutes later at 10.19 am a 3-shot burst of automatic fire rang out. Yvonne Fletcher was hit by the first bullet in the upper right back. Bullet entry angle was 60 degrees from the horizontal, with an exit wound visible below the left rib cage. If the entry and exit wounds are lined up with her known height, and her televised position when the shots were fired, the line of fire backtracks precisely to the top floor of 8 St James’s Square.

8 James’s Square London

Britain and France – through NATO – passed a UN resolution claiming that to “prevent civilians from being killed by Muammar Gaddafi’s military”, an aerial bombardment was required; and so, shortly thereafter, the bombing of targets in Libya began. Then reports started appearing in Britain (such as this report) discussing the possibility that the killers of Yvonne Fletcher might be located in Libya, after British-backed ‘rebels’ ousted the government of Muammar Gaddafi. How would that even be possible, after 27 years since Yvonne Fletcher’s death in 1984? This is being reported as the British Crown Prosecution being behind an effort, apparently, to track down Yvonne Fletcher’s killer – or killers – in Libya. In fact, David Cameron in March, 2011 made calls for a renewed attempt to catch the murderers if Muammar Gaddafi’s regime fell just as soon as bombs started dropping on Libya.

How would it be even remotely possible for Yvonne’s supposed Libyan killers – all, including Omar Ahmed Sodani, connected to Muammar Gaddafi in some capacity – who have been killed or are now being held by ‘rebels’ in Libya, to have a fair chance to defend themselves? Defending themselves against accusations they were involved in the death of Yvonne Fletcher 27 years ago, when the entire British and American public through Sky News and other media sources, have just convinced them Muammar Gaddafi and his henchmen were some crazed tyrannical madmen killing Libyan civilians and needed to be violently removed from power?

Omar Ahmed Sodani

So another alleged killer of Yvonne Fletcher was then apparently hauled out of hiding in Libya: Omar Ahmed Sodani, who was paraded before journalists by rebels who seized him from a Benghazi bolt-hole where he had been hiding – as can be viewed in the previous video. In this video, Sodani says that yes, he was in Britain at the time of Yvonne Fletcher’s murder, but not at the scene where the shooting took place. He also claims he was in police custody during the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher, as a result of a quarrel he was involved in with a policeman in London before the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher. Surely, the British police must have a record of his incarceration – especially considering his prominence in Libyan affairs and his stint in Britain working at the Libyan Embassy. The story goes on to say:

“Omar Ahmed Sodani has been described as one of the prime suspects in the murder of WPc Fletcher 27 years ago outside the Libyan embassy in central London. She was killed in April 1984 from a single round among a hail of bullets fired from a first floor window of the embassy.”

Described by whom exactly? In August 2011, it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service believed Abdulqadir al-Baghdadi was a confidant of Colonel Gaddafi and a senior official in the Libyan embassy in London at the time of the 1984 murder of Yvonne Fletcher. Abdulqadir al-Baghdadi has since been shot in the head – as reported by ‘rebels’ fighting in Libya. Apparently, the Crown Prosecutors allege that al-Baghdadi ordered junior diplomat Abdulmagid Salah Ameri, to fire at Yvonne Fletcher from a window outside the Libyan Embassy. To the victor in war go the spoils; or just call this what it is: ‘Fleet Street vindictiveness’. Considering the intensity of the violence in the recent overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya – brutal images, including videotape of what could be likened to a snuff film of Muammar Gaddffi’s death – how could one come to any other conclusion? The British Crown Prosecutors could claim almost anything to make it appear that the Libyans – including Muammar Gaddaffi, Abdulqadir al-Baghdadi, Abdulmagid Salah Ameri, and now Omar Ahmed Sodani – all conspired in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher in 1984. (Perhaps capos within the British intelligence services had an ulterior motive for targeting Fletcher specifically – and decided to kill two birds with one stone? This would offer an additional explanation for their desperately inept coverup.)

Then there is the claim of another prime suspect in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, a Libyan named Matouk Mohammed Matouk, who was sent to Britain from Libya to study and who learned to speak English at a school in Coventry. Matouk also studied business English at the English Studies Centre, in Priory Row, in 1982. The 54-year-old Matouk is currently on the run in Libya following the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi’s government. How many other suspects will be trotted out in the following weeks and months to be held responsible for Yvonne Fletcher’s death now that Libya is in the hands of Libya’s British-controlled interim National Council under Guma El-Gamaty in a leadership position? The British probably offered El-Gamaty a prominent position within the interim National Council government – as well as a lucrative deal once circumstances stabilize in Libya, now that Gaddafi has been eliminated.

‘Prime suspect’ in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher: Matouk Mohammed Matouk

Why would Muammar Gaddafi risk a potential war with Britain and NATO, not to mention the United States in 1984, by risking the assassination of a British constable in broad daylight in front of the Libyan Embassy between two supposedly opposed factions (all Libyans) while St. James’s Square was manned with fifty British police? How could any of these Libyan factions – especially the anti-Gaddafi group led by Guma El-Gamaty – possibly have benefited from the assassination of a British constable, unless it was the intended plot all along to destabilize Gaddafi in 1984?

Recently, because of the fall of Libya and the death of Muammar Gaddafi, there has been renewed interest in Britain – originating from people related to Yvonne Fletcher in the police and from her family – in finding her killer in Libya. The news article ‘Yvonne Fletcher murder suspect killed‘, about the death of the supposed murderer of the policewoman, shows that the slaying of Yvonne Fletcher is far from simply being forgotten by the British people, who remember this horrible political ‘dark art’ killing as if it occurred yesterday.

Recently, because of the fall of Libya and the death of Muammar Gaddafi, there has been in Britain originating from people related to Yvonne Fletcher in the police and from her family, a renewed interest in finding her killer in Libya. The news article about the death of the supposed murderer of Yvonne Fletcher can be read titled ‘Yvonne Fletcher murder suspect killed‘ which shows that the death of Yvonne Fletcher is far removed from simply being forgotten by the British who remember this horrible political ‘dark art’ killing as if it occurred yesterday.

The following is Part One of a series of reports into the death of Yvonne Fletcher:

The capture, beating and snuff film death of Muammar Gaddafi: the end of 42 years of rule in Libya. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State and diplomat for the United States, cynically remarks: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (June 1942 – 20 October 2011)
Please follow and like us:

Open Letter to Governor Perry – Jeffersonian Decentralization Movement – US Central Bank Military Forces – End Central Bank Warfare Model

Texas Governor Perry Receives Letter of Assistance from Descendant of Ben Franklin

Insiders at Governor Perry’s office received a letter addressed to the Governor and was leaked out by a person who has been following the posts on Able Danger: Developing….

Dear Governor Perry:

The Jeffersonian Decentralization Movement invites Texas to form a chapter of the Army of the New Republic and be prepared to fend off enemies foreign and domestic like the US Central Bank Military forces after the next financial collapse starting before Christmas 2011. I believe there are over 2 million gun owners in Texas…that’s the nice beginning of a return to complete sovereignty. I also think, that legally, the 1933 bankruptcy has gone on long enough and we do not owe the Bank of England; [the majority share holder in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York]; anything at this point and ask that you reject all federal funds and call upon the patriotism of the Texan People to get these fires under control – band together as brothers against a common foe creating unity and strength of character among the citizenry.

The way to attain total freedom for Texas is to abrogate the use of FRB fiat currency immediately and print your own money backed by sliver to start up a real sustainable economy in Texas as a National model. Our Staff is available to your administration to discuss re-establishment of the Republic of America in Texas and to prepare peace treaties with the surrounding ‘sovereign’ states and grow outward with a return to freedom from there.

Our major thrust is to return to alloidal title and land patent ownership by canceling all land contracts with the City of London – Bank of England, Start a US Mint to print Silver Certificates to retire federal reserve notes with a final rejection of the Central Bank Warfare Model. I am at any governors service who is in the service of the Republic.

General Tiberius Franklin – WESCOM ANR
“Long live the Republic… and the republic of Texas”!

Please follow and like us:

The City of London: livery companies the heart of its foundation – magic ritual impacts physical reality – ‘freeman’ to freemason

Source: TRT

Corporate Frankenstein: A Special Essay by Tracy R. Twyman

Long before the advent of modern democratic republics, the world was ruled by priests, kings, and in some cases, priest-kings. To our ancestors in the ancient world, government had a religious ritual significance. It was the Pharaoh of Egypt who literally made the Sun rise and set each day, or so they believed. The Aztecs thought that the human sacrifices performed by the priesthood were staving off the world’s inevitable destruction. In Europe, the divine right of kings dictated that the monarch was literally the connection between the body politic and God in Heaven, and that through his or her actions, God’s will was represented.

Even as the Age of Enlightenment caused philosophical reason to trump superstition, bringing constitutional monarchy, and eventually, representative government, these beliefs and traditions simply became sublimated and took on new forms. The philosophers of the day may no longer have professed a belief in magic, but it was never lost by those who pilot the ship of state. Belief in the spiritual power of political structures instead became the purview of those who study the occult.

“Occult” is merely a word that means “that which is hidden,” that which goes unnoticed by the average man. It is no secret that many of the most powerful men and women throughout the last several hundred years of history have been members of secret societies that continue these occult traditions, and had blood lineages that can be traced back to the royal families of Europe. Not all of them are consciously aware of the traditions that they are actively continuing, but that is nonetheless what they are doing.

What we mean specifically by ritual magic is to “cause change to occur in conformity with the will” through means that are beyond the merely physical. Ritual magic is all about creating artificial mental constructs and then forcing them to have an impact on reality by infusing belief and spiritual energy into them. The constructs then take on a life of their own and reality begins to mirror them. This is called “sympathetic magic”, in which the desired outcome of the ritual is mimicked in some way, as is the case with a voodoo doll. In this process, written documents and diagrams become part of the “software” that governs how the program of the magic ritual is supposed to work. A good example of how this works can be found in Ezekiel Chapter 4, where God instructs the prophet to draw a map of Jerusalem on a tile and then act upon it in various ways in order to cause certain things to happen to the real Jerusalem. Each day that he lay upon his side during the ritual resulted in an equivalent number of years of punishment for the profligate kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

The way in which the hymns and ritual diagrams function as the “software’ on which the magic of the ritual operates is similar to the function performed by the written law in any society, as the Tablets of the Law did to the ancient Israelites. Those Tablets were placed inside of a ritual coffer (the Ark of the Covenant) and made into the centerpiece of the ritual, the altar upon which the sacrifices were made. The priests treated the Ark as if it actually contained the body of their God. This is because the Law acted as their primary bond with their deity.

To this day, legal, political, and financial systems, as well as the institutions that govern them, are all made up of imaginary ideas that we as a society make real by playing along. Indeed, the word “reality” comes from the root word “real”, which means “royal”, because historically the monarch defined truth within his own “realm.” Reality was whatever the king or queen said it was.

Even in modern times with our modern “secular” government, the functions of government, and the exercise of sovereignty, and largely ritual practices that get their power from their spiritual significance in the minds of men. Whether they know it or not, people in government and other powerful institutions are actually practicing ritual magic. Kingship and sovereignty, worship and priesthood, money, and laws governing commerce can all be traced back to the beginnings of civilization in Mesopotamia. The Sumerians and Babylonians were very clear in their records stating that these institutions were handed down to them directly by their gods, and that legal contracts were believed to have spiritual power. Indeed, most religious rituals in the ancient world, as in the modern practice of ritual magic, involve the forming of a contract or covenant between the deity and the priesthood. In ancient times, the priests made deals with the gods and spirits on behalf of the entire community.

A deity whose symbolism was associated with the very idea of a divine contract was Mithras, whose cult flourished in Rome from the 1st to 4th centuries AD, but was based on the older tradition of Persian Zoroastrianism. Mithras was known as the “god of contracts”, and was attributed with having invented the legal system. People would invoke him as a witness when drawing up a contract of any sort between two parties, and it was believed that he would punish severely all those who broke their contracts. These deals would be sealed with a handshake, which, according to mythology, was another invention of Mithras, first taught by him to mankind when he was inducting priests into his cult. In these rites, the initiates were made to shake the hand of Mithras (usually played in the ritual by another cult member), as a seal of the pact between the inductee and his new teacher, referred to in the ritual by the nickname “the Friend.” Many aspects of this ritual were absorbed into the rites of Freemasonry.

A standard belief among those who practice ritual magic is that the spirit world is subject unto man, and commanded by God to do the bidding of qualified priests and magicians, as are all of the creatures of Earth. This stems from Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Furthermore, traditions based on both biblical and extra-biblical lore tell of the angels that fell from Heaven being imprisoned in the Earth, and that they can be called upon by men when needed.

Koranic tradition states that Satan and the fallen angels rebelled because God tried to make them bow down to Adam, and they refused. After being defeated in the War in Heaven, many occult practitioners believe that the spirits were bound with a duty to serve man. Islamic legends of King Solomon enslaving the demon Asmodeus for help building the Temple derive from this belief. Commonly, it is thought that you can control a god, demon, or spirit of any sort if you know and can pronounce its “true name.” When you call upon them thusly they are compelled to answer. As Robert Graves writes in The White Goddess:

“In ancient times, once a god’s secret name had been discovered, the enemies of his people could do destructive magic against them with it. The Romans made a regular practice of discovering the secret names of enemy gods and summoning them to Rome with seductive promises, a process technically known as ‘elicio’ … Naturally, the Romans, like the Jews, hid the secret name of their own guardian deity with extraordinary care.”

It is also possible to graft a new name onto the spirit, supposedly, and oblige it to answer to this substitute name instead. While the dominion of the children of Adam over the fallen angels is based on a covenant supposedly made in Adam’s time, it is customary for those “trafficking” with spirits to form further agreements with them, promising them rewards in exchange for their services.

But in addition to forming contracts with existing entities in the spirit world, there are many legends dealing with the artificial creation of servants through spiritual means. Just as God created Adam from clay and breathed into him the “breath of life”, in the Jewish mystic tradition of the Golem, human priests can do the same. However, in this case, the golem is more of a robot, kind of mindless. All it knows how to do is what the priest programmed it to do.

The golem is animated when the word “Emet” (“Life”) is written upon its forehead, and deactivated when the “E” is erased to leave the word “Met” (“Death”). Golems can be made of any inanimate material, even dead bodies. The art of reanimating a corpse through magic is specifically called “necromancy.” The Frankenstein story is based on a myth about a Jewish doctor who created a golem out of various human body parts stitched together.

These golem legends date to the medieval period. However, the Old Testament talks about rogue Levite priests who created “Teraphim”, which were human heads that were animated through magic and used for oracular purposes. Supposedly the teraph was animated when a scrap of parchment containing magic words was placed inside of its mouth.

Later on, medieval alchemists created the concept of the “Homunculus.” The word literally means “little man,” and using the alchemical process, you could allegedly create one that would actually germinate as a fetus and then grow into a baby right there in your flask! From that point on, the Homunculus is bound as your servant and can assist you in the rest of your alchemical works, including the creation of gold. The Homunculus plays a key role in the story of Faust, the character who made a pact with the Devil in exchange for the service of the demon Mephistopheles in his alchemical quest for riches and wisdom.

The most modern incarnation of this concept is that of the “Servitor” in “Chaos magick,” an occult tradition with its origin in the 20th century. This is basically very similar to the concept of the “imaginary friend.” It’s a fictional person that you create, usually just by making up a name, drawing a hieroglyph to represent it, and drafting a description of its purpose. You then infuse spiritual power into it through ritual, and it becomes animated, but remains invisible. However, its influence can allegedly be felt in your life, and it can be assigned any task desired, just like a demon.

Although servitors seem like a modern invention, it appears that our ancestors understood the concept as well. It is likely that most of the demons mentioned in grimoires and spell books are largely concocted by the author, although their names and descriptions may be based on others already known to exist at the time. And the ancient world was rife with compound gods that were combinations of deities from different cultures. These were usually created when one kingdom usurped another, and then amalgamated the pantheon of the defeated nation into their own. These essentially resulted in the creation of new gods that served the new master by combining the attributes of the old gods, and thus they were servitors. But instead of just serving a single magician, they were serving an entire priesthood, and indeed, an entire community.

A servitor that serves a collective and not just an individual is called, in modern parlance, an egregore, a group thought form animated through magic. Religions, governments, and businesses all make use of egregores, and can be thought of as egregores in themselves as well. In fact, the modern concept of the “corporation” is very much like a homunculus, servitor, golem, or egregore, and indeed, governments are just corporations.

We are constantly told that we live in a “Capitalist” [“Insurance and reinsurance is the DNA of capitalism.” — DK Matai, D2 Banking] society. But what does “Capitalism” mean? The word comes from the Latin “capitalis”, meaning “of the head”, and the relation of this concept to the later financial connotation of the word “capital” is unclear. Its first use in that sense was actually the word “capitale”, meaning “stock or property.” The basic building unit of capitalism is the corporation, and these first started in the 1600s. The development of the corporation was spurred on by the improvement of sailing and navigation technology, and the ensuing boom of the shipping industry. This is why the root word “mer”, meaning “sea” is at the heart of the word “mercantile”, and why we still say “shipping” when we are referring to the transport of goods, no matter the method. The improvement of seafaring led to the blossoming of a new form of economy. Now merchants could sail to India, Asia, Africa, or even the Americas, and trade an unprecedented variety of goods.

But ships and crew were still expensive, and the voyages dangerous. If one trip went bad, an investor could find himself in debt for life, and worse, in debtor’s prison. So the government of Holland, a leading power amongst the sea merchants of Europe, came up with a novel concept by which numerous merchants could pool their resources and minimize their individual investment risk. They created a “corporation”: a group of investors who would collectively invest in a business venture to form a company, which then became a “legal person” according to a declaration in the company’s charter, granted by the government. This “person” was then able to enter into legal contracts and business ventures, just like a regular person. But there was one important difference: unlike a real person, the corporation could not be thrown into debtor’s prison.

Indeed, there was, and is still, no real way to force a corporation to pay its debts. When the corporation determines that it is no longer viable, it declares bankruptcy and, more often than not, leaves those to whom it owes money holding the bag. This arrangement worked out well for the Dutch merchants of the seventeenth century, and soon the idea was picked up by other countries, like Britain. Thus the formation of the famous “British East India Company”( rival to the “Dutch East India Company”) was possible.

In a corporation, the total worth of the company is divided into “shares”, which are sold to the investors as percentages of the company’s worth – slices of the pie. The more shares each investor owns, the greater his slice of the pie. The price, or value, of each share fluctuates along with the overall value of the company. Dividends from the company’s profits are paid to the investors annually in relation to the number of shares that they own. At any time, an investor may sell his shares to another investor. It did not take the Dutch merchants long to realize that these shares of a corporation could be traded almost as a form of currency. This led to the creation of the first stock exchange in Holland in the year 1631, a year after “capitale” began being used as a financial term.

It is interesting to note that there is actually a connection between modern notions of “freedom”, representative government, and corporations. In feudal times, everyone was the “subject” of the monarch, and most people lived as serfs on land owned by noble families. The word “serf” is related to “servitude”, and implied exactly that. Only the nobles and royals who ruled their own lands had any “sovereignty.” Nobody else had any rights, autonomy, or control over their own affairs. It wasn’t until trade expanded in the Renaissance that the merchant class arose to challenge the aristocracy, because they had money to buy their own land. Then they were no longer serfs, but “freemen.”

The City of London is a prime example of this connection. Few people in America know that “London” is a much larger metropolis than the 1-mile-square area that technically constitutes the “City of London Corporation” from whence it originated. This had been a Saxon merchant city before the island was conquered by the Romans in 43 AD, and had been ruled by an “ealdorman” or “underking.” When the Normans took over, William the Conqueror promised to respect the city’s sovereignty, and basically built his kingdom around London, in cooperation with it, but not subduing it. Because of this, London became known as “the Sovereign City”, and is headed by its own “Lord Mayor” [current Lord mayor is Boris Johnson; Oxford; Bullingdon Club member] to this very day.

The traditional government of London has always been representational, and the voting power came from its “Freemen”, the members of the “livery companies” that are at the heart of its foundation. These were the trade guilds, such as the Scriveners, the Longbow Makers, the Master Mariners, the Parish Clerks, etc., and they usually had names starting with the words “Worshipful Company of …” The word “livery” is related to the Latin “liberare”, meaning “to liberate.”

You see, originally, “freedom” implied that one had, either by apprenticeship, or by payment, or by blood inheritance, been emancipated from serfdom by practicing a trade. It meant that you were free to form your own contracts and conduct your own business in the City of London, and in order to gain your freedom you had to belong to one of the City’s companies. You were granted the “Freedom of the City” when you took the “Declaration of a Freeman”, a ceremony that qualified applicants can still partake in today. These livery companies each had their own authority derived from their members, and these combined to for the “Corporation” of the City government, deriving its sovereignty from its Freemen. This concept of freedom is of course at the heart of the word “Freemason”, an institution at least partially derived from the Mason guilds of England. Later on, in the American colonies, “Freemen” were those colonists who had paid for their immigration fees through indentured servitude (usually seven years), and were now free from debt or other legal restraint.

In London, a symbiotic relationship formed between the City Corporation and the Crown of England. Indeed, to this day, the monarch observes the custom of obtaining permission from the Lord Mayor before entering the one-mile-square City. The City became the prime influence on English politics, and gained a reputation as the maker of kings. The City would always support the Crown, as long as the support was mutual. If not, the City would make sure that someone more cooperative took over. A book called London For Ever: The Sovereign City, by Colonel Robert Blackham, published in the early 1930s, explains it well:

“The City was, indeed, always loyal to the Crown when loyalty was possible, but its citizens have never hesitated to oppose the King when they considered that their rights were imperiled.

“London stood for liberty and moderation, and was the champion of constitutional rights regardless of the nature of the oppressor.

“When the King ceased to respect the laws of the land and the interests of his people, the Sovereign City drove him from the throne. When the Commonwealth ceased to represent popular government and tried to rule by force of arms, the secession of the City brought back the exiled [dynasty].

“By its action the Sovereign City expressed the national dislike for Republican government and England’s firm belief in constitutional monarchy as the best form of government for a free people.”

The Lord Mayor of the City was largely responsible for forcing the Crown of England to respect the rights of its subjects, through the Magna Carta. This document was the basis of English “common law,” upon which the law of the American colonies was founded, in which male property owners were granted the rights of “freemen.” The American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were grounded in common law. But here in America, after the Revolution came a truly revolutionary idea, influenced by the City of London Corporation: that a government could be formed to exercise the inherent sovereignty of freemen, and not just that of a monarch. The drafters of the Constitution recognized that We the People had formed the state governments to exercise our sovereignty, and thus the States became sovereign entities themselves. Those states then united to form a confederation on behalf of the sovereign people.

Interestingly, the colonization of the New World by Britain was done through corporations such as the Virginia Company. It was from London’s docks on the Thames that the ships departed. It was they who were ultimately in charge of the first colonial governments. And although we fought a war to remove the influence of England’s crown upon the American government, some question whether we ever truly broke away from the influence of British corporations. Indeed, the design of the American flag essentially stems from that which flew on the merchant ships of the British East India Company, which featured the same stripes, with the Union Jack as the standard in the upper left corner instead of the stars that later replaced it.

In a way this is altogether fitting, since it was through corporations and commerce that men in the New World had gained their freedom in the first place. But the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence indicate that this freedom is really inherent and “self-evident” in “all men”, not just something granted if you happen to have enough money to buy property. The founding fathers were influenced by Freemasonry, natural philosophy, and the belief in these “natural rights.” For religious people, the concept can be traced back to the previously-mentioned dominion over the Earth granted to Adam by God. This is what gives a man the right to form a contract with whomever he chooses (including spirits), and that’s what makes him free.

But something malodorous has occurred over the years since the American Republic was founded. Through a gradual process, the loose confederation of sovereign states became united into a national government. Originally, according to author John David van Hove in his book The Global Sovereign’s Handbook, the corporation called the District of Columbia controlled only the city of Washington, D.C., and the American territories, but not the sovereign states. There was a government located in DC, but it was merely exercising the power of the states through donation, which could be revoked at any time. Yet over the years, and especially after the Civil War, it took on the character of a national government, and asserted authority over the states. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which is thought to be responsible for freeing the black slaves in the South, actually had a much more sinister purpose: it defined the residents of the states as “citizens” of the national corporation located in Washington D.C. As Van Hove put it recently on this program, it actually “made slaves of us all.”

By signing this Amendment, States were not only forfeiting their own sovereignty, but that of the individuals within them. All of this, of course, was done legally, by getting the sovereigns to “agree” to give up their own power. Nobody realized that’s what they were doing, of course. Once they were owned by the national corporate government, the “USA”, as it became known, could borrow from private banks and use the slave labor of its “citizens” as collateral. This is of course exactly what happened. The privately-owned Federal Reserve was allowed to take over the entire country’s monetary system in 1913 as the nation’s central bank.

The Federal Reserve began printing money out of nothing, usurping the right of a sovereign government to coin money, or to issue a “fiat” bestowing value on paper money. The government could have done this on its own, but instead they allowed a private bank to do it for them, and agreed to pay face value plus interest for these “Federal Reserve Notes”, which took the place of US dollars. The government become so indebted to banks that it chose to “hypothecate” all of the property in America to these banks in order to secure more funding, as part of House Joint Resolution 192, “To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause”, signed in 1933.

From that time forward, the basis for our original legal and economic system — private property, and the exchange of goods and services through gold and silver coin — was replaced. People were forced to turn in all of their gold to the government, and were given paper dollars printed by the Federal Reserve instead. Really, they were no longer allowed to exchange real property, and thus part of the legal basis of their sovereignty was subverted. The land beneath their feet, unbeknownst to them, had been given away to private banks. This is why people now have “real estate” instead of actual property. The word “real,” again, comes from the French word for “king”, and stems from feudal times, when all serfs were tenants on the king’s land. We are in the same situation today. Many of us are paying a 30-year mortgage, paying three times the property’s actual value, for something that technically belongs to the private banks that own our corporate government. And that corporate government thinks that it owns us too.

America’s legal system, formerly governed by English common law, became replaced with “commercial code”, and all activities of the human subjects are now governed as though we are corporate entities engaging in international commercial enterprise. Thus, civil rights were brought to the south in the 1960s, not by government finally recognizing the inherent sovereignty of the individual regardless of race, sex, or property ownership, but by reinterpreting the Commerce Clause (governing interstate commercial activity) to apply to any activity which involves a product or service that has in any way, in whole or in part, been traded across state lines. Thus, schools using pencils or paper purchased from, or manufactured from parts purchased in, another state, must submit to federal statutes, etc. Most of our federal laws are applied to the states using the Commerce Clause.

Universal Commercial Code, first published in 1952, unifies the commerce laws of all of the 50 states in the US. It really stems from international trade treaties rooted in global maritime law (the Law of the Sea). In 1944, the Federal Reserve ponzi scheme was essentially extended to the rest of the world, at the barrel of a gun. Towards the end of WWII, when Europe and much of the world had been beaten into submission through years of combat, poor and desperate, 44 nations sent delegates to Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to create an international monetary policy. The alleged rationale was that if all of these countries had their currencies linked, they couldn’t afford to go to war in the future, because it would be mutually destructive. They ended up deciding to make the US dollar the “reserve currency” of the world. The central banks of other countries would be linked to the dollar, and would hold at least a quarter of their reserves in US dollars. This put the privately-owned Federal Reserve essentially in charge of the whole global economy.

The International Monetary Fund was created at this meeting. This is the corporate entity through which the currencies in the international system are linked. The IMF forces loans upon needy countries, and if they can’t afford to make their interest payments on the IMF loans they’ve already got, the IMF loans them more money to make those payments. In exchange, of course, they demand complete control over the nation’s economy. This, in conjunction with the activities of the World Trade Organization, also created at Bretton Woods, is largely responsible for turning the entire world into a giant slave labor camp that runs for the profit of a handful of banks and corporations. They dictate to all of the member countries what labor costs will be, what sort of exporting and resource development they will do, who will trade with whom and at what price.

If you wonder why all of the jobs and production have been exported overseas, bear in mind that the US no longer has any control over its own trade policy. The IMF literally has a mathematical formula that they use to calculate what the optimal level of trade is for each country and for each commodity. They use this to “balance” the values of different currencies. And it has been their stated goal all along to try to “balance” the standard of living throughout the world so as to make currencies easier to control. Now let me give you a hint: they don’t intend to bring other countries up to our standard of living. It’s the other way around. So that is why, no matter who you elect, no matter how many letters you send and phone calls you make to your congressman, they will always pursue policies that inflate the dollar, suppress wages and export production. Because we have no control over our monetary policy or our trade policy. Since the dollar is a global currency the Fed considers the effects of their policies on global currency markets before it even thinks about how these policies affect the US economy.

Another thing we clearly have no control over since Bretton Woods is our foreign policy. The UN was created shortly after Bretton Woods. The intention when creating it was that there would no longer be such a thing as war. Coincidentally, the US Congress hasn’t officially declared war since WWII. Everything the USA has done since then has been an unofficial police action. Why? Because we can’t declare war. We no longer have the authority to do that if we want to maintain participation in all of these foreign agreements that hamstring us. But your President and your Congress will never admit that to you. They want to maintain the illusion that we are still a sovereign country.

Over time, just like the federal government, all of the state governments likewise became reincorporated as commercial entities operating for the benefit of their private owners. The same is true for almost all municipalities such as cities, towns, and counties. This can be seen in their new corporate names (IN ALL CAPS), and on their Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, which reveal all of their investments, revenue streams, and bondholders. With Bretton Woods, the private USA corporation became subsumed into a global private corporate structure. The owned slaves (the “citizens”) became pieces of merchandise, whose future human labor could be securitized and used as the basis for the formation of financial derivatives that the banks could speculate with. Each individual human resource product was identified with a corporate name (IN ALL CAPS) and an account number (the Social Security Number).This is what is known in common parlance as the “Straw Man”, a magical corporation created by the government that has the same name as you, but in all capital letters, and which the government asserts ownership of. If you recognize the Straw Man as being you, then you are under their control.

So essentially, our national government, our state governments, our municipalities, and we individual citizens have now been co-opted into a giant global Corporation Frankenstein, controlled by private banks. And the center of the international banking industry has always been, and still is, the sovereign City of London Corporation. It is they who assert ownership over our persons and property. Although this may chap our hides to think about it this way, the truth is that we have all unwittingly agreed to it. By responding to summons and demands made by the corporate government to the Straw Man, the Straw Man becomes reality, just as would a homunculus, golem, or servitor the first time it responded to the uttering of the name its creator had given it. And by responding that way, the servitor or straw man places itself in subordination to whoever summons it. Using Federal Reserve Notes, paying taxes, and receiving benefits from the government are all acts of subjugation.

In a way, a good portion of what’s accomplished with the creation of corporations, including governments, is separation of property from its actual owners in the eyes of the law, to shield them from taxes, regulation, and public scrutiny. Historically, monarchs and other sovereigns have used the magical power of their sovereignty to create imaginary realms or worlds in which things function by different rules, and then create a corporate entity to rule over it in his or her steed. Several tax havens have been created in the British Commonwealth using this process. The process was perfected in the late Middle Ages by the Knights Templar, the inventors of banking, who used the special sovereignty granted them by the Pope to turn all of their preceptories throughout Europe into such autonomous zones. So the real reason our government is now structured this way is to keep us from recognizing the illusion we are all locked into. It is a confusing maze that is meant to hypnotize you. As long as we all remain trapped in the illusion, our masters have magical power over us. But this can end if we all wake up.

Corporations are not inherently evil. It is an extension of the power given to children of Adam to have dominion over the Earth and the spirits, and to make contracts with whomever we choose. We have the right as men to form corporations, just as we have the right to create golems, servitors, and homunculi. But it is a severe perversion of the natural order for a privately-owned corporation to take over an entire government and then take ownership of its citizens. We must not allow our personhood to be subsumed by corporate entities owned by others.

To learn more about alchemy and economics, buy the book Money Grows on the Tree of Knowledge, by Tracy R. Twyman:

Please follow and like us:

three major corporations – drive to private ownership – temple bar – street names

Source: John D. Christian, Scribd

This is an addendum to the post referencing a book written by John D. Christian called Hidden Secrets of the Alpha Course: The Dark Agenda Behind Alpha. The previous article can be read by going to the source linked above previously posted to the Abel Danger blog.

British Freemasonry’s Control of the Roman Catholic Church

Since the late 1800’s it has been the declared goal of the Church of England to take over control of the Roman Catholic Church, and make the English Church the pivot around which all churches will be reunited to form a final One World Church consecrated to Catholic worship.

British Freemasonry’s Ultimate Luciferian “Gnostic” Goal

It is a well-known fact that many of the leaders in the Church of England are both Fabian Socialists and Freemasons. The Grand Lodge of England controls both the American Scottish Rite and York Rite Masonic Lodges. The 30th Degree of American Scottish Rite Freemasonry, called the Knight Kadosh, is the Luciferian degree which reveals the secret dream of all Masons, i.e. to infiltrate the Papacy, rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem and consecrate the world to Universal Catholic worship under the reign of their New Age “Gnostic Christ” (really Anti-Christ).

The Three Great World City Corporations (Rome, London and Washington DC)

There are three major city ‘corporations’ in the world that are ‘states within states’, not responsible to any parliament or government – Vatican City Corporation, the City of London Corporation and Washington DC Corporation. Vatican City grew out of Imperial Rome, and the City of London Corporation grew out of the old dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in England, which were the business world’s first ‘corporations’.

Prior to Henry VIII, at a time when much of the land in England was owned by various dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lord Mayor of the City of London Corporation was responsible to the British Sovereign, who in turn was himself under the spiritual direction and temporal authority of the Vatican and the Pope. When Henry broke with Rome, he himself (and successive Protestant sovereigns after him) took over the Pope’s authority and became head of the City Corporation. Gradually most of the former assets of the dioceses of the Catholic Church were taken over by the Church of England and the knights and barons of the British Sovereign.

Right from the very beginning of the founding of the United States of America, Washington, D.C. was established as a ‘foreign corporation’ and subsidiary of the City of London Corporation.

Temple Bar and the European Constitution

The global justice system is now domiciled in Temple Bar (named after the Knights Templar) and Royal Courts of Justice in London. All judges and lawyers throughout the world cannot practice unless they are members of their local state or country “Bar Association,” named after Temple Bar in London. In essence, all lawyers are “Knights Templar Bar Attorneys,” and members of the Masonic secret society brotherhood in London. This explains why most judges and lawyers throughout the world are such a grossly overpaid, money-hungry, unethical, devious lot – and regardless of what they may claim, they still secretly serve British Freemasonry, whose head is the Governor of the Church of England and British Sovereign.

Following the EU Foreign Ministers Meeting on the Draft EU Constitution in June 2004, and their subsequent signing of the Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe in Rome on October 29th, 2004 (October 28, 2004 was the principal witchcraft full-moon / lunar eclipse of the year linked to Halloween observed by Satanists), it is only a question of time that the final form of the EU Constitution may be completed, ratified and fully implemented.

If Britain ratifies the Constitution, as planned, in effect this will mean that Britain will be abolished as an independent nation state and will be divided up into “regions” of the European Union like all the other countries in it. However, the City of London will still wield immense power within the EU because as a separate “region” it still controls the Masonic, financial, political and judicial infrastructure which permeates the Union. It is really the EU Commission which governs the European Union, not the EU Parliament at all. The Parliament provides a subtle pretence of democracy, when in fact it is just a “talking shop” with very little power at all. The real power of the European Union is vested in the EU Commission, which is not elected by the people, but is appointed by the Queen’s “Masonic Knights and Bankers” who fund and control it, in collusion with their invalid Vatican puppet.

Vatican City

Much has been fancifully written by various authors alleging that it is really the “Vatican” in Rome that controls the world. Such allegations were undoubtedly very true prior to the Protestant Reformation but now, in the 21st century, this has little basis in fact. Now the real arch enemy of mankind is a most unlikely candidate – a foul brood of apostate Protestant, Marxist/Fabian-Socialist/Masonic pirates based in London – who have infiltrated the Holy Office to use it as their “vehicle” to bring in a One World Church and Government.

Vatican City is the capital and all that remains of the former Papal States, which at one time covered 16,000 square miles in Italy. It is an area of 108.7 acres (similar to the City of London Corporation – about 1 sq. mile) in Rome around St. Peter’s. The Pope has full sovereignty over the city including power to issue coins and stamps and to send diplomatic representatives abroad. The Papal States were seized in 1870 by Italy, and the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See was not again recognized until the signing of the Lateran Treaty and Concordat between the Pope and the Italian government under Mussolini in 1929.

The Vatican has a population of about 1000 and is the control center of about 700 million Roman Catholics scattered around the world. The Lateran Treaty, signed in 1929, was the official seal to the ending of the temporal possessions of the Roman Catholic Church, which she renounced once and for all – this is, the gift that Pepin had handed back to her in the 8th century, known as the Papal States. Fascist Italy paid the Catholic Church 750 million lire and Italian 5% bonds to the nominal value of 1000 million lire in settlement. The sum she received, although a large one, was microscopic compared to the thousands of square miles she had to surrender. The vast territories that the Church had formally misappropriated, confiscated and misruled over a whole millennium were reduced to a grain of sand in the transaction.

While it is true that the Vatican is still a powerful ecclesiastical organization controlling about 10% of the world’s population, and it is true the millions she got as compensation seeded the billions of dollars she is worth today – the real truth is that from the time of the Lateran treaty, the Vatican has been infiltrated and controlled by City of London Corporation Marxist Jewish bankers and their agents headed by the British sovereign. In other words, the Vatican has had a ‘mergers and acquisitions’ corporate raid done on her.

As the whole world is being ‘privatized,’ and through the City of London banking ‘mergers and acquisitions’ policies it is being turned into one Giant Global Corporation (which includes even the Roman Catholic Church), it is clear that whoever will ultimately head the City Corporation in the future will physically, personally own the entire world. At present the British Sovereign heads the Corporation.

Corporatization of the Roman Catholic Church

Interestingly, the deceptive practice of hiding controlling interests in property, shares, bonds, trusts, banks or corporations in ‘street names’ or names of ‘front individuals’ has long been a hallmark of City of London Jewry’s banking fraternity from the time of William the Conqueror (1066), established during the Norman French period in England. Today, the City of London Guildhall Twelve Great Livery Companies, with their many subsidiaries, are the companies which are taking over the private ownership of the world, including the Vatican by the British Sovereign and the City Corporation. The present global banking ‘corporatization’ and ‘privatization’ process is the manifestation of nearly 1000 years of greed culminating in the practice of hiding the control of financial interests throughout the world in ‘fictitious’ City of London ‘street names’ and companies. The practice is very clever and subtle, and, apart from a handful of leading bankers and lawyers, the world general public is totally ignorant regarding this nefarious practice.

Please follow and like us:

The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor – British establishment’s dumping the Windsors – manifest fanatical stupidity – calloused consciences


The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” — Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 1

During the recent five years, approximately, the British press and book-publishing businesses have been occupied by an increasing intensity of scandals directed against the Royal Family, the House of Windsor.

The most recent of these appeals to the prurient interest of the gossiping public, former cavalry officer James Hewitt’s contributions to the authorship of Princess in Love,2 has carried this mounting scandal above the threshold of certain influential Britons’ reluctance to speak out.

1. As reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August 1988. Compare this statement with the Prince’s 1986 Foreword to If I Were An Animal:

“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist. .. . I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”
Fleur Cowles, People as Animals, Foreword by HRH Prince Philip, (United Kingdom: Robin Clark Ltd., 1986).

Compare the opinion of that really high-minded Prince with the words of his intellectual forerunner, Bertrand Russell:

“But bad times, you say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population of the world is enormously diminished…. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. [War] has been disappointing in this respect… but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread through the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full…. The state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science Upon Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp. 102-104.

2. Anna Pasternak, Princess inLove (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, Ltd., 1994).

Exemplary is the statement early this month by Harold Brooks-Baker, the publishing director of Burke’s Peerage:

“We are extremely close to the end of the House of Windsor,” adding that, among Britain’s “educated upper classes,” the view of the House of Windsor has become “negative.”

Brooks-Baker foresaw the likelihood that the Windsors might be ousted by no later than sometime early during the next century.

It is only in low-grade fiction, or in worse precincts, such as today’s major news-media, that an intimate affair with a lady (or, with a man less than a gentleman) is presented as the reason for the toppling of a throne.

In fact, how little concern the general public has for either the incompetence or outrageously perverse behavior of its preferred celebrities, is shown by such disgusting phenomena as the existence of Hollywood stars’ fan clubs, by the Soviet Central Committee’s selection of a man virtually dead to succeed General Secretary Yuri Andropov, or by the all-too-frequent behavior shown by a majority of American voters almost any election night.

The sexual scandals do not topple thrones, or members of the U.S. Congress; however, like assassinations, they are often dredged up, or, like judicial “railroads” of targeted public figures, concocted as pretexts employed in service of dynastic or other purely political motives.

After the facts presented in this Special Report are considered, the British establishment’s strategic, historical motives for dumping the Windsors should become obvious.

This report documents the fact, that for more than thirty years, Prince Philip has personally directed his World Wildlife Fund in genocide against the population of sub-saharan Africa.

For most of us, that Hitler-like behavior would be grounds to convict the monarchy.

However, the relevant strata of the British oligarchy are not like us; they are typified, as an institution, by the common inhumanity otherwise seen among the leading London, Geneva, and Wall Street bankers, financial houses, and the London Economist of today; for reasons to be supplied in the closing section of this report, most such persons probably would not consider genocide directed against darker-complexioned peoples of sub-saharan Africa sufficient grounds for annoying the Royal Family, let alone toppling it.

This report documents also the facts which do affright even the calloused consciences of London oligarchs.

The Windsors continue to spread that same mass-murderous, New Age policy which we witness in the World Wildlife Fund operations against Africans, also into the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia. This threatens the imminent downfall of a global civilization already racked by the worst financial instability which Europe has seen since the middle of the 14th Century.

A continuation of the policies of the Windsors, and also of the corruption-soaked former Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher, under such present financial and economic circumstances, can bring on a planet-wide plunge into chaos, taking the London-led international oligarchy down with the rest of us.

3. A much-publicized, brewing legal action against her son, Mark Thatcher, in Texas courts, has put the former Prime Minister into the London press limelight as a foolishly doting mother who resorted to the highest degree of corruption in office for the purpose of elevating her peculiarly unsuitable son to millionaire status. In addition to this disgusting example of nepotism, Thatcher is vulnerable to the airing of many other unpleasant truths, should their muster be required. The bringing down of Thatcher’s influence, and, therefore, that of her former U.S. toady, George Bush, accords with the same strategic motives prompting a faction of the oligarchy to topple the decadent Royals.

Think of the Windsors as like the bus driver of a vehicle, today’s remains of the British Empire.

Ordinarily, the spectacle of the terrified passengers in a public conveyance being operated by a besotted clown, would merely amuse those sadists of globalist financier oligarchy, were they themselves not among the passengers. In that view, one might better understand why, during the past five-odd years, the relevant portions of the British establishment at large have oozed into the opinion that that decadent dynasty, the Windsors, must go.

The charges against the Royals

Ladies and gentlemen of the readership’s international jury, we have brought you to this court to hear charges arising from one of the most monstrous crimes committed in all known human history, a crime perpetrated on a vast scale.

We present to you here the evidence, that for the past thirty-four years, since its founding in 1961, a wicked organization, calling itself by such names as the World Wildlife Fund, has engaged in willful genocide against the nations and peoples of the sub-Sahara regions of East, West, and South Africa.

We shall prove to you, that throughout all of this period, the “kingpin” of this criminal conspiracy has been Prince Philip, also known as the Duke of Edinburgh, and as Consort to the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom.

We show you here, from his own public utterances, that not only has Prince Philip been the titular head of this criminal conspiracy.

You will discover that he has played this role with full consciousness of the criminal intent of his organization’s policies. We show you here, that he has repeatedly stated his desire to bring about the deaths of countless millions of people, to which monstrous crime he has professed to have been driven by the same quality of motive which impelled the Conservative Revolution’s Adolf Hitler:4 to the purpose of drastically reducing certain human populations of this planet.

We show you here the evidence, that he has advocated the policies by means of which this genocide, including that ongoing in Rwanda, has been brought about, In Her Majesty’s Service, through concerted action of the World Wildlife Fund and British Crown.

4. Cf. Armin Mohler, Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932 (Darmstadt: 1972). The Nazi Party, like Adolf Hitler a creation of the imperial princedom’s Thule Society, was but one variety of a populous species known as the “Conservative Revolution.” This includes a leading Nazi ideologue of the 1933-45 interval, Martin Heidegger, also Friedrich von Hayek of Mont Pelerin Society notoriety, and also many who fit into the ideological category of Universal Fascism-advocate Michael Ledeen’s “neo-conservative” fans of radical “free trade” and socio-economic “chaos theory” today.

We present to you the evidence, that he, by the word of his own hand and mouth, and with shameless braggadocio, has adopted publicly many of those programs which the World Wildlife Fund and its affiliates have deployed to bring about against Africans, and also others, that genocide which was the Prince’s explicit standing instruction and documented intent.

This evidence will show that he is personally responsible for this ongoing and attempted genocide against the peoples of sub-saharan Africa, and, also, of other parts of this planet.

The evidence shows that this Royal Consort is guilty of this crime not only in his own person, but in his capacity as the designated princely “kingpin” of this horrible undertaking.

There are many other culpable parties: the House of Windsor as an institution; many individual accomplices, simply on their own account; officials of governments such as the Major government’s British Overseas Development Minister, Lady Lynda Chalker; wealthy families, in addition to his own; powerful financier and other corporate interests; highly paid officials of well-financed and complicit charitable and other private organizations; and many others: the list reads, as it should, like a summary of the Nuremberg Trials’ categories of criminals under the rubric of crimes against humanity.

To catalog the number and variety of each and all of the accomplices known to us would require many volumes of documentation.

The authors and editors of this Special Report have limited ourselves to presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate the global enormity of the ongoing crimes being committed by this London-directed cabal, and to bring to the bar of the public conscience’s justice those principal perpetrators and their leading accomplices whose assured complicity in this crime is shown beyond doubt by the evidence at hand.

In the earlier portion, the evidence presented to you will focus upon the manner in which genocide was planned and executed against the nations and populations of sub-saharan Africa. Thereafter, the focus of the evidence is shifted, to bring in facts which show that the Prince and his accomplices have used their genocide in Africa as a model for deploying the same roster of international institutions and policies in presently on-going operations against most of the world’s nations and peoples of this planet.

You will see the evidence of World Wildlife Fund’s key role in the efforts to ravish the sovereign existence of the world’s leading power, the United States of America, and the implicitly treasonous role of the Prince’s co-thinkers and other accomplices, as persons and as organizations, inside the United States.

You will see the impact of these same operations in other parts of the Americas, operations intended to destroy,


…all as part of the same global operation tested in genocide against Africans.

You will see the virtual obliteration of the industrial culture, the national sovereignty, and even the mortal existence of the nation called Australia. You will see exemplary evidence of the same operations being conducted against countries of Asia and continental Europe.

It is readily and fairly calculated, that the policy-measures which the Prince and his accomplices have adopted, and are implementing currently would, if allowed, reduce the population of this planet from a current level of about 5.3 billions persons, to much less than 1 billion within about two generations, chiefly through the hyperbolically self-accelerating impact of famine and epidemic diseases of persons, animals, and plants.

Under conditions produced as a byproduct of such concentrated shock to the collective immune-system of all higher forms of life, it is by no means assured that any human beings would exist at the close of the coming century, if the Prince and his accomplices were not stopped, and the policies reversed, now. We might hope such a holocaust were not certain, but we dare not risk that wish; in any case, the Prince, his accomplices, and their evil policies must be stopped now.

One must not overestimate the morality of those sections of the oligarchy which are working toward the ouster of the Windsors, of the Thatcherites, or both.

From the standpoint of such factions of the oligarchy, the essential crime of the Windsors and the Thatcherites (like the Bush-leaguers in the U.S.A.) is not that the oligarchy has strong objections to the Hitler-like immorality of the Windsors’ genocidal practices, but rather only the Windsors’ manifest fanatical stupidity, their decadence.

No doubt, many of the eugenicists of the oligarchy view this “fanatical stupidity” as the result of something like a flaw in the family’s genes, whether from Philip’s side of the family, or to be found already among Victoria’s brood.

Put summarily, the world seems headed toward Hell in the proverbial wheelbarrow, and the Windsors (and Thatcherites) won’t get off the track of their failed New Age experiments. They appear as a degenerate stage of a species, which is no longer capable of presenting, or tolerating new ideas, at a time that valid new conceptions of policy are desperately wanted.

In brief, if our adversary recognizes that his recent strategic reverses are caused by the fact that several of his generals are fanatically stupid commanders, one should acknowledge the fact that this probably correct perception has arisen, but should not fear that our reporting that truth renders EIR in any sense well-wishers of the adversary’s cause.

Rather, such developments on the adversary’s side as the recognition that the current basket of Windsors or Thatcherites may be the proverbial “runts of the litter,” should warn us not to be misled into any self-deluding scape-goating of Prince Philip. He has been but the defective instrument of a policy-interest which was defined millennia before he was born, and will be a continuing danger for at least the several decades immediately before us, after he is departed.

The crime documented in this report is by far the greatest crime perpetrated in all human history: the assured destruction of all civilized human life on this planet, and perhaps, possibly, also a set of wicked actions leading to the extinction of the human species.

Since 1961, Prince Philip has supplied a crucial leading role in heading up this global criminal conspiracy, but he did not originate the underlying policy. That policy we trace immediately to the nineteenth-century Darwin-Huxley circles and their role in creating the Eugenics network which, among its other productions, sponsored the Hitler dictatorship in Germany, and also its satellite, Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization.

Prince Philip’s role should be seen as continuing that same tradition which produced Hitler earlier, and to carry that criminal tradition to new extremes, of which some television fans might say,

“To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Then, if you find them guilty…

Following our presentation of the evidence against the culpable Prince and his more notable accomplices, we have appended an appropriate “sentencing report.”

That concluding section will provide you jurors a summary of what known human history has to tell us about the origins and nature of the specific quality of criminality which the Prince, the World Wildlife Fund, and their accomplices represent. When you decide how you must judge the perpetrators charged here, we ask that you not lose sight of the setting in which this case is being heard.

The evil permeating the criminality of the Prince and his accomplices is very old, as old as the dimly lit fringes of earliest known history. The ultimate enemy is not this unfortunate Prince, but rather that specific tradition of criminality fairly described as “oligarchism.”

That oligarchism is the specific infectious agent responsible for the moral and mental sickness shown by the accused Prince and his accomplices. In selecting a just and prudent course of action in the matter of the ongoing criminality documented here, we must rise above the prevailing decadence of most current international legal and related practice, to cure the problem, rather than, as the victors perverted the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials, seeking to hide our own earlier negligence behind some conspicuous suffering imposed upon inculpated scapegoats.

It is shown to us, respecting the character of this moment of history, that the world has tolerated for more than three decades a criminal conspiracy of an enormity already vastly exceeding, in its toll upon humanity to date, the memorable atrocities of Hitler’s crew. We do not go so far as to suggest that this signals the onset of an Apocalypse; but, it does symptomize a crisis fairly seen as permeated with an apocalyptical quality.

This case expresses the threatened onset of a “new dark age,” global in scope, echoing, and exceeding in intensity the “new dark ages” attending the collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe, and the so-called “New Dark Age” of Europe’s 14th Century.

In brief, the enormity of the Prince’s crime, presently coinciding with the threatened imminent disintegration of the global monetary and financial systems, bespeaks the close of a five-hundred-odd-year cycle in the history of European civilization. To the historian, such a spectacle is to be compared only with the numerous earlier, analogous cases of closing periods of dynastic collapse which have characterized the known history of every culture on this planet, prior to the Renaissance advent of modern European christian civilization. No dynasty, however ancient or powerful, of whatever culture, has ever survived the end of such a dynastic cycle.

The Windsors show no talent for becoming an exception to that rule.

Such evidence helps the jurors assembled better to understand that this Windsor dynasty were almost certainly turned into a pitied relic very soon, whatever we do or fail to do in this proceeding. Our task is not to punish the Windsors (although we may be hastening their retirement), but rather to act with greater prudence than any ruling culture has shown at the close of any earlier time or place of apocalyptical crisis.

Our work here will be rightly judged not by some silly “Nuremberg-style” sentence we might recommend for the Prince and his accomplices. It is relevant to this admonition, to recognize, from considering how many millions of onlookers have tolerated the nature and scope of the crimes which the Prince has conducted openly, how little enduring good was done, or personal political courage shown by the Nuremberg courts after World War II.

The nominally exonerated Schacht, and Auschwitz’s von Knierem had but recently departed the stage, and the benches at Nuremberg had scarcely grown cold, in 1961, when the Prince and his accomplices launched a scheme vaster and more evil than any yet known to have been conducted or conceived by Hitler’s crew.

The crimes of the House of Windsor must be seen rightly by this jury, by borrowing the eyes of history.

The Prince’s is a most monstrous crime, but yet, more significantly, the symptom of the terminal sickness of a civilization which has tolerated the conspicuous promotion of such evil policies and agencies.

Prince Philip (circled) at the Nazi funeral in 1937 from

The essence of the matter is that this Prince has been a cat’s-paw of the decadence of our age, and, in that way, a marker for the onrushing doom of ruling global institutions bereft of the moral fitness to survive. It is that latter sickness, not the mere symptom, to which our justice must address its curative powers.

We conclude these opening remarks thus: The challenge posed by the evidence set before you, is:

Can you, the jurors, be provoked by the horror of the fact that no solution for the collapse of this civilization exists under the presently generally accepted rules of conduct, into discovering the needed radical changes in axioms of policymaking, those changes which might enable humanity to rebuild a ruined society immediately from the ruins of the collapsed dynasty, without living through the intervening nightmare of yet another “New Dark Age” ?

To a summary of that purpose, we shall return in the concluding epilogue of this proceeding today.

Please follow and like us:

Windsor Incorporated – Prince Charles too dangerous to be King – U.S./U.K. Chain of Command – License to Kill – crown Agents – Mistress of the Revels

U.S./U.K. chain of command: ‘Turning back Britain’s constitutional clock by 250 years’

If the changes are followed to the U.S./U.K. chain of command it will be discovered that Crown Agents have delegated to the Mistress of the Revels and CUKC-status Barack Obama, the license to kill.

Mistress of the Revels

“When Britain’s Conservative-Liberal coalition government announced its austerity budget in the fall, there was a small clause that essentially privatizes the Royal Family and turns them into uncontrollable profiteers who are almost obligated to take a political role.

As James Boxell of the Financial Times noted this week, it’s a change that “could turn back Britain’s constitutional clock by 250 years.” It was King George III, bankrupted by wars and bribes, who struck a deal with Parliament in which he surrendered the Crown Estate in exchange for an allowance from Parliament known as the Civil List, whose value is adjusted every 10 years. From that day, the monarchy became a taxpayer-funded project.

And it’s been most generously funded. George himself had the government settle debts of £3-million, a fortune in today’s sums; this year, the Queen collected almost £40-million, of which £8-million was her Civil List allowance. (The government pays an extra £50-million for her security.)

Under the new system, the Queen and her descendants will simply collect a share of whatever revenue they can earn from the Crown Estate, and whatever businesses they can operate from the Estate. This is projected to start at £30-million a year.

Privatizing the Monarchy

These properties don’t actually belong to the Queen or her children. They’re property of the British people, who – in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis in half a century – are denied their considerable revenues because they’ve been entrusted to the Windsors by agreement.

This was Prince Charles’s idea. As a future monarch, he doesn’t take money from the Civil List but has turned his own gift, a £650-million land package known as the Duchy of Cornwall, into a hugely profitable enterprise. His company’s high-end sausages, sauces and herbal “medical” products, produced on public land for which he pays nothing and by a company that’s exempt by charter from corporate tax, fill the supermarket shelves of England; and his investment and property-development portfolio has become a powerful force.

Charles received £16.5-million from the Duchy in the year ended March 31, 2010, according to its annual report; the organization also pays his personal staff of 110 people, including his valets, his servants and his wife, as salaried employees. When he takes over the throne, he will inherit (without paying any inheritance tax) his mother’s estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, which paid the Queen rental incomes of £13.2-million last year. And, of course, he’ll be able to expand his business empire into the Crown Estate.

There are two problems: It puts the royals outside of public control (although they’ll be audited, they’ll effectively be private business people). And because they’re business people rather than grant recipients, they’ll have an inevitably political interest in the success of their enterprises.

Political meddling turns into a permanent institution in the House of Windsor

We’ve already seen Charles overstep these bounds on several occasions, lobbying ministers on behalf of his offbeat architectural, pseudo-medical and agricultural interests (usually successfully).

This week, conservative columnist Max Hastings, previously a stalwart of the monarchical right, broke ranks and declared in the Daily Mail that Charles had become far too political and entrepreneurial to serve the role of a neutral and independent head of state.

The new system turns Charles’s political meddling into a permanent institution in the House of Windsor. The last time a King Charles put his business interests ahead of the state, the result was the world’s first criminal trial of a head of state by his people, and he was duly punished.

Once again, we will have to be vigilant.”

Please follow and like us:

Bankrupt the City of London – “Clarity, Equity and One Set of Books!” – Flat Tax – Payroll Credit – No Odious Debt

Abel Danger suggests studying the text/links below and let us begin to bankrupt the City of London by repudiating all Odious Debt and predatory credit-default swaps in its $64 trillion Carbon Disclosure Project.

Source: National Post

Ontario’s odious obligations

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Saturday, Dec. 18, 2010

Obligations that are odious should not be honoured. So says the Doctrine of Odious Debts, a theory first postulated by Russian legal scholar Alexander Sack in 1927 that is now increasingly accepted by international bodies such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, as well as by today’s legal scholars.

That doctrine, to date, has been applied chiefly in undemocratic settings, where tyrants callously rack up debts that a hostage citizenry is then expected to repay. It may soon be applied more broadly in democratic states where elected leaders fail in their fiduciary duties, wrongly saddling current taxpayers as well as their children with dubious obligations that do not benefit them, and that they didn’t request.

In the United States, governments at the state, county and municipal levels are beginning to roll back pension obligations that previous governments had negotiated with civil service unions, arguing that the pensions are unreasonably rich and unaffordable. These odious-debt-type cases between unions and successor governments are expected to ultimately be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

For Canada, let me offer as a test case my province of Ontario, where the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty has embarked on a spending spree in the name of creating green energy jobs. Under McGuinty’s plan, the province will replace its fleet of coal plants — among the cleanest, most reliable and most economical in the continent — with renewable power contracted from developers at windfall rates — as much as 20 times the cost of power from coal plants. Some of the contracts are flipped after signing — the contracts are so ridiculously generous that the same one can generate quick profits for multiple players.

For references, here is a non-partisan platform designed to work everywhere …

“Clarity, Equity and One Set of Books!”Flat Tax – Payroll Credit – No Odious Debt

REPLACE taxes described by 9 million words of the USA Revenue Code with a flat tax on consumption (c.f. Hall-Rabushka) by taxing income and excluding investment. Support States’ business tax on gross receipts with a sales tax included in sales price. Use employee payroll credit to stimulate value-added, sustainable and diversified local jobs.

RECONCILE $55 trillion of assets in Carbon Disclosure Project with money apparently stolen from federal, state or local employee pension funds. Stop debt fraud by law firm, hedge fund and private equity groups. Use online balance sheet to control tax and spend.

REPUDIATE odious debt and any carbon tax or cap and trade transactions driven by the Environmental Protection Agency’s treatment of CO2 fertilizer gas as pollutant. Sue law firm, brokers and hedge-fund groups gaming pensions on Chicago Climate Exchange.

RECOVER custody of public equity in Carbon Disclosure Project by issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal. File civil claims against law firms, consultants, NGOs and private-placement agents engaged in CO2e insider trading, insurance and hedge-fund frauds.

RESTRUCTURE and rebalance the federal government. Separate Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers. Combine online tools for an informed public to re-establish Grand Juries. Use favored nation trading status to force allies to deal with government corruption and RICO (racketeering-influenced and corrupt organization) crime offenses.

REINFORCE life, liberty and security and property rights. A Reform T Congress will enforce remedies against wrongful deaths and ensure that no murders are left unsolved, including murders linked to the Waco, Murrah Building and 9/11 crime scenes. Reform T candidates will take the Founders’ view of the Constitution and reject donations from corporate and labor unions during election campaigns. A Reform T Congress will purge government of odious debt, credit-default swaps and catastrophe-bond insurance frauds.

So we ask for everyone to think hard; do what is right; start by treating the City of London as a racketeering influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) engaged in a criminal common purpose to extort control over 108 supply chains in the custody of the 108 City Livery Companies.

Please follow and like us:

Order of Precedence – Livery Companies (Guilds) – Military Coat of Arms – Crown Agents: Control of Supply Chains and Patents?

The 108 livery companies are nominally trade associations based in the City of London, almost all of which are known as the “Worshipful Company of” the relevant trade or profession. Here are the top ranked “Great Twelve City Livery Companies” in the City of London and respective coat of arms in order of precedence.

City of London
Coat of Arms

Of particular interest to the forensic economic investigations of Hawks Cafe, Captain Sherlock and Abel Danger, are the Livery Companies: The Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths (5th); The Worshipful Company of Skinners (7th); The Worshipful Company of Haberdashers (8th); The Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers (47th); The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (81st); The Worshipful Company of International Bankers (106th); The Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers (107th); Worshipful Company of Security Professionals (108th).

Livery Companies in the City of London in Order of Precedence

Order of Precedence: 1st

The Worshipful Company of Mercers
Incorporated under a Royal Charter in 1394
Honor Deo

Coat of Arms

Company History

The records of the Mercers’ Company date back to 1348 but the Company is certainly older than this for in that year new ordinances were drawn up for the conduct of its affairs.

Livery Companies originated when medieval merchants banded together to form guilds or fraternities, also known as ‘misteries’, from the Latin ministerium, meaning occupation.

The guilds protected the interests of a particular trade, and the practitioners of that trade.

The trade of ‘mercery’ itself is first mentioned in the 1130s. The term derives from the Latin merx, mercis, meaning wares or merchandise.

In its widest sense mercery could describe all merchandise, although in London the term evolved to mean the trade specifically in luxury fabrics, such as silk, linen, hemp-cloth and fustian, and in a large variety of miscellaneous ‘piece goods’ such as bedding, headwear, ribbons, laces and purses.

The Company’s links with the active trade died out over the centuries. This was mainly because admission to the Company was possible by patrimony. In effect a member could become a member, because his father was a member, without necessarily practising the trade of mercery itself.

Order of Precedence: 2nd

The Worshipful Company of Grocers
Company Acquired a Royal Charter in 1428
God Grant Grace

Coat of Arms

Company History

On the 9th of May 1345, twenty-two members of the ancient Guild of Pepperers founded a fraternity which, in 1376, became The Company of Grocers of London. The Pepperers’ Guild is first recorded in 1180, but it is probable that it had connections with important London moneyers who, in around 1100, had built what later became the Guild Church of St. Antonin. The dedication came from Spain and may link the moneyers with imports of gold, as well as with Mediterranean goods and spices.

The Fraternity was entrusted with the duty of garbling, or preventing the adulteration of spices and drugs, as well as with the charge of the King’s Beam, which weighed all merchandise sold by the Aver-de-Poys weight or the peso grosso. The Company probably derives its name from the Latin, grossarius, one who buys and sells in the gross, in other words a wholesale merchant: since its earliest days the members were wholesale dealers in spices and foreign produce.

A famous member of the Fraternity, Nicholas Brembre, and his friend John Philpot, were knighted by Richard II for services in the Wat Tyler riot. Philpot rendered further service to the trade of the country by fitting out a fleet and ridding the North Sea and Channel of pirates.

The site on which Grocers’ Hall now stands was acquired in 1427, and in the following year, when the original Hall was completed, the first Charter was granted.

In the Wars of the Roses, the City took the Yorkist side, and two Grocers, John Young and John Crosby, were knighted by Edward IV for services in the field.

The Company can claim a share in the work of the Reformation: Richard Grafton, a member, printed the Great Bible – the first English translation placed in Churches by the King’s Order – and the two Prayer Books of Edward VI. The Company also played a part in the Restoration of Charles II by entertaining General Monck at a banquet at Grocers’ Hall, and conferring upon him the Freedom of the City and the Company. Moreover, the Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Alleyn, who welcomed the King on his return, was a member of the Company.

Order of Precedence: 3rd

The Worshipful Company of Drapers
Received a Royal Charter in 1361
Unto God Only Be Honour and Glory

Coat of Arms

Company History

The first royal charter granted to the Drapers is dated 1364 and the first ordinances cite a date of 1361 for the fraternity’s foundation, although an informal association of drapers undoubtedly existed as early as 1180.

A Brotherhood of Drapers, a religious fraternity attached to the church of St. Mary Bethlehem in Bishopsgate, is also known to have existed in the 1360s. It was founded in honour of St. Mary by ‘good people Drapers of Cornhill and other good men and women’ for the amendment of their lives. The location of St. Mary can hardly have been convenient for the majority of Drapers who lived in and around Cornhill, Candlewick Street (now Cannon Street) and Chepe (Cheapside). Possibly it was for this reason that allegiance was transferred to St. Mary le Bow in Cheapside and later to St. Michael’s Cornhill, where the Company continues to worship today. Despite these changes, the Drapers have retained the Blessed Virgin Mary as patron saint.

Order of Precedence: 4th

The Worshipful Company of Fishmongers
Royal Charter of 1508
Al Worship Be To God Only
Coat of Arms

Company History

As one of the most ancient of the City Guilds we have enjoyed an unbroken existence of over 700 years, adapting to the challenges of changing times. Fishmongers’ Hall was destroyed by the Great Fire, rebuilt twice thereafter and then devastated by bombs during World War II but restored to its former glory. Find out more about some of the defining moments in our story so far including our medieval charters and trading and our modern history since the Great Fire.

We also welcome visitors here at the Hall and our Hall Tours have become a popular way for visitors to learn at first hand about the fascinating history of the Company and its surroundings.

We are proud to be the organisers of the UK’s, and probably the world’s, sporting event with the longest continuous history – the Doggett’s Coat and Badge Wager, an annual sculling race from London Bridge to Chelsea for young members of the Company of Watermen and Lightermen, first run in 1715.

Order of Precedence: 5th

The Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths
Received a Royal Charter in 1327
Justitia Virtutum Regina

Coat of Arms

Company History

Founded to regulate the craft or trade of the goldsmith, the Goldsmiths’ Company has been responsible since 1300 for testing the quality of gold, silver and, from 1975, platinum articles. The word hallmark originates from the fifteenth century when London craftsmen were first required to bring their artefacts to Goldsmiths’ Hall for assaying and marking. This requirement continues unchanged today and the Company still carries out its statutory function through the operations of Assay Office London.

Order of Precedence: 6th

The Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors
Incorporated under a Royal Charter in 1327
Concordia Parvae Res Crescunt

Coat of Arms

Company History

The Merchant Taylors’ Company, or to give it the full name by which it is described in the Royal Charter of 1503, the Gild of Merchant Taylors of the Fraternity of St. John Baptist in the City of London, is one of the Twelve Great City Livery Companies surviving from Mediaeval times.

The Gild was originally a religious and social fraternity founded before the beginning of the 14th century by an association of citizens who were Tailors and Linen Armourers. The Linen Armourers, an allied craft to the Tailors, made the padded tunics or gambesons worn under suits of armour. By virtue of various Royal Charters commencing with that of Edward III in 1327, the functions of the Gild were extended and by about the end of the 15th century it controlled the trade. However, as many of its members ceased to be craftsmen and became merchants trading with other parts of the world, the position of the Company gradually changed and by the end of the 17th century its connection with the tailoring trade had virtually ceased and it became what it is today – an association of philanthropic and social character, devoting its energies to educational and charitable activities.

Order of Precedence: 7th

The Worshipful Company of Skinners
Order issued by the Lord Mayor of the City of London in the 15th century
To God Only Be All Glory

Coat of Arms

Company History

The first skinners or furriers lived in the same areas of London and worshipped at the same churches. The part religious, part secular fraternities of men involved in the fur trade eventually came together in one guild, dedicated to Corpus Christi, which became the Skinners’ Company. This is why the annual election of the new master is held on the feast of Corpus Christi.

In medieval times furs were very much a luxury item and their use was strictly controlled. Ermine and sable – costly furs from abroad – were reserved for royalty and the aristocracy, the middle classes were restricted to furs of lesser value, and the common folk had to make do with home grown lambskin, rabbit and cat.

The Skinners became wealthier, and their influence grew, as the trade in expensive furs flourished. Like the other trade guilds, their power was enhanced by the grant of royal charters that afforded them some legal protection and official control over their own craft.

The Skinners obtained one of the first charters from Edward III in 1327 – a handwritten 17th century copy is still in the Company’s possession.

Order of Precedence: 8th

The Worshipful Company of Haberdashers
Received a Royal Charter in 1448
Serve and Obey
Coat of Arms

Company History

The Worshipful Company of Haberdashers has its origins in medieval times. Throughout six and a half centuries it has moved away from its historical involvement in the trade of haberdashery and developed into a significant supporter of schools and education in England and Wales

The Company has its roots in a fraternity, a group of people who lived in the same area doing the same sort of work in medieval times and who worshipped at St. Paul’s Cathedral. Members were haberdashers by trade. They sold ribbons, beads, purses, gloves, pins, caps and toys and in 1502 were joined by the hatmakers’ fraternity. Thereafter there were two types of haberdasher: haberdashers of hats and the original haberdashers of small wares.

The first surviving ordinances were recorded by the Mayor’s Court in 1371. In 1446 the Company adopted its first Coat of Arms, an important symbol when many people could not read. In 1448 the Company was granted a charter of incorporation by Henry VI enabling it to hold land and to have its own Hall in which to hold meetings. The first of three subsequent Halls was built on the corner of Staining Lane and Maiden Lane (now Gresham Street) in 1459.

Order of Precedence: 9th

The Worshipful Company of Salters
Granted a Royal Charter of incorporation in 1559
Sal Sapit Omnia

Coat of Arms

Company History

The Salters’ Company received its first licence from Richard II in 1394, but like other livery companies, was probably in existence prior to 1066.

Since before the Romans, the Anglo Saxons had developed methods of extracting salt and the importance of salt was well established. Roman soldiers were given salt rations and this “Sal” is the origin of the word “salary”. A soldier failing in battle or falling asleep at his post was “not worth his salt”.

By the fourteenth century, salt was an essential commodity in England. It was used mainly for preserving meat and fish before the advent of tin cans and refrigeration. Other uses included any operation where ‘chemical’ action was required, such as cleaning, dyeing fabric, bleaching, degreasing, dehairing and softening leather and in the formulation of medicines and ointments.

As well as dealing in salt, Salters were experts in the dry salting of fish and meat and also dealt with flax, hemp, logwood, cochineal, potashes and chemical preparations. The modern day association of The Salters’ Company with chemistry and science can therefore be traced right back to its roots.

Order of Precedence: 10th

The Worshipful Company of Ironmongers
Incorporated under a Royal Charter in 1463
God Is Our Strength

Coat of Arms

Company History

The earliest records suggest that the Ironmongers, then known as Ferroners, were an effective body in 1300, when they took action against the smiths of the Wealds of Kent and Sussex over the quality of iron supplied for the wheels of carts in the City of London. By 1328 they were regarded as a firmly established brotherhood, joining in the elections of the City officials and choosing four of their members to treat with the Mayor and Sheriffs.The Ironmongers’ received a grant of arms in 1455, describing them as the “Honourable Crafte and Fellasship of Fraunchised Men of Iromongers”, and a charter of incorporation from Edward IV in 1463, which was reconfirmed in 1558, 1560, 1604 and 1687 by various monarchs.

Order of Precedence: 11th

The Worshipful Company of Vintners
Received a Royal Charter in 1364
Vinum Exhilarat Animum

Company History

The history of the Vintners’ Company is a fascinating story of trade, charity, politics and companionship. Although the medieval, possibly even Saxon, origins of the London guilds remains somewhat unknown, there is absolutely no doubt that in medieval London the livery companies, including the Vintners, exercised immense power in economic, social, political and religious spheres.

The origins of the Vintners’ Company, like most Livery Companies, are rather obscure. Before the Norman Conquest, neighbourhood groups would meet in their local church – in the case of the Vintners, St. Martin in the Vintry. In medieval London, persons of similar trade lived in the same area and so these local groups soon took on an economic element – the word ‘guild’ comes from the Anglo-Saxon gildan meaning ‘to pay’. There are twelfth century references to ‘lawful merchants of London’ fixing the price of wine – one of the earliest indications of an official group governing trade.

Order of Precedence: 12th

The Worshipful Company of Clothworkers
Incorporated by Royal Charter in 1528

Company History

The rivalry that developed between different branches of the cloth trade resulted in two new companies splitting from the Company of Weavers. These comprised the Fullers and the Shearmen.

These craftsmen clearly saw themselves as distinct groups before they were formally incorporated as companies. The site of the present Clothworkers’ Hall was conveyed to a group of individually-named Shearmen in 1456.

In 1480, the Fullers were incorporated as a separate body by Royal Charter and in 1508, the Shearmen too became a Company in their own right.

Once the Companies were incorporated, they became a legal entity and could acquire lands as corporate bodies. This was the basis of their future wealth. Several of the London properties still owned by The Clothworkers’ Company may be traced back to bequests by early fullers and shearmen.

Both Companies were dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose image appears on the Shearmen’s seal of 1509.

13th The Worshipful Company of Dyers
14th The Worshipful Company of Brewers
15th The Worshipful Company of Leathersellers
16th The Worshipful Company of Pewterers
17th The Worshipful Company of Barbers (Barbers, Surgeons, and Dentists)
18th The Worshipful Company of Cutlers
19th The Worshipful Company of Bakers
20th The Worshipful Company of Wax Chandlers
21st The Worshipful Company of Tallow Chandlers
22nd The Worshipful Company of Armourers and Brasiers (Armour Makers and Brass Workers)
23rd The Worshipful Company of Girdlers (Girdle and Belt Makers)
24th The Worshipful Company of Butchers
25th The Worshipful Company of Saddlers
26th The Worshipful Company of Carpenters
27th The Worshipful Company of Cordwainers (Fine Leather Workers)
28th The Worshipful Company of Painter-Stainers
29th The Worshipful Company of Curriers (Tanned Leather Dressers)
30th The Worshipful Company of Masons
31st The Worshipful Company of Plumbers
32nd The Worshipful Company of Innholders
33rd The Worshipful Company of Founders
34th The Worshipful Company of Poulters
35th The Worshipful Company of Cooks
36th The Worshipful Company of Coopers (Barrel Makers)
37th The Worshipful Company of Tylers and Bricklayers
38th The Worshipful Company of Bowyers (Longbow Makers)
39th The Worshipful Company of Fletchers (Arrow Makers)
40th The Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths
41st The Worshipful Company of Joiners and Ceilers (Wood Craftsmen)
42nd The Worshipful Company of Weavers
43rd The Worshipful Company of Woolmen
44th The Worshipful Company of Scriveners (Court Document Writers and Notaries Public)
45th The Worshipful Company of Fruiterers
46th The Worshipful Company of Plaisterers (Plasterers)

Order of Precedence: 47th

The Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers
Received a Royal Charter in 1557

Company History

In 1403 the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London approved the formation of a fraternity or Guild of Stationers (booksellers who copied and sold manuscript books and writing materials and limners who decorated and illustrated them). Each appointed a warden to control and regulate them.

By the early 16th century printers had joined The Stationers’ Company and by the mid century the printers had more or less ousted the manuscript trade. In 1557 the Guild received a Royal Charter of Incorporation and in 1559, the right to wear a distinctive livery. They became a livery company, numbered 47 in precedence.

The Stationers’ Charter secured them from outside competition, but they had to settle their own internal disputes, which mostly concerned infringements of ownership of ‘copies’ or what we would now call copyright.

The Stationers’ Company Register (1556-1695)

The Charter gave the Company the right to search for and seize illicit or pirated ‘copies’ and to prevent publication of any book which had not been licensed by a warden of the Company, together with a government licenser and afterwards entered in what came to be known as the ‘entry book of copies’ or the Stationers’ Company Register. This regulation remained in force, at least nominally, until 1695, when it was replaced by the first copyright act in 1710.

48th The Worshipful Company of Broderers (Embroiders)
49th The Worshipful Company of Upholders (Upholsterers)
50th The Worshipful Company of Musicians
51st The Worshipful Company of Turners (Lathe operators)
52nd The Worshipful Company of Basketmakers
53rd The Worshipful Company of Glaziers and Painters of Glass
54th The Worshipful Company of Horners
55th The Worshipful Company of Farriers (Horseshoe makers and veterinarians for horses)
56th The Worshipful Company of Paviors (Road and highway pavers)
57th The Worshipful Company of Loriners (Harness makers)
58th The Worshipful Society of Apothecaries (Medical practitioners and pharmacists)
59th The Worshipful Company of Shipwrights
60th The Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers
61st The Worshipful Company of Clockmakers
62nd The Worshipful Company of Glovers
63rd The Worshipful Company of Feltmakers (Hat makers)
64th The Worshipful Company of Framework Knitters
65th The Worshipful Company of Needlemakers
66th The Worshipful Company of Gardeners
67th The Worshipful Company of Tin Plate Workers
68th The Worshipful Company of Wheelwrights
69th The Worshipful Company of Distillers
70th The Worshipful Company of Pattenmakers (Wooden shoe makers)
71st The Worshipful Company of Glass Sellers
72nd The Worshipful Company of Coachmakers and Coach Harness Makers
73rd The Worshipful Company of Gunmakers
74th The Worshipful Company of Gold and Silver Wyre Drawers

Order of Precedence: 75th

The Worshipful Company of Makers of Playing Cards
Company was incorporated by a Royal Charter in 1628; the City granted it the status of a Livery Company in 1792
Corde Recto Elati Omnes

Coat of Arms

Company History

One of the trade guilds of the City of London, the Company of the Mistery of Makers of Playing Cards was founded in 1628. Incorporated by Royal Charter or Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England in the fourth year of the reign of King Charles 1, approval was received and officially granted with effect from 22nd October. From 1st December, all future imports of foreign playing cards were forbidden in order to protect the trade, and all Customs officers were told to confiscate such items. The Company was constituted in the name of the Master and Wardens, to be elected on St Andrews Day (30 November), together with the Court sixteen assistants to supervise the trade.

For the privileges of its Royal Charter, the Company was required to make a payment of two shillings per gross on playing cards made and a further one shilling per gross to the officer appointed to receive it and to seal the pack of cards.

76th The Worshipful Company of Fanmakers
77th The Worshipful Company of Carmen

The modern livery companies

78th The Honourable Company of Master Mariners
79th The City of London Solicitors’ Company
80th The Worshipful Company of Farmers

Order of Precedence: 81st

The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators
Granted the status of a Livery Company in 1956
Per Cælum Via Nostra

Coat of Arms

Company History

Before the Guild was established in 1929, the future status of air pilots and air navigators was very much in doubt. The small group of commercial pilots who formed the Guild were virtually responsible for ensuring that their successors enjoyed a professional status, and one of the Guild’s objectives has been to foster and improve that standing. From the beginning the Guild was modelled on the lines of the old City Guilds and Livery Companies and its constitution and by-laws reflect that foundation, although its activities and work is very much contemporary.

The Guild became a Livery Company of the City of London in 1956: a rarely bestowed mark of distinction. This was a great factor in increasing not only the influence of the Guild, the 81st Livery Company to be formed in 800 years, but of the entire profession of pilot and navigator in the United Kingdom and overseas.

82nd The Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers and Tobacco Blenders
83rd The Worshipful Company of Furniture Makers
84th The Worshipful Company of Scientific Instrument Makers
85th The Worshipful Company of Chartered Surveyors
86th The Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
87th The Worshipful Company of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators
88th The Worshipful Company of Builders Merchants
89th The Worshipful Company of Launderers
90th The Worshipful Company of Marketors
91st The Worshipful Company of Actuaries

Order of Precedence: 92nd

The Worshipful Company of Insurers
The Company was formed and became a Livery Company in 1979
Omnium Defensor

Company History

Considering that insurance has thrived in this City for well over three hundred years, it is perhaps surprising that the industry had not spawned a Livery Company centuries ago. In fact, the Insurers’ Company set something of a record in moving from incorporation as a Guild Company to the achievement of Livery status within the space of three months, the formal letters patent being granted on 18 September 1979 and presented by the Lord Mayor, Sir Kenneth Cork, on 19 October 1979 to create the Worshipful Company of Insurers.

93rd The Worshipful Company of Arbitrators
94th The Worshipful Company of Engineers
95th The Worshipful Company of Fuellers
96th The Worshipful Company of Lightmongers
97th The Worshipful Company of Environmental Cleaners
98th The Worshipful Company of Chartered Architects
99th The Worshipful Company of Constructors

Order of Precedence: 100th

The Worshipful Company of Information Technologists
The Company was granted Livery status by the Court of Aldermen in 1992

Coat of Arms

Company History

Our work brings together the centuries-old livery tradition and Information Technology, the key industry of the 21st century. As well as working to promote the industry, we run a significant programme of charitable and educational activities. Today, around 650 leading IT practitioners belong to our Company. Our members come from all sides of the IT sector – suppliers and users, hardware and software, and from established multinational companies to newly created start ups.

Whatever their background all our members share a desire to give something back, to the sector and to the wider community. Members give their time, resources and the contacts available through their personal networks to support our activities. The governing body of the ITC is the Court, which is chaired by the Master of the Company. The Master is supported by the Wardens and a staff team headed by the Company’s Clerk.

Order of Precedence: 101st

The Worshipful Company of World Traders
The Guild of World Traders was founded in 1985 and became a Company in 1993
commerce and honest friendship with all

Coat of Arms

Company History

Over the centuries the self-regulating craft guilds of the City of London developed high standards of manufacture and service. Most were rewarded with a grant of livery. The founding of the World Traders Association movement gave rise to the creation of trading complexes in over 160 cities throughout the world. London was the first in Europe, built in St Katharine’s Dock beside the Tower of London. [Though this subsequently closed in 1994.] Over 1,000 years earlier the same land was used by the Knighten Guild to trade in foreign goods, and in 1979 the then Lord Mayor, Sir Peter Gadsden, suggested that this tradition be revived by the creation of the Guild of World Traders to represent members of the international trading community in the City of London.

102nd The Worshipful Company of Water Conservators
103rd The Worshipful Company of Firefighters
104th The Worshipful Company of Hackney Carriage Drivers
105th The Worshipful Company of Management Consultants

Order of Precedence: 106th

The Worshipful Company of International Bankers
(Incorporated by Royal Charter)
For Financial Services Professionals
Coat of Arms

Company History

Prior to 1999, it had not been possible to form an international company, because of the regulations which precluded the granting of Freedom of the City to anyone other than British, British Commonwealth or European citizens (to become a Liveryman, one must be “free” of both the City and the Company). When the Court of Common Council voted to extend the freedom to all, regardless of nationality, the way became clear to instigate an international banking and financial services guild and The Guild of International Bankers was founded in July 2001. In October 2002 the Guild was constituted a Company of the City of London without Livery and its Ordinances were duly enrolled among the records of the City. On the 21 September 2004, the Guild was constituted a full Livery Company (106th). The Company successfully Petitioned for Royal Charter which was granted on the 10th December 2007. The Company currently has over 500 members, drawn from over 250 companies or institutions and with 43 nationalities represented. Many are senior bankers but, recognising the diversity of the City and with a view to ensuring long-term continuity, membership extends throughout the professional ranks of the City and includes a number of finance students.

Order of Precedence: 107th

The Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers
Granted Status of a Livery Company in 1956 by the Court of Alderman
Veritas, Caritas, Comitas

Coat of Arms

Company History

On 19th December 1995 some leading members of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (founded in 1930) adopted Ordinances for “The Guild of Tax Advisers”. Its three primary aims were to enhance the standing of the profession of tax advisers in the City of London; to support and fund benevolent and chaitable causes; and to provide for fellowship between tax advisers. The ordinances were registered with the Clerk of the Chamberlain’s Court in the City of London.

The company’s sponsor was Alderman Richard Agutter, FCA, who became Sheriff for 2000-01. Immense support was received from Andrew Gillett, CTA, FCA, the Clerk of the Founders’ Company.

At the Guild’s first Civic Luncheon in Founder’s Hall on 19th May 1997 the then Lord Mayor, the late Alderman Sir Roger Cork, FCA, accepted honorary membership.

Within five years, on 12th December 2000, the Court of Aldermen consitituted the Guild a City Company without Livery. It became “The Company of Tax Advisers” and the members became Freemen. Four years later, on 18th January 2005, the Court of Aldermen resolved that it should become a livery company, to be known as The Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers. This was recorded in letters patent, issued by the Lord Mayor in a special meeting of the Court of Aldermen in the Mansion House on 18th May 2005. The Company thus became the City’s 107th livery Company in order of precedence.

On 8th July 2009, Her Majesty the Queen, in Privy Council, granted a Royal Charter for the Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers. The Company was greatly honoured by the presentation of The Royal Charter by HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG KCVO on 13th May 2010 at The Great Hall, St Bartholomew’s Hospital.

Number Ten Downing Street (City of London)

The letter ‘X‘ is also a Roman numeral that represents the number 10; 10 Downing Street; ‘X’ marks the spot.

The ‘X‘ in the coat of arms suggests the Roman number ten and the historical tenth or tithe. The pattern in the cat of arms resembles the board used by the Exchequer for tax accounting.

Order of Precedence: 108th

Worshipful Company of Security Professionals
Company became a Livery Company on the 19th of February, 2008 by Court of Alderman declaration
Res Homines Libertates
Coat of Arms

Company History

The Worshipful Company of Security Professionals (WCoSP) is one of the Livery Companies of the City of London. The company is a charitable organization providing education and health services to members of the security professional community. Formed in 1999 when the, now Past Masters, Steve Neville and John Purnell GM QPM DL registered The Guild of Security Professionals with the City of London Chamberlain’s Office as The Guild of Security Professionals. On 18 November 1999 Twelve Principle Founder members met to plan the creation of a working Guild. The first meeting with Sixty-two Founder Members took place on 27 March 2000 with Sir Neil Macfarlane being elected Founder Master and with Sir David Brewer, CMG LL(Lord Lieutenant) of Greater London and Mr Deputy Philip Willoughby as Sponsors.

Progression to a Company without Livery occurred on 6 January 2004 when the Petition for recognition as a City Company without Livery was recognised by the Court of Aldermen. On the 15th January 2008 the Court of Alderman was petitioned and the Court declared that the Company became the 108th Livery Company of the City of London on the 19th of February, 2008. The 108th ranking is by Order of Precedence, under which guidelines the Company is also classified as a Modern Livery Company.

Arms: Party per fess indented acute Or and Azure three Portcullises chained counterchanged.

Crest: Upon a Helm with a Wreath Or and Azure A Unicorn forcene Argent armed maned tufted and unguled Or the dexter forehoof enfiling the hasp of a Padlock Azure the sinister supporting a Terrestrial Globe Or the oceans Azure.

Supporters: On the dexter a Dragon Azure armed langued winged and gorged with a plain Collar attached thereto a Chain reflexed over the back and holding in the sinister foreclaws a Key wards uppermost Or on the sinister a Griffin Azure armed langued beaked winged and holding in the dexter claws a Lightning Flash Or.

Please follow and like us: