Money Manipulation and Social Order; What happened to ‘Merry’ Old England


by Tom Valentine


(Live and learn! After 75 years of reading ‘history’ I just now learned important details sent to me by my longtime anarchist buddy. Tony ‘The geezer from Weiser,’ who was a top researcher for the old Spotlight. Read carefully.)

The very last pages of one of Rev. Denis Fahey’s great books, “Money Manipulation and Social Order” (the title tells it all) are an appendix which he titled, “Outline of English History.”

In truth, it is an outline of Protestant English history as it begins with Henry VIII. If it were an outline of all English history the sudden difference from “merry ol'” Catholic English history to its Protestant hell would amaze every reader other than those who have done the homework. Catholic England, the England of Magna Carta, trial by a jury of one’s peers (people who knew the accused personally), other guarantees of justice and fair play; the England of “Old King Cole, the merry old soul,” had an enviable reputation as the happiest nation in the world. No one was interested in the bottom line, the main interest was living Godly.

Thanks to the phony “reformation” England, in a very short time, became a slaughter house prison wherein people who refused to denounce their ancient religion which was the root of such happiness were murdered in the most cruel manners possible as all the religious property which was used for their support was stolen by a criminal elite. Those who were allowed to remain alive, beside being forced to worship in a different, obviously twisted religion based on lust and greed, were pauperized and starved, often hanged for stealing a crust of bread for their children from the murderous thieves who now claimed ownership of all, as faithfully recorded by William Cobbitt (a Protestant) among others. Cobbitt’s book, “A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland” has been rescued from the memory hole and republished.

It reads very similar to the Soviet rapine and mass murder of the innocents of Russia and Eastern Europe, of China and parts of South Asia in the twentieth century. All under “communism,” a euphemism for ultimate capitalism, wherein the capitalists own the state itself, even the people.

The appendix is short therefore I have copied it in it’s entirety below sans only some of the references.

Although Fahey wrote for the benefit of his Irish people, his works fit the circumstances of all the English speaking world and much of the world in general.

Recently I watched a 7-minute video presentation about the evil, secretive, Cabalistic/Masonic/Illuminati world takeover that rings true.

We the people can’t solve this if we do not recognize the secretive evil-doers. The money mess did not simply evolve. Now segway back to Tony B. (we either learn from history or we repeat it.

Outline of English History

The following brief outline of English History from Henry VIII to William of Orange, taking account of the financial factor, may prove useful to students. For the development of the points here touched upon, “The Two Nations,” by Christopher Hollis, frequently referred to in the course of this book, and “The Tragedy of the Stuarts,” by J. Desmond Gleeson, are strongly recommended.

When Henry VIII attacked the Divine Plan for order, he prepared the downfall of the English popular Monarchy. The families that rose to wealth and power by the confiscation of the property of the Church and the Abbey lands, which were used for the maintenance of the poor and the education of the people, gradually hemmed in the Monarchy. The overthrow of the Monarchy by these new fortunes of the Cecils, the Cavendishes, the Cromwells and the rest was largely contributed to by the decline in the value of money during the 16th and 17th centuries.

Deriving from feudal times and customs, the normal Crown dues were fixed. While prices were rising and expenses increasing, the royal income remained at the old fixed rate. “Half an ounce of gold in Henry VIII’s reign could scarcely be equaled by three ounces of gold in Charles I’s reign, roughly one century later — and yet, both Henry and Charles were in receipt of incomes represented by the same figure—The true royal incomes, then, were in steady decline at the same time that the private incomes of a special group of men within the state were in a condition of steady increase.

And moreover, with its decreasing means, the royal resources in lands were being rapidly lost to the Crown and gained by the new men—The Crown had to be subsidized and the subsidy, naturally, came from the new rich lords — It was on this very question of subsidy that William Cecil and his partners were able to exercise control over Queen Elizabeth. It was in order to secure her money that she was forced to yield to their requests, notably in the matter of the public execution of Mary Queen of Scots.

James I was shrewd enough to size up the situation of the Monarchy and allowed Robert Cecil to guide him. Charles I “saw the dependence of the monarch upon the large owners become daily more abject, and he struck.”

By James the First’s death, the price-level was up to 550 and it was impossible for Charles I to pay off a 5.5d. when he had only 1d. Charles I “rebelled against those who would appoint themselves his pay-masters—He challenged the practical rights of the new big fortunes to dictate to him because he had lost his fortune, and he lost the battle that ensued — Charles II was brought back to England from foreign exile as a salaried head of state, almost as a salaried servant of the rich.

Charles, a very clever man, tried to shake himself free from the shackles with which he was bound. His experiment of issuing paper money failed, in part because, as Christopher Hollis points out, he issued paper orders only for large sums. The bankers or goldsmiths were thus enabled to charge a large discount to those who wanted small sums and in this way brought discredit on the King’s notes. But the King’s rising income from customs duties made him almost independent by the end of his reign.

When James II, the creator of the English fleet, who was a convinced Catholic and a man not given to compromise like Charles II, came to the throne, the wealthy nobles had a twofold reason for plotting to get rid of him. They knew that he would not be a pliable servant and they feared a Catholic reaction, which might reopen the question of the old Church lands.

With the advent of William of Orange, the triumph of the Aristocracy over the Monarchy was complete. The foundation of the Bank of England, however, with its privilege of creating money, meant that wealth and power gradually passed into the hands of the financiers and the speculators with disastrous results for the landowners and the countryside.

(Footnote – In the Introduction to “An Agricultural Testament,” Sir Albert Howard ends his outline of the decay of the Roman Empire with the words: “The strongest possible support of capital must always be a prosperous and contented countryside. A working compromise between agriculture and finance should, therefore, have been evolved. Failure to achieve this naturally ended in the ruin of both.) The rule of the financiers and the speculators is called Democracy.

To Illustrate the significance of the remark that the manipulators of the money rule, in spite of the label “Democracy,” a few sentences may be quoted from an excellent pamphlet, “Money and National Reconstruction,” by P. C. Loftus, M.P. (Economic Reform Club):

“That the Bank of England was responsible for our disastrous post-war financial policy from 1920 to 1931,” he writes, “is widely and, I think, correctly believed. The Cardinal error of that policy was the decision to return to the Gold Standard, especially to return to the pre-war parity, thereby doubling the value of the depreciated pound and doubling also the real value and actual burden of our vast National Debt. Warning voices were raised by individuals prominent in industry and finance pointing out that such a step must inevitably wreck the export trades and lead to a vast increase in unemployment, but in vain, and the Bank of England commenced its policy of reducing the amount of money in order to force up its value —The sacrifices the Nation made to restore the Gold Standard, the bitter years of deflation, the millions of unemployed, the ruin of the cotton and coal export were all in vain, and the edifice so laboriously constructed at such a cost of human suffering finally collapsed in 1931.

Any individual may call at Somerset House and inspect the shareholders’ register of any public company; But he is not allowed to inspect the list of shareholders of the Bank of England, if indeed a list is kept at Somerset House. Moreover, a member of Parliament is entitled to put down questions on the Order Paper of the House of Commons on almost every conceivable subject, but he is not allowed to put down any questions asking for information as to the names of the shareholders of the Bank of England.”

End of appendix.

Do you find familiar ringing in your head reading this?
Tony B.


We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.
Previous articleFukushima on Facebook
Next articleSAWTST, LLC Continues To Hire Veterans
Tom Valentine (born August 20, 1935, same day as Ron Paul) is a businessman, writer, commentator and radio host with an anti-establishment perspective. He worked with Radio Free America from 1988 to 2004. He tends to align with issues from left and right ends of the political spectrum, as well as libertarianism. His main journalistic interests have been unorthodox health care methods and conspiracy theories. He is a believer in many alternatives as cancer cures, and believes that soy products are unhealthy for human consumption. All of his views are at odds with the mainstream medical community.