Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Redefinitions and Rhetoric - Vox Popoli

 Just like an “antisemite” is anyone the ADL doesn’t like, “hate speech” is any speech that the clowns of Clown World hate.

Facebook’s demonstrated hatred for Christianity wasn’t an accident either. The action was confirmed and exacerbated by a Facebook moderator.

Hallowell posted the comment on Facebook around April 2.

He posted his Christian message around Easter time, making the statement more pertinent.

But the post quickly got flagged for allegedly violating the community hate speech policy.

He then received a warning that it could be “reviewed.”

At that point, the punishment that Facebook’s censoring machine thought fit the “crime” was to make the post invisible to anyone but the author.

After the post was reviewed by a Facebook moderator, the crackdown became more severe.

The post was deleted altogether after an “appeal.”

“Your appeal was reviewed,” claimed Facebook.

“We are unable to show content that goes against our community standards on hate speech.”

Actions like these serve to clearly demonstrate the historical fact that “free speech” and “freedom of religion” were always evil lies that were designed from the very beginning to permit Clown World to plant its roots throughout Christendom and undermine Christian society. The Enlightenment was an intrinsically satanic movement from its inception to its fruition, and the answer is to ruthlessly and relentlessly reject both its tenets and its adherents in the name of Jesus Christ.

Never forget that evil always redefines words in order to confuse you, and that there is no inherent informational content in rhetoric.


Monday, May 22, 2023

Spirits Accessing the Material World - Vox Popoli

Bruce Charlton ponders how demons might utilize Man’s technology for satanic purposes.

1. The spiritual is primary, and the material is a sub-set of the spiritual. 

2. The spiritual world exists as Beings – (is ‘organized’ as Beings) which are living, conscious, purposive entities. 

3. A Being can form part of a larger Being, and often includes smaller Beings. 

Putting together the above three assumptions, we can see that the agenda of evil might be administered overall by a Being such as Satan, who is analogous to a general directing lower ranks towards a particular strategy. These lower ranks might include demons participating in a hierarchy of organized and specialized functions; the lower ranks also include Men – and other Beings and parts-of-beings such computers, programs, the internet…

While demons are supposed to be wholly committed to evil by their natures; the Men who participate in the System of evil are only partially being used for that purpose.

So a Man might regard his job as ‘just’ digging holes and building walls, or collecting and summarizing data in an office; and this activity might be integrated into an evil-orientated agenda… or a Good and Godly one; and to varying degrees.

Yet the situation is not static, and evil operates purposively to increase itself and corrupt other Beings; so the Man in an evil-aiming organization who digs holes, or the one that deals with ‘information’ – might be confronted-with links between his activity, and its aims and consequences.

So that he will become aware of his participation in evil, and then needs consciously to decide whether to endorse or repent this participation – each of which will have different consequences for how much of himself participates in the System.

If demons can hurl furniture around and turn lights on and off, then there is no reason to believe they cannot interact in a more sophisticated manner with more complicated material objects. While I’m not particularly concerned about AI qua AI, I can imagine how what purports to be AI might be something else merely pretending to be AI and operating in its guise.

This is not a new idea. In THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, CS Lewis presented a similar use of the material for interdimensional communication.


Bruce Charlton's Notions: By what mechanisms might demons influence computers or 'the internet'?

Demons are living, conscious, purposive immaterial-spirit Beings; but computers are regarded as non-living material objects made of minerals, performing electrical and 'digitally-segmented' procedures. 

How can demons influence - say - 'the internet'? This seems difficult, or impossible, to understand because, with the usual assumptions included in the question, we seem to be suggesting that immaterial living spirit can (somehow?) affect solid, dead matter. 

We are falling back into asserting an incoherent or paradoxical 'ghost in the machine' scenario...

As usual, the problems are with false assumptions; assumptions that intrinsically pre-judge and have-excluded the very possibility under question.

Instead, these are some assumptions about reality which I take to be true, and which make sense of the idea of demons influencing the internet directly, by 'incarnating' into computational systems:  

1. The spiritual is primary, and the material is a sub-set of the spiritual. 

In other words, matter might be pictured as somewhat like 'condensed spirit'. 

This means that all matter is spiritual, necessarily and unavoidably. So there is no 'problem' about spirit affecting matter, because all matter is 'within' spirit to-start-with. 

2. The spiritual world exists as Beings - (is 'organized' as Beings) which are living, conscious, purposive entities. 

So everything we might assume is a 'thing' is instead actually either 'itself'-a-Being, or part-of a Being. 

So each Man is a Being; but (for instance) Man's bones, or veins, are (apparently) not Beings; but are parts of a Being. 

If a tree is a Being in its own right, maybe a mushroom is part of a larger Being (containing many mushrooms linked underground). A mountain might be a Being, perhaps; or it might be part of a Being that is an island, a continental plate, or The Earth? 

(We don't usually know the boundaries of Beings nor how they are organized, so I am simply illustrating the principle.) 

3. A Being can form part of a larger Being, and often includes smaller Beings. 

Men are Beings that contain Beings. 

And example might be a white blood cell in our blood, which (we might imagine) has no idea that it is part of a human being! But simply lives-out its life in hunting cellular debris or invading germs, eating and assimilating them, reproducing etc. 

And Men, as Beings, are contained-by other Beings.

For instance; a Man, whose life and activity forms part of a larger human grouping; a tribe, or maybe a nation about which he may be ignorant and which 'uses' his abilities and labour for its own purposes. 

This means that a larger Being - containing Men - must be genuinely real (not just a convenient metaphor), and is typically a spiritual (not material) Being. In the past this was, when the Man-containing Being was Good, conceptualized as a presiding angel - when the larger Being is evil, it is a demon.  

(Both might, and typically do, exist; contesting over the component Men - e.g. a national Archangel versus a Globalist demon; varying in dominance through time, and each group angel/ demon 'using' different Men, for different roles; and different selective aspects of those Men.) 

What is happening here is that only a part of each component Man is truly a component of the larger Being that is the tribe or nation or whatever group it may be. The Man's essential Being is Not a part of any larger Being, but may choose to affiliate-with or reject that larger Being and its purposes. 

What happens is that some of that Man's attributes are in fact being 'organized' into a larger unity; while the essential Being is eternal and cannot be assimilated-into any larger Being - but necessarily stands apart from all possible Systems, and decides whether or not to join-with them. 

From the perspective of the larger Being; the component smaller Beings are organized into hierarchical and specialized functions, and used to perform particular tasks in particular sequences; analogous to the parts of an army - each operating under 'orders'.    

Putting together the above three assumptions, we can see that the agenda of evil might be administered overall by a Being such as Satan, who is analogous to a general directing lower ranks towards a particular strategy. These lower ranks might include demons participating in a hierarchy of organized and specialized functions; the lower ranks also include Men - and other Beings and parts-of-beings such computers, programs, the internet... 

While demons are supposed to be wholly committed to evil by their natures; the Men who participate in the System of evil are only partially being used for that purpose. 

So a Man might regard his job as 'just' digging holes and building walls, or collecting and summarizing data in an office; and this activity might be integrated into an evil-orientated agenda... or a Good and Godly one; and to varying degrees. 

Yet the situation is not static, and evil operates purposively to increase itself and corrupt other Beings; so the Man in an evil-aiming organization who digs holes, or the one that deals with 'information' - might be confronted-with links between his activity, and its aims and consequences. 

So that he will become aware of his participation in evil, and then needs consciously to decide whether to endorse or repent this participation - each of which will have different consequences for how much of himself participates in the System.

(ie. If an aware Man then repents his participation, corruption does not proceed; if he refuses to repent and regards his evil as Good, he will be embracing the value-inversions of evil; then that Man will become more positively orientated towards evil goals.)    

Anyway; to return to the original question of how demonic evil might use the internet to pursue its goals; we can see that there are multiple potential mechanisms, operating at all levels... (And bearing in mind that the-spiritual is primary, and the-material a manifestation of spirit.)

Planning the organizations which comprise 'units' of demons, Men, and other Beings/ parts of Beings such a computers and their programs... 

'Personnel' decisions about which particular individuals or units are performing specialized functions within these systems (by directing the flow and sequence of tasks)... 

There is the administration of these organizations, filtering their inputs and outputs, emphasis given to selected outputs etc.

Once any evil entity is within any organization, and that organization is regarded as running on the basis of un-influence-able material processes; then evil evil-orientated choices of evil-affiliated Beings will operate to increase the power of evil within that organization*.

As always, insofar as it is purposive, the demonic agenda is - to some, variable extent - either consented-to or chosen by those who participate. 

Genuinely unwitting participation is possible - but since this is not corrupting, it is regarded by the ruling evil entities as merely a temporary phase, a means to the end of corrupting a Being.

Sooner or later, individuals participating in evil will be brought to awareness of the goals and direction of their role - and this moment will be engineered such that the individual is likely to conceptualize the evil he is doing as - inversely - actually a higher type of 'Good'...

As when architects are induced to embrace deliberate ugliness as actually a higher, more sophisticated kind of beauty; or politicians embrace the Big Lie as in-service-to a higher 'truth' - such as social justice; or when the enforced mutilation and poisoning of children is justified as part of a more-profound ethic of choice, liberation and inclusion.   

In other words, demonic influence does not need to happen by such weird/ spooky ideas as a demon putting his spiritual-thumb into a software process to shape a particular outcome. Although, insofar as the electrical instantiation of a software process is a material part-of primarily spiritual reality; material action will manifest in accordance with spiritual realities; and then the outcome of processing will not be explicable within the System - (and will be put-down to some unknown 'random' error or failure). 

In other words, the material is never independent of the spiritual; and the spiritual is always controlling the material. 

The material elements of computers or the interest are already and always part of the life of primarily spiritual Beings; so, to posit their being subject to net-evil orientations is merely to assert that demonic spirits have become dominant, overall, in that particular aspect of this created earth. 

*Note: This is why mainstream modern materialism - which fundamentally misunderstands evil and denies the reality of demons - leads inevitably to an incremental corruption of society. Once a demon has gained entry anywhere (and this is inevitable, sooner or later) he can operate undetected; his identity will be denied, and his effects explained-away as random errors or incompetence. This may be one reason why it was possible for prophets of the past to predict these End Times.

Toxic Contagion – Funds, Food and Pharma by Colin Todhunter

 In 2014, the organisation GRAIN revealed that small farms produce most of the world’s food in its report Hungry for land: small farmers feed the world with less than a quarter of all farmland.

The report Small-scale Farmers and Peasants Still Feed the World (ETC Group, 2022) confirmed this.

Small farmers produce up to 80% of the food in the non-industrialised countries. However, they are currently squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world’s farmland. The period 1974-2014 saw 140 million hectares – more than all the farmland in China – being taken over for soybean, oil palm, rapeseed and sugar cane plantations.

GRAIN noted that the concentration of fertile agricultural land in fewer and fewer hands is directly related to the increasing number of people going hungry every day. While industrial farms have enormous power, influence and resources, GRAIN’s data showed that small farms almost everywhere outperform big farms in terms of productivity.

In the same year, policy think tank the Oakland Institute released a report stating that the first years of the 21 century will be remembered for a global land rush of nearly unprecedented scale. An estimated 500 million acres, an area eight times the size of Britain, were reported bought or leased across the developing world between 2000 and 2011, often at the expense of local food security and land rights.

Institutional investors, including hedge funds, private equity, pension funds and university endowments, were eager to capitalise on global farmland as a new and highly desirable asset class.

This trend was not confined to buying up agricultural land in low-income countries. Oakland Institute’s Anuradha Mittal argued that there was a new rush for US farmland. One industry leader estimated that $10 billion in institutional capital was looking for access to this land in the US.

Although investors believed that there is roughly $1.8 trillion worth of farmland across the US, of this between $300 billion and $500 billion (2014 figures) is considered to be of “institutional quality” – a combination of factors relating to size, water access, soil quality and location that determine the investment appeal of a property.

In 2014, Mittal said that if action is not taken, then a perfect storm of global and national trends could converge to permanently shift farm ownership from family businesses to institutional investors and other consolidated corporate operations.


Peasant/smallholder agriculture prioritises food production for local and national markets as well as for farmers’ own families, whereas corporations take over fertile land and prioritise commodities or export crops for profit and markets far away that tend to cater for the needs of more affluent sections of the global population.

In 2013, a UN report stated that farming in rich and poor nations alike should shift from monocultures towards greater varieties of crops, reduced use of fertilisers and other inputs, increased support for small-scale farmers and more locally focused production and consumption of food. The report stated that monoculture and industrial farming methods were not providing sufficient affordable food where it is needed.

In September 2020, however, GRAIN showed an acceleration of the trend that it had warned of six years earlier: institutional investments via private equity funds being used to lease or buy up farms on the cheap and aggregate them into industrial-scale concerns. One of the firms spearheading this is the investment asset management firm BlackRock, which exists to put its funds to work to make money for its clients.

BlackRock holds shares in a number of the world’s largest food companies, including NestlĂ©, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Walmart, Danone and Kraft Heinz and also has significant shares in most of the top publicly traded food and agriculture firms: those which focus on providing inputs (seeds, chemicals, fertilisers) and farm equipment as well as agricultural trading companies, such as Deere, Bunge, ADM and Tyson (based on BlackRock’s own data from 2018).

Together, the world’s top five asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity and Capital Group – own around 10–30% of the shares of the top firms in the agrifood sector.

The article Who is Driving the Destructive Industrial Agriculture Model? (2022) by Frederic Mousseau of the Oakland Institute showed that BlackRock and Vanguard are by far the biggest shareholders in eight of the largest pesticides and fertiliser companies: Yara, CF Industries Holdings K+S Aktiengesellschaft, Nutrien, The Mosaic Company, Corteva and Bayer.

These companies’ profits were projected to double, from US$19 billion in 2021 to $38 billion in 2022, and will continue to grow as long as the industrial agriculture production model on which they rely keeps expanding. Other major shareholders include investment firms, banks and pension funds from Europe and North America.

Through their capital injections, BlackRock et al fuel and make huge profits from a globalised food system that has been responsible for eradicating indigenous systems of production, expropriating seeds, land and knowledge, impoverishing, displacing or proletarianizing farmers and destroying rural communities and cultures. This has resulted in poor-quality food and illness, human rights abuses and ecological destruction.


Post-1945, the Rockefeller Chase Manhattan bank with the World Bank helped roll out what has become the prevailing modern-day agrifood system under the guise of a supposedly ‘miraculous’ corporate-controlled, chemical-intensive Green Revolution (its much-heralded but seldom challenged ‘miracles’ of increased food production are nothing of the sort; for instance, see the What the Green Revolution Did for India and New Histories of the Green Revolution).

Ever since, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO have helped consolidate an export-oriented industrial agriculture based on Green Revolution thinking and practices. A model that uses loan conditionalities to compel nations to ‘structurally adjust’ their economies and sacrifice food self-sufficiency.

Countries are placed on commodity crop production treadmills to earn foreign currency (US dollars) to buy oil and food on the global market (benefitting global commodity traders like Cargill, which helped write the WTO trade regime – the Agreement on Agriculture), entrenching the need to increase cash crop cultivation for exports.

Today, investment financing is helping to drive and further embed this system of corporate dependency worldwide. BlackRock is ideally positioned to create the political and legislative framework to maintain this system and increase the returns from its investments in the agrifood sector.

The firm has around $10 trillion in assets under its management and has, according to William Engdahl, positioned itself to effectively control the US Federal Reserve, many Wall Street mega-banks and the Biden administration: a number of former top people at BlackRock are in key government positions, shaping economic policy.

So, it is no surprise that we are seeing an intensification of the lop-sided battle being waged against local markets, local communities and indigenous systems of production for the benefit of global private equity and big agribusiness.

For example, while ordinary Ukrainians are currently defending their land, financial institutions are supporting the consolidation of farmland by rich individuals and Western financial interests. It is similar in India (see the article The Kisans Are Right: Their Land Is at Stake) where a land market is being prepared and global investors are no doubt poised to swoop.

In both countries, debt and loan conditionalities on the back of economic crises are helping to push such policies through. For instance, there has been a 30+ year plan to restructure India’s economy and agriculture. This stems from the country’s 1991 foreign exchange crisis, which was used to impose IMF-World Bank debt-related ‘structural adjustment’ conditionalities. The Mumbai-based Research Unit for Political Economy locates agricultural ‘reforms’ within a broader process of Western imperialism’s increasing capture of the Indian economy.

Yet ‘imperialism’ is a dirty word never to be used in ‘polite’ circles. Such a notion is to be brushed aside as ideological by the corporations that benefit from it. Instead, what we constantly hear from these conglomerates is that countries are choosing to embrace their entry and proprietary inputs into the domestic market as well as ‘neoliberal reforms’ because these are essential if we are to feed a growing global population. The reality is that these firms and their investors are attempting to deliver a knockout blow to smallholder farmers and local enterprises in places like India.

But the claim that these corporations, their inputs and their model of agriculture is vital for ensuring global food security is a proven falsehood. However, in an age of censorship and doublespeak, truth has become the lie and the lie is truth. Dispossession is growth, dependency is market integration, population displacement is land mobility, serving the needs of agrifood corporations is modern agriculture and the availability of adulterated, toxic food as part of a monoculture diet is feeding the world.

And when a ‘pandemic’ was announced and those who appeared to be dying in greater numbers were the elderly and people with obesity, diabetes and cardio-vascular disease, few were willing to point the finger at the food system and its powerful corporations,   practices and products that are responsible for the increasing prevalence of these conditions (see campaigner Rosemary Mason’s numerous papers documenting this on Because this is the real public health crisis that has been building for decades.

But who cares? BlackRock, Vanguard and other institutional investors? Highly debatable because if we turn to the pharmaceuticals industry, we see similar patterns of ownership involving the same players.

A December 2020 paper on ownership of the major pharmaceuticals companies, by researchers Albert Banal-Estanol, Melissa Newham and Jo Seldeslachts, found the following (reported on the website of TRT World, a Turkish news media outlet):

Public companies are increasingly owned by a handful of large institutional investors, so we expected to see many ownership links between companies — what was more surprising was the magnitude of common ownership… We frequently find that more than 50 per cent of a company is owned by ‘common’ shareholders who also own stakes in rival pharma companies.”

The three largest shareholders of Pfizer, J&J and Merck are Vanguard, SSGA and BlackRock.

In 2019, the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations reported that payouts to shareholders had increased by almost 400 per cent — from $30 billion in 2000 to $146 billion in 2018. Shareholders made $1.54 trillion in profits over that 18-year period.

So, for institutional investors, the link between poor food and bad health is good for profit. While investing in the food system rakes in enormous returns, you can perhaps double your gains if you invest in pharma too.

These findings predate the 2021 documentary Monopoly: An Overview of the Great Reset, which also shows that the stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. ‘Competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi, are not really competitors, since their stock is owned by the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies and banks.

Smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only Vanguard and Black Rock.

A 2017 Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028 together will have investments amounting to $20 trillion.

While individual corporations – like Pfizer and Monsanto/Bayer, for instance – should be (and at times have been) held to account for some of their many wrongdoings, their actions are symptomatic of a system that increasingly leads back to the boardrooms of the likes of BlackRock and Vanguard.

Prof Fabio Vighi of Cardiff University says:

Today, capitalist power can be summed up with the names of the three biggest investment funds in the world: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Global Advisor. These giants, sitting at the centre of a huge galaxy of financial entities, manage a mass of value close to half the global GDP, and are major shareholders in around 90% of listed companies.”

These firms help shape and fuel the dynamics of the economic system and the globalised food regime, ably assisted by the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and other supranational institutions. A system that leverages debt, uses coercion and employs militarism to secure continued expansion.

Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture and is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal. You can read his “mini e-book”, Food, Dependency and Dispossession: Cultivating Resistance, here.

Jews Claim Oliver Cromwell Wanted Jews Readmitted To England To Convert Them And Hasten The Second Coming Of Christ - Christians for Truth


Oliver Cromwell and Menasseh ben Israel

(The Jewish Chronicle) A recent article in The Jewish Chronicle completely whitewashes the real reason Oliver Cromwell advocated the readmission of Jews to England after having been expelled 350 years earlier — claiming that Cromwell believed that Jews must return to England and convert to Christianity in order to hasten the Second Coming of Christ — while completely ignoring the fact that the Freemason Cromwell was merely fulfilling a cynical quid pro quo agreement with the wealthy Amsterdam-based Jews who financed his revolution:

Jews had been expelled from England and Wales in 1290 by Edward I, the culmination of decades of prejudice and hate. A small Jewish presence came and went over the following centuries: merchants and traders in the City of London, a tiny outpost in the port of Bristol, but they would not reside legally for more than 350 years.

Cromwell’s desire to see the return of Jews to England was not humanitarian but theological. According to the millenarian worldview of Cromwell and his circle, the mission of the English, an elect nation, was to convert the Jews, another chosen people, to Protestant Christianity and, in doing so, bring Christ’s return ever closer.

The Reformation had led to a renewed interest in Judaism among Protestants. One passage from the book of Romans — and all Israel shall be saved” — inspired a great deal of speculative scholarship. Many of England’s radical sects identified with Jews, a people who had, like them, suffered persecution and exile. And it was in England — “the only place”, in Cromwell’s words, “where religion was taught in its full purity” — that Jews would be most likely to convert to Christianity, the prerequisite of Christ’s second coming.

In 1649, soon after the execution of Charles I, Cromwell wrote to a fellow cavalry officer, Robert Hammond: “I have waited for the day to see union and right understanding between the godly people.” Cromwell then listed those who came under this banner: “Scots, English, Jews, Gentiles, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and all.” It is a capacious list, at least by the standards of mid-17th-century Europe, then emerging from the sectarian slaughter of the Thirty Years’ War.

Cromwell’s unlikely ally, Menasseh ben Israel, born in Lisbon in 1604, had fled the persecutions of the Inquisition to settle in Amsterdam. In his early twenties, he established a printing press. Increasingly wealthy and influential, he became preoccupied with finding a haven for Jews enduring a new round of persecution in Eastern Europe. In 1650, he published his own work, “Hope of Israel” in Latin, English and Spanish…

…Menasseh came to England himself in September 1655….He was welcomed by Cromwell, who offered him rooms on the Strand, near the centre of government in Whitehall. A fortnight after his arrival, Cromwell took a petition from him to his Council of State, in which he sought “graces and favours by which the re-admission of the Jews should be effected”.

England, in its efforts to teach the true religion, would be the land most able to reveal the true faith to Jews. Cromwell was especially well disposed to such a request because of the help given to his regime by another Jew, Simon de Caceres, who had helped the Protectorate salvage something — Jamaica — from the failed invasion of the Spanish-held island of Hispaniola

…[However] much of the clergy maintained its opposition to readmission, so Cromwell introduced Hugh Peters to the fray, a fierce Puritan divine who had argued for the readmission of Jews as early as 1643. His arguments emphasised a shared patriarchal descent, a common humanity and the suitability of England as a base for conversion

The most significant opposition came from merchants fearful of competition from the business skills, experience and networks of Jewish traders. According to Jessey, City merchants claimed that “such an inlet would… enrich Foreigners, and impoverish English Merchants”…

…The Admiral Commissioner expressed a widespread sentiment when he asked “whether a nation shall be suffered by a law to live among us to blaspheme Christ”. Even so, observers, including Royalist opposition, thought Cromwell would eventually get his way. The Jews, one Royalist newsletter wrote, “will be admitted by way of conniving, though the generality oppose”.

Crucially, there was a legal ruling that, because of the use of the royal prerogative in 1290, no law existed that forbade the return of Jews into England. Cromwell, insistent again, asked “if it be lawful, then upon what terms is it meet to receive them?”

…Menasseh died on November 20, 1657 at Middelburg, where he had returned to bury his son Samuel. Cromwell died on September 3, 1658 and there were concerns among the Jewish community at the death of the Protector — their protector.

A petition against the Jews was raised, predictably, by the City of London Corporation in 1660 soon after the Restoration of Charles II. But Jews were to be beneficiaries of a continuity between the Protectorate and the Restoration. Charles had been aided by Jewish bankers during his exile and he preserved the Cromwellian policy. “They may enjoy the same favour as before”, he proclaimed, “as long as they demean themselves peacefully and obey the laws.” It was a rare and welcome moment of accord between Cavalier and Roundhead.

Reading between the lines, both Oliver Cromwell and Charles II were beholden to wealthy Jews whose money financed their rise to power.

And now for the story behind the story — how the Freemason Oliver Cromwell cynically used these religious appeals to grant his Amsterdam-based Jewish backers readmission to England so that they could take over the English markets and ultimately establish the privately-owned Bank of England:

The following secret Jewish history of Cromwell’s rise to power is outlined in Phil Young’s video The English Revolution: How Jews Financed Oliver Cromwell & New Army & Bank of England — which is based on information gleaned from two books — Edith Starr Miller’s Occult Theocracy and William Guy Carr’s Pawns In The Game.

It’s worth noting that Phil Young is, in fact, and Identity Christian who has produced numerous videos on the connection between the “lost” tribes of Israel and Anglo-Saxon Europeans.

Here we provide a transcription of Young’s video on The English Revolution — and the judeo-Freemasonic machinations behind the scenes.

For clarity, we have included some [parenthetical notes] found in the comments section for this video — along with some highlighted hyperlinks for some background information.

“In 1492 Columbus captured 500 Native American slaves, but they were no good at working, so Africans became popular.

It was Marrano Jews from Portugal who were the first to begin transporting African slaves to Brazil in 1526.

First they were sold to plantations in Brazil that produced coffee, sugar, tobacco, and cotton for sale at European ports.

Aside from commodities — gold and silver were also mined and brought back to Europe, creating a new rich class.

The European ports the slave ships came from were Portuguese, British, French, Spanish and Dutch.

In London, the supply of Third World goods created a new prosperous merchant class which practiced Freemasonry in places like the Goose and Gridiron and met at St. Paul’s Churchyard, City of London.

The invisible Masonic Arm guiding Oliver Cromwell was Jewish-controlled anti-Christian Rosicrucian Freemasonry.

Cromwell used to meet at a Masonic Lodge called the Crown. The Rosicrucians made it the most powerful Lodge in London.

The Levellers were an opposition Masonic sect whose symbol was the compass and square.

These Levellers were English Knights Templar Royalists who were later the last men standing in the Rump Parliament.

Oliver Cromwell lived from April 1599 to September 1658. He was Lord Protector of the Commonwealth from 16 December 1653 to 3 September 1658.

In 1642, Civil War began in England between King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell’s new Army of Roundheads.

Oliver Cromwell’s road to executing Charles I began by dismissing three-quarters of the English Parliament — the Presbyterians. Next Cromwell dismissed those who accepted the concessions which Charles I made with Parliament.

It is difficult to see why some historians today call Cromwell a “Puritan” when in truth he was a Rosicrucian Zionist Freemason who met at the Crown Lodge in London.

8 years after St. Ignatius Day Massacre in 1641 in Dublin in 1649-50, Cromwell arrived for the Irish Campaign — and at Drogheda Cromwell’s troops massacred 3,500 Catholics.

Cromwell created the Protestant Northern Ireland we see today. Dublin’s Orangemen order was named after William of Orange. Freemasons and Rosicrucians have pro-Jewish Zionist ideals just like the Knights Templars.

There was division between Cromwell’s Zionist Rosicrucians and the Royalist Templar Freemasons in the City of London.

Stuart Freemasonry became known as Jacobite Freemasonry until 1688 when it became known as Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

[YT Note: “Among the Freemasons there were once two groups the white Lodges (white people) and Red Lodges (Jewish Lodges). Today most Lodges are Red Lodges since Adam Weishaupt infiltrated the white Lodge with Grand Orient Zionist pro Jewish Freemasonry. WW II saw the Red Lodge in London overpower the White Lodge in Germany. Read “Pawns in the Game.” The other book to read is Occult Theocracy.” End Note.]

Oliver Cromwell’s “New Army” was made up of some locals plus some German mercenaries first brought in on ships by the Marrano Jews from Lisbon and Copenhagen for revolution in England, then later in France.

In return for the Jews helping Cromwell both financially and militarily, he would help them rebuild Solomon’s Temple — a promise he was unable to keep, so he was not the Messiah after all.

Certain foreign merchants joined Cromwell’s Crown Lodge in the City of London — Rosicrucians in particular. Cambridge University was a support stronghold for Cromwell.

After Cromwell had captured Charles I, no lawyer in London would help him draw up the false and fictitious charges of treason against Parliament.

Fernandez Carvajal was the Marrano Jew from Portugal who equipped and paid for the mercenary Roundhead soldiers.

Fernandez Carvajal utilized his Rosicrucian network to employ lawyer Ebenezer Pratt from Mulheim, Germany.

Oliver Cromwell’s letter to Ebenezer Pratt was found in the Synagogue at Mulheim, Germany — dated 16th of June, 1647.

Cromwell’s letter said, “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews. But this is impossible while Charles still alive….

After Charles I was beheaded, Rabbi Mannaseh ben Israel petitioned Cromwell to allow Jews back into England.

So Cromwell appointed an assembly of lawyers and divine to consider the petition — and they came back in favor.

[YT Note: “It was actually Charles II who at last legally readmitted Jews in 1664. Charles II was thankful for the support some Jews in Holland had given to him. Cromwell had yet to legally readmit Jews by the time of his death (although he wanted to but hadn’t been able to because English merchants regarded Jews as competition and were opposed to it). Cromwell knew there were already Jews passing of Catholics from Spain in England though. For instance, when England went to war to Spain the Spanish merchants were to be kicked out as ‘enemy aliens’, but some admitted to being Jews and were granted permission to stay so it was known that Jews lived in England, but didn’t practice their religion openly.

“The expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal at the end of the fifteenth century had made England a place of refuge for a number of their former Jewish inhabitants, known as Marranos, who formed private colonies in London, Dover and York. They passed of course for “Spaniards” or “Portuguese” — and used on occasion to attend the Catholic Ambassadorial chapels by way of disguise. So long as they did not parade their Jewish religion, the Marranos were left in peace.”

“A man of superb and florid personality, Carvajo was known as “the Great Jew”; he rode fine horses, collected armour. In 1645 he was denounced by an informer for not attending a Protestant church, but was defended by the leading merchants of the day, as a result of which the House of Lords quashed the proceedings.” End Note.]

In December 1655 the legal prohibition of Jews was removed — and 11 years later in 1666, the Great Fire of London happened.

[YT Note: “In 1664 the Jews were readmitted by Charles II and they celebrated by burning the commercial center of London down in 1666 thereby wiping out most of the opposition in the City. So Abraham Israel Fernandez Carvajal, was 59 after settling in London around 1632 at the age of 42. A Marrano Jew posing as a Portugese Catholic Merchant came originally from Lisbon Portugal and for a time in France. Mr Carvajal is called the First English Jew or the Great Jew – who with a group of 20 fellow Marrano families – had gained their wealth from the slave trade between Africa and the Americas – then took over London and Great Britain. By 1694 these Jewish families had established East India and Dutch India Companies and by 1694 the Bank of England.” End Note.]

Edith Starr Millar in “Occult Theocracy” explained how anti-Jewish sentiment grew after the execution of Charles I.

Anabaptists denounced Cromwell as the Apocalypse Beast because of the messianic way he presented himself to Jews.

Jews were blamed for Charles’ execution and the plague — as well as deliberately setting London on fire in 1666.

The commercial center of London was almost wiped out, but strategically Westminster, the political heart, was saved.

After Cromwell had dethroned the Stuart monarchy, he dissolved Crown-protected monopolies, like British East India Co.

For three years the British East India Company did not exist as a Chartered corporation.

But in October 1657, Cromwell was short of capital for his new government, so he granted a new charter for financial aid.

[Because] everything wrong was blamed on the newly admitted Jews, support for Cromwell’s government dissipated.

But when the Cromwell’s faltered, the Rosicrucians and Jews quickly jumped aboard the Levellers’ Stuart king “ship”.

Now the Rosicrucians and Jews even supported the return of the Stuart Templar King Charles II to sit on the throne.

They became aligned to the Royalists, and after Cromwell was out, restored Charles II to the throne of England.

After Cromwell died, some Londoners stole his bones from Westminster Abby and chopped off his skeleton’s head.

And before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 took place, the Levellers had put Charles II, a Stuart king, back on the throne.

And after the English Revolution, Freemasonry and guilds became the way to do business and were in all walks of life.

Charles II, King for 1660 to 1685. After he died, there were no more Stuart kings — and William of Orange, a Dutch Rosicrucian, became King of England, i.e., a Dutch foreigner.

In 1694 the English government received 1.25 million pounds raised from Jewish moneychangers — and in return, subscribers are given the Bank of England charter to issue government bonds.

After the Bank of England has been formed, England was plunged into years of costly wars.

The Bank of England is still privately owned by Jewish bankers today, as this plaque outside the banks says, “The Bank of England was founded in 1694 as a private company and now exercising the functions of a State Bank.”

And so with the formation of the Bank of England in 1694 began the expansion of the British Commonwealth because Jewish money was pouring into London at that time — and it expanded as Far East as India where the Hole of Calcutta took place — and also to China with the Opium Wars.