The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (34 page)

“The outburst of Puritan wrath against Marlowe is without parallel in literature.
 
No vile epithet was too vile for his detractors to use, yet most of them wrote only from hearsay, or merely embroidered one another’s accounts, hardly one able to contain his gloating.”

This attitude is also fairly common today.
 
Many present-day scholars regard Marlowe with contempt for his views and his rather colourful life as an occasional brawler and ‘roaring boy’ as well as being a homosexual predator.

In ‘As You Like It’, the character ‘Touchstone’ says…

“When a man’s verses cannot be understood, nor a man’s good wit seconded by the forward child understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room.
 
Truly I wish the gods had made thee poetical.”

This is surely referring to Marlowe’s alleged demise over the bill (‘the reckoning’ as it was called in Elizabethan times) and says that it was nothing compared to the continual agony of having to write in disguise and having someone else take all the credit for it.

I believe that this scenario is more than credible but the space available in a book such as this cannot do justice to the scores of examples of Shakespeare’s texts where oblique references are made to Marlowe including anagrams of his name, and vain protestations of his suffering in exile and his innocence.
 
It is clear that Marlowe was desperate to take credit for his own genius (who among us would not be?) and left as many obvious clues as he dare in his great works.
 

The Shakespeare story is a classical example of the distortion of history in terms of its background reasons.
 
It is indeed just another small piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes up the ongoing grand conspiracy against humanity.
 
However, perhaps importantly it provides an example of how four or five prominent people working together in complicity can completely fool not just the literary establishment, but almost the whole of humanity for more than four centuries.
 
It provides us with another case in point (should one be necessary) of how unbelievably ‘simple’ it is to falsify events to benefit the few.

Some of the 5th November ‘gunpowder plotters’

The so-called ‘Guy Fawkes plotters’, Catesby, Percy and Tresham were in reality working for the English government and it was in fact King James I's spymaster, Robert Cecil, who blackmailed Robert Catesby into organising a plot to discredit Catholics.

Robert Cecil

As with the debunking of any of mainstream history’s ‘givens’, we always need to ask the question ‘why’ and this can usually be answered by investigating as to who would most benefit from the deception, ‘cui bono’ in Latin.
 
In this particular instance, the purpose was t0 expedite the smooth transition of King James VI of Scotland onto the throne of England as James I.
 

The previous reigns of James’ 2nd cousins, Elizabeth and Mary had been greatly characterised by religious genocide, firstly by Mary against the Protestants and then by Elizabeth against the Catholics and these ongoing sectarian schisms of the previous half-century had created deep divisions and torn families and communities apart.
 
So, placing a Catholic on the throne of a now thoroughly protestant nation required a large degree of what we would now refer to as political ‘spin’, in order to prevent insurrection!

James was thus engineered via the expedient of the gunpowder plot, to be seen as clamping-down hard on any Catholics who could have been perceived to be taking advantage of their presumed newly-found freedoms under a Catholic monarch.

So the scene was set for the deception.
 
In 1604, Robert Catesby, in actuality an agent of the English government, was involved in the planning of the Gunpowder plot along with Sir Robert Cecil, ostensibly a scheme to blow-up the English parliament on the 5th November 1605 and kill King James and as many members of Parliament as possible.

On his death-bed, there were statements by Robert Catesby's servant that Robert Cecil and Catesby met on three separate occasions in the period leading up to the events of the night of 5th November 1605.
 
At a meeting at the Duck and Drake Inn, Catesby explained the plan to Guy Fawkes, Thomas Percy who was another agent of the English government, John Wright and Thomas Winter and all of them agreed to join the plot.

In the following months Francis Tresham, another undercover government agent, Everard Digby, Robert Winter, Thomas Bates, and Christopher Wright also agreed to join the conspiracy.
 
Immediately prior to the event, Thomas Percy was seen exiting the house of Robert Cecil and after the plot was 'discovered', Catesby, Percy, Christopher Wright and John Wright headed to Holbeche House in Staffordshire in the English midlands and on the 8th November 1605, government troops arrived at the house and shot dead the conspirators Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, Christopher Wright and John Wright whilst Digby, Robert and Thomas Winter, Bates and Fawkes were executed by being hanged, drawn and quartered in January 1606 after suffering extreme torture in order to extract confessions.

It was also widely rumoured that Francis Tresham was poisoned while being held captive in the Tower of London.

In his book ‘The Gunpowder Plot: The Narrative of Oswald Tessimond’, Francis Edwards claimed that Francis Tresham escaped from the Tower of London, probably with the help of the Government, went abroad and changed his name to Matthew Bruninge.

"If Guy Fawkes case came up before the Court of Appeal today, the... judges would surely... acquit him...
 
…no-one has ever seen the attempted tunnel.
 
Builders excavating the area in 1823 found neither a tunnel nor any rubble.
 
Secondly, the gunpowder… In 1605, the Government had a monopoly on its manufacture... The Government did not display the gunpowder and nobody saw it in the cellars.
 
Thirdly, these cellars were rented by the government to a known Catholic agitator...
 
Fourthly, the Tresham letter…
 
Graphologists [handwriting experts] agree that it was not written by Francis Tresham.…Guy Fawkes was at a wedding of Cecil's niece, along with Cecil AND King James.
 
...Why didn't Fawkes kill the King there, and isn't it mysterious that all figures in the plot went to a wedding together?"
 
R. Crampton, ‘The Gunpowder Plot’, 1990

So, the plot was just a charade, albeit one with a very serious purpose.
 
It was all part of the Elite’s ongoing grand conspiracy and this chapter of that conspiracy was the unification of England and Scotland to create a United Kingdom and thus the foundations of the future British Empire to-be.
 
It was, at its roots, yet another False Flag operation this time using the protestant-catholic dialectic and it was this first stage of the unification of two hitherto completely distinct countries that was designed to facilitate the next ‘Crown Empire’ and the thrust towards globalisation.

I am also of the view that the King James Version of the bible, written in 1611 was another work of social engineering and is the script which, the hidden Elite and their not so hidden bloodlines are following as we approach the end of the age.
 
The Pope declared some time ago that were are now in the time of Revelations, a point in our history that is also recognised in Freemasonry and of course ‘apocalypse’ is from the Greek, meaning the ‘unveiling’ – the ‘reveal’.

When people talk about a conspiracy so large that it defies all belief and imagination, they really are not exaggerating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, Algernon Sidney warned Cromwell that…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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