UK Column Radio
The Treasury Letter – with Justin Walker
But there's only one feeling like knowing your banker personally, like growing up with a bank you can count on, like being sure what you've earned is safe, secure, and local. There's only one feeling like knowing you're supporting your community. You deserve more from a bank. You deserve an institution that stood strong for generations. Bank of Colorado, there's only one. Number FDIC. Good evening to the UK column viewers and listeners. Welcome to what's really a special edition. I'm going to be speaking to Justin Walker about money, banking the financial system. And I'll just say that it was back in February that I had a chat with him about the Bradbury Pound. That's that conversation still available on the UK column website. And we were also talking about the history of the Bradbury Pound. And of course, on the UK column website, there's also, let me read this out so I get it right. Bankers, Bradbury's carnage and slaughter on the Western Front. And that actually is a little video, which my Robinson produced back in November 2012. So a long time ago, but still highly relevant. Well, that's the little introduction. Justin, welcome. Welcome. Thank you, Brian, for inviting me again. I mean, you and I have known each other now. I mean, it's frightening, isn't it? I mean, it was about 2004. I think we first touched base that 20 years ago. Yeah, it must be about there. What's frightening is that we can't actually remember to pin it down. And it's incredible at the moment. I know there's all this stuff about, as you get older, time speeds up, but I talked to a lot of younger people and they also think that life is very fast at the moment and time goes past quickly. But I'll just say, with that happening, it's even more difficult to remember what happened. Well, I had somebody, because I don't like political parties, as you know, I don't like the format of political parties, but somebody did say to me a few days ago that we ought to set up the grumpy party for all those of us who've been at it for a long time. We'd probably sweep to power because I think even 30 year olds are getting grumpy now. Yeah, this is true, but it's also true to say that there are a lot of more mature people who have worked an incredibly long time, far longer than you and I have worked. They've been trying to educate people and explain what's happening and get the truth out there. And I've always got great respect for them. I remember a number of the ladies that got involved with the UK column, a lady called Margaret Carroll. I mentioned at the UK column conference in Bristol on Saturday, just gone because she was one of the original people that got in touch with me. But then, you know, we had Sheila and Carol and Kate and yeah, a lot of people who worked very hard their whole lives really trying to try to make sense of the madness around us. Now today, we thought we'd get back into the subject of money and you've been pretty active in the background and in particular, you saw the opportunity to make contact not only with the new MPs, but also to see how the Chancellor would react to some simple questions. What have you been up to? Well, yes, I've written a 28-page open letter, I have to admit that four pages are full of nice pictures and stuff, so it's not quite as bad, but it is to show the whole system of finance and international finance from what it is. It is an open letter. I know the Chancellor has, well, put this way, it went to the HM, what you call it, it came, put this way. My MP, bless him, Tim Farron did exactly what I asked him to do as an MP, and he sent my letter to HM Treasury to the Chancellor, asking specifically for the four questions to be answered. And he did exactly as I asked him. And that's good. That's a big tick for a change for an MP. Justin, can I just come back in there? Because I think this is a very important point. There are a lot of people who have got to the stage where they utterly dismiss MPs, they're useless, don't bother to speak to them or anything else. But at the end of the day, it's true that MPs are part of all we've got, and we shouldn't give up on these people. We should always be trying to educate them and engage with them because it's clear that across the whole spectrum of, what is it, 600 and something MPs in the house? We certainly don't know about that. There are many MPs, even if we say it's a handful of MPs, but they're there, they're not happy with what's happening in many areas, a lot of them we know are frightened or scared of the system, and we know that because they'll actually say so in private, but they are trying to do some things. And I think it's very important that we still try and engage with MPs, give them facts and evidence and ask them to do things because ultimately they are there to serve us, aren't they? Well, I couldn't agree with more with you. We've got 300 and whatever it is, brand new MPs, and they're not completely, well, they're not completely inside the Westminster bubble yet, some of them are, but there are some who I still think will wake up and think, gosh, what's happening. And remember we had Andrew Bridgion, you know, bless him. I wish he was still in Parliament, but hats off, that man, you know, once he realized that we were up against the globalists and what they were doing, he came out and he said, right, I'm going to go where the truth takes me. And he did mention the Bradbury Pound in Parliament, that's the first MP to probably have mentioned the Bradbury Pound or treasury notes for well over 70 years, but going back to Tim Farron, I did actually get a response on the treasury. And because it's so short, I will read it to you. And this, bear in mind, this is to Tim Farron. And it's come from, it's signed by nobody, it's just simply signed by the correspondence ending query unit, H.M. Treasury. And bear in mind that he sent the letter to the Chancellor and what he got back was this. Dear Tim Farron, thank you for your correspondence dated 10th October on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Justin Walker, and then it gives my address, regarding fiscal policy. The government is grateful to you for drawing attention to the issues set out by Mr. Walker in his email and supporting documentation. H.M. Treasury is always keen to receive feedback from people up and down the country. I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions about this reply, please email public inquiries at hmtreasury.gov.uk quoting the reference number and it gives a whole garbage of numbers. So there you are, that is the response to a 28-page, thoroughly detailed and evidence-based letter all about the Bank for International Settlements that Governor going to meetings there, does he talk to the Chancellor, did the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves know about the Bradbury pound, she worked at the Bank of England and she was, she went to Oxford University and she went to LSE, London School of Economics. So I asked her the question, did she know about what the Treasury did to save the economy in 1914 at Break of the First World War and at the end of the day, I said, are you now going to implement, you're going to implement a modern-day equivalent to the Bradbury pound, Treasury notes, in other words, after all the Treasury, basically what Treasury notes are is an extension to the change in our pockets. It's the government creating money under M. naught. And are you going to do that time to fill your 22 billion alleged black hole and all the rest of it? Four simple questions asked, no reply, all I got was that. And even I have to say, Tim Farron was exasperated and I'll be writing an open response to Tim how we proceed further, probably after the budget, once we know what's in the budget. But it's just, just hold this in contempt. Right. Justin, let's pull this apart a little bit because that response which you read out, I was laughing to myself really as you read it, because that is a pretty classic, wonderfully crafted, Bobov letter. So it's full of niceties and plastitudes, but the real message is, go away little boy and don't bother us. And of course, we should pay attention to the fact that it wasn't sent to you. That was sent back to an M who was asking the question. So I can imagine in the audience, there'll be people who say, yes, well, you know, what did you expect? It's a waste of time to which I say absolutely not, because now what we've got from the treasury is a letter where it demonstrates that they, the treasury, do not want to engage on this subject. So for the audience, Justin, you wrote a very long letter. But within it, I think you said to me that there were four key questions. Right. So let's for the audience very simply, very carefully tell the audience what the key questions were and why you wanted to ask those questions. So let's do them one at a time. Well, the first one concerned the Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, as we've all governors of the Bank of England, and they disappear to the Bank for International Settlements every seven to eight weeks where they have meetings with about 11 or 12 other governors of the big top banks and other invited guests. Now there is a book which I recommend people to read and this is The Tower of Basel by Adam Lebour and it's entitled, it's basically called the shadowy history of the secret bank that runs the world. And within the first few pages, they state that the governor of the Bank of England goes to Basel and Switzerland and has these private meetings and he says, no minutes are taken. So you have these meetings of the top 12 central bankers plus other invited guests and there are no minutes taken. So I asked the question to the chancellor, does Andrew Bailey come and see you when he's been to one of these meetings? Does he tell you what was discussed, what was decided? So just let me tug that one or tease that one apart a little bit. So the basic question is about the head of the Bank of England going to have meetings with the Bank of International Settlements, the senior, as I understand it anyway, we'll call it the senior world bank. The central bank or the central bank? So he goes to have meetings with the Bank of International Settlements and there are no minutes taken. We don't believe there are any minutes taken. And so your question to the chancellor was, does she get briefed when he comes back from those meetings to say what was discussed and what he said on the half of the United Kingdom, right? And in the response that came back from the treasury, from the treasury, not from the chancellor, from the treasury, they simply ignore that question. Is that correct? Don't ignore it. Don't ignore it. Right. And now we come to the second question. No, wait, just before you get there, because we were able to report, the UK column was able to report some time ago, I'm going to guess it a couple of years ago, that we discovered that the Bank of International Settlements was setting up a special office in London in order to progress Bank of International Settlements. And the central bank in the currencies, yeah. And in the setup documentation, which was available to the public, it clearly said that the Bank of International Settlements had diplomatic immunity in the documents and in the movement of documents and individuals connected to the Bank of International Settlements. Absolutely correct. When BIS, as I turn, the BIS Bank for International Settlements, when personnel are moving around and they carry in their bags, their dispatch bags, documents and what, they are treated exactly the same way as ambassadors and embassy staff taking around documents. In other words, they're not allowed to be looked at by customs or anyone like that. They have total diplomatic immunity when moving documents and stuff around. Right. So we're reinforcing this all the time. So the Bank of International Settlements calmly comes in and out of the UK to its entire satisfaction. The public in UK are led to believe that the Bank of England is looking after our money. Correct. That's part of government, but in partnership with government. And don't worry, the Bank of England is doing its very best to make sure we live happy and prosperous lives. And please remember that the Bank of England has a committee that involves the government and others, but unelected, unaccountable individuals who set the country's interest rates. All done by the Bank of England. So it should be openness and transparency. Yeah. So we could take a guess. We can assume that interest rates are going to be a very critical thing that are going to be discussed with the Bank of International Settlements due to its immensely powerful position. But we're also led to believe that even discussions on that are not necessarily shared between the Governor of the Bank of England and the government through to the Chancellor. Yeah. So we want to shine the light. We want to know what goes on. Does Andrew Bailey go knocking on the door and say Chancellor, I've just been to Basel, I've got a key brief for you. Here we are. This is what we discussed. These decisions will be made. What do you think? Does that happen? Or does nothing at all happen? We don't know. And we should know. The money creation of money supply should be, if you like, in the hands of the people, it should be unelected, basically unelected, unaccountable people at the moment are deciding on how much or how little money the world has to spend, private individuals who like to meet in secret. That can't be right. Right. Not in that. It can't be right. And of course, we're also living in a time where we've only got to look at the headlines across the whole spectrum of legacy media to see that billions of pounds are suddenly appearing in order to keep the war in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine going. No problem with billions of pounds for arms ammunition, munitions for the slaughter in Ukraine in the Middle East. But we can't manage to scrape up the money for winter fuel payments for elderly people who were short of money, basically. Yeah, absolutely. Priorities, you know, priorities go out of the window. It's unbelievable, actually, when you actually do look at it, how money creation and money supply has been, as I said, put into the hands of private, unelected, unaccountable people who like to meet in complete secrecy. What on earth is that all about? Yeah. Okay. So let's move on to question two then. What was the second question two was around an interview that Professor Richard Werner, that's W-E-R-N-E-R, he's a German economist, but he lives over in Britain. I think he's university, he's at the University of Winchester at the moment, and Professor Richard Werner, who is actually a champion of public banks, and he's quite sympathetic to what I've been writing. I don't know if he's read what I've written, but he's certainly sympathetic to the principle of money creation by the state for the state, and he also came up with quantitative easing. He's quite a character, but he was on a Russia Today program, and I put the hyperlink in, so it's all there. You can see him talking about it, and he was on Russia Today, and it's only a 45-second link, it's only a 45-second speech, but in it, he says to this other chap who is a city of London commentator and quite embedded in the system, and he said, "You are aware that the city of London is a country in its own right, it's not part of the United Kingdom, it's a country, it's a state in its own right." And we all know that the past Queen, the Queen, was expected on formal occasions when going into the square mile, she had to touch the sword, that's basically getting permission to go in to do whatever she was going to do within the city of London. So technically and legally, the city of London is classed as a country, so hang on a moment, we have the Bank of England, which is supposedly looking after our money creation and money supply and looking after the British economy, actually positioned in a foreign country. So I simply ask the question, is Professor Werner Wright, and in which case, if he is right, how does this influence the status of the Bank of England with HM Treasury? It's quite incredible, I mean, Richard Werner is clearly, he knows what he's talking about, and the other commentator who he was talking to was scribbling down notes because he didn't know. Right, so was this the key element of question two then, was it? Question two is, is it true what Professor Richard Werner said when he said that there's the Bank of England, a separate state to the United Kingdom, and if it is, well how does this impact upon the Bank of England, which is located within the square mile, therefore in a separate country, if Professor Werner is correct? And we are deliberately doing this in a very pedantic way, and the reply that comes back from an anonymous person in a pretty much anonymous department in the Treasury is simply not to answer this question, which at its heart is historical fact. A lot of this is not difficult to see and to establish, but the Treasury didn't want to answer that second question, it didn't even want to acknowledge that element. No, yeah, so, you know, I mean, basically they are bank to rights. I mean, the evidence that I put forward is, you know, it comes from very credible people, and of course, my uncle was a director of the Bank of England for 17 years, and I got to meet quite interesting people behind the scenes, and it was my uncle who told me, at my age, I was 16, I was going back to school, and, you know, I was on the train with him having breakfast, and he was discussing what was I going to do for my career, and, you know, I told him, and he suddenly said, "Well, I'm going to give you two bits of advice to take through life." Never believe anything you read in the press, because we control it, and never, ever believe a politician when they say they can do something, they can't unless we say they can. And, of course, the age of 16, going back to do his old levels, it went over my head a little bit, but I did remember thinking, "Oh, he's going to a meeting for the bank, you know, for the Bank of England as a director," and I knew, obviously, at Pilkington's class, and he was a big man in the industry, so I just assumed it was something to do with industry and stuff, so I didn't think, but I do remember that conversation very clearly. So, you know, it shows that there are wheels within wheels, and, well, money again, going back to money creation, money supply, it's not in the hands of the people. And it's not in the hands of the politicians, either. I think we can assume. No, exactly. Right. I suppose elected servants. It's not even there. Yeah. Okay. So, let's go on to question three, then, in exactly the-- Well, question three was remarkably simple. The current chancellor, she has been, she's in her CV, she's been to Oxford, she's done as an London School of Economics, and she worked for a time at the Bank of England. So, Rachel Reeves is well-versed in economics and money creation, money supply, or at least, you know, that's what we're led to believe. So, my question was very, very simple. Did she know what happened on August the 7th, 1914? And of course, that was the day, but the Bradbury Pound came into the High Street banks from the Treasury, saving the country from financial collapse and the run of the banks. And because everyone was, you know, showing these notes, treasury notes, and I've actually, I think I can show your viewers. I don't know if I did it the last time, but I will show you the note which I picked up from a stamp shop in York some time ago, but there we are. That is a Bradbury Pound, that's the third edition. The first lot that came out as an emergency after three days was on stamp paper, and it was only printed on one side only. This is the third edition which came out at the back end of 1914. So once the people had explained to them, because obviously they were hoping to pick up gold, they were hoping to pick up half sovereigns and sovereigns for their notes, and they were told, no, you're going to get instead the same as our coinage, you're going to get these notes, and they are totally safe and stable, because they're based on part of liquidity of our nation. They were part of the wealth and the credit of our nation. So we're going to encourage our viewers and listeners to go back to that February discussion we had on the Bradbury Pound and fraudulent banking. If you want the detail on the Bradbury and the history, factual history around it, go to the UK column website and just search for the Bradbury Pound and it will come up. So that was the third question. Hang on, the bit I want to add, of course, is the fact that what we are talking here is about currency being created out of the hands of private unaccountable bankers, but also effectively money being created without an attached burden of debt. So debt free and interest free, so this is why the Bradbury Pound happening in the way it did at the time it did, is such an important milestone because it highlights the fact that the bankers, these unaccountable bankers, are creating money, and of course they're pulling not only nations, but they're pulling individuals into debt the whole time. So you ask the question, does Rachel Reeves know about the Bradbury Pound and the reply from the anonymous person in the semi-anonymous Treasury Department is to simply ignore the question? Correct. Yeah. Right. So, number four. Well, this is the big one and this is a very simple one again. Chancellor, are you now on the budget day, which is on the 30th, next, next, well it's coming Wednesday. Are you now going to do what David Lloyd George, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1914, are you now going to do that to fill your 22 billion pound hole, et cetera, et cetera. In other words, are you going to use the wealth, the labor potential, our creativity of the nation? And as a nation, we are valued by the Office of National Statistics and around about just probably just over 40 trillion pounds. So are you going to put a fraction of that into liquidity and use that as debt-free and interest-free money to save the nation, to look after our public services, to look after our central infrastructure, and to protect our strategic industries, if we think what's happened to British Steel, we've seen shipbuilding, I mean everywhere you look, industry has collapsed. So are we going to put into liquidity part of our nation's wealth to underpin future prosperity, debt-free, interest-free, and completely separate from the entire financial system that's controlled by the likes of the Bank for International Settlements, and then you've got the IMF, the OECD, World Bank, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And you've got the goal markets, the financial market, all controlled by private families and private individuals, unelected, unaccountable, the whole system is corrupt, totally corrupt. So are we now going to turn our backs on such a corrupt system and have sovereign money for our sovereign people, sovereign nation, debt-free, interest-free, and we can get on with our lives, have prosperity, have happiness, and quite simply, if you like, go to the like, then we'll have to find a solution to all these problems that we have. In fact, when I was told about the Bradbury Pound, the gentleman telling me about it off the record said, "And you'll have a solution to all of Britain's economic woes." And that's what it is. Indeed, the key bit that we've been emphasizing is that if you understand the history of the Bradbury Pound, you suddenly realize that the idea that private banks have to be the ones that issue the money with associated debt is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have to live in this way where private, unaccountable banks control all the money that makes everything happen, and then everybody, including the nation, drowns in debt. And just to highlight it, the 22 billion that you mentioned there, that was the sum declared by Labour, whereas as Kiyastama came into power, he was very quick to say that they'd found a 22 billion pound black hole in those nasty Tories' finances. But once again, keeping this left-right division, the globalists always need division. So what better way to set one side of the house off against the other side, keep a division going divide and rule, divide and rule, and nobody then bothers to see, well, hang on a moment, why are we all running around like headless chickens when quite clearly this is going on and it shouldn't be going on? So that's the point of this letter. And any one of those four questions can bring the house cards down. It is a house of cards they've built for themselves. But only once people wake up to the realities of central banking and how the whole system works. Right. So the power of your letter was one that you took the trouble to put a very comprehensive letter together with historical fact about how the banking system works. And then in that package of information, which I would presume you put together, apart from giving that information to the Chancellor and the Treasury, it was also showing that you were to come as new your stuff about how the system works. So you did. I was also quoting a lot of historical figures that people never heard of, people like Vincent Vickers, who was a director of the Bank of England, joined the 1914, saw the Bradbury Pound rescue the economy, and then became a champion for sovereign money ever since. He fell out with the governor of the Bank of England, Montague Norman, when he set up the Bank for International Settlements. So in other words, there are good people, I know there are good people inside the city of London who don't like the system. I mean, I've had private conversations of people I don't know who I'm talking to, but they were introduced to me by David Peacock and Ken Palanton, two stalwarts, who were money reformers, who latched on to me when I first mentioned the Bradbury and everything else, and that's when I was suddenly realised that there are good people on the inside who don't like the status quo, who want to see it change. So this is why I think we've got very exciting times ahead of us. Yes, indeed. Just come on to the Chancellor herself, Rachel Reed. She worked at the Bank of England. Should we believe that she was there working and she actually understood what was going on around her? Do you think she was that capable or do you think she was a young lady who was very excited probably to be working in an immensely powerful organisation? It's a very interesting question that, and I haven't got the answer. I mean, we know, every time I hear two-tier now, I think I care, but there is a two-tier university system. We've got Rhodes Scholars, for instance, and allegedly Rhodes Scholars are, if you like, shown behind the scenes. They are allowed to see behind the mask. I don't know is the honest answer. We just don't know. That's where we start to go into theory. What I presented in this letter are blatant historical facts, which can't be denied. So, you know, but they've done their best to airbrush this history. Out. Yes. No doubt about it. If I hadn't discovered the book by Thomas Johnston, the MP, Left Wing, Labour MP in 1930s, who wrote the book, The Finances and the Nation, I wouldn't have found out about the story of the Bradbury Fund. Yes, other books have been written where they just casually mention treasury notes without delving into the realities of what a treasury note really means and the implications for how the economy, you know. So, it was back in the 1930s at Thomas Johnston MP, who, by the way, became the father of the Scottish hydroelectric scheme in the Highlands, and had a tremendous legacy. He also looked after Scotland joined the Second World War on behalf of Churchill's wartime cabinet. And he's one of those few MPs whose legacy you can be really proud. He could be really proud of, and nobody seemed to have a bad word to say against him. So, he could talk to, if you like, Left, Right, doesn't matter. He worked to get things done, and he hated corruption. And that's why I wrote this book, The Finances and the Nation, which I recommend to people who can actually read it online. Oh, okay. Now, your MP, what was his reaction to getting that style of letter back? I can't confront me, but he used the word, which I thought was very telling. He was basically disgusted by the answer that he received, at how, you know, basically it was just a, well, I said, joking in somebody today, it's almost as if artificial intelligence wrote the letter. It was totally without any empathy, and treated Tim Farron, you know, not a dear Tim. I mean, we've seen letters that come back from ministers and things like that, where they start off by saying, "Dear," and then you get the first name of the MP. And say, "Oh, thank you, constituent, you may just be a bland letter, but it's then signed by whoever it is." But in this case, it's just, "Dear Tim Farron," and then signed by this, well, you may just find it, it's signed by the correspondence and inquiry unit, H.M. Treasury. Since they're actually a human signature on the bottom, or is it-- Anatol. Anatol. Just that imprint. In fact, we'll send you, well, you'll have a copy of the letter, obviously take out my private details. Yes. But so people can see it. And they should see it because, of course, this is, this letter, it's insulting to you, but it's grossly insulting to an MP. Exactly. You know, I mean, I think they-- I'm honestly genuinely shocked by it, and I should be writing to Tim. I mean, Tim is no fan of the Brownbury yet. He still says he's got problems with it and this, and the other, but he's never gone. He's never sat down with me to go through all those problems he supposedly has. I think, basically, he's fearful of opening something that he's not capable of handling. Well, isn't it interesting that you bring up the word "fear," which I mentioned early on in the little introduction to what we're going to discuss. Just make it simple for me, so there's no misunderstanding. The letter that he wrote, was it to that Tim Farron, I'm sorry, forwarded for you, was did it go to the Treasury or did it actually go to Rachel Reeves herself? I don't know. I haven't seen the letter he forwarded. He just said he forwarded the letter with my thing to the Treasury. So I don't know if it was directly. He did say to me, "Don't expect to reply beside the budget, they'll all be too busy doing the budget." So I said to that, I thought, "Well, probably I won't." So I don't know if he's actually sent it to a Treasury or to Rachel Reeves. I haven't actually seen the covering letter. Right, so this is something to stay on the trail or, isn't it? Because if it is just that bland letter that has come back from the Treasury, I would have thought the next step is a robust letter to Rachel Reeves to ask what this nonsense is and to ask a proper response from her as one MP to another from Tim Farron to... Yeah. No, I would totally agree. And I'm going to approach Tim to see what he actually did send to the Treasury. And so we'll take it from there. Yeah. We're also going to write, "Once I know what's in the budget and what is happening and how people are probably going to find themselves being taxed more and businesses are going to be taxed more." I mean, I've talked to two small businesses today and they're dreading the budget. They're just dreading what's going to be in the budget. So it's going to be very interesting. Let's see what they come up with and then we'll say, "Well, hang on, why didn't you just do what happened in August 1914? You could have done that." It's also the same way as we use our coinage and our pockets. Why couldn't you do that? So there will be, if you like, an addition to this letter. Right. But let's stay on this case just on this element because basically we're going to have a budget that we are to believe that the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves with all of a huge mental acumen and intelligence and training is going to be acting as an accountant to tell the UK as a nation-state what has got to happen in order that our finances stay in an appropriate state of profit rather than loss. That's what the budget is about. And what we hear year upon year, of course, is how ultimately any problems are going to be solved by an increase in taxation where supposedly the state is going to take more money out of our pockets. And it's ruthless because it's always spread, isn't it, over a range of areas. So if you're not a drinker, they would get you on petrol tax increasing. There's always a route so that everybody gets caught in the tax snare. But we've already established in this discussion that in the background, the banks who actually have control over the finances, we, the public, are not even allowed to know what was discussed and who discussed it where. Exactly. As I said, the whole system is actually rotten to the core. It has to be replaced, locked up and barrel. You can't tinker with a system. What's so interesting, and I've got to mention it before, all the schools of economics, you know, you've got the Austrian school, the Keynesian school, the new economics school, all these different schools. They all have different ideas for how an economy should function. And yet not one of them addresses that simple point, or this simple point, that the entire financial system is in private, unelected, unaccountable hand meeting in sequence. Now, not one of them, this is so the whole discipline of economics is flawed as it stands at the moment. This is very interesting, Justin, because some time ago I was given, I think partly as a joke, but somebody gave me a little book. I'm afraid I can't remember the name of it, but it was written by a man in America. And essentially, I'll call it the Idiot's Guide to Economics. And it was a clever little book, I think it had been written, I'm going to say in the 1930s, or something like that. And I did read the book, I've been given it, I did read the book. But you're absolutely right, what was not, what was not mentioned, it wasn't that it was mentioned and not discussed, what was not even mentioned was the banks and who the banks were, and how it was that these unelected, unaccountable bankers were controlling the money that allowed everything to operate, or if they wanted to not operate. And if we think of the situation in 2024, where we're being told that, oh, dear, something else has collapsed in UK, as you mentioned, steel, we can't build ships, the roads are full of potholes, the NHS is collapsing. What carbon credits to look forward to? That's what it was destroying the planet. Yeah, absolutely. But so, so there's all this disaster, and we don't really have any money to spend. But on the other hand, and I'm ramming this one home, when it comes to keeping the war in Ukraine going, we've got billions and guards with the Israelis as well. We've got millions, we've got billions, and we get a simple clue for this situation because if you read, you can read the financial times, you can read the key newspapers. What we are not seeing is the bankers saying, hang on a minute, we haven't got any money for war. Exactly. The bankers are not saying, we are short of money. You can't have money for the next 50 million shells. We're seeing the exact opposite. We're seeing not only the money for the weapons and the ammunition to slaughter people, or just stick in Ukraine on this one, because certain aspects of this are more obvious. We're not seeing them saying, no, no, you can't have any more shells because we haven't got the money. What we're actually seeing is the exact opposite. We're not only seeing the money for those shells, we're in the background seeing that there's got to be more investment. That means money into the military industrial complex because it's fallen woefully short of producing the number of shells that are necessary to keep this war really going. We do not hear banks saying, no, no, no, there's no money. The better way of doing this is to go for peace. What we see the banks doing is the opposite. And presumably, I'm going to be a little bit old and cynical here. This is because the banks know full well that they can make obscene profits out of war. Well, let me just reiterate the first World War. All right, the Bradbury Pound saved the day, but then they wound down the Bradbury Pound because the city of London and the Bank of England went running around to David Lloyd George the Chancellor and said, we want to go back now to buying gilts and bonds from the British government at 3.3 and a half percent interest, whatever. So because of that, the national debt in 1914 that the outbreak of the First World War was around 450 million pounds. Okay, when the war ended, sorry, I'm trying to bend my fingers now, but when the war ended, it was 5,600 million or whatever it was. It had gone up a huge amount, absolutely astronomical. And of course, that was the national debt that was spiraling out of control. Then it sort of had the depression every else. And then you had the Second World War where the debt again went shooting up. And of course, the national debt today is, what, over 3 trillion pounds now, 3.1 trillion or something like that. And the interest on the monthly repayments we're having to do to service this national debt, I think three months of repayments by the Treasury is the equivalent of now a 22 billion pound black hole that apparently has to be filled. Right. And then we have a national debt for why did we have a national debt when we didn't have to borrow money? We could have used our own credit to run the economy. Right. And this is money that has been created out of nothing by these unaccountable. Bankers. Yeah. I just remember those figures for the first world. 650 million was a national debt in 1914. And then in 1919, the Treasury was $7,500 million. So it had rocketed up, and as I said, they like to make a killing out of the killing. Yes, that is the correct expression. Now let's ramp it up a bit because if people haven't heard of the Bank of International Settlements before, and you can go online and have a look at their website and delve into it, there's a certain amount of information you'll get out of it. But what you're not going to get out of their website is the history of the Bank of International Settlement. And I want to say to the audience that I've had an increasing history, sorry, I've had an increasing interest in good analysis of the Second World War. And in particular, the war on the Eastern Front. So where the Russians, of course, were facing a huge German army. Well, they took the brunt of the whole war base. Indeed. Yeah. And of course, this is a story which has largely been untold in the West. And I've found at this stage in my life that I got interested in learning more about this. And on YouTube, there are some truly excellent documentaries, original footage and very good analysis of the war and how it progressed. There's also some very, very emotional YouTube channels where they narrate the diaries of largely German soldiers and officers who fought on the Russian Front. And many of those, if the person survived long enough in the diary, it would sort of go from the euphoria of the excitement of getting on the train to go and fight those nasty Russians to the harsh reality of stalling grad and post-stalling grad when the armies were in a German army was in a really terrible defeat. And of course, the people were talking about the huge casualties, casualties on a scale which the West can't understand because Russian casualties, huge German casualties estimated at about 6 million. And this is the reality of what that war on the Western Front is. Now, in looking at those video clips, I also came across a gentleman called Mark Felton who would do these really excellent little sometimes short documentaries about, could be about a battle, it could be about equipment, could be about people. And I was very surprised a couple of weeks ago to find out that he'd made a documentary about the Bank of International Settlements and I just need to move my screen here a bit to... Yes, I've been following Mark Felton for the last four or five years. Yes. And I've always found his videos to be very informative. I've got a lot of interest in the Second World War and the First World War. And I particularly like the fact he highlights parts of the Second World War. I didn't even know it happened. So you never stop learning and that's what Mark Felton does. He brings into the picture stuff which I'd rather been airbrushed or basically wasn't considered important. So it's never been covered. Yes. I find his programs, his documentaries are very, very good indeed. So the little documentary, now can I read a date here, well, it was two weeks ago, it's not... It was about two weeks ago. Yeah. But I'd seen it and we both touched base on it. Yes. So over half a million views now. But it was called Himmler's Fourth Reich, SS assets saved in global conspiracy. And the basic story is that Himmler, well before the end of the war, realized that Germany was not going to win, in particular fighting on two fronts between the Russians and the Western Allies. And he started to work on a plan to get German wealth and ill-gotten gains assets that have been stolen from the countries they'd invaded to get those out of Germany, squirrelled away in German controlled companies worldwide in order to build a power-based host collapse of the Reich. That is the historical story, it is a factual story. And Mark Felton does really, I think, amazing analysis of this. Of course, he's talking about Himmler, but he's also talking about other people. But he highlights how a number of companies, crop, Rhyme, Siemens and Bosch are four that come to the forefront of what he's talking about. But also we have the creation of the Bank of International Settlements to help this process. And if people are thinking to themselves as we're talking, oh, this can't be true, well it's absolutely true and the worrying aspect is reinforced by the fact that post-war immediately post-war, there were senior political and intelligence figures in both the United States and the UK who were deeply concerned to learn that this huge Nazi-German wealth had been funneled into German companies. And there was a bank, the Bank of International Settlements have been formed to help them do what they were doing. This is obscene, Justin. I mean, yeah, you've got to remember that joining the Second World War, and as I said, going back to this book, which does cover it in detail, I do recommend it. I'm half-wave through and I'm enjoying it. I never thought I'd read a book on banking and enjoy it, or at least exposing what we're also suspicious of and what we're now realizing did happen. I mean, screwing away gold and Czechoslovakia and gold pinched by the Nazis. I mean, everywhere you look, it's just skull-duggering. What you had, you had Americans and Germans, French and British banking people meeting corresponding, joined the Second World War, despite the war being fought. There was a contact between them all in neutral Switzerland. So this is all going on. It is quite staggering. And as I said, the full history of the Bank for International Settlements and the entire central banking system needs to be understood by everyone, and then you get a better idea of what our politics are today and how and where people are within that system, where their loyalty lies and does not lie. Yeah. It is, as I said, the status of the city of London being a separate country, it's absolutely mind-blowing, jaw-dropping, when you actually start to see what is being done, supposedly in our name, but not in our name, it's being done on behalf of others and the globalists, whatever you want to call them, a tiny number of people. My late uncle said that 10,000 people ran the world. And I talked to another bank who has said 8,500 people run the world. Well, there's 8 billion of us, and we're all running around like headless chickens. For every one of these wretched banking types, there's nearly a million of us. As I said, and one of the things I am now saying loud and clear, it is our collective ignorance about banking and money creation and money supply, that is their protection. Because if we don't understand it, they can get away with it. Indeed. But Justin, let's be fair to the banking system, and in particular, let's be fair to people working in the banking system. What we are talking about is really the power and control at the highest level of banking. What we are not talking about, and we're not certainly not suggesting, is that people who work in the local High Street Bank, which is doing a really good job, it's facilitating. I can 100% agree of you because when I first came across the Bradbury Pound and then I came across the Bank for International Settlements, I've only had great enjoyment going into banks meeting when those the days when we did have a bank, by the way, there were a few High Street banks 10 years ago. And the first question I'd always ask the teller, in a very friendly way, I said, "Hey, have you ever heard the Bank for International Settlements? I didn't find one who had ever heard of it." Mind you, having said that, I've talked to something like 20 MPs face-to-face since 2012, and after wishing them a good morning or good afternoon and being present, the first question I said, "Can I ask you? Can you tell me what you know about the Bank for International Settlements? Not one of them could tell me anything at all, not one." Now before it goes out of my head in the Mark Felton video, at one point he is talking about this concern, post-war, immediately post-war concern, by, well, some of it were politicians, some of it military people, some of it intelligence people, concerned about what this Bank of International Settlements was, and I can imagine for many of them, perhaps, who'd actually fought in the Second World War, deep, deep unease, the Nazi war machine was working under the surface to build a post-war power base. I can imagine that would be very creepy for people. So when individuals did raise the concerns, one of the people who spoke up to say, "Oh, no, no, there's not a problem," was none other than our king, am I correct or not? Don't just say that, yeah, King George VI himself, yeah. Which is not probably unlike King Charles III and his beliefs in climate change and other things, yeah, it's, "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, I am a monarchist, I am a constitutional monarchist, but I do have real problems with the House of Windsor," or should I say the House of, what does it, what, I can't remember the name now, so what's the House of the- - Saxberg. - Saxberg and Gopher, I'm maybe one of my senior moments, yeah, Sax, Coburg and Gopher. It does bother me, it does worry me because there would have been, and of course, there are many researchers who believe there are very close links between the House of Windsor and the further Reich and Adolf Hitler, and, you know, I mean, there's all sorts of, I still think there's a few stones to be unturned, and, you know, to be turned over to see what's underneath. - And we do. - So let's just, we'll put a little clue in for the audience, so I would imagine a few people getting interested in what we're saying here, but the key meeting that helped form the Bank of International Settlements and get this lot going was called the Red House meeting. Actually, the Red House was the- - Oh, yes, the Red House meeting, yeah, the Bank for International Settlements was set up in 1930, and the two gentlemen who were responsible for it were Montague Norman, who was the governor of the Bank of England at the time, and longer serving governor we've ever had, and Helmer Schlacht, who was, well, he became Hitler's future finance minister. He was an enthusiastic Nazi to start with, and then he managed to escape the Nuremberg war trials. I think he did go to prison, but when he came out, he'd noticed memoirs and sketched over things. But yes, in fact, this is what I'm reading about in the book at the moment, is that the minister is the actual build-up to the Second World War, and how his loyalty to Nazi party was accepted totally by the BIS. They weren't bothered to buy it at all. Yeah, and we're in this world at the moment where you've touched on this, and I think we need to reinforce it. We've got King Charles at the moment, who stands up publicly alongside the World Economic Forum with that wonderful gentleman, Mr. Schwab, boasting that he, King Charles, is alongside global figures who were controlling significant sums. I was trying to put a percentage on it, but at one of them, he was boasting that he was there with a group of global financiers who controlled one-third of the global wealth, and they weren't there to discuss how people were going to be fed and how they were going to have clean water, and they were going to have a home and a bed to sleep on. No, they were there to discuss their plans for the net zero global economy. If you listen to what these people say, what Schwab says about the sustainable development goals, I'm not picking up any human empathy and love. I'm picking up something which is amazingly cold and callous by the very people who control these huge amounts of money. So life is not as we believed, and it's not as many people do believe today. The king should not be involved with what's going on as the Prince of Wales, who is highly debatable, whether he should be there, but as our constitutional, common law king, he is there to uphold the law of the land, the common law. He should not be delving into any of this stuff, and really, I don't want to sound over the top, but he is committing treason by what he's doing. I mean, that is the bottom line, because he's involving himself with people who are making decisions behind closed doors. They are decisions based on extremely bad sites, and they are decisions which involve men's rare, malice or full thought. These people are not doing it for the best interests of the human race. They are doing it for their best interests, and our king is directly involved with them. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to use that T word. It is treason. What he's doing. In your opinion, it's treason. In my opinion, it is treason, and I would be interested to see how people could challenge me on that. Yes. Of course, a key thing is that in the globalist agenda, where the banking system is not only just in bed with the global corporations, there's a love affair taking place. This is a very close and intimate relationship between the international bankers and the biggest corporations, but they are not constructing plans for the benefit of any nation-state. What they're actually talking about is a post-nation-state world, and you can pick this up in a lot of the material. Or industrial revolution. Yes. Or global technocracy. Yes. What do you like? It basically means that we no longer can make decisions for ourselves. Our sovereignty will have completely gone. Indeed. We have such wonderful figures as Mark Carney, or Mark Carnage, as Mike Robinson from the Column Lights call him. He was happy to be on public records saying that any business that did not want to get on board with their green agenda, their green agenda, would be put out of business, would be forced out of business. So he was prepared to just stand and threaten anybody who, however big their business was, whatever they were doing in business, he was prepared to say, "If you do not adhere to our future plans regarding the green agenda, net zero, sustainable development goals, all combined, then the banks would put you out of business." I mean, this should have been all over the UK, WrestleMania, shouldn't it? Well, look at British Steel, they're closing down this plant, and they're now going for electric, I mean, again, what's happened to British Steel, it's the green agenda that is putting them out of business, and they were going to have to import our steel. It's crazy. Yes. And the other figure I think we should mention in with regard to huge obscene sums of money is our old friend Justin Welby, well, certainly not God in my opinion, Justin, head of the Church of England, but on record photographs of sipping champagne alongside Christine Lagarde and the bankers, but boasting that he was assisting the assembling of 17 trillion in order to unleash a green global agenda. Now this is the man heading up the Church of England, which sends round begging letters because they can't fix the local church roof. And everything is upside down, and the people at the top do not represent the people. They represent this tiny number of oligarchs, whatever you want to call them, psychopaths. I mean, there are plenty of terms I could use. But these people are basically not human, actually, if we really want to get down to it, they are anti-human. These individuals who are creating this ghastly future for us are anti-human. That's the only way we can describe them, they are anti-human. And the other thing is, and I do this deliberately, the Bible is not your cup of tea, but the biblical warning is the love of money is the root of all evil. Well, it's the only time Jesus lost it, wasn't it, in the temple, and with the money changes, the money lenders. Yes. And I think we should at least learn from that. Yes. Yeah. So I think that's probably a very good place to end on, Justin. We will get up as much information as we can in the show notes so that people have got links to the key things that we've been talking about. And if we'll have a copy of your letter, suitably redacted for people to see. And I'd like to say it, and we'll have other material, including the link through to Mark Felton's excellent production. But I think I'd like to say to you, Justin, stay on the case because I would love to see what response we can get out of Rachel Reeves herself when she's gently pinned to the wall with a letter that she can't wiggle out of to see what this lady has to say for herself. I think it's going to be very interesting. I just have one plea, though. If when the truth does come out, and we all then realize just how rotten everything is, I just have one plea to people. I do not want to be the chance to be exchequer, so please find somebody else. Well, this is true, but the whole system is rotten. Not everybody in it is rotten. A lot of people fearful. They're a good people. Now, this is one thing I do want to emphasize, there are a lot of good people within the system who've got their mortgages, they've got their bills to pay, they've got their children at school. Look, there are a lot of decent people caught up in this. And we just simply want them to get up and walk away. Because the truth is coming out now. The gene is out of the body. And once it does, everything will be exponential. And the people will take over. And as I said, money creation and money supply should be in the hands of the people. We've got to have transparency and accountability and wisdom and empathy. I mean, I can understand this. There's a lot of integrity, integrity, honesty, key and very important human traits. Compassion. Let's use compassion. Compassion. Let's help people who genuinely need helping. I mean, we just want to be human about money creation and money supply should be a human task and the best of a human empathy, all the values that we hold dear should come out in that. So yeah, I'm excited, actually, Brian. I think things are starting to happen. And I wouldn't like to be on the other side. It's good versus evil and there's a razor blade between the two. You can't sit on the fence any longer now. There's no way you can sit on the fence. It's good versus evil as a razor blade between. And people have got to make up their mind which side they are. Yeah. Everybody in anybody doing something, no matter how small, this makes a difference. And so when people are feeling a little bit lost and oh my goodness, it's hopeless. No, it's absolutely not hopeless, but what we need is millions of people. And there is another tactic too. Don't just think about your MPs. Think about your local councilors. Local councils are strapped for cash. They're having to give up on essential services for vulnerable people in their communities. Go and see the councillors, make them aware of what the content of this video. Make them aware about what's going on. Make them aware about the challenge being put to Rachel Reeves and write to the chairman of a local party that the MP belongs to as well. Make them aware of what's going on. You know, this is not just a case of talking to the MP. It's talking to the infrastructure around all sorts of supporting network around the MP as well. But they're just ordinary people too. And once they wake up to what's going on, do you think they're going to remain quiet about it? Nobody wants to be a councillor having to cut back on essential services where they say really frightened and vulnerable people losing those services. They don't want to enjoy that. They don't want to do that. So you know, don't just approach the MP's, approach local councillors and the make up of a local party that controls the situation as well, within your local patch. As I said, there are a lot people can do, but most importantly of all, arm yourselves with the facts, get to know things. And I always say to people, I'm not an economist. And if, you know, if I can understand it, anyone can understand it. Do not be frightened because that's what they want you to be. When it comes to money creation and money supply, people go, "Oh, I can't be involved with that." Listen, I stuck at it because of my uncle, who my uncle was in the context. But I understood it and I stuck at it. And as I said, if I can do it and I've not been to university, I haven't got degrees or anything like that. But if I can understand it, anyone can understand it. Brilliant. Justin, thank you very much for speaking with me afternoon evening as it is now. It's been really great and we'll do our best to get this out far and wide. And of course, the audience can help us enormously by helping share the content and spread the word and, of course, do your own research, get stuck in on the banking system, the Bank of International Settlements. We'll leave it there. Justin, thank you very much, Brian. Thank you very much. Thank you. There's only one feeling like knowing your banker personally, like growing up with a bank you can count on, like being sure what you've earned is safe, secure, and local. There's only one feeling like knowing you're supporting your community. You deserve more from a bank. You deserve an institution that stood strong for generations. Bank of Colorado, there's only one. Remember FDIC.
Why does HM Treasury refuse to answer questions about the Bank of England, international banking, and money creation? Read the write-up at: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/the-treasury-letter