It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the City of London?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
ah some very neat links there. Extremely interesting


A picture of the city, from St Pauls Cathedral which is in the city also.

from wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...:050114_2495_london_city.jpg




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
thanks syrinx high priest, some very interesting links.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by holedigger0812
Can anyone shed some more light on this as it sounds weird that the queen has to bow down to someone.


Why is it weird?

It is a sign of respect to another member of Royalty, which the Rothschild Family are. Remember they were granted peerage in both Austria and the United Kingdom.

I would say that is sounds like BS to me. Aside from anything else the Queen is a women, and therefore would not bow to anyone (this is what men do), she would curtsy if anything . She would also, as a Queen, out-rank anyone (in these sort of circles) other than another Queen or King.

The Rothschild's may well be of Noble blood, but I don't think they are Royal - getting a peerage certainly doesn't make you royalty. Remember that is the Queen who hands out peerages in the UK (in theory at least).

Back on topic: I work in the middle of the City, just round the corner from St Pauls and a million other historical sites. I was going to start bringing in my lovely new digital camera to work next week and start getting a library of pics together of some of the ancient and weird stuff that surrounds me. Has anyone got any requests for anything they would like to see?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by holedigger0812
Can anyone shed some more light on this as it sounds weird that the queen has to bow down to someone.


Why is it weird?

It is a sign of respect to another member of Royalty, which the Rothschild Family are. Remember they were granted peerage in both Austria and the United Kingdom.

I would say that is sounds like BS to me. Aside from anything else the Queen is a women, and therefore would not bow to anyone (this is what men do), she would curtsy if anything . She would also, as a Queen, out-rank anyone (in these sort of circles) other than another Queen or King.

The Rothschild's may well be of Noble blood, but I don't think they are Royal - getting a peerage certainly doesn't make you royalty. Remember that is the Queen who hands out peerages in the UK (in theory at least).

Back on topic: I work in the middle of the City, just round the corner from St Pauls and a million other historical sites. I was going to start bringing in my lovely new digital camera to work next week and start getting a library of pics together of some of the ancient and weird stuff that surrounds me. Has anyone got any requests for anything they would like to see?



yes ! the bank of londons HQ entryway or architecture......and any rothschilds banks

thanks !



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
No probs with the BoE, but I have no idea which buildings the Rothschild's use. This is their website for their London operation:

www.nmrothschild.com...

But it has no mentions of any locations or contact details.....I suppose if you need to do any "top-tier" international banking you will already know who to ring



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
FatherLukeDuke, sometimes it is easier to be politer than you need to be. I see it all the time as I am sure you do, and the Queen although powerful needs to keep old friends on side.

Just something you guys might find interesting.

Many people look for a hidden meaning behind World War Two, but how about this...

In 1993 Cain and Hopkins published a book, in which they claimed that the City of London was directly involved in the carving up of Africa during the 1865 to 1914 period and due to their shared views [Social Darwinism[Nazism]] when they ran out of land to invest in and the ability to make money, they pushed for more land and for War...the reason why Britain joined WW2.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
No probs with the BoE, but I have no idea which buildings the Rothschild's use. This is their website for their London operation:


That's easy...

They buy up new companies and they change the name almost yearly, I do believe it is Smith's of New Court at the moment.

Smith New Court Plc
20 FARRINGDON ROAD
SMITH NEW COURT HOUSE
LONDON EC1M 3NH
UNITED KINGDOM

See here

If you'd like to talk to them, here:
Tel: +44 20 7240 3000

[edit on 6/1/2006 by Odium]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
FatherLukeDuke, sometimes it is easier to be politer than you need to be. I see it all the time as I am sure you do, and the Queen although powerful needs to keep old friends on side.

The thing is with the aristocracy is that they are never politer than they need to be. Who does the bowing and curtsying would be governed by strict etiquette going back hundreds, if not thousands of years. The Queen would never need to grovel in front of a member of a family only made noble recently (relatively speaking) and who aren't even royalty.

I would imagine that the Rothschilds would have been hated by most aristocracy since they started - 2 types of people which European Nobilty have typically considered scum: Jewish people and people who make money. So Jewish bankers would have been looked on as the lowest of the low (though of course the fact that they had control of huge amounts of capital would have made them a few friends in high places, these were people who could finance wars
)

I also couldn't imagine why the Queen would need to be friends with some bankers and wine growers....? The only people who can get rid of the Royal Family are the elected government and they would only do anything with the overwhelming support of the public. The is nothing a (relatively minor) banking dynasty could do to harm her.

Anyways, thanks for the photo....I can see that building now from my office window...I'll be walking past it on the way to my train station I'll take a look. I did somehow suspect they would be in fairly anonymous office buildings.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
FatherLukeDuke, sometimes it is easier to be politer than you need to be. I see it all the time as I am sure you do, and the Queen although powerful needs to keep old friends on side.

Just something you guys might find interesting.

Many people look for a hidden meaning behind World War Two, but how about this...

In 1993 Cain and Hopkins published a book, in which they claimed that the City of London was directly involved in the carving up of Africa during the 1865 to 1914 period and due to their shared views [Social Darwinism[Nazism]] when they ran out of land to invest in and the ability to make money, they pushed for more land and for War...the reason why Britain joined WW2.


More land for war? Joined WW2? What the blanking blue blazes are you talking about? We went to war in 1939 to stop the Bohemian Corporal, who even Neville Chamberlain had realised couldn't be trusted to keep to an international or diplomatic agreement. We got no new land after the war was over, and instead the country was bankrupt. Britain sacrificed the Empire to get rid of Hitler. It was a good call!



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Darkmind, it makes more sense if you read the book and you see the links they make between World War One and World War Two. It makes amazing links between the wars being based around two larger International Finance Groups, which were involved even more so in the First World War.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Darkmind, it makes more sense if you read the book and you see the links they make between World War One and World War Two. It makes amazing links between the wars being based around two larger International Finance Groups, which were involved even more so in the First World War.

Oh for... Yes, there were links between WW1 and WW2. The former led to the latter, due to the Treaty of Versailles and the delusion of the German people that they hadn't lost the First World War. As for the international financial groups, this is BS. It's the kind of stuff that the Soviets used to spout. Most companies have links to other companies these days, as they often own shares. Given the fact that the Soviets won Eastern Europe after WW2 and that the financial damage to Britain was only repaired on New Year's Eve 2005 (when we British stopped repayments to the USA for WW2 loans), any so-called work in the background by international financial groups was hopelessly incompetant.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I have read of many cases of bankers lobbying the government to go to war, its good business. Incompetent? I heard they made a killing. But then again that doesn't mean they weren't incompetent.
In many wars, the same backers funded both sides.... very clever, and profitable. Why wouldn't they push for war, when they know the many economic benefits of it?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Darkmind, how was it incompetent?

Who was the money taken from? The United State's Federal Reserve? What are they? Private Group of Bankers. Who paid it back? The British People through taxation.

Who made money due to interest? Not the U.S. Government or people but private bankers.

You also have the other flip-side to it. The arguement people put forward about WW2 being a Zionist Stepping Stone, looks a whole lot more realistic when you take into account the influence the bankers had during that period/do now. But also factor in many prominant Bankers funding the Nazi Party.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Some brief info

I stumbled across this.




England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "British Crown" which refers to the "City of London," not the Queen. The City is run by the Bank of England, a "private" corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. Considered the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
What I mean is that the Second World War only saw the US Government get off well. The money that the British Government paid went straight to the US Treasury. And the claim that the wars were started to make money is a nonsensical one. Wars are ruinously expensive, and even more destructive. If the Second World War was started by a group of bankers, then they must have been incompetant in that they lost control of it. London, which is a massive player in the World Economy, was bombed heavily. Ever seen that famous picture of St Pauls Cathedral surrounded by smoke and flames? That's the financial district of London! Europe was reduced to ruins from Brest to the outskirts of Moscow. Financially the war was a disaster. As for the co-called Zionist stepping stone, I'm not even going to dignify that theory with a response, save to say that it makes me ill and is utterly repugnant.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Darkmind, this is the problem with people they are never willing to take into account every theory. By instantly throwing out one theory, which does have merit you take away the ability for the truth to come fourth. Especailly when there are members of the Zionist Movement, during the period almost promoting anti-sematicism.

As for Bankers, you assume that they didn't get rich off of World War 2? This is the same mistake people make about the Great Depression of the 1920's. The same mistake people make now with China and the War on Terror. It is the people who pay back the money, those at the "top" are not punished, not by WW2 and not by the War on Terror.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The theory that international capital financed the First World War was very popular with people in Europe and America after it ended. If memory serves it was the big arms manufacturers who were blamed: this book review makes mention of it.


Ferguson derides the possibility that arms manufacturers might have had something to do with bringing on the war, pointing out their relative insignificance in the national economies of the time. He may be right, though it might be worth bearing in mind that people who actually lived through those events had a strong impression to the contrary. In his wonderful memoir of growing up in pre-war Vienna, the great writer Stefan Zweig remarks on how the assassination of the deeply unpopular Archduke initially did not arouse much outrage in Austria. "It was only when newspapers in the pay of the arms manufacturers began to whip up sentiment against Serbia that the mood began to change and become bellicose."


Nowadays the bellicosity-provoking media are in the pay of bankers and financiers, but who cares about the details? A good conspiracy theory never dies. Nice to see this old fellow up and about again, though the whiff of grave-mould about his person is a trifle bit offputting.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Astyanax]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join