So, the 'inventors' of getting money out of nothing needed some armed shelter. The gains involved were enormous, the opportunities for the bankers were far too tempting. Without the support of the state 'money changers' would never stay afloat. And they shared their idea. With whom? To clarify this question it is enough to check, where and when the idea of bankers was implemented on the state level.

The first organization to 'make money out of nothing' was the Bank of England. Let us do justice to the Englishmen – it was on their territory where the first private currency issuing centre was created. It happened nearly 300 years before the US Federal reserve system was established. So, the bankers shared their idea with the Royal Family of England. Yet after the juxtaposition of facts and dates one gets an impression that the Albion became the cradle of private money issuing… not quite voluntarily.

'The Bank of England was founded in 1694 to act as the Government's banker and debt-manager.' This is written on the official website of the Bank of England. According to the official version, this is how it happened. Due to the numerous wars, the Royal Treasury was empty by 1690. In 1693 a Chamber of Commons Committee was established in order to find ways of obtaining extra money. At the same time, a certain financial expert from Scotland called William Paterson appeared out of nowhere and offered a solution for the financial deficiency problem[47]. For this favour he did not ask for a soul as Mephistopheles would, but called for the establishment of the Bank of England, creating the first private issuing centre in the world which would not issue bank warrants but actual state money.

As you can see, bankers used mimicry and disguise from the very beginning. Even the first agency to make money out of nothing already bore a proud name which clearly referred to the governmental nature of the institution. But the Bank of England was private, and its shareholders were bankers and the King.[48] The budget deficiency was eliminated by issuing paper and not golden pounds sterling. A public subscription to a loan of 1,200,000 pounds was announced; subscribers formed a privileged company which was given control over negotiations regarding all the subsequent loans. The list of subscribers was filled within ten days'.[49] It is this 'privileged company' that became the mysterious group of people that managed to gradually impose their rules on the rest of the world over the next several centuries. Yet they could have failed. But for a start they guaranteed the new paper bills of the Bank of England and that they could have been exchanged for gold. However, if we look at the dates and the circumstances of establishment of the Bank of England more closely we might have doubts about it all happening smoothly and amicably.

The king who agreed to establishment of the Bank of England was William III, Prince of Orange. The thing is that he ended up on the English throne as a result of a coup d'etat[50] which took place six years before the Bank was founded. While still ruling over the Netherlands, in 1688 William received a secret letter (!) from England with an offer to overthrow James II and take the throne[51]. On the 5^th November 1688 he disembarked on the shores of England together with an army and set off to London[52]. These were hired warriors and they consisted entirely of foreigners with the exception of some English ex-pats. William III became the king almost effortlessly. Dethroned James II fled to France while the new king started negotiations with those who, most likely, sponsored him to hire his army.

The money also served to pay for the sudden loyalty of the leaders of the English army. As a matter of fact, the invading troops were immediately joined by the nobleman who was in command of James's army. One of this man's descendants became one of the most distinguished politicians in the world history – his portrait with a cigar in his mouth is familiar to everyone. This heir and descendant is Sir Winston Churchill[53]. No one is going to say that the title of the Duke of Marlborough, proudly carried by the Churchills today, was conferred to their ancestor for a betrayal. It turns out, however, that John Churchill who was commanding James's troops changed sides and joined William Prince of Orange and, thus, determined the future of the country. It is from the new king that he got his title – the Duke of Marlborough. Can we be quite sure that he did not get anything else as a reward?[54]

The new king started a new period of economic growth in England. Here we should ask ourselves one thing: why was it during this new reign that the British economy started to prosper? The people had been working like mad before but their living standards were not any different from the rest of Europe. In the middle of the 17^th century, for example, England produced 4/5 of all the European coal. Metallurgy developed a lot during the period. So did shipbuilding, potter trade and hardware manufacturing. But production of fabrics turned out to be a real national craft for England. Export of fabrics accounted for 80% of the total export.[55] Britain also went as far as prohibiting export of wool which had been exported before and thus became a country which supplied external markets with finished woollen goods.[56]

These goods, however, did not make the English rich. The country's economy was just another economy at the time. And all of a sudden there came prosperity. Contemporary British historians and politicians like William III a lot. And they tell us that it was during his reign that the Bill of Rights was passed which became the basis of the new political system of the country. This is a typical trick used by demagogues and manipulators – in order to prove a certain statement they simply omit some of the facts. They need to demonstrate that it is the Parliament and the system of elections and nothing else that brought prosperity to the Albion. People of today have a modern image of elections and they cannot picture them in a different way. And when they find out that back in 1690 England already had a democratically elected parliament they immediately realise that Russia was lagging behind by centuries. But actually we have nothing to worry about. Those who are trying to manipulate our opinions choose not to mention that there was no such thing as universal elections of a democratic parliament – only those who had at least 200 pounds in money or real estate had the right to vote.[57] And the country with a population of 20 million people had only 250 thousand who met the requirement. These were the gentlemen who voted, and a lot of those people made their fortunes by trading slaves and owned 'talking cattle', as slaves were called back then, themselves. Women were not to take part in the elections at all.[58]

What other good things are normally mentioned about King William? It was during his reign that the English East India Company was founded which later became an instrument of conquering and looting of colonies. But the English will turn to looting their colonies later, gold and diamonds from dependent lands will flow into the Empire later. But the country's prosperity started before all that. So, what was the economic miracle that took place in Britain?

The story of William's way to the English throne is rather dubious. He was helped by money and the betrayal he bought with it. Who could give him the required amount? Back then kings borrowed money from people whom these days we would call bankers. So, once in power, the King signed the Bill of Rights, a legislative act designed primarily not to grant universal and equal voting rights but to restrict the King's authority. It was not about freedom and democracy for everyone. British bankers and slave owners thought about no one but themselves. This was their protection against the King potentially changing his mind. Since, if we go deeper we can find information on the number of bankers who took part in the project called 'The Bank of England'. 'In 1694 forty merchants found the Bank of England'.[59] The number of partners is minimal and the temptation is great. Throughout the course of English history people were executed frequently and in big numbers. Forty merchants together with their relatives would not be a big problem. A plot is discovered, people are beheaded and their property is confiscated. And if there is no plot, it is just an insignificant detail. Three hundred years later historians would say that those were difficult times. There are conspiracies everywhere. Similarly, the founders of the new Bank were sent by the Catholic party and the French king in order to weaken England during the fight with its rivals.[60] And the king simply had to take severe measures…

However, history is indeed written by the victors. And the 'printing machine' has been striding successfully around the world for three hundred years since it was first used. And it has its own heroes. For example, American president Woodrow Wilson, who signed the decree on establishment of the American Federal Reserve System, is portrayed on the bill with the highest value in the world of 10,000 dollars. Contemporary British historiography likes William III too, for the fact that during his reign bankers achieved agreement with the royal power. He got funds for fighting for the throne and a share in the 'money printing machine' whereas they got a private emission centre in Britain. It was the first printing machine in the history of mankind that enabled its owners to conquer the world using its amazing features. And then, having conquered the world, to write history and make heroes out of those who made creation of such a machine possible. And dead heroes are always easier to deal with then living ones – they can be spoken for, explained for and they will put up with everything and remain silent. Similarly, King William III, apart from this dark story of coming into power, has a dark story of passing away. His death was just so well-timed…

But we will come back to it later. I would like to draw your attention, dear reader, to one particular fact. Great Britain remained the leading sea power for centuries until the baton was taken by another Anglo-Saxon nation – the USA. Incidentally, at the times when the Bank of England was founded Britain's military capabilities were lower than those of its primary rival. 'French marine forces in 1689 and 1690 exceeded those of England and Holland altogether'.[61] That means that Britain was far from being the Ruler of the Seas – back at the end of the 17^th century this title rightly belonged to France. French Corsairs based in Dunkerque ruined English trade completely.[62] Their English counterparts did not manage to achieve such results. In 1690 during the Battle of Beachy Head, the French defeated the English fleet having sunk twelve of their ships. Twenty ships more were exploded by the English crews themselves. Who remembers this defeat today? Instead, everyone remembers the greatest victory achieved by Admiral Nelson near Cape Trafalgar. How many ships did the heroic Brits sink in that epic batde? Just one![63] And seventeen more ships – led by French Admiral Villeneuve – surrendered. History is written by the victors…

And yet the English did take the lead in the size and capacity of the fleet. And it happened exactly at the beginning of the 18^th century. So, what was it that helped them? Let us remember what was required back then in order to build a great number of latest ships. Just as today, money was everything. A fleet is obviously an expensive thing to maintain. The cost of its construction exceeds the cost of developing land forces by many times. The exhausted English economy 'all of a sudden' found the enormous amounts of money required to build a fleet. Where from? It is the money derived from issuing paper money and using the secret bankers' know-how that was engaged to obtain military supremacy for the country where the printing machine took roots.

It is in that period that the main principles of the British policy were established – not to let another strong power appear in Europe and try to use others to fight. A lot has been written about it. But you will not find the main principle of the British policy in any reference books – not to let there be another strong emission centre. Always follow the same standing rule – your currency should be stronger, more reliable, more convenient, more in-demand than any other currency in the world. As early as the end of the XVII century the founders of the Bank of England understood something that everyone realised to be right only today. It is not a strong economy that makes a currency the strongest on the planet. On the contrary, it is a strong currency that makes the country's economy strongest. Make your money the most important money in the world and everything else will come to you itself. The conclusion is rather obvious – weakening rival countries is required to weaken rival currencies.

This is how the cooperation between clever and cunning financial experts and the British government started. Only after William III, Prince of Orange established the Bank of England, Great Britain as we know it appeared out of the mists onto the political stage. The country is called Great Britain, and was called such even before its greatness had been supported by an English know-how; destabilising the situation within rival countries. This is how Spain was defeated, and marine guerrillas from Holland – Geuzen – were based in English harbours. Later on, French Huguenots received weapons and money from England, which was well described in novels by Alexandre Dumas. And now another invention made by a cunning banker's mind added to this political ingenuity – printing money out of nothing. Financial wit and bankers' cunningness fit the English political tradition perfectly. All together they made a really explosive combination of that Anglo-Saxon political art that Great Britain used against its enemies, as well as against its friends, as a matter of fact. Since then the Anglo-Saxons have been following one rule in politics, and this rule is that there are no rules.

And here we should remember who the main enemy was for the English on the brink of the 18^th century. The answer is obvious – it was France. We will not get too deep in describing the endless wars between the French and the English on various continents and for various reasons. As an example, let us take only one of them – the War of the Spanish Succession. It was during this conflict that England managed to overcome France's power and took the leadership in the size and capacity of its fleet: 'This supremacy setdes and becomes obvious after the War of the Spanish Succession. Before this war England was one of the sea powers; after this war it became a sea power which knew no rivals'.[64]

Year 1702. The War of the Spanish Succession is on. This was the largest military conflict in Europe since the Crusades. The Sun King decided to put his grandson on the Spanish throne, which could have led to creation of a European super-empire – by means of merging two nations in one kingdom.[65] And a union of France and Spain was more than just dangerous for England. It would have meant an alliance of an old enemy which the British had been depriving of colonies and gold, that is Spain, and a new rival on the world arena, that is France. The first aim of such a new most powerful state would have inevitably been destroying Great Britain as a colonial power. The 'money printing machine' found itself in danger soon after it saw the light of day. In order to save the new-born it was required to use the whole range of tools available for money. And England immediately declared a war against France. As we remember, a lack of money in the treasury was one of the reasons why the Bank of England was founded in 1694. And as early as 1702 the English did not have the same problem anymore. Apart from incurring its own expenses, England also paid for military expenditures of Germany, Denmark and Austria. Admiral A. T. Mahan, a famous geostrategist and historian, wonders why France was depauperated and exhausted while England was jubilant and prospering. Why was it that England dictated the conditions of the treaty and France simply accepted them? The historian sees the reason in the difference between wealth and credit. France was fighting alone against several enemies risen and supported by English subsidies.[66]

But where did the English find such money and such opportunities to enlist practically all of Europe to start a war against Louis? The money just appeared. Itself. Out of nowhere. Out of nothing. The same writer says that despite being burdened with a debt which was far too considerable to pay back within a short period of time after a most excruciating war in 1697, already in 1706 instead of seeing the French fleet next to the British shores, they were already sending the strongest ships on annual offensive missions against the enemy.[67] Is this owing to economic miracles? No, miracles simply do not happen. The money for bankrupt England was provided by the Bank of England. France, on the other hand, did not have the money to buy the loyalty of other countries. That is why Savoy, who fought with the French at the beginning of the war, finished it on the side of London.[68] It was simply overbought. The English 'suddenly' had a lot of money. Not only did they manage to pay others to fight for them. They were even able to find enough money to fund the media. No, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had not yet been invented, there were no 'human rights organisations' or 'independent journalists'. They had to use what they had at hand. And at the beginning of the 18^th century the only 'opposition' that existed in France included the Huguenots. They were opponents to the French government on account of their religion, so would nowadays be seen as real 'prisoners of conscience'. And it was exactly in 1702, when the War of the Spanish Succession broke out, that the Huguenots started a revolt in the French province of Languedoc. It will be known in history as the Revolt by the Camisards.[69]

France did not lag behind. A year after being dethroned by William, King James landed in Ireland, where the situation was quite the opposite: the English, who were Anglican, were oppressing the Irish, who were Catholics.[70] Louis, the Sun King, sent 7000 soldiers to Ireland in order to help him. But military luck favoured London and not Paris. The fight between France and England did not stop for a single day. When the USA started the War of Independence, a squadron of 'volunteers' led by Marquis de La Fayette immediately set off for America. These were military advisers and not awe struck youths or admirers of liberty. The French actively helped the rebellious Northern colonies to fight against their own archenemy. For example, Beaumarchais, the famous playwright who created Figaro, was at the time in charge of a front company called 'Rodrigo Gortalez' which was used to send weapons and ammunition to the New World.[71] At the first opportunity, in 1778, France recognised the sovereignty of the United States and signed The Treaty of Alliance with Washington. And only the retaliation blow of the English which caused a revolution in France itself put an end to this century-long dispute…

It is now time we remembered the mysterious events that took place in the family of Louis XIV. They started closer to the end of that very War for Spanish Succession which started seven years after the Bank of England was founded. The 'printing machine' could not make any steps further to the world hegemony without defeating the Sun King. At this point completely different methods had to be used…

Louis XIV was 73 years old. Nothing seemed to spell trouble. The first to die, on 13^th April 1711, was the King's son and the heir to the throne, Louis, Le Grand Dauphin. Smallpox was claimed to be the reason of his death. This story is very similar to that of the Russian Emperor Peter II, who allegedly entered a peasant's hut to have some water while hunting and contracted smallpox from a girl.[72] This atrocious disease was indeed a recurrent guest in Europe. There is only one contradiction – the Dauphin had smallpox when he was little,[73] and he died at the age of fifty. And, as is well-known, one cannot have this disease twice. Yet the heir to the French throne died within several days.

So, was it smallpox indeed? Or arsenic? Arsenic oxide, also known as white arsenic (As203), is perfect for crimes: diluted in water it has no colour or smell. It does have disadvantages – diluting it in water is rather difficult. But one does not need a lot: 60mg is a lethal dose. And, what is most important, the poisoning symptoms are very close to the symptoms of many diseases.[74] It is very hard to recognise an arsenic poisoning – apart from the digestive tract it also affects the nervous system and blood, causes mucous membranes and skin diseases. At the same time, some clever people tried to prolong their lives by licking a piece of arsenic gradually increasing the dose and thus getting insensitive to the 'favourite' poison of those times.

There are hundreds of stories of poisoning. Some of them remained mistaken for natural deaths until recently, and there are very significant and well-known people among the victims. Such is Napoleon Bonaparte. For your reference – one of the French emperor's fans of our times decided to make the reasons of his death clear. As you know, after the Battle of Waterloo Bonaparte surrendered to the English and was sent to the island of Saint Helena where he died of stomach cancer. There were, however, suspicions that he had been poisoned. In order to find out what the truth was, remaining Napoleon's hair was examined. Arsenic settles in tissues and as it accompanies poisonings, the examination would either prove or refute the poisoning theory. The results prove that the great French emperor was indeed poisoned with arsenic. The quantity of poison in Napoleon's hair is 38 times as high as the limit that a human body can withstand.[75] As of today, the fact that Bonaparte was poisoned is 100% certain but apparently books about this man will keep saying that he died of natural reasons for centuries. So, who poisoned him? He was poisoned systematically – Napoleon's death was not sudden. He was given poison repeatedly. I should remind you that Bonaparte was guarded exclusively by the English, and at the time he was the main enemy of the Albion who had managed to shake the world hegemony of Britain together with the world hegemony of the Bank of England.

And before Napoleon it was Louis XIV who was by far the most wanted villain for the Anglo-Saxons. And bacterial misfortunes started happening in his family with a surprising frequency. After the Sun King's son died of smallpox, it was his grandson, the Duke of Burgundy who became the heir to the throne. But he did not keep the title for too long. In early February, 1712 his young wife died in strange circumstances. She was in fever for several days. The princess could not sleep and doctors did not leave her for a moment. What was happening to poor Marie-Adelaide was unknown. Nothing would help her – neither blood-letting, popular back then, nor opium.[76] She was never properly diagnosed. The poor woman suffered so much that the heir was not even allowed near her so that he would not hear her shrieks. And later on, he was even asked to move to a different room as the princess was dying straight above his. On 12^th February 1712 the Duchess passed away. And several days later it was her heartbroken spouse, the heir to the throne, the Duke of Burgundy who was covered in spots. The pain all over the Dauphin's body soon became intolerable. According to himself, it felt like everything was burning inside him.[77] Six days later, on 18^th February 1712, the Duke of Burgundy died. The reason was unclear.

He left two infant orphans, one of whom became the heir to the French throne. And this time germs, bacteria and viruses demonstrated amazing selectivity. For some reason they aimed to attack only the heirs to the French throne. The five-year-old Duke of Brittany and his three-year-old brother, Duke of Anjou, fell ill just two weeks after their parents had died. Did they contract the disease from them? No, they did not. The children were diagnosed with scarlet fever whereas their parents died of a strange fever which looked like measles.[78] Can you see the logic? As soon as one becomes the heir to the throne, one gets fatally ill and will die imminently. Having been the heir for as little as 17 days, the infant duke died on 8^th March 1712.

This was the third heir of the 74-year-old Sun King who died within a short period of time. The three-year-old boy who got infected together with the heir hovered between life and death for several days and was considered hopeless. They say that the King ordered to find some sort of an antidote and, eventually, the child survived.[79]

Mathematics is a precise science. History surrenders here. To solve a mathematical problem we are given precise data, otherwise nothing will work out. In case of history we have altered and retold stories and no data whatsoever. Were the Sun King's relatives poisoned? To answer this question we need to know how many servants accidentally fell out of the window, quitted the job all of a sudden or drowned in the nearest pond around that time. How many cooks were hanged or died in the prime of their lives whilst on duty. Who of the court nobility and those who were close to the victims suddenly and mysteriously solved all their financial problems. How many Surgeons in Ordinary to the King choked on a steak or froze to death in the forest following an accidental fall off their horse. We need to know whether anyone else died in the Royal Palace or was the epidemic always confined to the heir to the throne. But we do not have that information at our disposal…

What would you do if you were an old king whose heirs are dying one by one? Would you become more cooperative during negotiations? The question is difficult and everyone decides for themselves. The Sun King agreed to negotiations. The Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713 which consigned the eleven years that France spent fighting to waste.[80] After that, the heirs to the French throne stopped dying. The five-year-old infant, the Sun King's great grandchild and the future Louis XV, became the heir. An infant Dauphin by a 74-year-old king, who can die of old age any moment. Should the King die, who will protect and help the child? France would have found itself in a very tough situation if it had not been for the handsome 28-year-old Duke of Berry, the second grandson of Louis XIV and the heir's uncle. It was him that the elderly king entrusted with looking after the country and the young king. And… yes, your guess is right, the Duke of Berry died very soon, too. He was injured while hunting and hit the saddlebow very hard.[81] It is usually said that he fell off his horse and died. Allegedly, he broke his neck or spine. But this is not true. The poor duke died on 4^th May 1714 after a four-day-long illness. Now it is more common to say that he died of internal injuries caused by the fall.[82] Could this have happened? Yes, it could have unless another participant of turbulent politics of the time had not died in a similar way having fallen off his horse…

After the accident that happened to his grandson Louis XIV lost interest in life. Fearing further accidents, he went as far as to change the law. Previously, only children born by the queen could be the heirs to the throne. Louis XIV had several illegitimate children. The King legitimated them and put them at the top of the royal hierarchy straight after the princes of the blood. A couple of months later, Louis XIV especially stipulated the following: should the legitimate kin be extinct the new princes would be able to inherit the throne. He knew who was trying to destroy his family and realised that the series of deaths was not incidental and more deaths could follow.

In 1715 the Sun King passed away. End of story, it would seem. However, it was just the beginning. Less than a year after the old King's death, the shareholders of the Bank of England proved to be right in their suspicions.