Historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the public, but are well known to those in power at the time. Franklin D. Roosevelt who certainly saw many monumental events occur during his consecutive administrations has been quoted as saying: »In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way.«
If harmful events are planned, it follows that the people who were about to suffer through the scheduled event would act to prevent the event from occurring if they knew about it in advance. The people expect government to protect them from harmful events. But if the events still occur after the government officials had been expected to prevent them, the government officials have failed in their assigned duties. There are only two explanations as to why they failed:
- The events overwhelmed them and could not have been prevented; or
- The events were allowed to occur because the officials wanted them to occur.
It is difficult for the casual observer to believe that for instance World War 1 and World War 2 could not have been prevented, as humane people of conscience do not allow harmful events to occur.
If a planned and unwanted event is allowed to happen, those who planned the event would have to have acted in secret so as to prevent discovery of their plans by those who would be adversely affected. Planners working in secret to plan an event that the people do not wish to occur are, by definition, members of a conspiracy. Webster’s defines conspiracy as a “combination of people, working in secret, for an evil or unlawful purpose”. Not only must the conspirators work in secret, they must make every effort to ensure that their plans are not made public. The first task of a conspiracy, then, becomes that of convincing the people that the conspiracy itself does not exist.
This makes the task of uncovering the machinations of the conspiracy all the more difficult.
Looking at the Spring of Nations events, known in Europe as Revolutions of 1848 , we can notice this “movement” affected approximately 50 different countries. Taking apart each single one of them would require an overwhelming amount of research, so I looked only at the major European representatives – Austria, Germany and France – and made some very interesting findings you will be able to read below. There is still much to be researched and disclosed, however some already disclosed facts of this essay allow me to speculate and extrapolate my conclusion, that not only Austria, Germany and France suffered from manufactured events of alleged Revolutions of 1848, but so did the rest of all countries affected under the same cover story of uprising commoners.
Let us first discuss how the food crisis influenced business attitudes and investment behavior. During a negative food-supply shock, purchasing power is shifted from (net) food consumers to (net) food producers. As nutritional status declines toward—or even falls below—the subsistence level, demand becomes price-inelastic. This was the case in 1845–1847, when net food consumers, especially the urban lower and middle classes, were forced to reduce their rate of saving and run down their financial assets. While their savings fell, savings by net food producers presumably increased; but since food producers will have spent at least some of their windfall on purchases of other goods, the overall effect of the price increase on credit demand must have been positive. Under the rules of the various specie standards, by contrast, credit supply must have contracted. England, for instance, experienced a gold drain as grain imports soared and her trade balance turned negative, thus inducing a contraction of the money supply. A third factor in the tightening of credit was misspeculation. In mid-1847, as harvest forecasts switched from gloomy to optimistic and massive corn imports from Russia and the United States were reaching the markets, prices plummeted and many traders found themselves in desperate need of credit. This further increased interest rates all over Europe. In fact, the available data underestimate the strain put on borrowers, because most interest-rate series are regulated bank rates which were not always adjusted to market conditions. As a result, borrowers were often subject to credit rationing. (Helge Berger and Mark Spoerer, »Economic Crises and the European Revolutions of 1848«, p.305 )
The same authors conclude that the occurrence of an economic shock in the later 1840s was an important factor in triggering the 1848 revolutions across Europe, with Danmark as exception to this claim (ibid, p.319).
While institutions – namely, the presence or absence of a repressive political regime – add little to the explanation of revolutionary activity as such, we find that they did exert a significant influence on the form that this activity took. The revolutions of 1848 tended to be violent if the regime was repressive. The same authors conclude that the presence of repressive regimes did not trigger revolutionary events, but did help to shape them. (ibid, p.319)
Revolutionary agitators, pursuing their goals in an undemocratic and often repressive political environment, needed violence (or the credible threat of it) as a political instrument, and only the “crowd” could provide it. The authors conclude that without the economic crisis of 1845–1848, which so obviously endangered the economic welfare of so many people and discredited the ancien régime so thoroughly, there would not have been the critical mass to support these new ideas. Hence no explanation of the European revolutions of 1848 should neglect short-term economic factors. (ibid, p.320)
Securing a larger money surplus to buy more non-food products meant for a lot of rural people selling more agricultural products to the market, reducing their self-provision (Komlos, 1998). This became an increasingly attractive strategy considering the relative rise of agricultural prices, and the relative fall in price of industrial products after 1830. Because of an enormous improvement in the terms of trade of the agricultural countryside, limited (or even zero) rises in productivity were accompanied by large increases in real income, but also by a fall in food consumption (Paping, 1995; Komlos, 1998). In this way relative price trends delivered more food from the countryside to the growing numbers of city dwellers. However, the price rises meant that the lower classes in the cities were unable – or unprepared – to buy much more food, even more so when the amount of bread one could buy for one’s daily wage did not rise or even fell. Economizing on food on the other hand brought new cheap products within reach. (Vanhaute, Paping, Ó Grada, »The European subsistence crisis of 1845-1850: a comparative perspective« )
Social unrest as a (political) protest of poor against rich only appeared in the aftermath of the crisis (e.g. forest riots in 1848). As for the Danish case, the study concludes that the political revolution of 1848 was triggered by matters other than food prices. (ibid, p. 28-29)
Social unrest resulting from the famine crisis was not related to national protest movements, but rooted in local and regional social relations. This is most clear in case of ‘classic’ market riots. A real wave of market disturbances surged over Europe in 1846-1847, with a top in spring (April, May, June) 1847, when grain prices peaked. It is striking that regions with market-oriented agriculture and a substantial number of wage labourers were by far most affected by market disturbances. In France riots were heaviest in cities and in grain exporting regions. This resulted in different forms of protest, from blockades and forced sales to local riots as a result of rumours of speculation. According to Diaz Marin, the pattern in Spain is very similar: a huge wave of short time market riots (mostly lasting one or two days) in the first half of 1847, all instigated by an (expected) rise of grain and bread prices and (presumed) manoeuvres of speculation and export. Unrest was most intense in regions (as Andalucia) with a significant number of workers relying mainly on wage income and where access to relief was very limited. In Prussia, riots were almost exclusively restricted to the long-distance grain exporting regions. Although price rises were as high, market disturbances were much less common in more selfsupplying counties. As Bass suggests, a combination of three sets of causes is necessary to trigger collective social unrest in a period of high bread prices: a) an assumed threat of food deprivation and of uncertainty on the food markets by a large group of market-dependent families, b) strong group formation and ‘horizontal’ communication (on market supply and prices) in the lower (labouring) classes and c) the reaction of the authorities (‘vertical’ information). In other regions, such as South Germany, Flanders and The Netherlands, riots were almost exclusively urban events, mostly directed against the symbols of (perceived) speculation, such as millers, bakers and traders. (Vanhaute, Paping, Ó Grada, »The European subsistence crisis of 1845-1850: a comparative perspective«, p.29)
Market riots triggered by actual or expected shortages and price rises were almost exclusively restricted to regions with commercial, grain-exporting agriculture and to cities. In peasant-based economies with a lower dependency on purchased grain and bread consumption, collective actions were scarce, even in the darkest days of the crisis. Social unrest in peasant economies was mostly limited to small, often individual actions of resistance and law-breaking. (Vanhaute, Paping, Ó Grada, »The European subsistence crisis of 1845-1850: a comparative perspective«, p.29)
Faced with a confidence crisis leading to international and external monetary drains, the Bank of England suspended Peel’s act and thereby was allowed to issue fiat money without being constrained to have full gold backing. Macroeconomists Rudiger Dornbusch and Jacob Frenkel blame the British banking crisis of 1847 on the ‘massive real shock’ of a harvest failure that gave rise to ‘commercial distress and financial panic’. The Bank of England dealt with this crisis by suspending the Bank Charter Act of 1844, which prohibited the Bank from issuing banknotes without full gold backing (Berger and Spoerer, 2001; Ward-Perkins, 1950; Dornbusch and Frenkel, 1984).
- Bank of England
- Founded by William Paterson in 1694
Bank of England was founded by a Scot, William Paterson , and the Bank of Scotland was established by an Englishman, a London merchant called John Holland, although many of you probably don’t recognize the names. However, most won’t realize that William Paterson also had a hand in the founding of the Bank of Scotland. The Bank of Scotland came into being in 1696, the year after Paterson returned to his native Scotland and helped to persuade his fellows that there was a need for a bank to support foreign trade. Nevertheless, Paterson is more famous and rightly so, for representing one of the co-founders of what was then a private English bank. Not only was Paterson a co-founder, the canny Scot was the conceiver and proposer of the idea, in 1691, three years before the Bank gained its Royal Charter .
William Paterson’s mother was Bethia Paterson ; »Bithiah« means “daughter of YAHWEH” in Hebrew , as for instance Bethia Strauss, member of Jewish orthodox feminist alliance. On his father’s side, William’s cousin is named Adam Paterson. William was twice married, his second wife was Hannah Kemp; Anne, Hannah’s daughter born in her first marriage, was married to Samuel South.
Christopher Hollis, in his “The Breakdown of Money”, gives some of the details about Paterson and Bank of England (BOE):
»In 1694, the Government of William III [who had come in from Holland with the Jews] was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson [or was he, rather, merely their front?] offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 percent on the condition that ‘the Governor and company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 [that is, double it], lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves. Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make up money. . . In practice, they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or three hundred thousand pounds. By 1696 [i.e., within two years], we find them circulating £1,750,000 worth of notes against a cash reserve of £36,000.” That is, with a “backing” of only about 2 percent of what they issued and drew interest on.«
Mr. A.N. Field, in his »All These Things« (Omni Pubs., 1963, pp. 218-9), makes the following comment on this development:
“Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain, a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the Crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived.”
»The history of the second Jewish settlement in Britain is one long trail of parchment bonds shackling the nation in debt. Every step in the ascent of the Jew in the nation’s affairs has been marked by the increase and multiplication of debt. The culmination was reached when under the Asquith and Lloyd George Ministries, surrounded by the Marconi Scandal Jews, the European War was financed by the fictitious lending of £6,000,000,000 of completely non-existent money. The bare-faced fraud of these proceedings was capped after the war by an audacious contraction of the means of payment, and the consequent wholesale wrecking of British industries and reduction of millions of people to destitution.«
». . . From that time onwards we were simply going to London each year and borrowing more money to pay the interest on what we already owed.”
Quoting from »Which Way, Western Man« by William Gayley Simpson , with my emphasis added:
»But there is more to be noted about this “national” Bank of England. To begin with, its name itself was a deliberate misnomer. That is to say, it was a hoax, designed to create in people a confidence, which from the very first it was the bankers’ intention to betray. This so-called “Bank of England” (and likewise the “Bank of Germany,” the Federal Reserve Bank “of the United States,” and all others modeled on the English original) are and always have been private institutions run for the private profit of their stockholders. The respective governments of the nations in which these “national” banks have operated have had virtually no control over them. The policy of each one has always been determined by what amounts to the absolute dictatorship of its own Governor and Board, it makes no public report of its operations or its profits, the list of its stockholders is not open to examination by any outsider, not even by any representative of the national government; and it may include on its Governing Board members who not only were foreign-born but actually still owe their primary allegiance to a foreign government.  A Warburg or a Rothschild, sworn citizen of Germany or France, may be members of the Governing Board of the “national” bank in Britain or in the United States. This certainly creates the possibility that the bank, whether it be the Bank of England, our own Federal Reserve, or some other, will be controlled in the interest of the enemies of the country in which it is located.«
As it has been written by many authors, the story about creation of money is the mother of all scams. To begin with by quoting Thomas Jefferson: »No one has natural right to be moneylender save him who has it to lend«. And the would-be money-masters did not have it to lend, or more exactly, they didn’t begin to have as much as they lent. The bald fact is that most of our modern money, issued by a national bank as a debt against a whole people, does not even exist: as Soddy has put it, it “is imagined to exist and lent to borrowers as though it existed, for the purpose of bearing interest.”  This has been the case ever since the founding of the Bank of England.
The background of this bank is revealing. In 1292, the Jews were expelled from England, and for almost 400 years were forbidden to set foot on English soil. But under Cromwell, shortly after the execution of King Charles the First in 1649, whose overthrow it would seem they largely financed, they were readmitted, and straightway swarmed in, especially from Holland, to replace Amsterdam with London as the financial capital of the world. In forty years, says Sir Esme Wingfield Stratford in his »History Of British Civilization«, they became the dominant financial power in the land. This brings us to about 1690, and in 1694 came the founding of the “Bank of England.” And in the manifesto addressed to prospective share-holders at that time, it was baldly stated that the Bank was to have the “benefit of all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” 
The ostensible purpose of the bank was to lend King William unlimited sums at 8% per annum to enable the prosecution of war, and in particular the conflict
against Louis XIV of France . The bank would thus receive from the crown interest of 100,000 pounds per annum, the additional 4,000 pounds being an administrative fee. The bank also acquired the right to issue 1.2 million in banknotes without any gold cover. Prior to its listing, the bylaws of the bank were carefully scrutinized by Serjeant Levinz in order to ensure that the bank complied with its hidden purpose, to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money and means of exchange out of nothing, at interest. All this fake money was accompanied by compounding interest. Levinz was a Jew from Amsterdam who practiced as an advocate .
There was much opposition to the establishment of the bank. Foremost were the goldsmiths and moneylenders, who correctly foresaw that it would bring an end to their usurious racket of fractional reserve banking based on their gold receipts. Landowners and country gentry feared an escalation in interest rates, as the bank would control the nation’s money supply. There were allegations that the bank would favor certain merchants with low rates of interest. The biggest fear was that “the bank would grow too powerful and would become the keystone of the commercial world .” Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened, as the Bank of England became the model on which all subsequent central banks were replicated.
At that time the House of Commons had 512 members, consisting of 243 Tories, 241 Whigs and 28 members whose allegiance was unknown . About 2/3 of the members were country gentlemen and it is believed that of the 512 members approximately 20 percent were illiterate. The bill was debated in July 1694, the high point in summer, when most of the rural members were engaged in summer pursuits and the harvesting of their crops .
On that fateful Friday, July 27, 1694, when the charter of incorporation was granted, only 42 members were present, all of them Whigs as the Tories opposed the bill. All the Whigs voted for it. The title of the bill made no mention of the proposed Bank of England, which is only described or one might say secreted, two-thirds down in the unintelligible verbiage—to the layman that is—of the bill. The opening sentence of the bill reads as follows:
“William and Mary by the grace of God, King and Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defenders of the faith etc. To all for whom these presents shall come greeting.”
The third sentence, which contains 242 words starts with:
“Whereas in and by a certain Act lately made in Parliament entitled an Act for granting to their majesties several rates and duties upon TONNAGE OF SHIPS AND VESSELS, and upon beer, ale, and other liquors, for securing certain recompenses and advantages in the said Act mentioned, to such persons as shall voluntarily advance the sum of fifteen hundred thousand pounds towards carrying on the war with France it is amongst other things enacted. . . .” 
The gist of the first two-thirds of the bill details the necessity to levy a complicated array of new rates, duties and taxes on ships, beer, ale and other liquors. The true purpose of these taxes is that they were needed in order to fund the interest on all future government loans. Shortly thereafter further taxes were introduced including a land tax, paper tax, poll tax, salt tax, stamp tax and window tax, which replaced the hearth or chimney tax. Other taxes initiated were a tax on pedlars, a tax on hackney coaches, a tax on births, marriages and deaths and lastly a tax on bachelors. However, the most punitive tax introduced was an income tax, levied at a rate of 20%. It was applied not only on companies, but laborers too.
Hence a pattern would emerge where unnecessary wars would be embarked upon, which simultaneously increased the national debt and the profits of the usurers. Significantly, many of these wars were started against countries, which had implemented interest-free state banking systems, as was the case in the North American Colonies and France under Napoleon. This pattern of attacking and enforcing the bankers’ system of usury has been deployed widely in the modern era and includes the defeats of Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II and most recently Libya in 2011. These were all countries that had state banking systems, which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equal basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries. Within two years of its establishment in 1696 the Bank of England had 1,750,000 worth of bank notes circulating with a gold reserve of only 2% or 36,000 pounds. On May 1, 1707 the union between Scotland and England was established, motivated in no small way by the necessity to seize control of the royal mint in Edinburgh, which took place in 1709.
By 1720 after the conclusion of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14) the national debt had risen to 30 million pounds with the war itself having cost 50 million pounds. After the American War of Independence (1775-83), which had been fought after the Colonists were forced to replace their debt-free Colonial scrip with English money that resulted in 50% unemployment, the national debt soared to 176 million pounds.
In 1786 Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger tried to abolish the national debt with a sinking fund which generated interest of 1 million pounds per annum to repay the debt. This scheme was soon abandoned by the enormous increase incurred to finance the war against Napoleon. In 1797 in order to pay for the burgeoning interest burden, a system of graduated income tax had to be introduced.
The war against France lasted from 1792 until 1815. Among the principal objectives of this pointless bloodletting was to destroy Napoleon’s debt and interest-free system of finance.
On Jan. 18, 1800 Napoleon established the Banque de France as a state bank. As Napoleon detested the bankers, he made himself not only governor of the bank, but also appointed himself first minister of Treasury. During this period England waged a war against the United States from 1812 until 1814. This war was instigated by England after the United States Congress refused to renew the charter of the foreign-owned Bank of the United States, which had been the central bank of America from 1791 until 1811. By 1815 the national debt had ballooned to 885 million pounds. This completely unnecessary and unwinnable war which resulted in approximately three million military personnel and at least one million civilians losing their lives, cost 831 million pounds 44 of which over 2.5 billion pounds were still outstanding in 1914. The principal of 504 million pounds increased fivefold as a result of compound interest.
Prominent names or leaders of Spring of Nations movement, by nations
The Austrian Empire
In 1848, Austria was considered the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, which had been dissolved by Napoleon in 1806, and was not resurrected by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. German Austrian chancellor Klemens von Metternich had dominated Austrian politics from 1815 until 1848. On March 13, 1848 university students mounted a large street demonstration in Vienna, and it was covered by the press across the German-speaking states. Following the important, but relatively minor demonstrations against Lola Montez in Bavaria on February 9, 1848, the first major revolt of 1848 in German lands occurred in Vienna on March 13, 1848 . There were three alleged major uprisings in February, May and August of 1848, where Emperor Ferdinand and his chief advisor Klemens von Metternich sent Austrian troops against their own, uprising people. Following his unsuccessful attempt to crush Hungarian revolutionary forces in September 1848, Emperor Ferdinand I first fled Vienna and shortly after abdicted in favour of his nephew Franz Joseph. The Diet of Lower Austria demanded Metternich’s resignation. With no forces rallying to Metternich’s defense, Ferdinand dismissed him. The former chancellor went into exile in London.
Klemens von Metternich, with full name Clemens Wenceslaus Nepomuk Lothar von Metternich as the longtime Austrian Empire’s / Habsburg premier. I really have to lead in with the Wikipedia text, as it is rich in the usage of words:
»One of his first assignments was to engineer a détente with France that included the marriage of Napoleon to the Austrian archduchess Marie Louise. Soon after, he engineered Austria’s entry into the War of the Sixth Coalition on the Allied side, signed the Treaty of Fontainebleau that sent Napoleon into exile, and led the Austrian delegation at the Congress of Vienna that divided post-Napoleonic Europe amongst the major powers. He disliked liberalism and worked to prevent the breakup of the Austrian empire, for example, by crushing nationalist revolts in Austrian north Italy and the German states. At home, he pursued a similar policy, using censorship and a wide ranging spy network to suppress unrest.«
I need to remind all readers about Mathis’ disclosures related to Napoleon and his era. In short words, Napoleon was Jewish and an actor, le plus grand imposteur du monde.
Klemens’ mother is Maria Beatrix Aloysia von Kageneck, Fürstin zu Metternich-Winneburg. Following her maternal line, we can see that her grandmother is Anna Maria Katharina Truchsess Von Wolhausen, who married Johann Heinrich Joachim Truchsess von Wolhausen. Johann himself was a grandson of Hans Jakob Truchsess von Wolhausen on his paternal side, following Johann’s maternal side to his grandmother Maria von Pfirt and then her paternal line for 2 generations back we can find another Jakob, Jakob Reich von Reichenstein, Johann’s 3g-great grandfather. That is quite unusual family tree and names for any German politician, serving as an Austrian Empire’s premier.
Taking a closer look at the Ferdinand I, Emperor of Austria, President of the German Confederation, King of Hungary (as Ferdinand V), and many others, reveals that he was suffering from epilepsy, hydrocephalus, neurological problems, and a speech impediment. Wikipedia says his health issues are consequence of his parents’ genetic closeness (I dare to call it for what it is – inbreeding) . Ferdinand’s father was Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, and Ferdinand’s mother was Maria Teresa of the Two Sicilies. Following Ferdinand’s family three generation back, we can further see that Ferdinand’s father and mother were actually related, as Maria Theresa of Austria, Queen of Hungary & Bohemia, was both Francis II’s paternal grandmother and Maria Teresa of Two Sicilies’ maternal grandmother.
We can learn much more significant fact, than just the inbreeding part of the Habsburgs family tree. Following Maria Teresa of Austria back in time, we can notice that Maria’s paternal grandfather was Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor and his maternal great grandmother was Anna of Bohemia and Hungary also known as ….wait for it…. Anna Jagellonica, Queen of the Romans (Germany), Bohemia and Hungary, as the wife of King Ferdinand I, later Holy Roman Emperor. Her paternal grandparents were King Casimir IV of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, of the Jagiellon dynasty, and Elisabeth of Austria, one of the heiresses of Bohemia, duchy of Luxembourg and duchy of Kujavia. Miles Mathis has showed us that Jagiellon dynasty is Jewish and that the founder of the Jagiellon dynasty was Władysław II Jagiełło, around 1400.
Turning back to Ferinand I, Wikipedia admits  his father, before he died:
»drafted a will promulgating that he [Ferdinand I] consult Archduke Louis on every aspect of internal policy, and urged him to be influenced by Prince Metternich, Austria’s Foreign Minister«.
Oh well, so we have an Emperor of Austria that is actually not an emperor at all. I have already shown some facts about Klemens von Metternich, so for better understanding of actual events we need to look as well at Archduke Louis, Prince Royal of Hungary and Bohemia and Prince of Tuscany, with full name Ludwig Joseph Anton Johann von Habsburg-Lothringen, Erzherzog von Österreich . What we can find at even Wikipedia, is the fact that Archduke Ludwig von Habsburg was Ferdinand I’s uncle, as Archduke Louis and Francis II were brothers, coming from the family connection to their common paternal grandmother Maria Theresa of Austria, Queen of Hungary & Bohemia. If you read closely the above text, it means that even Archduke Louis was descendant of the Jagiellons.
What about Franz Joseph, with full name Franz Joseph I von Habsburg-Lothringen, Ferdinand I’s nephew, who succeeded the throne in 1848? He is as well coming from the Jagiellons on his paternal side, as Franz Joseph’s father was Francis II and we have just connected him to the Jagiellons in the preceeding paragraph. It is interesting to notice a case of inbreeding in Franz Joseph’s family tree and I really find it amazing. Notably, Maria Teresa of Austria and Francis I were parents of both Franz Joseph’s paternal grandfather Leopold II and his maternal grandmother Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria . It is said that Franz Joseph suffered from assassination of his wife, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary, in 1898. I am really curious what would a decent research into that particular alleged assassination disclose, as I have already deconstructed the fake assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Franz Joseph’s nephew, which was set up in Sarajevo in 1914. To quickly remind you, that fake assassination put in motion the beggining of World War I.
Baden and Palatinate, German confederation states
Another name well worth mentioning in the context of Spring of Nations in 1848i, is that of Ludwig Bamberger. Bamberger was born into the wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish Bamberger family in Mainz and later became a lawyer.
In the course of the advance of the Prussian army in order to crush the uprising revolutionaries, Bamberger fled to Switzerland. As a result, he was sentenced in absentia during 1849 to a prison sentence and in 1852 even to death. But like all spooks, he was coincidentaly lucky enough to evade such punishment and even see its amnesty. In exile in Switzerland, Bamberger first lived in Zurich, later in Geneva and remained in close contact with the other political refugees. From Switzerland, Bamberger traveled to London at the end of 1849 and became an employee in the bank of »Bischoffsheim, Goldschmidt & Cie«, owned by his uncle Bischoffsheim. There he still kept contact with political exiles, which included, among others, Karl Marx, Louis Blanc and Giuseppe Mazzini.
Many of you may have heard of the alleged correspondence between Giuseppe Mazzini and infamous freemason Albert Pike, where the two were discussing sinister plan for 3 subsequent World Wars, use of Islam as the world’s enemy and similar NWO subjects. However, it is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed in writing to the author of this blog that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr’s book, Carr includes the following footnote:
»The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez’s knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925«.
It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote »The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled«. To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written. Nevertheless, the letter is widely quoted and the topic of much discussion.
I would certainly recommend reading the linked article from Encyclopaedia Britannica on Giuseppe Mazzini, as his biography there reads like a thriller. As you were able to read until this point, each new name in this essay opens new doors and connects to deep rabbit holes. Mazzini looks as spooky as they get, but I will leave him for some other time and occasion.
The text of the official story of 1848 revolution in France reads like a classic coup d’etát script, with a small twist to the story. One would think that coup d’etát represents any real switch of the ruling power, as in the case of 1848 spring events in France. Looking into pretext story of Spring of nations, we can find in 1830 there was an alleged July Revolution, where Charles X was »forced« to abdicate and Louis Phillipe I was throned as the new French king. Charles X was a brother of Louis Stanislas, so-called Louis XVIII. But as we can learn from Miles Mathis in his essay about earlier French revolution of 1789, Louis XVI and Louis XVIII, both named Louis Stanislas, were the same person and the family of D’Orleans was infiltrated by Jewish de’ Medici family. As Louis XVIII died in 1824, the monarchial power and crown were passed to his brother Charles X, who was »forced« after 6 years in 1830 to abdicate and ran to exile. Then Louis Phillipe I was installed, whose maternal 2g-grandmother was Françoise Marie de Bourbon and her paternal grandfather was Louis XII of France, a legitimate son of Henry IV and Marie de’ Medici. Apparently, the switch of power was merely close family members and relatives acting out, handing over the power in order to deceive the naive public as if anything significant actually happened.
As Wikipedia says, the revolutionary events ended the Orleans monarchy of Charles X (1830–1848) and led to the creation of the French Second Republic. That particular political creation was led by none else than Louis Napoléon Bonaparte III, the son of Napoleon I’s brother Louis Bonaparte. Napoleon III was married to Hortense Eugénie Cécile de Beauharnais, a daughter of Napoleon I’s wife Joséphine Tascher de la Pagerie from her first marriage to Alexandre, Vicomte de Beauharnais. The house of Beauharnais is originally known as Leuchtenberg and I think that is not exactly a French nobles’ last name, is it?
Wikipedia further leads:
»Early in 1848, some Orleanist liberals, such as Adolphe Thiers, had turned against him, disappointed by Louis Philippe’s opposition to parliamentarism«.
As soon as you can openly read about the alleged opposition of any kind in Wikipedia entry, it is understandable presumption to expect many contradictions can be found about it. Let’s take a closer look at Adolphe Thiers. Wikipedia says he served as a prime minister in 1836, 1840 and 1848, as second elected President of France and the first President of the French Third Republic. He was obviously a member of political active forces, acting their own game of thrones.
»Most important for his future career, he was introduced to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, the former foreign minister of Napoleon, who became his political guide and mentor. Under the tutelage of Talleyrand, Thiers became an active member of the circle of opponents of the Bourbon regime, which included the financier Lafitte and the Marquis de Lafayette .«
Most important is to remember, that Miles Mathis already outed both Napoleon and Lafayette as agents of the PTB and further showing the whole French Revolution was another manufactured event, and possibly connecting Marquis de Lafayette to the Jewish House of Vasa. Another very important Mathis’ finding is that Napoleon’s second wife Marie Louise was also descended from the de’ Medicis, through Philip V of Spain. Her great grandfather was Charles III of Spain, son of Philip V.
Looking into the family tree of le banquier Jacques Lafitte, we can trace it to his maternal grandmother Saubade de Laborde and see that his relatives were marrying into then noble French families, to some barons, generals or duc. That is enough to dismiss Wikipedia’s story of carpenter’s son Jacques Lafitte rise to the role of partner in the major French bank »Perregaux, Laffitte and Company«. Actually, there is a very telling passage at Wikipedia’s entry about Jacques saying:
»Laffitte also took over his place as one of the fifteen regents of the Bank of France. He became president of the Chamber of Commerce of Paris (1810-1811) and was appointed as a judge of the Tribunal of Commerce of the Seine (1813). After the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, he was named provisional governor of the Bank of France by the incoming Bourbon king Louis XVIII. Napoleon, when on his way into final exile after Waterloo (June 15, 1815), reportedly deposited 6 million francs in Laffitte’s bank.«
Apparently, Jacques was serving as regent on the board of Bank of France and as a personal banker of choice to Napoleon. No carpenter’s son can achieve anything like that. Furthermore, we need to remember, that one of the roles of England’s long-lasting war against France, from 1792 until 1815, was to abolish the interest-free debt system still in use under Napoleon.
For Thiers to be in such company of PTB stooges, even working for their goals, suggests he was one of the close ruling circle. Unless you want to believe that premiers and presidents get elected by transparent public process of voting and that revolutions are actually a spontaneous reaction to any political issue.
Those who seek power will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally cause depressions, revolutions, and wars in order to further their desire for more power. This corrupting nature of the very pursuit of power explains why the moral mind of the individual who neither desires power over others nor understands the desire for such power cannot fathom why power-seekers would want to create human misery through wars, depressions, and revolutions. In other words, the conspirators are successful because the moral citizen (you and I) cannot accept the conclusion, that other individuals would actually wish to create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow citizens.
Sources and bibliography:
 Hobsbawm has termed this “bargaining by riot” (“Machine Breakers” p. 57).
 Paterson relocated to Edinburgh, where he was able to convince the Scottish government to undertake the Darién scheme, a failed attempt to found an independent Scottish Empire in what is today Panama. Paterson personally accompanied the disastrous Scottish expedition to Panama in 1698, where his wife and child died and he became seriously ill.
 Attributed to William Paterson,” A Brief Account Of The Intended Bank Of England”, https://archive.org/details/ABriefAccountOfTheIntendedBankOfEngland
 Christopher Hollis, “The Breakdown of Money”, Sheed, 1934, pp. 49-50
 Can be accessed here in full: https://nationalvanguard.org/books/Which%20Way%20Western%20Man.pdf
 As referenced in »Which Way, Western Man« : See John Hargrave—Montagu Norman [Governor of the Bank of England 1920-44.] Greystone Press, New York, 1942, espec. pp. 107 and 123. For the history of the “Bank of
England,” see Chap. 9 (pp. 55-8.) Cp. Jeffrey Mark, op. cit., p. 59 (last two pages of Chap. VII); Christopher Hollis—The Breakdown of Money, Sheed, 1934, p. 64 (this is excellent); Gertrude M. Coogan, op. cit., pp. 176f, 132-3, 139, 141f; A.N. Field, op. cit., pp. 7, 8; John M. Elson—Lightning over the Treasury Building, Forum Pub. Co., Boston, 1941, Chap. 11, entitled “The Bank of England.” A reprint of Elson’s book is available from Omni Pubs. Hawthorne, Calif.
 Frederick Soddy, Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, Omni Publications, 1961, p. 188
 Routledge, London, 1928, Vol. II, pp. 651-2.
 G. Edward Griffin, “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, 3rd edition, American Media, 1998, p. 187–188, https://archive.org/details/TheCreatureFromJekyllIslandByG.EdwardGriffin
The testimony of Marriner Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, before the House Banking and Currency Committee, Sept. 30, 1941:
“Congressman Patman: ‘Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy those two billions of government securities?’
“Eccles: ‘We created it.’
“Patman: ‘Out of what?’
“Eccles: ‘Out of the right to issue credit money.’
“Patman: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government’s credit?
“Eccles: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money. ”
 F.J. Irsigler, “On the Seventh Day They Created Inflation”, Wynberg, South Africa, 1980
 J.E.T. Rogers, “The First Nine Years of the Bank of England”, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1887, https://archive.org/details/firstnineyearsof00rogeiala
 A. Andreades, »History of the Bank of England 1640 to 1903«, London, 1909, https://archive.org/details/historyofbankofe00andrrich
 Similarly the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve bank was voted on December 23, 1913, when there was only a small remnant of members present, the majority having returned home for Christmas. H.S. Kenan, “The Federal Reserve Bank”, Noontide Press, Los Angeles, 1966, 19-20, https://archive.org/details/federalreserveba00kena
 A. Andreades, p. 55
 J.E.T. Rogers, p. 106 – 107
 A. Andreades, p. 119
 W.D. Bowman, “The Story of the Bank of England”, Herbert Jenkins , London, 1923, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.96630
 In 1836 President Andrew Jackson closed down the Second Bank of the United States by withdrawing all government deposits. It had received its 20-year charter in 1816. The Rothschilds and their associates held 80% of the stock, and the U.S. government the balance.