The other ‘great’ reset – 1666 and the not so great Fire of London

Nowadays all history must be read backwards, starting with effects to get at the cause, since we know that historical events are dominated by a very small cadre of actors, mostly bankers and other rogues from ancient lines.

Speaking of Bankers and Other Rogues, the first clue that sparked my interest in this topic came from a little book of that title by Alexander Del Mar. Del Mar was the Director of the Bureau of Statistics and the Mining Commissioner to the US Monetary Commission of 1876. Del Mar doesn’t say anything about the London fire, but he does point our attention to the significance of the year 1666 for the banking system.

In his own words:

From the remotest time to the seventeenth century of our era, the right to coin money and to regulate its value and by limiting or increasing the quantity of it in circulation, was the exclusive prerogative of the State. In 1604, in the celebrated case of the Mixed Moneys, this prerogative was affrmed under such extraordinary circumstances and with such an overwhelming array of judicial and forensic authority as to occasion alarm to the moneyed classes of England, who at once sought the means to overthrow it. These [means] they found in the demands of the , the corruption of Parliament, the profigacy of Charles II, and the infuence of The result was the surreptitious mint legislation of 1666: and thus a prerogative – which, next to the right of peace or war, is the most powerful instrument by which a State can infuence the happiness of its subjects – was surrendered or sold for a song to a class of usurers, in whose hands it has remained ever since.

Del Mar goes on to detail exactly how this was done:

The object of the East India Company, their backers the landlords of England, their colleagues the goldsmiths of London, and their agents in Parliament…was: First, to remove the restriction upon the exportation of coins and bullion. Second, to get rid of the State seigniorage upon the coins. Third, to usurp the prerogative of coinage for themselves.

These objects they accomplished by means of separate measures… By this device the extent and importance of the alteration escaped attention.

In other words, by tucking the necessary language into separate pieces of legislation spread over many years, the British citizenry were kept in the dark about the full implications of these Parliamentary acts. Sound familiar? They use this same tactic to this very day.

The frst two goals were accomplished by the 1663 Staple Act, while the third and fnal nail was hammered in by the 1666 Coinage Act. The stated goal of these laws, as Wikipedia puts it, was “to facilitate the overseas operations of the charter companies.” That’s a delicate way of saying these laws essentially gave the East India Company completely unchecked freedom to import and export as much gold and silver as they wanted for their own proft, and even minting their own coins with the EIC logo rather than the royal English seal. Put simply, the EIC became its own sovereign nation, which has since proliferated into the all-powerful corporatocracies that shape our modern world.

Here is an Indian Half Anna from 1835. Notice the insignia looks like an offcial government seal; but it isn’t. It’s the crest of the EIC, which was a private, for-proft company. just like the Federal Reserve insignia printed on every U.S. bill looks like, but is not, an offcial government seal – since the Federal Reserve is an unregulated consortium of private, for-proft banks. The whole modern central banking system can be traced back to the EIC and its close associates in the goldsmith’s guild, the peerage, and Parliament. The motto of the EIC (shown in abbreviated form on the coin) tells you as much: Auspicio Regis et Senatus Angliae. This is usually translated –

“by command of” or “under the authority of” the king and senate of England, but of course the literal translation is “under the auspices of”. In case you don’t know, that means with the support and approval of. Legally, it does not have to mean you are doing it for them or that you even answer to them. That means the entire country of India was not ruled by the British government but was in fact the property of a private corporation for over two centuries. (India is still owned by private interests, of course, unless you are naïve enough to believe its citizens actually gained “independence” in 1947.)

But the fact most pertinent to our topic is that 1666 marked the legislative replacement of sovereign money with private money in England, and only months before the Great London Fire. To understand how these events connect, let’s jump ahead to 1683, when the City of London Corporation defaulted on its loans. This is the frst major default in modern history that is well-documented. I refer you to the research of Nathan Sussman. Here is his reconstruction of the City of London’s fnancial situation:

This graph is worth a thousand words, as it clearly shows the cause and effect of the 1666 fre and the 1683 default. In case you didn’t know, the City of London Corporation was not (and to this day is not) a government body, but a private, for-proft corporation as its name suggests. It was to land what the EIC was to sea. The City of London is essentially a sovereign nation located geographically within – but totally independent of – the political entity known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. As Sussman notes, it “enjoyed privileges and rights, especially lack of control by Parliament and lack of accountability to any other institution in England.” Inside the City of London are the corporate headquarters of the banks and their various fnancial operations centers.

So, the Great Fire was directly responsible for the 1683 default of the City of London. So what? Well, the City of London’s fnancial issues led to the Parliament initiating a Quo Warranto trial against it beginning in 1681. In other words, terminating its charter and thereby revoking its sovereignty. They accomplished this in June 1683. Sounds like a good thing, right? Except that revoking its sovereignty meant the Corporation was no longer a legal entity responsible for its debts. When it defaulted a few months later, there were no repercussions for any of its shareholders. No one went to jail and no one paid a dime. Who was hurt in all of this? The taxpayer, of course.

Look at the previous graph again, and you’ll see the Corporation had been receiving government funding through the Orphan Fund, a.k.a. taxpayer money. And yes, the Orphan Fund was supposed to be going to orphans, not to rich capitalists and aristocrats. What’s more:

The informed and wealthy managed to bail themselves out before default.

If you’re lost at this point, let me unwind it for you. Rebuilding London after the Great Fire caused an explosion in the City of London Corporation’s debts, forcing it to default 16 years later. But through some legal maneuvering none of its shareholders were ever held responsible for this unpaid debt, much of which was borrowed directly from the Treasury and the Orphans Fund. Of the remaining loans provided by private individuals, the average Joes were left holding the bag while the well-connected investors got all their money out in time.

But it gets worse. The default of the Corporation was only one of two major defaults precipitated by the Great Fire. The other was the default of the Crown itself in 1672, which triggered the Great Stop of the Exchequer. The king at this time was Charles II, a descendent of the northern crypto-Jewish Jagiellonian dynasty that Miles has formerly traced all through the royal lines of Europe.

It seems one of Charles’ primary tasks was to ratchet up the national debt as much as possible. He did this through the Third Anglo-Dutch War among other things. By ’72 the Crown was no longer able to service its debts and ceased repayments to the goldsmith-bankers. Here we get the meat of it:

One important legacy of the Great Stop of Exchequer was the founding of the Bank of England in 1694. The founding of the Bank of England put an end to defaults such as the Great Stop of the Exchequer. From now on, the British Government would never fail to repay its creditors.

We are told lots of sob stories about bankers who lost their shirts when the government defaulted. It’s possible some bankers at the bottom of the totem pole were burned, but on the whole it was a massive boon for the banking industry, since the creation of the Bank of England guaranteed the bankers would always be repaid. How exactly that follows is left vague, but I can give you a clue. The Bank of England was the frst institution legally allowed to issue loans without any assets to back them. They simply created loans out of thin air, which nevertheless had to be repaid with real money plus interest. This is the central fraud of the modern banking system, which most people still don’t get, even though the Bank of England itself admits it. This is how the bankers ensured they would always be repaid: when you only lend out Monopoly money, even the smallest repayment becomes gravy.

But that still leaves the question: who specifcally was behind the fre? To give you a clue, the fre occurred during the longest-running Parliament in English history, known as the Cavalier Parliament. It lasted from 1661 to 1679, accounting for 18 years of Charles II’s 25-year reign. That should raise a huge red fag, indicating that the bankers had several high-priority agendas that needed rubber-stamping during this time. Indeed, a quick read through its Wikipedia page shows the Cavalier Parliament’s 18 years were a time of pretty much constant crisis in England, followed by fascist legislation and sundry nefarious dealings. Remember, this was the very beginning of the Restoration period, immediately following Cromwell’s Commonwealth. Reading history backwards as we are now obliged to do, it’s clear the Commonwealth era was simply a setup for the Restoration, during which time some of the most fascist and pro-banking legislation got pushed through – all with the approval of Charles II and the Cavalier Parliament. This included the Corporation Act and Clarendon Code which gave massive power to the protestant (Komnene controlled) church; the Quaker Act which curbed religious freedom; the Licensing of the Press Act which gave government power to censor the press; laws promoting the English linen industry (who would want to do that? I’ll give you one guess…) and various mercantilist laws that gave special privileges to the EIC; the highly unpopular hearth tax, which required tax collectors to go inside people’s homes to count hearths; and the infamous Poor Laws which were laws against the poor, not for them.

Speaking of which, it was under the Cavalier Parliament that England’s pauper population grew to unprecedented numbers, which just goes to show how unabashed these wig-headed aristocrats were about enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. It was the most blatantly corrupt government Britain had ever had up to that point. They even made up a fake story about tax money earmarked for the Second Anglo-Dutch War being embezzled by court offcers as an excuse for why the war had gone so badly. In reality, it was the wig-heads themselves who pocketed the money. Charles II launched an investigation into the embezzlement accusation which, surprise, surprise, turned out inconclusive.

The two-party Whig and Tory system can also be traced back to the Cavalier Parliament. A subgroup had formed a loose association known as the Cabal Ministry – an early prototype of the modern-day cabinet system – which was accused of being more or less a “deep state”. (There’s nothing new under the sun, is there?) In response, a group of MPs formed the Country Party, bound together “by their suspicion of corruption in high places”. Controlled opposition, no doubt – I wouldn’t be surprised if their slogan was “drain the swamp” or “MEGA” (Make England Great Again).

Point being, the Cavalier Parliament had absolutely no scruples, making it far easier to entertain the thought that they could have deliberately orchestrated the Great London Fire. They had already fgured out that crisis = proft and had proven themselves competent administrators of this business model.

But let’s name some names. Remember that Del Mar averred that the aristocrats in Parliament were in league with both the goldsmith-bankers and the EIC to engineer the fnal substitution of private money for sovereign money in 1666. Was there someone with ties to all three? There were several, but Sir Josiah Child makes an easy case study. In fact, Del Mar calls him the “arch intrigant” behind the 1666 Coinage Act.

He was an economist, mercantilist, politician, and Governor of the East India Company. His father Richard was a “merchant of Fleet Street”. We get the usual lie about his coming from common stock and working his way “after much struggle” (those words come directly from his Wikipedia page) to become an “agent to the Navy Treasury”. What that job entitled is anyone’s guess. He “amassed a comfortable fortune”, though we aren’t told how, and became a “considerable” stockholder in the EIC. This was all in his 20s, mind you. By age 28 or 29 he was elected to Parliament. He was later re-elected to Parliament in 1673, during the Cavalier Parliament. Del Mar even tells us that Child wielded his infuence to keep his buddies in Parliament, which pretty much tells us that he was the unspoken leader of the Cavalier Parliament.

But did he have banking ties? They try to hide them, but the link is his father’s connection to Fleet Street. That was one of the main arteries of the City of London, and two of the highest- profle banks had their headquarters on this street, including Hoare & Co. and…Child & Co.

Child & Co. is the third oldest bank in the world today and the oldest bank in the UK, predating the Bank of England. It is believed that the bank became the model for Charles Dickens’ fctitious Tellson’s Bank in A Tale of Two Cities. It has one of the most exclusive client bases of any bank in the world, including the Big Four professional services frms of Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers. It was started by Sir Francis Child.

Like Josiah, Francis’ family origins are also obscured, and we only learn that his father Robert was a clothier – indicating Jewish roots, of course. Francis went into the goldsmithing business, being admitted into the Goldsmiths’ Company in 1664. He took over the business of the Wheeler family (Jewish), located on Fleet Street. Wikipedia tells us that “Francis was the frst banker who gave up the goldsmith’s business, and he is called…‘the father of the profession.’” Father of the banking profession – oh-ho! One of his wealthiest clients was Barbara Villiers. Remember, Del Mar outed Barbara as one of the central fgures in the unholy alliance that orchestrated the 1666 Coinage Act.

Going back to Josiah, Wikipedia tacitly admits that he was related to Francis and the Child & Co. banking family:

Although the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states positively that he was not related to the Child & Co bankers of Osterley Park, Burke’s Armorials 1884 provides evidence to the contrary, giving both families the same armourials: “Gules, a chevron ermine between 3 eagles close argent”. (See Villiers, Earls of Jersey, into which family the banking Child family married.) The earliest bearer of these Child arms was William Childe, sheriff of Worcestershire in 1585.

And yes, the Childs later intermarried with the Villiers. See George Child-Villiers, 5th Earl of the Island of Jersey. Note that neither of George’s parents were Childs – he took the name from his wife, Lady Sarah Sophia Fane. And as you can see, it wasn’t even her maiden name, it was her mother’s maiden name. This indicates that the Childs were so prominent that George considered it of at least equal rank with the Villiers name, which is saying a lot since the Villiers were Earls going back many generations. He also could have taken his wife’s actual maiden name, since the Fanes were also Earls, related to the Nevilles, Earls of Westmorland, the Manners, Earls of Rutland, the Percys, Audleys, Staffords, FitzAlans, d’Aubignys, and further back to the von Sachsens and Pepin III, father of Charlemagne. In fact, you can trace the Fanes through Pepin III all the way back to the Emesene Dynasty, a Roman “client dynasty” beginning in 46 BC. (You have to take Pepin III back to Baudegise II, then Baudegise II to Maurilion Gallo, a Gallo-Roman aristocrat of the Merovingian court, then Maurilion Gallo to the Emesenes). The Emesene “priest-kings” were supposedly of Arab origin, though somehistorians say they were actually Semitic Arameans, which is another way of saying Hebrew/Phoenician. Coins surviving from the Emesene Dynasty depict an eagle perched on a black stone.

Would that be like Blackstone, as in the investment group? And as Miles has suggested elsewhere, we are probably not dealing with an eagle, since eagles are not native to the Middle East. Rather, it was a Phoenix, because the Emesenes were Phoenician. Their black stone was an actual stone believed to be a meteorite that served as the betyl (cult stone) of their god, Elagabalus. We’re told Elagabalus (El-Gabal) is Arabic for “God of the mountain”, but there are no large mountains near Emesa (present day Homs, Syria, north of Lebanon). I assume the deity’s name actually derives from the names of the two chief Babylonian/Phoenician gods, El and Baal. That would explain why the Romans later associated Elagabalus with the sun; the Phoenicians worshipped Baal as the sun god, as well as the storm/lightning god. That the Emesene cult stone was a meteorite fts well with this idea (streak of light coming from the heavens), further proving the Emesenes were not Arabic but Phoenician. The fact that they were called priest-kings is another obvious tell.

That was a rabbit trail but a very important one, because it provides at least one defnite link from the British aristocracy back to the Roman aristocracy and further back to the Phoenicians. But it still doesn’t tell us much about the Childs, except that their bloodlines were at least as “pure” as the Fanes, who we just traced back to the Phoenicians. So let’s do a little more digging on Josiah Child’s ancestry. Here we can follow the Childe line all the way back to Alwin Childe circa 1066. We pick up his story here, where we learn he was a direct descendent of Childeric I,hence the name Child. Childeric I was a Merovingian king, and we have crossed paths with him before, here and here. Napoleon had sewn on his coronation robe 300 gold bees that were recovered from the tomb of Childeric I in 1653.

Also recovered from his tomb was a golden bull’s head, which gives us a clue to the origins of the Merovingians. The bull’s head was a common symbol for Baal and his earlier prototype, Marduk. In Hebrew the name is Merodach, which means “bull calf of the sun god [Utu]”.

Merodach was also the god of the sea. The name of the Merovingian dynasty’s founder was Merovech. Do you see? Merovech/Merodach. The Merovingians were just another branch of the Babylonians/Phoenicians.

This means the Childs were of at least equal rank with the Fanes as well as distant cousins, since Charlemagne was a descendent of Childeric I, as well. The Childs must have had a slightly higher concentration of Phoenician blood than the Fanes, which is why George Villiers took the former name over the latter.

By the way, there was another prominent Child around 1666, who even worked closely with Josiah at the EIC, but who they vehemently deny was related to him or to the banking Childs. Sir John Child, 1st Baronet, was the frst governor-general of India and chief of the EIC’s affairs in Surat and Bombay. Wikipedia goes out of its way to emphasize that he had no relation to Josiah, but if we fip back to Josiah’s genealogy, we see that he in fact had a brother named John. How do we know it’s the same John? Because John’s baronetcy passed to a son named Caesar, and Josiah’s brother John had a son named Caesar. That was too easy.

For a bit of fun, I thought I’d look into Julia Child to see if there’s any connection.

They admit her own family came from extraordinary wealth, her mother being the heiress of the Weston Paper Company. But did you know that Julia worked for the Secret Intelligence division of the OSS? I’m not kidding. Julia Child was basically a CIA agent before she became everyone’s favorite celebrity chef. Wikipedia tells us:

She began her OSS career as a typist at its headquarters in Washington but, because of her education and experience, soon was given a more responsible position as a


Miles: I thought maybe Donny had missed something at, but indeed the Childs

are extraordinarily well scrubbed there. But from all that he did fnd, I think we may assume

they were related by marriage to the Villiers and Nevilles before this, and perhaps the Stanleys,

linking us to John of Gaunt and the Komnene faction of the Lancastrians.

secret researcher working directly for the head of OSS, General William J. Donovan.

In fact, we are told her love for cooking started when she was assigned to concoct a shark repellent that would keep sharks from getting too close to underwater explosives and detonating them. I’m not making this up. She met her husband Paul Cushing Child, also an OSS employee, when they were both stationed in Kunming, China. Prior to the OSS, Paul “had lived in Paris as an artist and poet”, which begs the question why he joined the OSS. Unless, of course, his artistic pursuits were just an early CIA gig.

That’s Paul on the left. No, they don’t admit he was Jewish, but that nose, oi vey! He inherited it from his mother (right), Bertha Cushing Child, who was a famous singer in Boston. She frequently sang at the Synagogue Ardath Israel. Her father was John Russell Cushing, linking us to the Dukes of Bedford. Being from Boston, she was likely related to Dr. Harvey Cushing, a Boston brain surgeon who fathered the “fabulous Cushing sisters”. Daughter Barbara “Babe” married into the peerage with her frst husband Stanley Grafton Mortimer, Jr., the grandson of Henry Morgan Tilford, one of the founders of Standard Oil. Babe’s second husband was William Paley (Jewish), founder of CBS. Her sister Minnie married Vincent Astor and her other sister Betsey married one of FDR’s sons. Cushing is likely a Jewish name, like similar Jewish names Cushman and Cushenberry.

This also links us to actor Peter Cushing, who played Victor Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes, but is best known by our generation as Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars.

Anyhow, I couldn’t trace Paul Child’s ancestry back more than a few generations, but it doesn’t matter anyway since it’s admitted that Julia herself is a direct descendent of Charlemagne, which means she is a direct descendent of Childeric I. So she was a Child before she married Paul.

Let me bring this all back to the Great London Fire. I’ve shown that the fre started just months after the fnal piece of legislation that effectively replaced the royal prerogative of money creation with the private banking system, and that this is no coincidence since the massive debt created by rebuilding the City of London was the catalyst that led to the founding of the Bank of England. So the fre served both as an ideal distraction and a convenient pretext; a distraction because it kept the public attention away from the massively corrupt Coinage Act that was passed just a few months prior; a pretext because it could be blamed for the “necessity” of creating the Bank of England, which otherwise might have been linked to the 1666 Coinage Act, the EIC, and the reality that the monarchy had already been hollowed out by the bankers, who now controlled the conditions of British life.

Okay, okay, you say, but that still doesn’t prove the bankers started the fre. True, but I invoke the legal principle known as preponderance of evidence. The City of London cabal (banks, EIC, Parliament, and aristocracy combined) had an overwhelming motive and the means to make it happen without getting caught, not to mention the total lack of scruples. The fre was too convenient an event not to have been planned. The governors needed maximum instability to sell the Bank of England as a stabilizing force for society and the economy. As usual, they fipped the truth upside-down, telling us the banks are a source of stability when in fact they are always and intentionally the source of all our instability.

But if you want a more direct connection, I can give it to you. It turns out my instinct was correct to focus on Josiah Child, and here’s why. I told you Wikipedia doesn’t bother to say how he got so rich so young, but Britannica online does: “Child amassed a fortune as supplier of food to the navy.” Why does that matter? Because the offcial story is that the London fre started on Pudding Lane at the bakery of Thomas Farriner. And what do we learn about him?

By the time of the Great Fire of London, Thomas Farriner was a well-known baker in the City of London, who provided bread for the Royal Navy during the Anglo-Dutch War.

Now you know why Wikipedia avoids all mention of Josiah Child’s line of work as a food supplier, and why he is never mentioned in relation to the London fre. They don’t want you to make the connection I just made, which is that Child must have been a close associate of Thomas Farriner and likely had a controlling interest in Farriner’s bakery where the fre started.

That would mean the offcial story is partially true – the fre did start at Farriner’s bakery. This explains why Farriner was immediately cleared of suspicion and Robert Hubert was rushed on stage as the scapegoat. Hubert was a mentally challenged Frenchman who falsely confessed to starting the fre. Amazingly, it is admitted that everyone involved in the trial, including the judge and jury, knew Hubert’s confession was false. He initially confessed to starting a fre in Westminster, which was never even touched by the fre. When he learned it started in the bakery, he changed his story and claimed he threw a grenade through the bakery window – though apparently the bakery had no windows. The fact that the judge and jury knowingly convicted and executed an innocent man is heinous – or just a sign that it was a fake trial. Thomas Farriner and two of his family members were on the jury, further proving the whole thing was theater. No details are given about Hubert’s execution; they likely just shipped him back to the sanitarium from whence they had found him. Meanwhile, the public was sold the story that a French spy had started the fre, playing into the anti-French and anti-Catholic sentiment of the era, and the public eye was safely kept off the real culprits. However, we do learn that many Londoners had suspected Charles II himself of orchestrating the fre. This suggests a signifcant minority of the public were getting wise to the games of the elites, even if they couldn’t pinpoint exactly who was behind it all – or didn’t realize how far-reaching the conspiracy was. We may be the frst generation that has fnally gotten to the bottom of it.

Miles: it is admitted that the fre mysteriously spared the Jewish quarters, as well as the properties of the Komnenes/Phoenicians. This was used at the time to blame the poor Jews for starting the fre, but as you can see that wasn’t true. But the rich Phoenicians weren’t above allowing their poorer cousins to take the blame.

pictures removed as they crash the site!



6 Responses to “The other ‘great’ reset – 1666 and the not so great Fire of London”

  1. ian says:


  2. Mike says:


  3. Holeephuc says:

    Some points.
    1. The satanic date containing three 6s.
    2. The plans for the rebuild of the city were in place by freemason christopher wren before the fire.
    3. The only recorded first hand eye witness accounts are samuel pepys and friend of Wren, freemason John Evelyn.
    The Freemasons fingerprints are all over this fire.