Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Josiah Stamp’

Director Of Bank Of England Says, “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin”.

January 11th, 2009 No comments

You might think I’m telling you old news here, and I am. This is about a man who died 68 years ago. What has it got to do with today? This man understood exactly how bankers use creation of false credit and then financial busts or “credit crunches” to steal from the public and line their pockets for total control.

One five sentence quote sums up the problems with banking, the thieving nature of the very basis of debt-banking, the position we find ourselves facing today, the solution and, the fact that massive accumulated wealth in the hands of a few is a bad thing.

Josiah Charles Stamp, the 1st Baron Stamp was born on June 21, 1880 and died during the Blitz of London in World war two. He was a director of the Bank of England and the second richest man in the country when in a talk at the University of Texas in the 1920’s he said the following:

Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money .

Now there is an honest and honourable man: Wishing for the demise of his own great fortune because he saw the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.

His fortune was quite diminished by the events of his death. His eldest son Wilfred died in the same house, hit by the same bomb at the same time. Under English law (at the time – I do not know if this has changed) there was a legal fiction that where the order of deaths of parties can not be established, the eldest is assumed to have died first.

Perhaps because of Stamp’s clear insight into the nature of the abyss into which society was headed his death and inheritence were treated unfairly. Despite the obvious fact that both Stamp and his son died simultaneously, it was determined that Stamp had died before his eldest son, who therefore inherited his title and wealth (albeit very briefly and not that he got a chance to enjoy it).

This meant that the already dead Wilfred paid death duties on the estate, then the estate and title were inherited immediately from Wilfred by his younger brother Trevor. Trevor Stamp also had to pay death duties and thus Stamp’s fortune and the power of his descendants was quite disrupted by this inequitable behaviour. Perhaps after the things he said it was decided this would be a good way of demoralising his remaining offspring and putting limits on them.

Share