1666

The Year the Bankers Set Fire to London

By Donny Ahzmond

First published March 27, 2021

My working title doesn’t exactly bury the lede, so let’s get right to it. The Great London Fire
was the clandestine operation of the City of London’s banking and business cabal, its purpose
being 1) to divert public attention from the cabal’s legislative schemes and 2) to accelerate the
national debt and ultimately achieve a “great reset” of the fnancial system. More on that later.
The connection is almost too obvious to avoid, yet virtually every historian avoids it, since they
are paid to. I’m not going to convince you by painstakingly unfolding the details of the event.
My method will be much simpler and more convincing. All I need to do is show you the lasting
fnancial and political impact of the fre and who were its benefciaries, and it will become
apparent that those same actors must have had a hand in its creation. Nowadays all history
must be read backwards in this way, 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 frst 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 fre, but he does point our attention to the
signifcance 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 East India Company, the corruption of
Parliament, the profigacy of Charles II, and the infuence of Barbara Villiers. 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 some
historians 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.
Miles: I thought maybe Donny had missed something at thepeerage.com, 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.
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 top-
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.