The Genesis Event: 1688 as the Hostile Takeover of the English People Through State Capture
- 5 days ago
- 25 min read
Article II of the 400-Year English Civil War Series
The Bridge from Article I
The previous article in this series, This Our Third English Civil War, argued that the conflicts consuming parts of the world, most evident in the Middle East—the strikes on Iran, the instability across the Levant—aren’t what they appear. They’re not primarily about Tehran, nor about the Middle East, nor even about the ostensible great-power competition with Russia or China. They’re the latest and most revealing theater in a war that’s been raging for 400 years: a war within the English-speaking peoples, now in its final, decisive phase.
My argument rests on a foundational claim: that the English-speaking world’s been engaged in a continuous civil conflict since the mid-seventeenth century, and that this conflict entered its current phase—English Civil War 3.0—with the post-1945 transfer of imperial power from London to Washington. But if this is a 400-year war, it must have a genesis event: a moment when the institutional DNA of the contending parties was first encoded, when the fundamental cleavage was first opened.
This article examines that moment. It argues that the Glorious Revolution of 1688—conventionally celebrated as a bloodless triumph of parliamentary liberty over royal absolutism—was in fact the critical juncture at which the English state was fundamentally reengineered to serve the interests of a new ruling class. That class, which I’ll define more precisely in Article III as the “Financialist” type, derived its power not from territorial sovereignty or productive capacity, but from the management of public debt and the extraction of financial rents. The institutional template created in London after 1688—a private central bank managing permanent public debt, a financial class fused with state power, a military repurposed for global commercial enforcement—proved remarkably durable and portable. It crossed the Atlantic with the American colonists, survived the Civil War and the Industrial Revolution, and was successfully relocated from London to Washington after World War II. Embroiling America in 80 years of debt enforcement conflicts and asset extraction and debt incurring wars Americans will be paying for across more than another century if Washington fails to prevail in the civil war against London.
To understand this genesis event, we must set aside the Whig historiography that’s shaped popular memory of 1688. We must ask not “what did contemporaries believe they were doing?” but “what institutional architecture was created, and whose interests did it serve across centuries?” We must examine the Glorious Revolution through the lenses of institutional economics, elite network analysis, and comparative political economy. And we must confront a deeper question that mainstream accounts systematically evade: the question of sovereignty itself.
Pre-1688 Context: Sovereignty Contested
The Tudor Achievement: National Sovereignty Asserted
To understand what was lost in 1688, we must first understand what had been achieved in the preceding century and a half. The Tudor monarchs, beginning with Henry VII and culminating in Elizabeth I, had constructed something unprecedented in English history: a genuinely sovereign nation-state, capable of asserting its independence from transnational powers both secular and ecclesiastical.
The break with Rome under Henry VIII wasn’t merely a theological dispute or a dynastic convenience. It was an assertion of national sovereignty against a transnational authority that had, for centuries, claimed ultimate jurisdiction over English souls, English property, and English politics. The Act of Supremacy (1534) declared the king “the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England”—a title that meant, in practice, that no external power could claim allegiance from English subjects. The Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536–1541) transferred enormous wealth—perhaps a quarter of all landed property in England and sixty percent of all revenue generating lands and assets—from an international ecclesiastical corporation to the Crown, its loyal gentry and the Commons. This wasn’t theft; it was reclamation. Wealth that had flowed to Rome for centuries was now retained in England, funding English institutions and English purposes.
The Elizabethan Settlement (1559) completed this project. The Church of England was established as a via media, but its essential character was national and sovereign. The monarch, not the pope, was the supreme governor. English law, not canon law, governed English subjects. English identity, forged in the crucible of the Armada year (1588), became something that could be asserted against the continental powers that sought to reabsorb England into their transnational systems. Into the second Rome.
This wasn’t merely a matter of religious politics. The Tudor achievement was also economic and financial. England developed its own merchant marine, its own trading companies, its own credit mechanisms. The Antwerp Bourse might dominate continental finance, but English merchants learned to operate without depending on Italian or German banking houses. The Crown’s credit, while sometimes strained, was ultimately backed by the tangible wealth of the realm—land, customs duties, the loyalty of the nobility and their men at arms and their commons. Wars were financed through parliamentary subsidies, not permanent debt. The state could, in extremis, reset its obligations, as Elizabeth did in her early years, because the Crown’s legitimacy rested on its embodiment of the nation, not on its contracts with creditors.
This was the achievement that the events of 1688 would systematically dismantle.
The Stuarts as Targets — A Dynasty Discredited
The Construction of the Stuart “Other”
The Stuart succession (1603) brought to the English throne a dynasty that would become the target of the most sustained and successful character assassination in English political history. The image of James I and Charles I that has come down to us—as kings culturally and temperamentally drawn to continental absolutism, enamored of French and Spanish models of rule, proponents of divine right theory that justified governance without parliamentary participation—isn’t a neutral description. It’s a composite sketch, meticulously crafted by the very forces that would eventually fund the invasion to overthrow them.
The Roman and Dutch-Venetian interests that sought to bring England back into the transnational fold understood a fundamental truth: before you can conquer a nation, you must first delegitimize its rulers. The Stuarts were painted as foreign in their sympathies, crypto-Catholic in their allegiances, and hostile to the ancient liberties of Englishmen. Their genuine interest in continental alliances—the normal stuff of dynastic diplomacy for any European monarchy—was magnified into a conspiracy to sell England to the pope. Their theological sympathies, which were in fact far more complex than the caricature allows, were rendered as simple treason. Their assertions of royal prerogative, which differed in degree but not in kind from those of their Tudor predecessors, were presented as a novel despotism.
This propaganda campaign served two purposes. First, it justified in advance the extraordinary measures that would be required to remove them: foreign invasion, armed rebellion, the overturning of the legitimate succession. Second, it erased from memory the Tudor achievement that the Stuarts had, however imperfectly, inherited. For if the Stuarts were foreign tyrants in waiting, then their overthrow was not a coup but a liberation—not the capture of English sovereignty by transnational finance, but the rescue of English liberty from continental absolutism.
The truth was otherwise. The Stuarts weren’t hostile to the Tudor achievement; they were its sometimes clumsy, sometimes tragic heirs. Their entanglement with continental networks, such as it was, was the normal entanglement of any European dynasty. But in the narrative constructed by their enemies, this entanglement became proof of treason—and the foundation for the hostile takeover of 1688.
Sovereignty Contested: The Manufactured Crisis
The tension between Crown and Parliament that dominated the early seventeenth century wasn’t primarily about money, though it expressed itself in fiscal disputes. It was about sovereignty. But here again, we must distinguish between the reality of the contest and the narrative constructed around it.
Parliament claimed to represent the “commons” of England—the gentry, the merchants, the freeholders—whose property and privileges had been hard-won over centuries. This claim wasn’t false, but it was incomplete. The Parliament that spoke for the “commons” was increasingly penetrated by the very financial interests that sought to loosen the Crown’s control over English credit and English sovereignty. The merchants who sat in the Commons weren’t merely representatives of local interests; they were nodes in expanding transnational networks, their fortunes tied to Dutch loans, Venetian methods, and the fluid capital that recognized no national loyalty.
The Crown, for its part, claimed a prerogative that transcended parliamentary consent. This claim, too, wasn’t false. It was the inheritance of every English monarch since the Conquest, exercised by the Tudors with general consent because they’d used it for national purposes. The difference under the Stuarts wasn’t that they claimed too much, but that they were increasingly unable to make their claims stick—because the narrative had been turned against them. They were foreign to England and thus easy prey to traitorous English Lords, Gentry and the manufactured disapprobation of the Commons.
Behind these constitutional arguments lay deeper questions: To whom did Englishmen owe ultimate allegiance? Where did legitimate authority reside? These weren’t abstract philosophical questions. They were the questions that would determine whether England remained a sovereign nation-state, answerable to its own people and its own institutions, or whether it would be reabsorbed into the transnational systems that the Tudors had thrown off.
The tragedy of the Stuarts is that they inherited a structure of sovereignty that was already under assault, and they lacked the political genius and sheer coldly necessary ruthlessness of the Tudors to defend it. Every misstep, every miscalculation, was magnified by enemies who’d learned to wield the weapons of narrative as effectively as others wielded swords.
The Personal Rule: Necessity Painted as Tyranny
Charles I’s attempt to govern without Parliament (1629–1640) has come down to us as the “Eleven Years’ Tyranny”—a phrase that itself encodes the victorious narrative of his enemies. But what was the reality?
Charles did not govern without Parliament because he loved absolutism; he governed without Parliament because Parliament had become a forum for the very forces seeking to constrain and ultimately capture the Crown. The parliamentary leaders who opposed him weren’t disinterested defenders of English liberty; they were men with their own agendas, their own continental connections, their own financial interests that diverged from those of the Crown. They were bought and paid for by the very forces would end what Alfred the Great had established, individual sovereignty.
His methods—forced loans, ship money, arbitrary imprisonment—weren’t innovations. They were the traditional expedients of English monarchs when faced with fiscal crisis. Elizabeth had used them. Henry VIII had used them. What made Charles’s use of them “tyranny” wasn’t the methods themselves but the narrative that had been constructed around him. A Tudor monarch who raised ship money was defending the realm. A Stuart monarch who raised ship money was attacking liberty.
But there’s a deeper truth that the victorious narrative obscures. Charles’s methods were indeed the methods of a king who believed himself answerable only to God. But they were also the methods of a king who had been forced into dependence on alternative sources of support—Catholic powers, foreign subsidies, the good offices of queens with continental connections—because the ordinary sources of English royal finance had been closed to him by the very Parliament that claimed to speak for England.
The irony is bitter: the Parliament that accused Charles of foreign entanglement had, by denying him supply, made those entanglements necessary. On purpose. And the forces that funded his enemies—the Dutch bankers, the Venetian financiers, the transnational networks that saw in England a prize worth capturing—waited in the wings, ready to pick up the pieces. The very owners of the traitors within England. Masters of the Parliament and burgeoning the industrialists and related guilds alike.
When the pieces were picked up in 1688, it wasn’t English liberty that triumphed. It was the Second Rome, operating through its Dutch and Venetian proxies, finally reclaiming what the Tudors had taken from it. The Stuarts were destroyed not because they were tyrants, but because they stood in the way of that reclamation.
The First English Civil War: Systemic Destruction (1642–1651)
The First English Civil War’s conventionally understood as a conflict between Crown and Parliament, Cavalier and Roundhead. This framing isn’t wrong, but it too is incomplete. The war was also, and perhaps primarily, a conflict within the English ruling class—a conflict that destroyed the old legitimacy structures beyond repair.
The Royalist cause drew its strength from the traditional territorial nobility: the great landowners whose power rested on inherited estates, local loyalties, and the obligations of feudal service. The Parliamentary cause drew its strength from the gentry and the commercial classes: men whose power rested on wool, cloth, trade, and the new forms of wealth that the Tudor peace had made possible. Between them stood the mass of the English people, whose allegiances shifted with circumstance and whose interests were articulated—briefly and radically—by the Levellers and Diggers who demanded that the conflict produce not merely a change of rulers but a transformation of rule.
At the Putney Debates (1647), Colonel Thomas Rainborough spoke for this radical current when he declared: “The poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he.” This was not a constitutional argument; it was an assertion that sovereignty resided in the people, not in Crown or Parliament, not in nobility or gentry, but in every Englishman. This was a reiteration of what the three founding kings of England had proclaimed and the barons had fought over and sustained against King John and court four hundred years later. The Putney Debates represent the most radical moment of the English Revolution—a moment when it seemed possible that the war might produce a genuinely new order.
It wasn’t to be. Cromwell’s Protectorate suppressed the Levellers, executed the Diggers’ dreams, and established a military dictatorship that preserved the social hierarchy while changing its personnel. But the war had done its destructive work. The old Royalist nobility was decimated: estates confiscated, titles attainted, families exiled or impoverished. The traditional bonds of loyalty that had held English society together for centuries were broken. The way was prepared for a new kind of ruling class—one whose power rested not on land and lineage, but on credit and connection.
The First Civil War was, in this sense, a necessary precondition for 1688. It destroyed the old order without creating a stable new one. It left England weakened, divided, and vulnerable to external penetration.
The Interregnum and Restoration: Vulnerability Created (1649–1685)
The Restoration of Charles II in 1660 was presented as a return to normalcy—the king enjoying his own again, the ancient constitution restored. But the Restoration could not undo the destruction of the previous two decades. The old nobility, where it survived, was impoverished and dependent. The Crown, stripped of the feudal revenues and prerogative powers that had sustained it, was forced to rely on parliamentary grants—and on the goodwill of those who controlled credit.
Charles II’s reign was a long lesson in the vulnerability of a Crown without financial independence. The king’s secret Treaty of Dover (1670) with Louis XIV, which promised English support for French ambitions in exchange for subsidies, wasn’t treason; it was survival. If Parliament wouldn’t grant sufficient funds, the king must find them elsewhere—from Catholic France, from the bankers of Amsterdam, from anyone willing to advance credit against future revenues.
The Stop of the Exchequer (1672) revealed the depth of the problem. Charles simply suspended repayment of his debts, destroying his creditworthiness and demonstrating that a Crown without parliamentary control of taxation couldn’t make credible commitments to lenders. The merchants and bankers who’d advanced money to the king were given their arguments for change: never lend to a sovereign who can repudiate his obligations at will. Translation, the banks and industrialists must own the Crown.
This was the structural problem that 1688 would “solve”—by placing control of the fiscal in the hands of those who controlled the credit. Or so the story goes. Never mind that this story obviates all the many ways in which the king and Crown were intentionally impoverished and denied means by which to sustain the realm at personal cost, all to setup the great taking that was the future inGlorious Revolution.
James II’s brief reign (1685–1688) provided the pretext for intervention, but the true vulnerability that his enemies exploited had nothing to do with his personal religious convictions—which may or may not have been as fervent as claimed—and everything to do with the structural trap into which the Stuart monarchy had been forced over preceding decades. By the time James ascended the throne, the Crown’s fiscal independence had been systematically dismantled: the treasury was bare, the ordinary revenues insufficient, and the mechanisms of royal credit so thoroughly undermined that meaningful governance without parliamentary supply had become impossible.
The “Catholicism” for which James is remembered—his appointments of co-religionists, his gestures toward toleration—weren’t the causes of his downfall but the convenient pretexts seized upon by those who’d already ensured he would lack the financial means to defend himself or his realm. A king without money isn’t a king at all, and James II ruled over an England whose wealth had been effectively placed beyond his reach—locked in the coffers of merchants whose loyalties lay with Amsterdam, channeled through credit networks that answered to transnational finance, withheld from a Crown that the moneyed interest had already marked for replacement. The invasion that followed wasn’t a response to Stuart tyranny; it was the final act of a long-prepared capture, made possible because James II had been rendered powerless before a single Dutch ship appeared on the horizon.
The 1688 Event: Evidence Ladder
What follows isn’t a narrative but an evidentiary chain. Each step is documented from primary sources and supported by scholarly consensus—or, where consensus is lacking, the nature of the disagreement is noted. The purpose isn’t to prove a conspiracy but to demonstrate a structural transformation.
Step 1: Vulnerability — The English State Was Financially and Militarily Exhausted
Claim: By 1688, England was uniquely vulnerable to external financial penetration due to decades of war, Crown insolvency, and the destruction of the old noble class and their loyal Englishmen.
Evidence:
Charles II’s debts at his death (1685) exceeded £2 million—approximately twice annual ordinary revenue.
The Stop of the Exchequer (1672) had destroyed Crown creditworthiness; interest rates on Crown borrowing exceeded 10% when loans could be obtained at all.
The navy, England’s primary defense, was in disrepair; Pepys’s diaries document ships rotting in harbor for want of funds.
The standing army was small (approximately 8,000 men) and unreliable, its loyalty divided between Crown and Parliament.
Scholarly support: North and Weingast (1989) document the Crown’s inability to make credible commitments to lenders; Brewer (1989) details the fiscal-military state’s weaknesses before 1688.
Counter-argument: England wasn’t uniquely vulnerable; all European states faced similar fiscal pressures.
Rebuttal: True, but England’s institutional structure—a Crown dependent on parliamentary supply but unable to bind Parliament to honor its commitments—created a unique form of sovereign risk that made the state dependent on those who could solve the credible commitment problem.
Step 2: The Invitation — Not Spontaneous, But Organized
Claim: The “Invitation to William” (June 1688) wasn’t a spontaneous plea from outraged Protestant nobles but a carefully orchestrated signal from a faction that had, at the guidance of Dutch financial-political networks, set the conditions across several decades of effort.
Evidence:
The seven signatories (the “Immortal Seven”) included men with prior Dutch exile experience and established connections to Amsterdam banking houses.
The text of the invitation refers to ongoing communications and assures William of substantial support upon landing.
Timing: The invitation was sent only after William had already begun assembling an invasion fleet, suggesting coordination rather than spontaneous appeal.
Scholarly support: Jones (1972) documents the prior contacts between English dissidents and Dutch stadholder; Israel (1995) details William’s long-term planning for intervention.
Counter-argument: The invitation was a legitimate response to James II’s tyranny.
Rebuttal: Even if the grievance was legitimate, the mechanism—inviting a foreign power with a large army to invade—created a dependency relationship that transcended any constitutional justification.
Step 3: The Invasion — Scale and Funding Demonstrate External Control
Claim: The invasion wasn’t a “landing” but a large-scale military operation requiring substantial external financing, which came from Amsterdam merchant capital. Just as the financial backing for the previous English Civil War - condition setting through wiping out loyal nobility and their men at arms - had also come from Amsterdam and Rome.
Evidence:
Fleet size: approximately 463 ships, carrying 15,000–20,000 troops—larger than the Spanish Armada of 1588.
Funding: 2 million guilders advanced by Francisco Lopes Suasso, an Amsterdam banker of Portuguese-Jewish origin; additional funding from the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the city of Amsterdam.
Logistics: The fleet was provisioned for a campaign, suggesting preparation far beyond a simple expedition.
Scholarly support: Israel (1995) provides detailed accounting of Dutch financial mobilization; Haley (1972) documents VOC involvement.
Counter-argument: William was acting in his capacity as stakeholder, concerned for his wife’s inheritance and Protestant cause.
Rebuttal: Personal motives don’t negate structural consequences. The fact remains that the invasion was funded by commercial capital that expected return—not in religious satisfaction it cared not for but in economic advantage.
Step 4: The Settlement — William and Mary as Figureheads, Not Sovereigns
Claim: The constitutional settlement of 1689 placed effective power in the hands of a Parliament now fully dominated by the moneyed interest, with William and Mary as executive figureheads.
Evidence:
The Declaration of Rights (1689) restated existing law but the enforcement mechanism was new: Parliament would meet annually, control supply, and audit expenditure.
The Convention Parliament’s composition: analysis of members’ backgrounds shows overrepresentation of commercial and financial interests compared to previous Parliaments.
Key figures: men like Sir John Houblon (later first Governor of the Bank of England) and other merchants with Dutch connections held unprecedented influence.
Scholarly support: Pincus (2009) argues the revolution was “modern” precisely because it empowered commercial interests; Dickson (1967) documents the “financial revolution” that followed.
Counter-argument: The settlement was a victory for parliamentary liberty over royal absolutism.
Rebuttal: Parliamentary liberty for whom? The Parliament that emerged wasn’t representative of the English people but of the propertied classes—and increasingly, of the mobile property of finance rather than the fixed property of land. While the Crown became little more than a figurehead with zero power to act on behalf of the People.
Step 5: The Bank of England — Corporate Headquarters Established (1694)
Claim: The Bank of England wasn’t and isn’t a public institution but a private corporation granted monopoly privileges in exchange for financing government debt—creating a permanent creditor class with veto power over state policy.
Evidence:
Charter terms: The Bank loaned the government £1.2 million at 8% interest, plus an annual management fee of £4,000.
Subscription list: 1,307 individuals and institutions subscribed, with average holding approximately £918. The top 50 subscribers held approximately 40% of the stock.
Corporate structure: Governor, Deputy Governor, and Court of Directors elected by shareholders—not by Parliament or Crown.
Monopoly privileges: The Bank was granted exclusive right to issue banknotes in England and Wales.
Primary source: “An Act for granting to their Majesties several Duties upon Tuns of Wine... and for establishing a Bank of England” (1694), Section XIX.
Scholarly support: Clapham (1944), the Bank’s official historian, documents its private character; Dickson (1967) analyzes the subscription lists and demonstrates Whig/commercial dominance.
Counter-argument: The Bank was simply a pragmatic solution to war finance needs.
Rebuttal: Even if pragmatic in origin, the institutional structure created a permanent interest group with veto power over monetary policy—an outcome that transcended any immediate pragmatic intent and made of itself the ultimate power in the land.
Step 6: The Debt Mechanism — Perpetual Extraction Institutionalized
Claim: The creation of permanent, funded national debt meant that taxpayers would pay interest in perpetuity to bondholders, while the bondholders’ representatives in Parliament controlled the taxation.
Evidence:
National debt growth: from approximately £1 million in 1694 to £36 million by 1714.
Debt service as percentage of government expenditure: rose from negligible to over 30% by 1714.
Who held the debt: concentration in London and the Home Counties, among merchants, financiers, and gentry with liquid capital.
Scholarly support: Dickson (1967) provides exhaustive analysis of debt ownership; Brewer (1989) documents the “fiscal-military state” that emerged.
Counter-argument: All modern states have public debt; this was simply England catching up.
Rebuttal: The difference is who controls the debt. When bondholders control the legislature that taxes to service the debt, the state becomes an instrument of creditor interests.
Step 7: The Military Repurposed — From National Defense to Debt Enforcement
Claim: The standing army and navy, once established, were used to protect trade routes, enforce colonial monopolies, and project power in ways that benefited the creditor class.
Evidence:
Nine Years’ War (1688–1697): fought largely with Dutch strategic direction, for Dutch commercial objectives.
War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714): debt-financed, enriched bondholders through interest payments and captured colonial markets.
Colonial expansion post-1688: pattern of wars for commercial advantage, not territorial security.
Scholarly support: Brewer (1989) documents the military’s role in protecting commercial interests; historians of the “fiscal-military state” consensus.
Counter-argument: Wars were fought for national interest, not creditor profit.
Rebuttal: The distinction collapses when the creditor class defines the national interest. Wars that enriched bondholders while imposing taxes on the productive classes were wars for a particular interest, not the general interest.
Step 8: The City of London as Sovereign Corporate State
Claim: The City’s unique extra-territorial legal status, combined with its control of debt issuance, made it a state within the state—answerable to its own members, not to the nation.
Evidence:
Corporation of London’s ancient privileges confirmed post-1688, including self-governance, separate jurisdiction, and immunity from parliamentary control in key areas.
Interlocking directorates: Bank of England, East India Company, South Sea Company, major trading houses shared directors and shareholders.
Legal immunities: The City’s courts, not royal courts, governed commercial disputes; the Lord Mayor, not the Crown, controlled the City’s armed force.
Scholarly support: Kynaston (1994) documents the City’s peculiar status; historians of London’s governance confirm its autonomy.
Counter-argument: The City was simply a municipality like others.
Rebuttal: No other municipality controlled the nation’s credit, housed its central bank, and enjoyed legal immunities that made it effectively a separate jurisdiction. No other city could send the men of a nation off to kill and die in foreign wars.
Step 9: The Model Exported — Colonial Application
Claim: The same institutional template was exported to the American colonies, creating the conditions for both colonial dependence and eventual rebellion.
Evidence:
Colonial currency restrictions: Acts of Parliament (1696, 1708, 1741) prohibited colonies from issuing their own paper currency or establishing land banks.
Navigation Acts enforcement: Post-1688, enforcement intensified, channeling colonial trade through British ports and British ships.
Board of Trade and Plantations (1696): established to oversee colonial commerce, staffed by merchants with financial interests.
Scholarly support: Greene (1988) documents colonial frustration with metropolitan control; historians of the “mercantilist system” consensus.
Counter-argument: These policies were standard imperial practice.
Rebuttal: Standard practice served standard interests—the interests of the metropolitan financial class, not the colonial producers.
Step 10: Continuity Across Centuries — The Architecture Survives
Claim: Despite revolutions, reforms, and the shift from London to Washington, the basic template—private central bank managing public debt, financial class with privileged access to state power, perpetual war finance—has persisted.
Evidence:
First Bank of the United States (1791): Hamilton explicitly modeled it on the Bank of England.
Second Bank (1816): same structure, same controversies.
Federal Reserve (1913): private regional banks with public board—a hybrid that preserves private control of monetary policy.
Post-WWII Bretton Woods system: dollar as world currency, IMF/World Bank as global debt managers.
Scholarly support: Timberlake (1993) documents central banking history; historians of American banking confirm institutional continuity.
Counter-argument: Each institution was created for its own time and purposes.
Rebuttal: True, but the pattern—private control of public credit, fusion of financial and state power—repeats across centuries and across nations, highlighting structural rather than contingent causes.
Step 11: Present Operation — The Kill Chain Complete
Claim: The identical mechanism operates today: public debt held by private financial institutions, central banks managing monetary policy for creditor interests, perpetual war as debt driver.
Evidence:
Current U.S. national debt: ~$36 trillion, held largely by financial institutions and foreign creditors.
Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion (2008–present): wealth transfer to bondholders through near-zero interest rates and asset purchases.
Military-industrial-congressional complex: debt-fueled patronage system that enriches defense contractors and their financial backers.
Scholarly support: Tooze (2018) documents the post-2008 debt regime; Hudson (2015) analyzes “financial capitalism” as extractive system.
Counter-argument: This is simply modern capitalism.
Rebuttal: Modern capitalism of this type is the product of the 1688 settlement—the institutionalization of creditor power over producer interests, the enslavement of a people to the monetary labour to debts and mortal enforcement of bondholder wars.
The Question of the “Second Rome”: Sovereignty Versus Transnational Power
At this point, the skeptical reader may object: this is a sophisticated financial history, but where’s the larger claim about Rome, about transnational power, about the struggle between local loyalty and universal empire?
The objection is fair. The previous section deliberately bracketed the largest questions to establish the evidentiary foundation. Now we must address them directly. What is the nature of the English Civil War and who is really the string puller in this macabre destruction from within of the English Civilization.
The religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries weren’t, in their essence, about theology. They were about the locus of sovereignty. The Protestant Reformation was, among other things, an assertion that ultimate authority over English souls belonged to English institutions—the Crown, the national church, the community of believers—not to a transnational institution headquartered in Rome. The Catholic Counter-Reformation was an assertion that the universal Church, embodied in the papacy and its temporal allies, retained supreme jurisdiction over all Christians, regardless of national boundaries.
This wasn’t merely a dispute about doctrine. It was a dispute about power. To whom did an Englishman owe final allegiance: to his king, his Parliament, his local lord—or to a pope who might be Italian, Spanish, or French, whose interests were necessarily transnational, whose claims extended across every border?
The Great Schism of 1054 had divided Christendom into Eastern and Western branches, but the Western Church that emerged from that schism was itself a kind of empire—the “Second Rome” that claimed the inheritance of the Caesars. Its law (canon law) superseded local custom. Its language (Latin) transcended vernacular tongues. Its hierarchy answered not to kings but to the successor of Peter. Its wealth, accumulated over centuries, was deployed not for national purposes but for the purposes of the Church universal—which is to say, for the purposes of those who controlled it.
The Tudor break with Rome was a declaration of independence from this transnational empire. It asserted that English wealth should serve English purposes, that English law should govern English subjects, that English sovereignty was real and absolute. This was the achievement that the events of 1688 would ultimately undo—not by restoring papal authority, which remained formally repudiated, but by reestablishing a different kind of transnational control: control through debt rather than doctrine, through credit rather than creed.
The Venetian Republic had perfected this method over centuries. Venice, that most Catholic of commercial states, had learned to exercise power not through territorial conquest but through financial penetration. Venetian bankers financed the wars of both sides, lent to kings and emperors, accumulated claims on the revenues of half of Europe. The Venetian oligarchy, unlike the territorial nobility, derived its power from mobility—from the ability to move capital across borders, to convert political influence into financial leverage, to extract wealth without the burdens of governance.
When Venice’s own power was threatened in Venice due to having brought about the fall of Byzantium, its methods didn’t die. They migrated—to Amsterdam, to London, to the financial centers that would dominate the modern world. The Dutch financial revolution of the seventeenth century was, in large part, the Venetian method applied on a larger scale. And the inGlorious Revolution of 1688 was the moment when that method captured the English state.
We need not posit a secret committee in Rome pulling strings across centuries. We need only observe that the interests of the papacy, the Venetian oligarchy, and the Amsterdam merchant bankers converged on the same outcome: a permanently indebted England, its sovereignty compromised, its military available for cosmopolitan rather than national purposes. Whether this convergence was planned or emergent is less important than the fact of its occurrence.
What Rome could not achieve through the Armada, it achieved through the Bank of England. What the Inquisition could not burn out, the national debt burned in. England remained Protestant in name, but its Protestantism now served transnational finance rather than national independence. The City of London became the new Venice—a sovereign corporate state whose loyalty was to capital, not country.
This is the heart of the English Civil War we’re now coming to the culmination of the third act in. Who is sovereign, we the English-Speaking Peoples or the institutions, foreign and domestic which bondholders and 2nd Rome have enacted in order to manage their extractive slaver regime?
Objections and Responses
Objection 1: “The Glorious Revolution was about religion and European balance of power, not finance.”
Response: These aren’t mutually exclusive. The means chosen to achieve religious and strategic ends—foreign invasion, new fiscal constitution, permanent debt—created a new structural reality that outlasted the original motives. The financial revolution was a consequence, but once created, it became a cause.
Objection 2: “The Bank of England was simply a pragmatic response to war finance needs.”
Response: Pragmatic responses can create path-dependent institutional trajectories. The question isn’t whether the Bank was intended to create a permanent ruling class, but whether it functioned to create one. The evidence of subsequent centuries suggests it did.
Objection 3: “You’re cherry-picking evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.”
Response: This article and decades of previous work examines the Glorious Revolution through a specific lens—institutional continuity and class formation. It doesn’t claim to be the only valid lens. But it demonstrates that if you look at the evidence through this lens, a coherent pattern emerges that mainstream historiography typically ignores. The test is whether that pattern helps explain subsequent events. The framework’s predictive power—its ability to explain the American Revolution as Civil War 2.0, the Civil War as 2.5, and the present conflict as 3.0—is its validation.
Objection 4: “This is just another conspiracy theory.”
Response: Conspiracy theories posit secret agreements among a small group to explain events. This framework posits class interests and institutional incentives that operate transparently once you know to look for them. The subscribers to the Bank of England aren’t secret; their names are in the public record. The composition of Parliament after 1688 isn’t secret; division lists survive. The growth of the national debt isn’t secret; Treasury records are archived. What is “hidden” isn’t the evidence but the interpretation that connects these facts into a coherent story of class formation and institutional continuity.
Objection 5: “The Rome/Venice claim is unsupported.”
Response: The claim isn’t that Rome orchestrated the events of 1688, but that the pattern of transnational financial control established in 1688 replicated the pattern that Venice had perfected and that served Rome’s long-term interests. This is an interpretive hypothesis, not a factual assertion. It’s offered as a way of understanding why the specific institutional form—private central bank, permanent debt, fusion of financial and state power—emerged when it did, and why it’s proven so durable. The reader is free to accept or reject this hypothesis while still accepting the evidentiary chain regarding the institutional transformation itself.
In Closing: From Genesis to Judgment
The inGlorious Revolution of 1688 created an institutional template that has shaped the English-speaking world for more than three centuries. That template had four essential elements:
A private central bank managing public debt, with monopoly privileges and private shareholders.
A permanent national debt creating a permanent creditor class with a stake in the state’s fiscal capacity.
A fusion of financial and state power through interlocking elites who move seamlessly between government service and private profit.
A military repurposed from national defense to global commercial enforcement, its operations financed by the debt that enriches the creditor class. Sic, a populace that must pay debts for wars that it must also die in, all to enforce a transnational mercantilist regime offers nothing but modest comforts and a life expended in labour to pay debts or to be lost in debt and contract creating and enforcing conflicts and wars.
This template proved remarkably portable. It crossed the Atlantic with the American colonists, who rebelled against London’s control but couldn’t or wouldn’t escape the institutional DNA that London had implanted. Hamilton’s program in the 1790s—a national bank, assumption of state debts, federal encouragement of commerce—was an explicit attempt to replicate the Bank of England model on American soil. Jefferson’s opposition—his vision of an agrarian republic of independent yeomen—was a rejection of that entire trajectory. The fact that Hamilton largely won, that the United States eventually established its own central bank and its own permanent national debt, demonstrates that the “capture” of 1688 wasn’t merely a British phenomenon but an English-speaking one.
The First English Civil War (1642–1651) destroyed the old order. The inGlorious Revolution (1688) created the new one. The American Revolution (1775–1783) was the first major revolt against that new order—English Civil War 2.0. The American Civil War (1861–1865) was the second—English Civil War 2.5. And the conflicts of our own time—the wars in the Middle East, the rivalry with Russia and China, the unraveling of the post-1945 order—are symptoms of the third: English Civil War 3.0, the final phase of a 400-year struggle.
The next article in this series will examine the protagonist of that struggle: the Financialist class that the 1688 settlement instantiated as the overlords of the English-Speaking Peoples. I’ll define this class sociologically, trace its reproduction across generations, and demonstrate how its interests have shaped the policies and institutions that now threaten to destroy the civilization it was meant to serve. Know the face of your true enemy!
For the English-speaking peoples still have a choice. We can recognize the 1688 settlement for what it was—a hostile takeover of our sovereignty by transnational financial interests—and begin the long work of reclaiming our birthright. Or we can continue to inhabit the illusion that our present discontents are the product of foreign enemies, random events, or the inevitable working of historical forces beyond their control.
The war continues. The choice is ours.
As for me, I will be loyal and will fight! Who will join?
Key Citations
Primary Sources:
“An Act for granting to their Majesties several Duties upon Tuns of Wine... and for establishing a Bank of England” (1694). British Parliamentary Archives.
The Clarke Papers: Records of the Putney Debates, 1647. Camden Society, 1891.
Treasury Papers, 1685–1714. The National Archives (UK).
Scholarly Works:
Brewer, John. The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783. New York: Knopf, 1989.
Clapham, John. The Bank of England: A History. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944.
Dickson, P.G.M. The Financial Revolution in England: A Study in the Development of Public Credit, 1688–1756. London: Macmillan, 1967.
Greene, Jack P. Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.
Haley, K.H.D. The Dutch in the Seventeenth Century. London: Thames and Hudson, 1972.
Israel, Jonathan I. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Jones, J.R. The Revolution of 1688 in England. New York: Norton, 1972.
Kynaston, David. The City of London: A World of Its Own, 1815–1890. London: Chatto & Windus, 1994.
Lane, Frederic C. Venice: A Maritime Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
North, Douglass C., and Barry R. Weingast. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England.” Journal of Economic History 49, no. 4 (1989): 803–832.
Pincus, Steve. 1688: The First Modern Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Timberlake, Richard H. Monetary Policy in the United States: An Intellectual and Institutional History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Tooze, Adam. Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World. New York: Viking, 2018.
Series Framework:
Burlingame, E.M. “Byzantium 2.0: The Four-Hundred-Year Civil War and the Fate of the English-Speaking Peoples.” 2026.
Burlingame, E.M. “This Our Third English Civil War.” 2026.
Comments