"None Of It Was True": 103 Years Later, The FT Admits It Lied And Colluded With The Bank of England

Tyler Durden's picture

When one strips away the lies about central banks' "inflation and employment" mandates and focuses on what they really do - which is to keep asset prices artificially supported and volatility suppressed - the motive behind virtually every central bank act becomes readily apparent: preserve (and increase, if possible) confidence in the market and economy, while saying anything and everything that helps achieve this, or in other words, lie but don't get caught.

Today, thanks to the FT, we have proof of precisely this, in what may be the first recorded instance of a central bank openly lying in an attempt to preserve market stability... and getting caught.

On Tuesday, the Bank of England admitted that the UK government failed to find enough investors to fully cover its its 1914 War Loan, and was forced to turn to the central bank to help plug a deficit of more than £100m in the fundraising. However, it did so only after it lied to the public that the bond was oversubscribed:

"Despite claims it was swamped with buyers, the 1914 War Loan raised less than a third of its £350m target, attracting a very narrow set of investors, according to BoE employees writing on the Bank Underground website today."  The bloggers uncovered the cover-up by trawling through the bank’s old ledgers.

As the FT notes, "the debt yielded 4.1 per cent, well above the 2.5 per cent payable on other government debt at the time, but it still failed to attract a wide enough pool of investors."

So why lie? For the same reason to this day central bankers around the world lie at every possibly opportunity: to preserve confidence in a fragile system, which can collapse the moment doubt spikes.

The government decided that news of a failed bond sale would have been “disastrous” to the general public, and so schemed with the Bank to plug the gap, the BoE now says. The central bank bought the outstanding securities on offer, and covered its tracks by purchasing the bonds in the name of its chief cashier, and listing them on its balance sheet as “other securities”.

Ironically, the FT which reported of the BOE's blog finding, was instrumental in publicizing and disseminating the lie on November 23, 1914, something which many have accused the paper of doing today.

The Financial Times played its role in convincing the public that the sale was a success, publishing a segment (which appears to be an advert) claiming that the debt was oversubscribed and offering “further particulars of this magnificent investment… upon request.”

It was all a lie. This is how the BOE's bloggers justify it:

For the Bank of England and economic policymakers more generally, this early failure led to the realisation that managing the national debt was a complex and, in war times, perhaps Herculean task. The episode marked an important step on the Bank’s transformation from private institution to a central bank. A decade after the Armistice, the altered role of the Bank prompted creation of a Parliamentary commission to examine its functions, ultimately setting it on a path to nationalisation.

Did this clear intention to mislead the public lead to any consequences? Here's the FT's take: "The BoE’s intervention uprooted the UK’s long-held laissez faire approach to capital, as the government prioritised the war effort over private investors. And although the hoodwink worked, the authors suggest that the failed sale prompted some soul-searching at the central bank:"

Unfortunately, over a century later, the soul-searching has led to zero tangible results, as lies in the name of preserving public confidence and avoiding "disastrous" - but true - news continue unabated, and those who dare to expose them are branded as "conspiracy theorists" and, more recently, Russian sympathizers.

As for the FT, the principal agent employed in propagating the central bank's lies, it had this to say:

Clarification: On 23 November 1914, a piece published in the Financial Times claimed the UK government’s War Loan was “oversubscribed”, with applications “pouring in”. The item described this as an “amazing result” that “proves how strong is the financial position of the British nation”. We are now happy to make clear that none of the above was true.

Well, thanks for "coming clean." We, for one, can't wait to find out what current stories and narratives the FT will admit some 103 years from today that it is "happy to make clear" were lies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
armageddon addahere's picture

If you want to know what really happened and why, David Irving has done a lot of original research in German, British and American archives and got the whole story.

TrumanShow's picture

So we will have to wait 103 years for them to admit that every single thing they tell us today is a crock of shit. I venture that this will be too late.

Redneck Makin-tosh's picture

A steal at twice the price considering the alternative was to pay rent to a foreigner.

NoBillsOfCredit's picture

The article did not say if any interest was actually paid on the additional bonds.

Sandmann's picture

On 8 October 2008 Merkel held a secret conference of German newspaper editors in the Chancellery in Berlin and gained solmen pledges to print nothing that could frighten the horses about the banking system or financial matters...........to date the German press has unisono maintained a line of unswerving obedience to the regime in all matters

HowdyDoody's picture

I;m sure the CIA was there first, so it as more like 'the CIA-run Merkel told the CIA-run German journalists ....'

NoBillsOfCredit's picture

There is no freedom of speech in Germany. There hasn't been since Hitler came to power.

Thoresen's picture

In other news, eastern states are discovered to have never left the British Commonwealth, Texas goes it alone again, California votes for unification with Mexico and Spain, the Louisiana Purchase was a fraud and Russia wants Alaska back.

NoBillsOfCredit's picture

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. The inhabitants of the land now own the land. So your comments about Texas and California might possibly be true but not the rest of it.

Infinite QE's picture

Hmm. Who until recently owned the FT. The Rothschilds. Who till this day owns the Bank of England. The Rothschilds. Satan's spawn doing their talmudic duty.

LotUnsold's picture

Utter claptrap.  It was owned by Pearson until recently and was historically owned by the Berry brothers and their father Lord Camrose.  It is actually the product of the merger of two papers.  Please provide some evidence of your assertion of it being Rothschild owned.

gregga777's picture

Lying. It's how the Intellectual Yet Idiot classes rulng MORONS lose the empires built by their truthful and competent ancestors.

A. Boaty's picture

This makes me wonder about other disinfo in the FT. If you can see thru their globalist editorial policy, they have otherwise excellent news coverage (except for the lies, of course).

gregga777's picture

Millions of English casualties in World War 1. But, at least the banking gangsters were safe and got rich off of everyone else's suffering.

To Hell In A Handbasket's picture

Collusion between the MSM and the Central Bank? That was 103 years and 10 generations ago. Thank god it would not happen today, because we've come so far as a species. lol 

TheObsoleteMan's picture

News flash: The whole story people have been fed about WW1 was a lie. I had the good fortune of knowing an old Prussian aristocrat lady {she was a true Countess}. This was back in the 1970s, and she was in her 80s then. She told me how Tsar Nicholas over reacted to the events in Serbia and mobilized his army, sent them into Poland. The British also closed their diplomatic cable with Berlin. Kaiser Wilhelm was away on vacation during all of this, and had to cut it short and return home. The next day after his arrival, the French army massed several divisions along the border of the Saarland.  Kaiser Wilhelm's options were limited. Both King George V of Great Britain and Tsar Nicholas II  of Russia were his first cousins, yet neither wanted to even talk to him about what was going on. Contrary to what you may have been taught in school, Germany delayed taking any action for five days, desperately trying to work out some kind of peaceful resolution to the crisis. The last thing Germany wanted was a war, it's fortunes were very good at the time, it's businesses were taking market share away from both Britain and France. This was just one of the reasons for war though.

squid's picture

There is only one problem with your story.....

In 1914 soldiers walked and field guns were pulled by horses. In 5 days you could move a division MAYBE 100 miles. You're narrative assumes that the French has 5 division evenly spaces no more than 100 miles from the German frontier.

 

Sure they did.

 

Mobilizations in 1914 took months, not days.

 

The war was planned by the British and the russians.

 

Squid

short screwed's picture

Bank of England rigged a bond auction? I'm glad the Fed couldn't or wouldn't ever do that.

sirsmokum's picture

Always has been, always will be.

Racer's picture

In a book I read recently - A Very English Scandal by John Preston 2016 – about Jeremy Thorpe MP – includes details of him appearing with Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith MP (both of them were paedophiles)

Savile and Thorpe took part in a party political  broadcast together and one member of the audience asked “if it was every permissible to break the law in this country. Both men vigorously shook their heads. ‘ I believe that this country is a democracy where people have no excuse to break the law,’ said Thorpe. ‘There are sufficient democratic outlets without having so to do.’ Savile nodded his agreement.

At the time of this broadcast Savile’s  “sex-offending was at its most  prolific. As for Thorpe, he had repeatedly discussed ways in which Norman Scott could be murdered. According to Bessell, he had also just sold a peerage in return for a political donation  - and offence punishable by up to two years in prison”.

 

Moonrajah's picture

FT - Fake Times for 103 years. And proud of it.

yellowsub's picture

Americans are ingrained with believing and trusting corporations and gov't.

No matter what truths come out, they still live in denial and blindly believe in what they say.  

 

 

 

JailBanksters's picture

So what does this mean,

103 years of Fraud and still going.  And 103 years of Nobody going to Jail for Fraud on both sides of the Pond.

 

bardot63's picture

those wanting reparations for descendents of slaves should be asking for jail terms for current FT editors and reporters, for adding to the media bullshit that contributed to WWI. 

Solio's picture

With the banksters financing both side of the wars where are our central Ministries of Death?

adr's picture

What about the lie that the United States still exists?

Around the same time as England went bankrupt, the United States did as well. Both sold out to the Rothschild banking empire and became wards of the Baron.

hardmedicine's picture

same thing still going on today............ Yesterday they had a 'POLL": that said that over 60 percent of americans agreed with sending our troops into south korea if north korea attacked it.  I call total Bullshit ! on that.  I know that almos100% of americans want nothing to do with foreign adventures and do not want war anywhere unless it is brought to our own shores.  This is the function of the media and always has been.  They lie to us and tell us that their views are our own and then the average joe starts feeling like maybe he is not thinking straight.  It is all lies. 

 

LIES LIES AND MORE LIES. 

radbug's picture

I remember the minutes in the 1930's of the Whitehall Cabinet meetings, pertaining to the on-going reduction in, and evacuation of, Royal Navy resource commitment to the defence of Singapore, where was written on the margins, "Don't tell the Australians, don't tell the Australians!"