Was the Tsar of Russia right?

In this Link under the year 1863 you will see this:

Later this year, Tsar Alexander II gave President Lincoln some unexpected help. The Tsar issued orders that if either England or France actively intervened in the American Civil War, and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war. To show that he wasn't messing about, he sent part of his Pacific Fleet to port in San Francisco.
This wasn't because the Tsar was benevolent towards America, instead he was very clever. He, like Otto Von Bismarck in Germany, could clearly see what the money changers were up to, indeed he had already refused to let them set up a Central Bank in Russia. He understood if America was to come under the control of Britain or France, then America would be under the control of Central Bankers once again, and such an expansion of the bankers empire, would mean they would eventually threaten Russia.

Now consider this:

"They (Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Banks) financed Trotsky's mass meetings of discontent and rebellion in New York. They (Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Bank) paid Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They (Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Banks) fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors."

Lin; Second page, second paragraph on the left.

Could the Tsar of Russia been correct when he declared that he must make sure the United States does not fall to England and France (i.e. the Money Changers) because should America fall then Russia would inevitably fall to them as well (he kept them out).

It might have taken 50 years but was he right?

BUMP

does russia get its currency from a central back in return for debt that they wont have to worry about untill its time to enslave the debtors? makes it a pretty simple question then.

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
does russia get its currency from a central back in return for debt that they wont have to worry about untill its time to enslave the debtors? makes it a pretty simple question then.

Well acording to this link...

Link to the Russian Central Banks web page


They do have a central bank.
So, I'm guessing the answer
to your question is yes?


David Grouchy

Outstanding Thread...star and flag. This has absolutely piqued my interest and will be doing more research. Thank for taking the time to research this and post it.

I hope today's leaders realize how much they influence when they haphazardly get involved in military conflicts with the UN. But more importantly this is evidence to the threat of the central banks (industrial age and reconstruction benefited them greatly didn't it).

I do not buy the lame watered down popular historical version of the causes of the US Civil War. It was more about the exact same issues we are up against today: States Rights, Freedom for central Banks, Freedom from the Corporate Industrial complex.

Thanks again for posting.

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky


If you are a religious person I would strongly encourage you to research what happened between Jesus Christ and the money changers at the Temple. He threw them out for cheating the people and well that just could not be tolerated, they owned the high Jews and the Roman Government, together they knew that they had to kill him before he instigated a popular uprising against the money changers.

Julius Caesar was the first to challenge their power, they killed him. Jesus Christ then challenged their power, they killed him. See a reoccurring them here? Challenge them, you meet an untimely fate.

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" - first time i heard this line was in the usual suspects, but i can't help be reminded of it every time I think about america and it's 'close relation' to the UK...

was the tea party a false flag?

reply to post by Misoir


Thanks Misoir for this information, now it's got me thinking

S&F

So you wouldn't say this was a extension of the on and off wars raging between Britain, France and Russia?

The Crimea war took place only a few years beforehand and I feel sure Russia was predisposed to offer support to/request support from anyone who opposed Britain and France at the time.

So if either Britain or France had offered it's support to the South, then by extension Russia would be almost obliged to offer support to the North.

Bare in mind this is also the time of the "Great Game" which coined the adage, "he who controlled the ME controlled the world" Russia was/is, imho, no innocent in that it too, wants that kind of power/control.

reply to post by Misoir


please explain why both the UK and USA sent expeditionary forces to russia providing military support to the whites ?

Well, considering Trotsky was exiled and killed, I don't think it's right to insinuate that he expanded the bankers' "empire" into Russia. Traditionally speaking, Russia has always been reluctant to go along with the status quo.

reply to post by killuminati2012


The funding of Trotsky and the other Russian socialists wasn't to start Communism in Russia but to get Russia out of the war (WWI). This probably made the war last a full year longer by getting the Russians out.
Funny thing is the Federal Reserve did the same trick with Hitler, Mussolini and Japan - sending them money (before the start of WW2) to finance their fascist empires and imperial ambitions. Billions of dollars while Americans were starving in the streets and losing their homes.
Wars and chaos in general are very good for business as they create needs for loans and devalue things which they can buy up for pennies on the dollar.
The Washington Post was purchased by former Federal Reserve Chairman Eugene Meyer at a bankruptcy auction (bankrupted by the depression caused by Fed policies!)
The money changers are the cancer of humanity and have been since the time of Jesus.

reply to post by Misoir



1864: President Abraham Lincoln discovers the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II (1855 – 1881), was
having problems with the Rothschilds as well as he was refusing their continual attempts to set up
a central bank in Russia.

President Lincoln asks the Tsar for help in the Civil War and the Tsar sent part of his fleet to
anchor off New York and the other part off California.

The Tsar made it clear to the British, French and Spanish that if they attacked either side,
Russia would take the side of President Lincoln. Lincoln subsequently won the Civil War.

1865: In a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln states,

“I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institution in the
rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”

Later that year President Lincoln is assassinated.
Nathaniel de Rothschild becomes Member of Parliament for Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire.

furthermore in 1849: Gutle Schnapper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife dies. Before her death she would state,

“If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”

Sources (more than required)

The Life of Napolean – Sir Walter Scott - 1827

Coningsby – Benjamin Disraeli – 1844

The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers Of Nations – John Reeves – 1887

The Jews and Modern Capitalism – Werner Sombart – 1911

Pawns In The Game – William Guy Carr – 1937

Inside The Gestapo – Hansjurgen Koehler – 1940

Barriers Down – Kent Cooper – 1942

The Mind Of Adolf Hitler – Walter Langer – 1943

The Empire Of The City – E. C. Knuth – 1946

The Jewish State – Theodor Herzl – 1946

The Curious History of the Six-Pointed Star – G. Scholem – 1949

Tales Of The British Aristocracy – L. G. Pine – 1957

Red Fog Over America – William Guy Carr – 1958

The Rothschilds – Frederic Morton – 1962

Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet – Michael Bar-Zohar – 1967

None Dare Call It Conspiracy – Gary Allen – 1972

regards f

Regardless of what Russia is today; the Russia of the Czars was s different story entirely. Several World leaders have resisted the Global banking Cartel (such as it was and is today) and I think it can be said that ALL of them have experienced assassination attempts, if not assassinations.

Blackmail, violence, coercion, corruption, and vice.... these are the tools associated with the history of the controllers of the world .... And I don't mean states... I mean banks.... now you can add economic warfare, narco-terrorism, weapons dealing, fraud, racketeering, treason, and crimes against humanity according to many.

I wish someone would make a huge complete timeline of how the bankers took over the world. This has interested me greatly, and I'll be looking into this. Thanks S+F

reply to post by mr10k


Speaking of banks, here`s a link to the takeover of the cntral bank of Libya article

Found this story of Rothchilds timeline A long read.Rothschilds and banking

of course he was right. this is why they killed anastaia and her siblings. the rothschilds swore to murder the entire family for joining alongside the Republic.

the rothschilds are the biggest murderers in history it seems. (unless there is someone above them, and considering how their occult works, it would not surprise me.)

remember, hitler was the grandson of a rothschild. that family, and their occult religion, has decimated the planet. they funded stalin, who murdered millions of russians, yet all we hear about is how 'great' hitler was.

why do you think hitler is on tv every 20 minutes? because he is a rothschild! even their 'villains' are rothschilds.

and considering how much bullsnap is on the news today, everything 'revisionist' history tells me about w2 is faked. its all a scam.

until we free the world from the sons of soloman and the davidik blood line, we will be entrapped in death, murder, war and usury.

So could we assume the royal families rule in Russia ended at the hand of the banks in order to expand its control?

If I am not mistaken many of the righteous European Royal families were cheated and cast out by such institutions. To my knowledge they (bankers) used wars and assassinations and any means necessary to take the good and proper nobility from power. These nobles were often very fair and just people with vast land holdings, they would bring communities together in order to better the lives of the people in that region.

reply to post by TheRemedial


Thank you! Someone finally gets it! These Money Changers despised many royal families in Europe, especially the Russians and Otto von Bismarck, simply because they refused to let the Money Changers set up shop there. The real nobility fought tooth and nail to keep these people locked out and everywhere this was done the leader(s) ended up assassinated and all traces of nobility, aristocracy, and royalty were wiped out.

The worst thing a Money Changer can ever face is a Kingdom with wise nobility who are opposed to them and their government loved by the people. They have done a good job at convincing us all aristocracy and all nobility is evil and why? Because they cannot have any competition who is actually virtuous, they would never want you to know they are actually our oligarchy.

A republic can work, monarchy can work, and aristocracy can work, however the problem then becomes will your leaders have the strength to stand up to the world's mightiest powers?

To ignorant_ape, they have no problem fighting both sides of a war (that is what they always do), they just decide which side wins. They profit because both sides go into debt by financing their adventures through them, the money changers.