All Wars are Bankster Wars

Excellent summary written and spoken by Michael Rivero of whats really happened and why all wars are instigated by the Banksters including WW1 and 2 and even the revolutionary war where Ben Franklin said:

"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution." -- Benjamin Franklin

A must listen for folks and well worth it!



Here is the article is based on if you prefer to read instead of listen:

I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest. After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.

"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution." -- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father
But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders. Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton. Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation's economy, while enriching the bankers. Congress refused to renew the charter and signaled their intention to go back to a state issued value based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker. This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most

whatreallyhappened.com...

FandS
add also
the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on cancer,...etc

reply to post by hawkiye

"Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most..........

INVOLVED IN A MOST??!!

Damn you for leavin me hanging... Damn you!!

...........

.....disastrous war." Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, "Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!"

S&F

I got something to watch tonight

Great read too!

So.....Genghis Khan was working for the central banks??

reply to post by Tuttle


i dont think hes talking about back in the day.

control the debt control the world?

Wish the Americans would stop thinking that king George actually had any real decision making powers, it was the greedy parliament who did all the work and all George had to do was sign it and that wasn't even optional for him

But pretty much every war thats occurred other than for something like sleeping with the queen etc has been about power and money is a form of power so we can say that those who hold the cash hold the power

Originally posted by Tuttle
So.....Genghis Khan was working for the central banks??

What's the difference?
Battles back then still were about riches and property. Just because they didn't have banks back then doesn't change the dynamics.

I see wars as being started by crime families.

Example: Bush/Cheney launch an illegal war on false pretenses, grab resources in Iraq, Cheney's Halliburton is awarded the rebuilding contracts -- after the US blows everything up. Yet neither man was arrested for war profiteering as should have happened.

In Afghanistan, nobody paid attention to the discovery of the huge deposits of extremely rare earth minerals in the mountains on the border of Pakistan; the research that ended up finding those deposits was sponsored by the Pentagon and Black Hawk helicopters provided security for the geologists doing the surveying. And it just HAPPENS that up until now China had control of most of the world's rare earth minerals, which are used in everything from cell phones to laptops to lightbulbs. And now the U.S. will have control of its own huge supply of these minerals. When we "invade" a country, it's all a resource grab, sponsored by various criminal factions aligned with powerful government and military leaders. Crime families, pretty much.

reply to post by FuturePeace

i dont think hes talking about back in the day

so NOT all wars were bankers wars then.

Gotcha!.

This is far too simplistic of a view. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

The banking institutions are but a means to sway the energies of their constituents from what they deem to be unworthy and/or unjust, to a more just and worthy cause.

In the context of western banking institutions, the agenda is to empire build away from eastern powers, and towards global influence.

Another agenda is to work in tandem with government institutions to create policies whose end goal is a shaping up of the society. It's covert eugenics.

The higher classes are appreciated from the sum total of these actions. The lowest classes are pressured into oblivion. The end goal is not to dominate everyone, just cause. It's to provide the necessary pressures to keep the people on a progressive path.

In the context of war, it is always multifaceted. You have geo-political strategy at play. If we are not to secure regional resources, other powers will. In this understanding, the regional wars are proxies for world wars not spoken. We not only establish central banks in these countries, but extract resources and give contracts to western pals. We spread western ideology, and implement puppet governments which are directed towards our bidding.

It's not just the elite who gain by these measure. Everyone who plays ball within this society, and is more than a useless breeder benefits. If you have a skill which you work well for, you will be compensated with USD, and those USD will be worth more primarily because we have superiority in multiple sectors, principally militarily.

This is the reality of "civilization". They have bounds. We are civil to our allies, and uncompromising to our enemies. You want something to blame? Start with the culture. Patriarchy is the reason we are at war with each other.

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by FuturePeace

 

i dont think hes talking about back in the day

so NOT all wars were bankers wars then.

Gotcha!.

Before the bankers started wars we had religion... Same deal...

A struggle for control of the masses

reply to post by Akragon


Not really the same deal though is it, refer to the post above yours for a more concise explanation of why it is not so black and white.

Was the 38 minutes Anglo-Zanzibar War a Bankster war?

Nope, didnt think so.

The Rothschilds have profited from almost every major war since 1800. Starred and flagged.

The relevant fact (uber relevant) is the the primary cause of the western worlds financial troubles TODAY is the central banks, and the people's necessity of paying interest on their own money. We cannot solve any financial problems until we stop paying mafia bankers. it's not about taxes or spending. It is about usury and violence. End the Fed. Nothing else will work.

Originally posted by Tuttle
So.....Genghis Khan was working for the central banks??

Its a figure of speech however actually he was the central bank he built the largest empire in history and imposed his taxes and monetary system on it...

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by Akragon

 

Not really the same deal though is it, refer to the post above yours for a more concise explanation of why it is not so black and white.

Was the 38 minutes Anglo-Zanzibar War a Bankster war?

Nope, didnt think so.

DId you listen to the video or read the article? My guess is no but if you do you might understand what is meant. Do you have something relevant to contribute to the thread instead of trying to nit pick how the phrase is used? if so please do.

The rich have always been in power, it's been that way for thousands of years.

People are naive enough to think wealthy people don't have a big impact in politics. But they do, some proposals go against them, and they will lobby, and try to buy their way into getting what they want, and they do 99% of the time. Nearly every media outlet is owned big huge corporations, and can feed you what they want you to hear. They own all of the important land, oil, food, and water. The U.S. and the world has been hijacked by banks and corporations. Things will never get better until we bring these places down for good, and get rid of their influence.

reply to post by hawkiye

DId you listen to the video or read the article? My guess is no but if you do you might understand what is meant. Do you have something relevant to contribute to the thread instead of trying to nit pick how the phrase is used? if so please do.

Well you guessed wrong!

I watched it exactly ten days ago in this thread here.

All Wars Are Bankers Wars

Posted in the Global Meltdown forum, enjoy!

And my point is conveniently ignoring tens of thousands of years of human warfare simply to blame it all on banks is ludicrous in the extreme.

Why not, instead of just posting someone elses ideas, come up with some of your own?

reply to post by Tuttle


Well he meant all wars since the revolutionary wars. And that is a perfectly valid use of the phrase despite your hand wringing. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion and appears to be just trolling. I did a search with that exact title and it did not come up but this is a different forum anyway and it is not a violation of the T&C to have the same topic in two different forums if they are relevant to each forum and obviously this forum has gotten it the attention it deserves since it is a rather grand conspiracy as opposed to the other thread. Now can we get back on topic please...

Search is your freind. This was already posted....

Look Here