The Bankers War For The World

reply to post by Tuttle


Sources you say? the guy who wrote this was there, and supported the ideology. they disagreed with him making it public however.

dry reading, but if you can't believe someone on their side then who can you believe.

www.voltairenet.org...

Ed Griffin's "The Creature of Jekyll Island" is the definitive book re the subject though. incredibly well sourced and thorough. below is the first chapter with the sources removed by whoever decided to brand it as their own

www.spirit.kauwila.net...

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


I've been wondering the same thing! If these bankers engineer revolutions, wouldn't the next American Revolution be by their doing? Wouldn't they want a revolution? Have they created this "truth movement" to intentionally "awake" the masses with unseen information? I mean look at 9/11. WTC 7 is blatantly obvious. So is the Pentagon.

This really stinks because if these Zionists do engineer revolutions, what can we do? Peaceful revolution? We have too many people uneducated about central banking and some of the people in this country actually support Tyranny because they view Government as some sort of Father figure or Big Brother.

This is one of the most reductionist, simplistic arguments I have yet to see on this subject, and rabidly racist as well. Disraeli, incidentally, converted to Anglicanism rather early in life; he would never have been permitted to vote, never mind hold office, otherwise, as the laws mandating official Anglican worship had yet to be changed; Catholics were equally denied the vote in Britain, as were many Dissenters. William Wilberforce began the change in British society that eventually saw the overthrow of both the slavery and religion laws.

The author could have made far more hay with, for example, Lincoln, who was a lawyer for the railroads, and thus a tool for the New York banks and, as a consequence, the London banking consortium. Lincoln was far from stupid, and understood that he had multilateral backing; the greenback ploy was, in the end, just that, although he did have a distaste for central bankers--for good reason. The banks, in conformity with their typical playbook then and now, supported both sides, just as they did with Hitler, and, for that matter, Lenin, and the Revolution of 1917.
They can make money playing both sides, of course, but that is not the main issue, which is the accretion of power--i.e., that they will inevitably control the winning side. For a far more incisive view than mine on the creation of the Federal Reserve, see "The Creature from Jekyll Island," by G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal ...
www.amazon.com .

Originally posted by Tuttle
Well thats just not true, The Peoples Bank of China is not controlled by Rothschild, so you know. Best keep an open mind about these sorts of conspiracies and do not believe everything you read.

Neither is the Reserve Bank of Australia.... or the Bank of England!

Money As A Religion
The above-detailed process has become so ridiculous that William Grieder, former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, wrote a book in 1987 entitled, "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" that details how the Controllers have conditioned us to accept this absurd situation.

To modern minds," he writes, "it seemed bizarre to think of the Federal Reserve as a religious institution. Yet the conspiracy theorists, in their own demented way, were on to something real and significant. The Fed did also function in the realm of religion. Its mysterious powers of money creation, inherited from priestly forebears, shielded a complex bundle of social and psychological meanings. With its own form of secret incantation, the Federal Reserve presided over awesome social ritual, transactions so powerful and frightening they seemed to lie beyond common understanding.
"
Mr. Grieder continues, "Above all, money was a function of faith. It required implicit and universal social consent that was indeed mysterious. To create money and use it, each one must believe, and everyone must believe. Only then did worthless pieces of paper take on value.
"
Do you get it? MONEY is an ILLUSION! Why? Because the gold standard upon which our money is supposed to be based has been eliminated. There's no more gold in Fort Knox. It's all GONE! Now, money really IS only paper!!! In the past, money was supposed to represent something of tangible value.
Now it's simply paper!
Taken one step further, many of us don't even use paper money any more! Why? Well, here's a scenario. Many places of employment directly deposit their employee's paychecks into the bank. Once the money is there, when bill time comes around, the person in question can write out a stack of checks to pay them. Plus, when they need gasoline they use a credit card; and groceries a debit card. If this person goes out for dinner on Friday night, they can charge the tab on their diner's card. But what about the tip? They simply scribble in the amount at the bottom of the check. So far, the person hasn't spent a single dollar bill. Plus, if you bring electronic banking into the picture, we've virtually eliminated the use for money.
And, God forbid, what happens when encoded microchips are implanted into the backs of our hand?
In essence, money has become nothing more than an illusion - an electronic figure or amount on a computer screen. That's it! As time goes on, we have an increasing tendency toward being sucked into this Wizard of Oz vortex of unreality. Think about it. Americans as a whole are carrying more personal debt than in any other time in history. Plus our government keeps going further and further into the hole, with no hope of ever crawling out. But we have less and less actual MONEY! We're being enslaved by the debt of electronic blips on a computer screen! And 70% of the banks that control this debt via the Federal Reserve exist in foreign countries! What in God's name is going on? As author William Bramley says, "The result of this whole system is MASSIVE debt at every level of society.
"
We're getting screwed in a sickening way, folks, and the people doing it are demented magician-priests that use the ILLUSION of money as their control device. And I hate to say it, but if we allow things to keep going as they are, the situation will only get worse. Our only hope ... ONLY HOPE ... is to immediately take drastic action and remedy this crime.

Aaron Russo on The Federal Reserve & How to Shut it Down

"The Conscious Media Network - Free Video Interviews on Consciousness, Enlightenment and Human Potential. Question Everything."

www.youtube.com...





rip bro, thanks for being you

reply to post by DAZ21

F them!

Life is more than money, although I'm not overly pleased with the economic indentured servitude they've managed to engineer, as if there are two worlds, one, that of the working man, and two for the guy who has all the gold or who makes the rules.

We need to lay claim to power and freedom outside of their framework, that's my urging..

reply to post by Tuttle


The Rothschilds had banks in France and England that are ran separately . The Rothschilds have learned to finance wars , both sides . You can't loose that way . Start a war in a country , finance both sided and the country will be bankrupt and the bank owns the country and it's resources regardless who wins .

reply to post by Tuttle


The Chinese were taken in by the Bilderbergs when Nixon was told to bring them into the bunch by sending our jobs over there . The Chinese are used to the big economy and funds going into and out of China has to go through the World Banks and guess who runs them?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
and funds going into and out of China has to go through the World Banks

Care to back that claim up with some facts?

reply to post by DAZ21


Well you sure put that together. Nice research. The history lesson spot on. I like that Rothschild move on the markets with insider information on the Napoleon loss. Andrew Jackson proved he wasn't so good at banking. Lincoln had to finance a war and pursue vast internal improvement projects.

I think you didn't mention the rise of large corporations pooling resources requiring large accumulations of capital, a perfect inroad for those banks, and bankers.

I think the Jew twist on this might not serve you well. But Jewish or not the banks have taken on too great a portion of economic activity. Banks are not useless and every country needs one as our money system does need to managed. However like all the systems and people that work to bring us our current state of reality. They to need to be managed. And they hate this. They would rather have us out here railing about how this parasitic despicable group controls the world, than have us say, " Hey we need these guys but we have to really watch them. We need to use them. Not the other way around.".

reply to post by hellobruce


Nixon attended the Bilderberg meeting and was asked to go to China to bring them into the 20th century . He did and from there we lost mopst of our manufacturing jobs to them . All of the funds tansferred to or from them must pass through the World Bank or IMF. The World Bank is supposed to be a world operated bank . But the CEO is always Jewish and so was the IMF until recently with Legard and she too may be Jewish .The Federal Reserve is owned only by Elite Jewish families from what I read and is hand in hand with the World bank and IMF . China has been brought into the fold and subject to the same thing we are .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
All of the funds tansferred to or from them must pass through the World Bank or IMF.

Once again, do you have a source for that silly claim.... this is the 2nd time I have asked, you seem unable to supply one....

But the CEO is always Jewish

Source?

The Federal Reserve is owned only by Elite Jewish families from what I read

You really should not believe every silly conspiracy site.

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

I've been wondering the same thing! If these bankers engineer revolutions, wouldn't the next American Revolution be by their doing? Wouldn't they want a revolution? Have they created this "truth movement" to intentionally "awake" the masses with unseen information? I mean look at 9/11. WTC 7 is blatantly obvious. So is the Pentagon.

This really stinks because if these Zionists do engineer revolutions, what can we do? Peaceful revolution? We have too many people uneducated about central banking and some of the people in this country actually support Tyranny because they view Government as some sort of Father figure or Big Brother.

Some think what they're working towards is a Civil War to prevent an inevitable Revolutionary War. The government will be "forced" to create more Unconstitutional Legislation in order to "protect" us.

Peaceful Revolution is what we need. Iceland's government was overthrown by a bunch of angry citizens literally banging on pots and pans outside of their offices until they resigned. The same thing can happen in the US, but they don't want us to think that's a possibility. If it comes to that, they'll intentionally try and create a violent conflict because they know they can win that. But they can't win against a battle of words, because the Truth is on our side, and they know it.

Originally posted by Puckles
This is one of the most reductionist, simplistic arguments I have yet to see on this subject, and rabidly racist as well. Disraeli, incidentally, converted to Anglicanism rather early in life; he would never have been permitted to vote, never mind hold office, otherwise, as the laws mandating official Anglican worship had yet to be changed; Catholics were equally denied the vote in Britain, as were many Dissenters. William Wilberforce began the change in British society that eventually saw the overthrow of both the slavery and religion laws.

I also dislike it when everyone says it's the Jewish who control the world. Those in power are made up of many backgrounds, races, and religions. The only thing they have in common is their lust for money and power.

Originally posted by Puckles
The author could have made far more hay with, for example, Lincoln, who was a lawyer for the railroads, and thus a tool for the New York banks and, as a consequence, the London banking consortium. Lincoln was far from stupid, and understood that he had multilateral backing; the greenback ploy was, in the end, just that, although he did have a distaste for central bankers--for good reason. The banks, in conformity with their typical playbook then and now, supported both sides, just as they did with Hitler, and, for that matter, Lenin, and the Revolution of 1917.
They can make money playing both sides, of course, but that is not the main issue, which is the accretion of power--i.e., that they will inevitably control the winning side. For a far more incisive view than mine on the creation of the Federal Reserve, see "The Creature from Jekyll Island," by G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal ...
www.amazon.com .

It's true that they finance both sides of every major conflict. G. Edward Griffin thoroughly credits the book "The Naked Capitalist" which is a summary and review of Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope". In it the author talks about how the international banking cartel funded the Bolsevik Revolution which led to the formation of the Communist Party in Russia. McCarthy's crusade against Communists in the US Government was completely branded as lunacy (like 9/11 "Truthers", which is a planted derogatory term). However, there were actually hundreds of Communists working within our government at the time. Some had even refused to sign their Oath of Loyalty to the US Government and wrote "Fifth Amendment" instead.

Also, I read in Michael Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon" (the best book on 9/11) that the international banking cartel looted Russia for a trillion dollars or more when it collapsed. That was the real reason that there was such suffering there. All the property belonged to the community, yet the bankers decided to sell it all off and steal all that had been saved up for the Russian people.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Tuttle
Well thats just not true, The Peoples Bank of China is not controlled by Rothschild, so you know. Best keep an open mind about these sorts of conspiracies and do not believe everything you read.

Neither is the Reserve Bank of Australia.... or the Bank of England!

It's bad wording really... what should be said is that almost all nations on Earth have "Rothschild style" central banks because they were part of the elite banking families who initially promoted and established the style of private central banking we have now. The key point to keep in mind, is that these central banks are privately owned by shareholders, and they aren't true "state owned banks". Hence the saying that "the Federal Reserve is about as Federal as the Federal Express". They aren't entirely private, but what you might call semi-private, since the Government does often hold some shares in these central banks and select the directors of these banks, but there's no denying the reality of the situation.

Libya, until recently had a true state owned bank, before the rebels set up a conformist central bank a few months back. Syria still has a state owned bank I think, but who knows how much longer that will last. There aren't many other countries left that have state owned banks, Cuba and Iran are in the list. I took a deeper look into this subject not long ago, check out the link titled "intervention" in my signature to get a better understanding of what we mean when we talk about state owned banks.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
The key point to keep in mind, is that these central banks are privately owned by shareholders, and they aren't true "state owned banks".

Except for the Reserve Bank of Australia, and the Bank of England... there are no private owners for those. The same as the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, The Bank of Canada etc. All state owned.

reply to post by Puckles

Lincoln was far from stupid, and understood that he had multilateral backing; the greenback ploy was, in the end, just that, although he did have a distaste for central bankers--for good reason.

The greenback is a perfect example of a true state-owned currency. Without a central bank money doesn't have to be debt based (fiat money that is) and the Government doesn't have to go into debt just to put money into circulation. Lets see what the bankers had to say about the greenback:

"It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."

~ Letter by James Buel, Secretary American Bankers' Association, 1877

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

~ Hazard Circular, London Times, 1865

This is what Lincoln had to say about central banking vs state controlled currency:

"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."

~ President Abraham Lincoln, Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865

The part where he says "a currency as safe as their own government" probably doesn't hold as much water as it did back then, but I for one would prefer the Government to control the issuance of currency if my only other option is private bankers given complete control and virtually no oversight. At least the people in the Government are accountable for their actions and at least we have some degree of transparency and official oversight. Now obviously this isn't perfect, because who really trusts the Government these days any more than bankers.

What we really need is some way to control the issuance of currency, because when it comes to fiat currency the main problem is always inflation. We've been using fiat currency a long time so we know it works, the problems associated with fiat currency only appear when we abuse our power to create more and more of it, thus making it worthless. The best type of fiat currency would be one which has strict limits placed on how much of it can be created. In the case of a state-owned currency, we could do this with legislation.

Or what I think is an even better solution, we remove the central points of control. We decentralize the issuing power away from both the state and the private central banks. Bitcoin achieves this feat by making use of P2P technology. We now have a decentralized digital fiat currency where "bitcoins" can be transfered directly from person to person, to anywhere in the world, without the need to go through banks. Bitcoin is a fiat currency because there's nothing backing it, but it's also a limited quantity digital commodity.

This means that the amount of bitcoins which can ever be created and put into circulation is limited to 21 million coins (these units can be divided into smaller parts to provide granularity). New coins can be "mined" by anyone until we reach 21 million. However it's not cheap, easy or quick to mine new bitcoins, it takes a lot of electricity and computing power. This also makes bitcoin different from typical fiat paper money which is easy and cheap to print. I like to think of bitcoin as a sort of "digital gold".

reply to post by hellobruce

Except for the Reserve Bank of Australia, and the Bank of England... there are no private owners for those. The same as the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, The Bank of Canada etc. All state owned.

Yes but they are still "Rothschild style" because the way they operate is the same as the other conformist central banks, regardless of who owns them. It's the same old debt based crap.

edit: and I should add that the central banks themselves aren't necessarily the problem, it's the way they interact with the private banks which they serve. The debt based system they use benefits those who create the money and those who controls of it.

This is a very good video series which explains it better than I could (part 2 in particular is relevant to this discussion): Debunking Money Damon Vrabel

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Yes but they are still "Rothschild style" because the way they operate is the same as the other conformist central banks, regardless of who owns them.

Wrong, they are not "Rothschild style", whatever that means.

They operate like every other central bank - exactly how do you expect a central bank to operate?