War and Peace
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
War has become a permanent fixture of human affairs. Human history has seemingly never known a period without its atrocities. With each century, the specter and scope of war grow more efficient and terrible; yet we never seem to learn history’s lessons on avoiding it. Like Tolstoy’s epic novel, we are swept away by events that no one is seemingly in control of. Certainly, from our limited vantage point, that may appear to be the case, but the historical evidence does not seem to square with that view. If one examines certain commonsensical principles—common denominators— through out history, it is easy to see how a relatively small coterie of individuals could not only benefit from the destruction and chaos of war, but manipulate and control it.
The first principle is simple and commonsensical enough: without money, there can be no modern warfare. After all, troops must be paid, equipment and food must be provided, and tanks, guns, swords, missiles do not grow on trees. Thus, from the first principle we can derive a simple conclusion: he who controls the money controls all organized warfare. So we find Kings taxing their citizens into oblivion in an effort to raise enough of an army in order to wage their many faceted wars. This method proved successful to a point, but a medieval serf did not know national loyalty, for his loyalty was with his feudal Lord, and thus it became a political game to see how a monarch would motivate his or her subjects to war and then supply them with the tools they needed, when they could not provide them for themselves.
European monarchs soon found themselves in a quandary: how to raise enough funds for war without taxing their citizens unto revolt? A new method was devised by the un elected sovereigns of the world for raising the funds they needed, by debauching the coin of their realm (watering it down, so to speak, with other base metals) they could effectively steal what funds they required and their subjects would be none the wiser. Of course, much like the modern debauchery known as the fiat money system, this debasement of the people’s money created a new economic phenomena heretofore unknown called inflation. A condition that slowly weakens a currency or money until it collapses in on itself, causing economic disaster. Henry VIII, John Law of France, ancient Rome, ancient Greece, Germany etc. found this out the hard way.
"I am of the opinion that the main and final cause why the prince pretends to the power of altering the coinage is the profit or gain which he can get from it; it would otherwise be vain to make so many and so great changes. I propose therefore to give fuller proof that such gain is unjust. For every change of money, except in the very rare cases which I have mentioned, involves forgery and deceit, and cannot be the right of the prince, as has previously been shown. Therefore, from the moment when the prince unjustly usurps this essentially unjust privilege, it is impossible that he can justly take profit from it. Besides, the amount of the prince’s profit is necessarily that of the community’s loss.”—Medieval philosopher/economist Nicole Oresme
This leads us to the second principle: he who controls the money supply (monetary power) controls the money. In other words, if a small minority of businessmen (goldsmiths or bankers) can establish themselves as arbiter between the people and their money (central bank) then they effectively control the economy of that country, its war efforts, and thus its government. Money talks, after all. This is why we find the phenomena of monarchs bowing to the whims of international bankers and goldsmiths throughout history. By controlling the supply of money, even a King must acquiesce to the will of the moneychangers. Most of the underlying reasons for the cataclysmic events of human history have been monetary in nature. Kings have been assassinated and wars have been waged against the people of a nation, all at the behest of the only class of citizens that has the resources to carry it all off, the moneychangers.
"[One of the most important aspects of achieving communist control is the] centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a [centralized] national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." -- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
As such, we find a new invention at the disposal of the leaders of countries for raising the revenues of war: central banking. A group of goldsmiths started loaning out credit on the gold that they were storing for their customers and modern banking was born. Soon, a group of merchants from the Netherlands had perfected a method of debt slavery for governments, and had successfully, through several deadly maneuvers, established their King on the throne of England. The Bank of England was born in 1694, and soon its model was exported across Europe and Asia, finding its way even to American shores in the form of the BUS (Bank of the US) and the Federal Reserve System. This last invention grew out of pure ignorance and greed, for a King or a government is perfectly able to do this themselves without the moneychangers, but the moneychangers made sure that no one understood this new method and used deceit and sometimes force in order to wrest control of the money from the people and their governments. This new method still produced inflation and it has destroyed nearly every economy that has tried it, but it still remains as the only method used by governments of today for funding war. It marks a usurpation of all property rights, as it is a form of socialist/fascist control over economies. The bloodiest century that this world has ever known (20 th century) would not have been possible without the invention of central banking.
The following extract is from Sir Archibald Alison's History of Europe:-
"The Prince of Orange(King of England and Ireland in 1689) brought from the Republic of Holland, where it had been already practised and thoroughly understood, the secret of governing popular assemblies and extracting heavy taxes from popular communities. . . . His whole efforts were directed to gain the majority of the constituencies by corruption, and of votes in Parliament by patronage. . . . It was then that the National Debt began; and government was taught the dangerous secret of providing for the necessities, and maintaining the influence, of present times by borrowing money and laying its payment on posterity."
As part of the deal that he had made with the moneychangers that allowed his ascension to the English throne, William of Orange III chartered the Bank of England, which allowed him to finance his war with France and to pay off old debts owed by the Crown from previous wars. Hence, the Bank of England, the worlds foremost central banking model, was conceived for the sole purpose of war; central banking was born of blood. There was no other reason for it, aside from the supreme power that it afforded the moneychangers that controlled it all.
With these basic principles in mind, we can easily understand the events of more recent history: the Napoleonic Wars, the American Revolution, WWI, WWII, the Cold War etc.. Does this sound far fetched? Consider the evidence…
Recall that England in 1764 had outlawed the creation of colonial scrip. This forced the colonists to sell bonds of indebtedness to the Bank of England and use its banknotes. "The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction," wrote Benjamin Franklin.
Author (A. Ralph) Epperson commented, "Franklin acknowledged that the cause of the Revolution was the resistance of the colonies to the idea of borrowed money, resulting in debt and inflation as well as interest payments, and not 'taxation without representation' as is commonly believed." Again, this is an issue that we of modern-day America are not supposed to consider, much less understand. Strangely, the Constitution is remarkably silent on the issue of monetary powers. Clearly, such a power is greater than the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches combined, so why the silence on the issue. Are we to believe that our founding fathers saw so much, but missed the most important issue of all, an issue that they were obviously all very familiar with? Perhaps this is what Patrick Henry referred to when he exclaimed, “I smell a rat!”
Faced with the staggering costs of the American Revolution, the colonists found that the unrestricted printing of money offered no lasting solution. In an attempt to avoid interest on the borrowed money, the new states began printing their own paper fiat money eventually called "Continentals." The total money supply grew from $12 million in 1775 to $425 million by the end of 1779. By that year the one-dollar Continental note was worth less than a penny, hence the old slogan "not worth a Continental." Thus we clearly find that the American Revolution stemmed from and was made possible through monetary powers.
We have the Napoleonic Wars that were clearly manipulated from behind the scenes financiers, such as the Rothschilds. Napoleon received financial backing from somewhere, and when this backing turned against him, he had this to say:
"The hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency: their sole object is gain."
Gold and other supplies were funneled to Wellington’s army and the rest is history, as they say. Certain financiers spread false rumors about the defeat of Wellington at Waterloo and vast fortunes were made in the financial markets.
Part of this broader European conflict was what Americans refer to as the War of 1812.
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
With that pronouncement, the charter for the First Bank of the US was not renewed. Five months later Great Britain invaded the United States in order to let the colonists know that the Bank of England was King.
After the war of 1812, the Second Bank of the US was established until it was put down by President Andrew Jackson, who had no love of the bankers declaring: "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."
Even the Civil War was mainly fought over monetary concerns, and not over the issue of slavery, which is commonly misunderstood. The North had never threatened the institutions of slavery where they already existed, and even the South stated emphatically that it was Northern aggression that they were fighting against. What kind of aggression? The moneychangers essentially controlled the highly industrialized North, and they had their eyes on the agrarian Southern prize. As Abraham Lincoln admitted in his First Inaugural Address, the North had never threatened the institutions of slavery where it already existed, and so the reasons for their secession were otherwise unknown.
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw Light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe... corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.” —Abraham Lincoln
Coincidentally, Bismark, Chancellor of Germany, made the following statement regarding Lincoln: "The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots, and [the MONEY-CHANGERS] went anew to grab the riches of the world. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance."
Lincoln attempted to distance America from the moneychangers during the Civil War by issuing government currency in the form of “Greenbacks”. The moneychangers realized the loss they would incur if, their paper money was replaced with "government paper-money". As a result, this is what they had to say about President Lincoln's issuance of a national paper currency, sometimes referred to as "Greenbacks.": "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origins in the North America Republic during the late war [Civil War] in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own paper money without cost. It will have ALL the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." ( London Times 1863)
After the Civil War and the death of Lincoln, the reconstruction era saw the rise of the money power in this country until its very culmination in the 20 th century.
Like the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks seemed to share the same financial backers and motivations. It is an established historical fact that Lenin and Trotsky received great financial and other assistance from Wall Street and European banking interests. Naval Intelligence investigated Paul Warburg, the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve board. This was in the United States Naval Secret Service Report of December 12, 1918: "WARBURG, PAUL: New York City, German, Naturalized citizen, 1911, was decorated by the Kaiser in 1912, was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, handled large sums furnished by Germany for Lenin and Trotsky. Has a brother who is leader of the espionage system of Germany."
"A detailed revue of the public debts of Europe shows interest and sinking fund payments of $5,343 million annually (five and one-third billion). M. Neymarck’s conclusion is much like Mr. Atkinson’s. The finances of Europe are so involved that the governments may ask whether war, with all its terrible chances, is not preferable to the maintenance of such a precarious and costly peace. If the military preparations of Europe do not end in war, they may well end in the bankruptcy of the States. Or, if such follies lead neither to war nor to ruin, then they assuredly point to industrial and economic revolution."-- Quarterly Journal of Economics, April 1887.
In 1913 the international banksters wrangled legislation through Congress giving them full monetary powers over the United States of America called the Federal Reserve Act. This Act, of course, established a Bank of England clone here in the US that allowed the international moneychangers to control America’s economic, and thus military future. A year later the world was on the threshold of a second Thirty Years’ War (1914-1945). A period marked by more blood than any other period in human history. I’m sure that if Tolstoy had lived to see this period, he wouldn’t have even been able to describe it. I don’t think that he would have wanted to. This period would not have been possible without the creation of the Federal Reserve System, for Europe was broke prior to 1913 and by 1914 European nations had all of the funding they needed to finish their mobilization for war.
1933 saw the posthumous rise of Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, both agents of the moneyed class. While FDR instituted his New Communist Deal for America in response to the Fed created Great Depression, finishing what the banksters had started in 1913, Hitler was creating programs of his own bringing the German economy back from the brink, almost over night. Of course, Hitler had plenty of help from the new owners of the American economy in the Prescott Bush managed Union Banking Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, and many more (this is part of the Congressional record.) Not to mention all of the gold that was confiscated from the American people and shipped across Europe by our lovely Federal Reserve.
"After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the international bankers. Those bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control all her public utilities.
The international German bankers have subsidized the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up threat to the government of Bruening.
When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission...
Through the Federal Reserve Board over billion of American money has been pumped into Germany. You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany...
Modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total."
Congressman Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) who served twelve years as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency.
In the aftermath of WWI and WWII, a new kind of covert war seemed to rear its ugly head known as the “Cold War”. Of course, central to the theme of the Cold War were nuclear weapons and the assured mutual destruction upon their use. Both sides seemed content to maintain the pretext that they would use their nuclear weapons if such a need arose, while running up huge deficits under another pretext that the bigger the arsenal, the better. A series of seemingly nonsensical wars were fought in places like Korea and Vietnam, all the while America was financing her enemies. Yeah, that’s right, we kept the Soviet Union afloat, while supplying them with nuclear and other technologies: all for the manufacture of a phony war. This all begins to make sense when you realize that the international banksters of the world were making a fortune funding both sides of this ridiculous farce of a conflict. There is, after all, no greater way to make money for an international banker than war. A Patriot missile alone costs a million dollars. Create a false pretext by which nations can continually stockpile expensive weapons for a possible future war, and you have the makings of a money machine, and a tool for bringing Eastern Europe to its knees before the world banksters through the manifestation of the Soviet Block. Make no illusions… the US did not win WWII; the Soviet Union did with our considerable help. When FDR gave the Soviets our nuclear secrets and handed millions of European lives over to human slavery under the Soviet boot, it was not for the benefit of Americans. When American interests helped overthrow the Democratic Chinese government and supplant it with a communist regime, it was not for the benefit of Americans. The Cold War era is as phony and contrived a war era as can be seen.
“Following World War II the U.S. embargoed arms shipments to the Nationalist Chinese, and brought Chairman Mao's regime to power  The U.S. embargoed arms shipments to Cuba, ordered President Batista to leave, and brought Fidel Castro to power  The U.S. embargoed arms shipments to Nicaragua, told President Somoza to leave, and brought the Sandinista to power. CIA officials met with the Ayatollah Khomeini before the Iranian revolution. The U.S. undermined the Iranian government, told the Shah to leave, and brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power  The U.S. embargoed arms shipments and essential supplies to Rhodesia, and brought Robert Mugabe's Maoist government to power.  Why did the U.S. destabilize many pro-western governments, and bring Marxist governments to power? Why is the U.S. undermining the democratically elected government of Nepal today?”—Stanley Monteith, PhD.
The historical record suggests that every war over the past four hundred years has been waged under false pretense, and to the benefit and manipulation of a small faction of international financiers. The Cold War era that saw American children undergo nuclear bomb drills at school, and parents building bomb shelters in their backyards, was completely manipulated by the moneyed class, as is shown by the actions of this class, according to the Congressional and public record.
Congressman McFadden maintained, "The Soviet government has been given U.S. Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Banks acting through their Chase Bank and Guaranty Trust Co. and other Banks in New York City. Open the books of Amtorg, the Trading Organization, and the State Bank of the Soviet Socialist Republic and you will be staggered to see how much money has been taken from the U.S. Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out what business has been transacted for the State Bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York." (Congressional Record June 15, 1933)
Congressman John Ashbrook, informed his colleagues of the irony of the U.S. trade with the U.S.S.R. when he declared, "It is ironic that while American businessmen are trading hundreds of millions of dollars with the Soviet Union, the Administration is asking for an increased defense budget to meet Soviet military threat - a threat which, in part, is being built up with American technology." (Congressional Record, March 6, 1974)
In his book, "National Suicide", Professor Sutton, points out, "The military potential of the industrial plants which we are building for the Soviets should be obvious to anyone. Trucks, aircraft, oil, steel, petrochemicals, aluminum, computers, etc. - these are the very sinew of a military industrial complex. These factories, the product of American genius and financed by American capital could have been built in the U.S. Instead, they are constructed, at the U.S. taxpayers expense, in the Soviet Union where the labor is cheap . . . it was primarily U.S. technology that kept the Bolsheviks on their feet after their 1917 coup d' eta that maintained them through the Depression, and that has kept them alive to this date . . ."
Congressman Steve Symms declared, "Few Americans fully appreciate the extent to which their tax dollars are being used to finance their own destruction. United States loans to the Soviet Union through the bank now total over 760 million dollars . . . U.S. tax dollars are not only propping up a ruthless dictatorship but are helping to arm our enemy to the teeth . . . It would long ago have died a natural death, had it not been for repeated injections of lifeblood that are still being pumped into it today. . . Modern day liberals often refer to these kinds of suicidal giveaways as `meaningful cooperation in the spirit of detente' It use to be called treason." (American Security Council, Washington Report, March 11-15, 1974)
Congressman Philip Crane declared, "To provide the Soviet Union with the sophisticated technology it needs to surpass us, while not demanding any concessions in return, and subsidizing the transaction in addition is a one-sided policy designed solely to our own detriment." (Congressional Record, July 10, 1973,)
Congressman Richard Ichord, former Chairman of the House Committee on Internal Affairs proclaimed, "We are especially alarmed that the bank is on the verge of granting $49 million in credit to the Soviet Union for exploration of Eastern Siberian gas fields. We believe that American financing of Soviet gas exploration at this particular time in history, smacks not only of poor business judgment but suggests a disregard for our national security. Every nation's defense capacity is directly related to its energy resources. The real question is why do we spend some $80 billion a year to maintain such a large military establishment . . . This has enabled the Soviet Union to engage in the largest peacetime military buildup in the history of man. We cannot afford to adopt any trade or credit policies that will allow the Soviets to further expand their military machine." (American Security Council, Washington Report, February 1974)
Senator Richard Schweiker maintained, "Lending America capital [to the Soviets] at low interest for such projects [oil exploration] when there is an energy crisis in the United States . . . When Congress is depreciating the dollar at 5% per year, you have to charge 10% to make five. If the buyer borrows at 6% for five years, and in that period of time the dollar has depreciated 25%, the borrower only paid 1% per year for his loan." (Congressional Record, February 19, 1974)
Congressman Earl Landgrebe said, "I would say that America is walking right into this situation and actually prolonging the control of the good people of Russia, and the Russian people are good people. But, as I say, they are under slavery by their Communist rulers. And when we make these deals with the Communist rulers we are perpetuating the slavery of the Russian people." (Congressional Record, July 10, 1973)
The Soviet Union was "allowed to purchase unassembled U.S. battleships. Carbon copies of American battleships were assembled in the Soviet Union, according to plans drawn up by American naval architects." (Congressional Record, October 3, 1975)
Congressman Larry McDonald declared, ". . . The United States has provided $1,033,4000,000 in foreign aid and assistance to the Soviet Union from 1946 through 1974. Presumably this was done under authority other than the Foreign Assistance Act, which prohibits such aid . . . The major areas of technical assistance to the Soviet Union, which have been directly or indirectly used in military applications are: (1) weapons, including explosives, ammunition and guns; (2) tanks, trucks and armored cars; (3) ships; (4) airplanes; (5) space technology; (6) missiles; and (7) computers." (House Report 94-53, March 10,1975)
On April 12, 1981, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Today, sophisticated U.S. technology is reaching the Soviet Armed Forces nearly as fast as it is being developed by the U.S. The technology is being shipped to Russia in boxes marked air conditioners, washers and dryers. As a result Senate Banking Plan Chairman, Jake Garn (R-Utah), and others warn the U.S. must spend billions to counter Soviet Military might born of U.S. technology."
Congressman McDonald spoke these words to other members of congress, "Most Americans are staggered upon learning that the U.S.S.R. has been the No. 1 beneficiary of the U.S. aid this century . . . All of this certainly destroys the accepted view that the United States has an anti-Communist foreign policy." (Congressional Record Oct. 3, 1975)
Senator Kenneth Keating, acting chairman in an investigation of "Soviet Oil East-West Trade" said, "The free world, while concentrating on communist military threats, appears to be oblivious to these Soviet economic threats. As long as we maintain a military stalemate with the Reds, the economic aspects of the cold war actually may be a more decisive in determining whether freedom or tyranny will prevail than the military aspects." (U.S. Senate, Second Session, July 3, 1962)
The Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, released a report on Oct. 26, 1962 which stated the following, "Our investigations to date have established that over a period of many years, the free world has been making a direct contribution to the Communist military and industrial strength by sales of vital materials and technology to the Soviet Bloc . . ."
Congressman Thomas Dodd, maintained, "It would be a ridiculous and suicidal for Americans to contribute in any way to the Soviet strength . . .
Personally, I believe there should be a presumption against any exports to the Soviet Bloc. I don't believe there is a sharp distinction between economic and military items as is assumed, since anything we furnish to the Soviets in the ways of economic goods helps them concentrate their efforts on military production." ("Export of Strategic Materials to the USSR and other Soviet Bloc Countries", 87th Congress, October 23, 1961)
Congressman Rarick best summarized the extent of damage to U.S. national security when he said, "The factories and steel mills that U.S. aid built in Russia were later used to create the munitions that killed American GI's in Korea and Vietnam." (Congressional Record, June 27, 1973)
Professor Harold Pease maintains, ". . . if today the Soviet Union poses as the greatest threat to human freedom known in the history of the world, we have the haunting fact to face that we made her so. She is our doomsday machine." ("The Communist-Capitalist Alliance")
The following act of Treason is also a matter of record, "The government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union." (Congressional Record, August 31, 1960)
If you are wondering who is the prime supporter of this entire aide going to the Soviets? I think the following article entitled "Eaton's Join Rockefeller's To Spur Trade with Reds" that appeared in the January 16, 1967 issue of the New York Times, will provide you with part of the answer.
"An alliance of the family banking fortunes linking Wall Street and the Midwest is going to try to build economic bridges between the free world and Communist Europe. The International Basic Economy Corporation, controlled by the Rockefeller Brothers, and Tower International, Inc. Headed by Cyrus Eaton, Jr., Cleveland financier, plan to cooperate in promoting trade between the Iron Curtain countries, including the Soviet Union, and the United States, Canada, and Latin America [NAFTA?]. The I.B.E.C. was organized in 1947 under the principal direction of Nelson Rockefeller . . .
The Joint effort contemplated by I.B.E.C. and Tower is seen as combining the investment skills and resources of the Rockefeller's and the special entree to Soviet bloc officialdom that Tower enjoys largely as a result of contacts cultivated over the last 15 years by Cyrus Eaton, Sr. The elder Eaton has been an outspoken advocate of closer ties between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. He has backed his convictions by visiting Russia and entertaining high Soviet leaders - including former Premier Khrushchev . . .
`As you can imagine', Eaton said, it is almost impossible for a Russian to walk into the research department of an American aerospace company and try to arrange the purchase of a patent."
As Former Secretary of Navy, James Forretal declared, "Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor . . . If all of their mistakes are honest mistakes, why do they always help the enemies."
And all this time the American people thought that the Soviets were the bad guys. I have to agree with Cicero and Douglas McArthur; our greatest enemy is the enemy within, the enemy that has the money powers of this country.
Are you seeing an alarming pattern here? Every time there is a major conflict across the globe, the moneychangers have their stench all over it. In each instance one class stands to benefit greatly, both financially and politically. By creating chaos and fear, the moneyed cartels can keep the attention of the masses fixed on irrelevant issues other than themselves. No one seems to notice the man standing behind the curtain because they are too busy building bomb shelters for wars that will never come, watching government controlled television or working off the massive debts owed by their ancestors to the international money cartels.
It would seem that today’s wars are just as falsely contrived as the wars of yesterday. The same moneyed class stems to benefit from the continued fear-induced control of the populace through the manufactured chaos of war. It would seem that the same games are being played with the current Iranian nuclear fiasco, which seemingly has defied all logic. Dr. Stanley Monteith in an article The Secret Agenda part 1 noted:
“I believe U.S. foreign policy is designed to confuse the American people and national leaders who are unaware of the Spiritual Hierarchy's plan to "establish an enlightened democracy among the nations of the world." The tragic situation in the Middle East is an excellent example of that strategy. If you analyze the events taking place, they defy logic. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the newly elected President of Iran, has announced his country will continue enriching uranium despite the objections of the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), the UN, the U.S., Israel, and many other nations.
President Ahmadinejad could have agreed to negotiate the issue, and covertly continued Iran's nuclear program, but he didn't. He spurned Russia's offer to provide enriched uranium, he rejected the UN's offer to negotiate the dispute, he "called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,'" he denied the Holocaust took place, and suggested "the Jewish state should be moved to Europe." President Ahmadinejad seems to be trying to inflame the passion of the Israelis, and their allies in the United States. Why would a rational man risk imposition of UN sanctions on his country? Why would a logical man encourage a pre-emptive attack on his nation? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insane? Is he demented? Is he affiliated with the Spiritual Hierarchy that controls most governments?
Indeed, nothing about the current escalation of this crisis in the Middle East makes any sense, until one views some of the monetary concerns taking place in the background. Last month Iran announced that it would be taking its oil exchange program off of the dollar standard and replacing it with the euro. Days later Iran was recommended to the UN Security Council and the odd rhetoric coming from both sides reached a fevered pitch.
Coincidentally, Iraq reached a similar decision just before we invaded them in 2003. Months after we had taken the country over, the Iraqi oil burse was placed back onto the dollar standard, and the American economy seemed to get an infusion of renewed energy that it had lost following the events of 9/11.
Not to mention the mounting evidence against the official government story concerning 9/11. Several scientists, structural engineers, talk show hosts, high profile actors, government officials, and even the underwriters of the World Trade Center itself, have questioned the seemingly ridiculous official story rendered by our government. Calls from the families of the thousands of victims of this atrocity for an independent investigation into these matters have gone ignored, while those that have had the guts to publicly question the official government led 9/11 Commission story have been denounced as lunatics without any consideration of the evidence. Meanwhile, video footage of 9/11 is conspicuously, not allowed to be shown on network television. One has to wonder what secrets they are hiding? Perhaps it is the visually discernable fact that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition and not by fire? A slew of facts are clear from all of this, the moneychangers are having a party with the terror scare alerts, the passage of the Patriot Act, the never ending “War On Terror”, and the perpetual state of fear and terror that has us at their mercy. You have Halliburton and its subsidiaries, along with a host of other government contractors, crisscrossing the globe profiting from the spoils of war, and oil companies making record profits due to manufactured shortages.
"I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."- Paul Craig Roberts, Former Assistant Secretary of Treasury under Reagan
"What I saw on September 11 was a perfectly executed act that could have happened only with the support of intelligence services."-Andreas Von Buelow, former German Secretary of Defense
"Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday...As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."- General Anatoly Kornukov, Commander in Chief of the Russian Air Force
"...when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews? Why did the President just sit in the schoolroom when he heard the news?"- Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defense
"We simply cannot ignore the fact that elements of the US government at the highest levels may have committed treason and mass murder by purposely allowing 9/11 to happen."- Dr. Robert Bowman, United States Air Force (Retired), Archbishop, United Catholic Church
"This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years."
- Dr. Johannes Koeppl, a former German Defense Ministry official and NATO advisor
"This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination"
- Michael Meacher, British MP, Environmental Minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Then there are the simple facts that Osama Bin Laden worked for the CIA, that Muslim terrorist groups do not get their money, arms, supplies and intelligence information from magic lamps, Saddam Hussein was built up by American money, and that when the US government gives foreign aid to third world countries, it is not going to buy food and clothing for the poor.
If you want to know what is going on in the world, just follow the advice of “Deep Throat” from the movie All The Presidents Men: “follow the money.” What ever the official government press released version of events may be, look to the background and follow the money in order to determine the truth. It is clear that our Founding Fathers saw the need for checks on the money powers of our government. Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin etc. all made note of it; but for some unknown reason they left the back door to this Herculean government power ajar. It receives a tiny mention in Art. I section 8 and section 10 of our Constitution, where Congress is given the power to coin money and set the value thereof, and the States are prohibited all together to coin money or recognize anything but gold and silver as legal tender. In the 1886 case Norton vs. Shelby County the Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” When Congress handed over its monetary powers to a small coterie of private bankers in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, it was a clear violation of the US Constitution in Art. I sections 8 and 10. Such a menacing power should never be in any other hands but the people. Such an all-encompassing issue, the very right of the people to the fruits of their labor, should not have been ignored by the framers of the Constitution. To see so far and miss so much at the same time, is a travesty inherited by the future generations of this great country. Alexander Del Mar, the great monetary historian and once head of the US Bureau of Statistics, described this result in his 1899 book THE HISTORY OF MONEY IN AMERICA:
"Never was a great historical event followed by a more feeble sequel. A nation arises to claim for itself liberty and sovereignty. It gains both of these ends by an immense sacrifice of blood and treasure. Then when victory is gained and secured it hands the national credit - that is to say a national treasure over to private individuals, to do as they please with it! ... Americans of the revolution had before them ... the historical examples of Greece and Rome. In all these states the main contention from first to last between the aristocratic and popular factions arose out of and centered in the monetary system; that greatest of all dispensers of equity or inequity. ...
They had only to take care that the seed they planted was genuine and uncontaminated. Nature was certain to do the rest. Well they planted; and now look at the fruit and see what it is that they planted! They planted financial corporations ... they planted private money ... they planted financial exemptions from public burdens...In a word they planted another revolution."
Perhaps with a broader viewpoint, Tolstoy’s epic historical narrative of average people being swept away by seemingly random and terrible events would reveal that the underpinnings of those events were in fact all part of an elaborate plan; a device of the monetary powers; a device, whose terrible power lies in its attributes that are unseen and misunderstood. Like wind, we feel its effects sure enough, but we know not what makes up its substance. It is time to educate our selves as to the nature of this mighty power.
by Ryan Bradfield
4. Secrets of the Federal Reserve: the London Connection by Eustace Mullins
6.http://www.fame.org/HTM/Edwin Vieira Speech to the Rotary Club of NY 3-25-03.htm