[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part XIV[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"] World War I[/color][/size]
Power was not yet centralized to a tremendous extent. The Money Changers wanted more.
Now it was time for a war, a really big war.
In fact, the First World War.
Of course, to the central bankers the political issues of war don't matter nearly as much as the profit potential.
And [color="#ff0000"]nothing creates debts like warfare.[/color]
England was the best example at that time.
During the 119 year period between the founding of The Bank of England and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years and much of the remaining time she'd been preparing for war.
In WWI, the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French.
In America, J.P. Morgan was the sales agent for war materials for both the British and the French. In fact 6 months into the war Morgan became the largest consumer on earth spending $10 million a day. His office at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and salesman trying to cut a deal. It got so bad that the bank had to pose guards at every door and at the partners homes as well. Many other New York bankers made out as well from the war.
President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head The War Industries Board.
According to historian James Perloff, both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some $200 million during the war.
But profits were not the only motive.
There was also revenge.
[size="3"][color="#008080"]# The Bankers, Russia and Communism[/color][/size]
The Money Changers never forgave the tsars for the support of Lincoln during the civil war.
Also, Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give into the privately owned central bank scheme.
Three years after WWI broke out, the Russian Revolution toppled the tsar and installed the scourge of communism.
Jacob Shciff from the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. bragged from his deathbed that he spent $20 million towards the defeat of the tsar.
Money was funded from England to support the revolution as well.
Why would some of the richest men of the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so called capitalism that made them wealthy?
Researcher Gary Allen explained it this way:
[indent]"[color="#ff0000"]If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.... Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite[/color]"
[/indent]
As W. Cleon Skousen put it in his 1970 book 'The Naked Capitalist':
[indent]"Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power.... [color="#ff0000"]It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world[/color]... To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship."
[/indent]
But what if these revolutionaries get out of control and try to seize power from the super-rich?
After all it was Mao Tse Tung who in 1938 stated his position concerning power: "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun".
The Wall-Street London axis elected to take the risk.
The master planners attempted to control revolutionist communist group by feeding them vast quantities of money when they obeyed, and contracted supply or even financing their opposition if they got out of control.
Vladimir Lenin [color="#ff0000"]began to understand that, although he was the absolute dictator of the new Soviet Union, he was not pulling the financial strings.[/color] Someone else was silently in control:
[indent]"The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes."
[/indent]
Who is behind it ?
Representative Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, (throughout the 1920's and into the great depression years of the 1930's), explained it this way:
[indent]"[color="#ff0000"]The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers[/color].... The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board... acting through the Chase Bank..... England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government... The Dnieperstory Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks."
[/indent]
In other words, the Fed and The Bank of England, at the behest of the international bankers who control them, were creating a monster, one which would fuel seven decades of unprecedented communist revolution, warfare, and most importantly, death.
In case you think, there is some chance that The Money Changers got communism going and then lost control, in 1992 the Washington Times reported that Russian president Boris Yeltsin was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was been siphoned off "straight back into the coffers of western banks in debt service"
No one in his right mind would claim that a war as large as WWI had a single cause. Wars are complex things with many causative factors.
But on the other hand it would equally foolish to ignore as a prime cause of WWI those who would profit the most from the war.
[color="#ff0000"]The Money Changers[/color][color="#ff0000"] had a motive, a short range self-serving motive, as well as a long range political motive of advancing totalitarian governments, with them maintaining the financial ploughs to control whatever politician might emerge as the leader.[/color]
Next, we'll see what The Money Changers ultimate political goal is for the world.
Stay tuned...
Power was not yet centralized to a tremendous extent. The Money Changers wanted more.
Now it was time for a war, a really big war.
In fact, the First World War.
Of course, to the central bankers the political issues of war don't matter nearly as much as the profit potential.
And [color="#ff0000"]nothing creates debts like warfare.[/color]
England was the best example at that time.
During the 119 year period between the founding of The Bank of England and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years and much of the remaining time she'd been preparing for war.
In WWI, the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French.
In America, J.P. Morgan was the sales agent for war materials for both the British and the French. In fact 6 months into the war Morgan became the largest consumer on earth spending $10 million a day. His office at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and salesman trying to cut a deal. It got so bad that the bank had to pose guards at every door and at the partners homes as well. Many other New York bankers made out as well from the war.
President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head The War Industries Board.
According to historian James Perloff, both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some $200 million during the war.
But profits were not the only motive.
There was also revenge.
[size="3"][color="#008080"]# The Bankers, Russia and Communism[/color][/size]
The Money Changers never forgave the tsars for the support of Lincoln during the civil war.
Also, Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give into the privately owned central bank scheme.
Three years after WWI broke out, the Russian Revolution toppled the tsar and installed the scourge of communism.
Jacob Shciff from the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. bragged from his deathbed that he spent $20 million towards the defeat of the tsar.
Money was funded from England to support the revolution as well.
Why would some of the richest men of the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so called capitalism that made them wealthy?
Researcher Gary Allen explained it this way:
[indent]"[color="#ff0000"]If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.... Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite[/color]"
[/indent]
As W. Cleon Skousen put it in his 1970 book 'The Naked Capitalist':
[indent]"Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power.... [color="#ff0000"]It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world[/color]... To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship."
[/indent]
But what if these revolutionaries get out of control and try to seize power from the super-rich?
After all it was Mao Tse Tung who in 1938 stated his position concerning power: "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun".
The Wall-Street London axis elected to take the risk.
The master planners attempted to control revolutionist communist group by feeding them vast quantities of money when they obeyed, and contracted supply or even financing their opposition if they got out of control.
Vladimir Lenin [color="#ff0000"]began to understand that, although he was the absolute dictator of the new Soviet Union, he was not pulling the financial strings.[/color] Someone else was silently in control:
[indent]"The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes."
[/indent]
Who is behind it ?
Representative Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, (throughout the 1920's and into the great depression years of the 1930's), explained it this way:
[indent]"[color="#ff0000"]The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers[/color].... The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board... acting through the Chase Bank..... England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government... The Dnieperstory Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks."
[/indent]
In other words, the Fed and The Bank of England, at the behest of the international bankers who control them, were creating a monster, one which would fuel seven decades of unprecedented communist revolution, warfare, and most importantly, death.
In case you think, there is some chance that The Money Changers got communism going and then lost control, in 1992 the Washington Times reported that Russian president Boris Yeltsin was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was been siphoned off "straight back into the coffers of western banks in debt service"
No one in his right mind would claim that a war as large as WWI had a single cause. Wars are complex things with many causative factors.
But on the other hand it would equally foolish to ignore as a prime cause of WWI those who would profit the most from the war.
[color="#ff0000"]The Money Changers[/color][color="#ff0000"] had a motive, a short range self-serving motive, as well as a long range political motive of advancing totalitarian governments, with them maintaining the financial ploughs to control whatever politician might emerge as the leader.[/color]
Next, we'll see what The Money Changers ultimate political goal is for the world.
Stay tuned...