UK Column Live - 31st July 2013

Obama: Craven Puppet of Racist Israel

Beauty Will Save The World (playlist)

Brian Gerrish ( UK column ) Explains the whole planned destruction of Br...

Sinking Sands: How resort for Londoners turned into worst place to live ...

Immigrants get better education, jobs than native Brits - report States

Reuters / Stephen Hird

Reuters / Paul Hackett

Immigrants get better education, jobs than native Brits - report

Reuters / Toby Melville

From RT

A new report on UK immigration has dispelled old beliefs that newcomers are mostly low-educated workers. A greater number of foreigners get higher degrees and better jobs than native Britons, figures released by the Office for National Statistics show.
Unlike widespread stereotypes, nearly 90 percent of foreign nationals living in the UK speak English very well, the data revealed. 3.6 million foreign nationals aged three and over reported that they "could speak English well, very well or as their main language."

Only 1.7 percent (70,000) of foreign nationals reported that they could not speak English at all.

Twenty-one percent of foreign nationals were employed in banking, finance and insurance, compared with 17 percent of UK nationals. Thirty-eight percent of foreign nationals gained qualifications at degree standard or higher, compared with 29 percent of natives, according to the Office for National Statistics.

“UK nationals were more concentrated in the public administration, education and health sector [29 percent], compared with foreign nationals [23 percent],” the ONS report showed; the census was taken in March 2011.

Many were found to be in the UK to study, with the proportion among foreign nationals “more than double that of UK nationals: 17 percent compared with 8.1 percent.” The difference, the report said, “is partly related to the younger age structure of the foreign national population.”

Meanwhile, a recent analysis by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) confirmed that immigrants actually give more than they take.

According to recent opinion polls, cited in OECD latest report, about 50 percent of citizens in European countries and in Canada believe that immigrants contribute less in taxes than they receive in health and welfare services and that "they are a big burden on the public purse," supported by higher taxes paid by native-born citizens.

"Migration represents neither a significant gain nor drain for the public purse. Immigrants are pretty much like the rest of the population," the report concluded.

The ONS report also showed that the majority of both UK and foreign nationals aged 16 and over were "economically active [64 percent and 65 percent respectively] and in employment [61 and 60 percent]".

For those in employment, foreign nationals were most concentrated in professional (20 percent) and elementary occupations (19 percent) while UK nationals were most concentrated in professional (18 percent) and associate professional and technical occupations (13 percent), the ONS findings revealed.

Earlier this week anti-immigration campaigners from independent think-tank Migrationwatch UK said that the number of immigrants arriving in the UK from the European Union was undercounted by half a million over a 10-year period, "a difference the size of Manchester."

The mistake was discovered by the ONS when they compared the results of the recent census with the population that they had expected to find on the basis of births, deaths and the official immigration figures.
 
This discovery means that net foreign immigration between mid-1997 and mid-2010 now totals very nearly 4 million, according to Migrationwatch UK. Allowing for the 1 million British citizens who emigrated in that period, net immigration comes to 3 million. The revised numbers would show that net immigration reached a peak of 325,000 in 2005 – six times the level of 1997. By 2010 it had fallen to 260,000.
 
“Four million immigrants in 13 years is an astonishing figure – the highest in our history, including the Norman Conquest in 1066. This new information underlines the scale of the task faced by the present government in getting the numbers down,” chairman of Migrationwatch UK, Sir Andrew Green, said.

Migrationwatch has called on the Statistics Authority to insist that the official figures be revised.

“There is no point in burying bad news in obscure documents. That simply destroys trust. It is hard to think of set of statistics that is more important to the public,” Green added.

UK Column Live - 26th July 2013

The debt time bomb that is Britain.

Unfunded Liabilities Crisis Is Upon Us NOW! You MUST Own Gold & Silver. ...

Labor saving: UK rising rich & poor gap fueled by immigration

Britain's Left Wing Education Shame

The Difference Between Putin and Obama. - You Got to See This!!

Why I Left Judaism (playlist)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/birth_of_a_racist.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/birth_of_a_racist.html

 

Birth of a Racist

By Sally Zelikovsky

When I awoke this morning and looked at myself in the mirror, I realized that I had undergone a fundamental transformation -- a  Kafkaesque metamorphosis.  I was no longer myself.  I had become...a racist.
I didn't do it to myself.  I've always been sensitive to race.  I don't support racism or racists.  I've never considered myself racist and don't think others would consider me a racist.  How could I be one now? 

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs.  I don't think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either. 

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person -- no matter how justified my actions might be -- there is a presumption that I am a racist.  

I don't like it at all.  It isn't true.  But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I've been assigned.  My actions and beliefs are irrelevant.  Society has decreed this is who I am.   

Like alien pods taking control over our slumbering bodies, unstoppable forces have gradually been redirecting our programming as a society so that any time a minority is harmed or disliked by a white person, the precipitating cause of the harm or dislike is ipso facto racism.

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong -- no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

Most of us didn't grow up this way.  Quite the opposite.  I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.  Didn't Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by "the content of his character, not by his color of his skin"?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one's way, has been building over years.  This isn't news to any of you.   Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications.   Even if you have pages and testimony to bolster your decision, you still could be confronted with an unpleasant lawsuit identifying you as a "discriminator." 

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time.  We have become a hyper-racial society.  Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as "racist," we will do anything -- including keeping incompetents in our employ -- to avoid the moniker.

Nevertheless, as careful as many whites are to avoid doing anything that would saddle us with such epithets, time and time again it is thrust upon us with the goal of serving someone else's purpose -- regardless how we actually conduct ourselves.

• If you don't like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.
• If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn't helpful, you are a racist.
• If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.
• If you disagree with a black President's ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.
• If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

Whether or not he did or did not provoke the confrontation with Trayvon, it's hard to believe the wimpy George Zimmerman's last thoughts were "I'm going to kill a black man because I don't like blacks" as opposed to "This guy is bashing my head in and I better do something before I lose consciousness."

In trials like this -- where you have one-on-one action with little else to go on -- and you want to prove racism, you are either forced to (1) look at surrounding evidence, statements and circumstances and try to re-construct what you think the state of mind or intent of the accused was, or (2) intuit what the accused was thinking, in other words, jump into his mind and make the leap from assumption to assumption.   

While there was a credible eye witness who saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman,  if hate is to be the crime on trial, then we are compelled to examine the thoughts of the perpetrator and the victim, even though we have no way of ever knowing what they really were.  Until we can read someone's thoughts as if they were files on a computer, we are treading into dangerous territory.

These are the kind of cases that try men's souls.  For lawyers, judges and jurors, they are the hardest to prove, preside over and cast a verdict on.   Because we are a system that errs on the side of innocence, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and lays that burden on the accuser, these cases usually don't result in warm comfort for anyone -- especially the family of either the accused or the victim.  No one really wins; everyone feels like they lost; the victim's family doesn't get closure; the accused can never live in peace in a hyper-racial society; and the public is unsettled because any one of us, at any time, of any color, could be either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.    

On top of all this, some in the public -- MSNBC, loonies on the left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the minions they have summoned to protest -- want us to further restrict the self-defense laws that protect all of us in these situations. 

This means it would be even harder for you to shoot an intruder or rapist or pedophile when protecting yourself or your family.  This means people will hesitate before coming to the aid of a neighbor or being a Good Samaritan.  This means when someone robs your store at gunpoint, you have to succumb to injury or death.  This means when your daughter or son is raped, they must yield and never fight back because self-defense will no longer be available to them. 

This would be a return to the lawlessness of the Wild West where anything goes and your only justice is revenge.  Call it feudal, barbaric, mob rule or lawlessness: either way, it is the unraveling of the criminal justice system in America and a giant step back for mankind.  

Do we really want to throw the self-defense baby out with the racism bathwater?

Most of these cases are admittedly hard to prove -- that's why our system errs on the side of innocence.  It's better to let a guilty man go free than incarcerate an innocent one.  If you were the accused, believe me, this would be your mantra.

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense.  Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America.  If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn't clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun. 

We will be cutting off our self-defense noses to spite our racial anger faces.  This all stems from intense vitriol for past sins most of us had nothing to do with and would never condone.  The sins of America's past are being visited upon America's present and future regardless of the sensibility of doing so.  My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed.  Every reasonable human being feels this way.  But this continued pay back has to stop. 

This is not exclusive to race.  Gay activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes.  Gay students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals.  If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic.  If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic.  If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic.  If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic.  If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic. 

If a gay man tries to rape a straight man and the straight man accidentally kills the gay man while trying to ward off the rape, he must be homophobic.  There is no room for self-defense if the perp-turned-victim is gay and the accused is not.  (See the case of Steven Nary.)

And, as we have seen in the media's reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white. 

Now that I am a racist, I see things more clearly and realize all of this can trickle into every aspect of our lives.  White people will be increasingly afraid to speak their minds and will be concerned that their interactions with other races might come back to haunt them one day because, anything we do that negatively impacts a minority must be rooted in hate.  Thus:  

• If a Hispanic man cuts me off on the highway and I flip him the bird, I flipped him off because he is Hispanic, not because he was a jerk and cut me off -- making me a racist.
• If an Asian waitress has a lousy attitude, provides rotten service and I decide not to tip her, I withheld her tip because she's Asian, not a lousy waitress who didn't earn her tip -- making me a racist.
• If a black doctor amputates the wrong limb on my body and I sue him for malpractice, I targeted him because he is black, not because he is an incompetent doctor who harmed me -- making me a racist.
• If a Native American breaks into my house and puts my family in fear for our lives and I whack him on the head with a vase and he dies, I killed him because he is a Native American, not because he put our lives in jeopardy and I acted in self-defense -- making me a racist.

Is this the future we have to look forward to?  Where every move we make has to be weighed against the ethnicity, race, religion or sexual orientation of the other guy? 

To add more fuel to the fire, pundits like MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported that one of the six Zimmerman jurors seems to be pulling back on her decision now that she's been out of sequestration and has been exposed to the uproar over this case.  If she hadn't been sequestered, she might have rendered a very different verdict.   

But this is precisely why we sequester juries.  The public often acts emotionally, irrationally and like a mob -- motivated and reacting to concerns and agendas that go beyond justice and fairness.  We intentionally sequester juries so they are not influenced by the mob but, rather, render a verdict based on the facts and evidence presented at trial, following a system of laws that are equally applied to us all, creating reliability and consistency in outcomes.

As we are forced to introduce race into the verdict calculation, I wonder if the black men who said "This is for Trayvon" and beat up a white jogger, will be charged and prosecuted for a hate crime and be tarred as racists in the press and court of public opinion? How will the Sharpton minions insist on treating the black man who pounded a white woman in the face when, confronted with a mob of protesters, she rolled down her window to ask them to let her car pass as they needed to get her granddaughter to the hospital?

I understand that I am a racist.  But, aren't we all racists now?

Godfrey Bloom MEP UKIP

How Culture is Contrived

From http://www.henrymakow.com/

How Kulture is Contrived

july, 2013

(left, Clay Felker in 1967. Founder of New York and Editor of Esquire and many other popular magazines, Felker was one of some 600 US journalists secretly working for the CIA. They were "cheaper than a good call girl" according to CIA handler, Washington Post publisher Phillip Graham.) 



A pervasive, highly organized system
 diverts us from the truth and places us
in a cultural limbo where very little is real.




by Henry Makow Ph.D.


"We have already contrived to possess the minds of the goy communities...[they are] looking through the spectacles we are setting astride their noses." (Protocols of Zion, 12)

"No one is more a slave than he who thinks he is free without being free." (Goethe)


W. Eugene Groves was an idealistic young American who wanted to serve his country.

After winning a Rhodes Scholarship, he was a shoo-in for the Presidency of the National Student's Association in 1966. But, confided the outgoing President Philip Sherburne, he needed to know something.

The NSA was secretly funded by the CIA. Until this point, Groves had been an "unwitting" member, a dupe. But as President, of course he would have to know the truth. He would need to become a "witting" participant.

During the Cold War, the CIA secretly funded and controlled scores of US student, labor, religious, political and artistic organizations, according to the book "The Mighty Wurlitzer" (2008) by Hugh Wilford.

They were modeled after Soviet propagandist Willi Munzenberg's "Popular Front" organizations which had recruited earnest Westerners (Socialists and Liberals) in an array of  "anti Fascist" causes. These seemingly spontaneous groups were secretly funded and run by Moscow (through the CPUSA) and subtly promoted Communism. Munzenberg called them his "innocents' clubs."

It's not unusual that the CIA would imitate Comintern's tactics. Behind the veil, both serve the Cabalist Jewish central bankers and their Masonic network which has now subverted all significant private and public institutions in the West.

So while Hugh Walford suggests that the CIA was fostering an "anti-Communist" Left, in fact it was controlling the post-war dialogue, fostering the illusion that the Cold War was real, and promoting a collectivist mentality.

The Russians told a familiar joke: "Under Capitalism, man exploits man while under Communism, it's the other way round." 
(2008 Book "The Mighty Wurlitzer" describes how Illuminati bankers "played" America)

As we are discovering, there isn't much difference between monopoly capitalism and Communism. Under Communism, the State owns the corporations and the Illuminati bankers own the State.

Under monopoly capitalism, the corporations own the State, and the bankers own the corporations. Both are devoted to giving the satanist bankers a total political, cultural, economic and spiritual monopoly, i.e. the New World Order.  

The only difference is, in the West, there is an illusion of freedom and democracy. "Witting" servants of the Illuminati bankers are chosen to lead governments and organizations, while unwitting dupes perpetuate the illusion of a free society. The masses are also unwitting dupes kept in a coma by the education system and mass media.

Eugene Groves' dilemma was resolved when Ramparts Magazine and the New York Times exposed the CIA program. Now you ask, why would the controlled expose the controllers? Well sometimes the dupes throw a monkey wrench into the works. Ultimately, anything that discredited the CIA and the USA was also grist for the Illuminati mill.

Groves oversaw the NSA's transition to independence and then quit. "The world has lost its innocence," he said." I want to get out." (Wolford, 5)

KULTURE
How do we know what we know? We are taught by the mass media and the education system. But what if they were subverted by a satanic secret society, i.e. the Illuminati? (i.e. Cabalist Judaism and Freemasonry.)  
"Modernism" and its spawn mirror a gradual perversion of reality and morality by the Illuminati bankers. What we regard as "progress" is really the advance of their satanist agenda. It is the change in "changing the world." 

The mass media and education system promote this suspension of reality. Truth is suppressed. Lies are promulgated. Negative or self-destructive behavior is portrayed in a positive light.

Modernism is a solipsism where the bankers' perversity becomes the norm. For example, the CIA actively promoted modern abstract art, an art disconnected from human identity and aspirations, an art any child or monkey could produce.

They financed the cultural magazines, (Encounter, Partisan Review) critics (Clement Greenberg) and art museums through a network of foundations and Illuminati millionaires like Nelson Rockefeller and John Hay Whitney. 

"Many of the artists in the movement had radical backgrounds (Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Franz Kline for example...) Their painting, with its gestural expression of the artist's consciousness and total rejection of representation, constituted a massive rebuke to...Soviet art.." (p.106)

Not really. While pretending to reject socialist realism, the CIA advanced the Communist agenda which is to make art discordant, irrelevant and ugly.

The same story can be applied to modern literature where the "anti-hero,"  i.e. the alienated outsider and misfit, (i.e. the Illuminati Jew) becomes the hero. The "hero" is not the community-builder but the Luciferian rebel, the destroyer of the Cabala.  

Similarly, modern literary criticism is a linguistic voodoo divorced from the author's social reality, biography or intention. This criticism was orthodoxy when I went to university. I wondered why this placebo was presented as "truth." Now I know. 

The same story can be repeated for music, TV and movies. These have  convinced everyone that the fertile young female is a Goddess, while romantic love and sex are panaceas and the purpose of life. (How would a pagan sex cult differ?)

With folks thus distracted, perverts and traitors are inserted into all positions of leadership. Just look at the logos with swooshes (sunrises), dots, pyramids (triangles) or combinations of the three. They are everywhere. Guess what? While we were sleeping, a satanic cult took over.

        
(left, CIA social engineer, Gloria Steinem)

FEMINISM

Second-wave feminism was another Illuminati sponsored "popular front" masquerading as grass roots expression. Gloria Steinem, a Jewish misfit from a broken home was chosen to lead it. Clay Felker, who in the 1950's worked with Steinem at the CIA's "Independent Research Bureau," (another student front,) orchestrated the media campaign. Apparently Felker was not Jewish.

In 1968, Felker hired Steinem at New York magazine. He published the 40-page inaugural issue of MS Magazine as a supplement in New York.

In 1975, Redstockings, a radical feminist magazine, exposed Steinem's CIA connections. They revealed that MS Magazine was funded by Warner Communications and Katherine Graham, both CIA conduits.

In 1979, when Redstockings tried to put this account into a book, the publisher Random House was pressured to delete it by these conduits and feminism funders, the Ford Foundation. Thus kulture is contrived.  (Kerry Bolton, Revolution from Above, p.168)


CONCLUSION
The Cabalist bankers have subverted our political and social institutions and are using government to enslave us according to the blueprint of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The people of the world and even their governments will be "as children under-age," say The Protocols. (15)
There has always been two kinds of Jews: those who follow the Lawgiver Moses on the one hand; and the Baal Worshipers on the other.  Unfortunately, the latter have prevailed while retaining the prestige of the former. And they have been joined by traitors from every background, willing to betray their fellow man for personal profit. 

Throughout history, these Luciferians have waged a war against God, the inherent spiritual and natural design. They have sought to dethrone God and enslave humanity, and are very close to succeeding. This is the true esoteric meaning of "revolution."

A large part of this involves destroying the four sources of our human identity and meaning: race, religion (God), nation and family (gender.) They do this by creating one race, one religion, one gender and one world government. At the same time, our kulture is increasingly rootless, depraved and meaningless.

While the CIA supposedly opposed Communism, they both served the same master, and created kulture to enslave humanity.
---
Note: I highly recommend Kerry Bolton's new book, Revolution from Above, available from www.arktos.com
--
Related - Our Illuminati Reality Bubble

and "The Fraudulent Basis of Modern Kulture"
http://www.henrymakow.com/001155.html

 

Another website agrees: Illuminati Bankers fund modern art to destroy Western culture

The CIA and Modern Art - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Left wing marxist Politics And the "Useful Idiots" of the Rich

The Left, including the communists have generally served as the useful idiots of international capital ... The Left, whether in its Fabian, communist or New Left  varieties has been appropriated by the system it is supposedly exposing.






by Kerry Bolton
(henrymakow.com)



A self-appointed elite that Huxley called the 'World Controllers' and Caroll Quiqley described as 'an international network' has for generations been intent on establishing a 'World State' (Huxley) or what David Rockefeller calls a 'World Order' and and what President George W. Bush and others ...call the 'New World Order.'

In more common parlance it is called 'globalization' but it is seldom understood in its wider ramifications, as set forth here, especially by the Left, whose activists support  aspects of the same globalization process: multiculturalism, feminism, marijuana liberalization, abortion rights, open borders, and feel-good causes in the name of democracy and 'human rights,'  the results of which are further control by the global plutocracy.

The Left, including the communists have generally served as the useful idiots of international capital ... The Left, whether in its Fabian, communist or New Left  varieties has been appropriated by the system it is supposedly exposing. A post- New Left has emerged since the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc, and takes the form of the so-called 'color revolutions' under the patronage of the Soros network, and others.

The strategy  used by the international oligarchy is the same as that more generally recognized as being a major element in Marxist doctrine; namely dialectics, the conflict of opposing forces that generates a synthesis. This dialecto method is something that Sutton realized when he was trying to understand why the oligarchy so often seems to be backing opposing ideologies, governments, and policies.

The Marxist dialecticians stated that history is engaged in a process towards world communism that would arise out of the conflict of capitalism and socialism. The oligarchs, on the other hand, apparently operate on the dialectical premise that what will result from their "controlled conflict" will be a socialist-capitalist synthesis which we might call the "World Collectivist State;"  a world order that will be Communistic in organization but run by oligarchs rather than commissars. Aaron Russo, after talking with Nick Rockefeller, alluded to this as "selling socialism as capitalism."

Over the past few generations, the "crises scenarios" used by the oligarchs to sell or impose their plan of a World Collectivist State have included the problems of war, famine, overpopulation, disparity between the wealth of the so-called "North" and "South" , and in our present time "the war on terrorism" (perpetual conflict) and the threat of "global warming."

In general, it can be stated that many of these problems are the direct result of the debt-finance, trade and economic system that is operated by the oligarchs. Now the oligarchs present themselves as the solvers of the problems of their own making. A global "pincer movement" of agitation from "below" (the "Left")  and manipulation from "above" (the "oligarchs") dialectically operates to shift the center of mass political gravity towards an acceptance of, if not support for, a World State to end the crises that have been created by our self-appointed "world saviors."


-- This is the conclusion of "Revolution From Above" by Kerry Bolton published by Arktos.

Putin talks NSA, Syria, Iran, drones in exclusive RT interview (

My Farewell To Youtube and Testament Against Evil 7-17-13

UK Column Live - 17th July 2013

Keiser Report: Real Estate Auschwitz of Our Day (E470)

UK Column Live - "Thousands of children stolen by the UK governm

ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS!

ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS!

NEW! PODCAST OF 'ALL WARS ARE BANKERS WARS' FROM JANUARY 14TH, 2013 RADIO SHOW.
By Michael Rivero at What really happened .com
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 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!" The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamently opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England's military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars. Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government. Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the colonies. Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to recolonize the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. And the plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation's money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it.
Once again the nation was plunged into debt, unemployment, and poverty by the predations of the private central bank, and in 1832 Andrew Jackson successfully campaigned for his second term as President under the slogan, "Jackson And No Bank!" True to his word, Jackson succeeds in blocking the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States.

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" -- Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire. Lawrence later said that with Jackson dead, "Money would be more plenty."
Of course, the public school system is as subservient to the bankers' wishes to keep certain history from you, just as the corporate media is subservient to Monsanto's wishes to keep the dangers of GMOs from you, and the global warming cult's wishes to conceal from you that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 16 years. Thus is should come as little surprise that much of the real reasons for the events of the Civil War are not well known to the average American.
When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded.

"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." -- The London Times responding to Lincoln's decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker's loans at 30% interest.

In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund newspapers that opposed government-issued money (Lincoln's greenbacks).

"Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers... as will oppose the issuing of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage or favors from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country... [T]o restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as bankers and lenders." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

"It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on. Left free of European intervention, the Union won the war, and Lincoln announced his intention to go on issuing greenbacks. Following Lincoln's assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers. Tsar Alexander II, who authorized Russian militarey assistance to Lincoln, was himself assassinated one year later.
Finally, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartel with the express purpose of forming the Third Bank of the United States, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers. Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed to "The Federal Reserve" system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more "Federal" than Federal Express. Indeed, in 2012, the Federal Reserve successfully rebuffed a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the operations of the Federal Reserve. 1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation's economy, first with the passage of the 16th "income tax" Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified.

"I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003.

Later that same year, and apparently unwilling to risk another questionable amendment, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act over Christmas holiday 1913, while members of Congress opposed to the measure were at home. This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus should have required a new Amendment to transfer that authority to a private bank. But pass it Congress did, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign contributions. Wilson later regretted that decision.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919

The next year, World War One started, and it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a world war.
World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but quickly shifted to focus on Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States). Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels. Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power. So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime opponent of World War One, and not just defeated, but its industrial base flattened. Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war. This amounted to three times the value of all of Germany itself. Germany's private central bank, to whom Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the costs of the war, broke free of government control, and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators) , permanently trapping the German people in endless debt.
When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power. Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers. Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry. The media called it "The German Miracle". TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938.
Once again, Germany's industrial output became a threat to Great Britain.

"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood)

"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)

Germany's state-issued value based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organize a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers!

Click for larger image As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany's economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candor, the real reasons for that war were made clear.

"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to."- Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)

As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany. And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt's "New Deal" which threatened massive wealth re-distribution to recapitalize the working and middle class of America. So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a "Secretary of General Affairs" who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labor unions. General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress. Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act. When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberatly collapse the still-fragile economy and blame Roosevelt for it. Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading With The Enemy act. The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally released in 1967 and became the inspiration for the movie, "Seven Days in May" but with the true financial villains erased from the script.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a high--class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. "I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents." -- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935

As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew Jackson fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.

Click for larger Kennedy's United States Notes were not borrowed form the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.
As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.
Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July of 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance. The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency to the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Absent the economic advantages of being the world's "go-to" currency, Britain was forced to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946. The Bretton Woods agreement, ratified in 1945, in addition to making the dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obligated the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations that ratified Bretton Woods did so on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax. That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce.
Of course, the Federal Reserve, being a private bank and not answerable to the US Government, did start overprinting paper dollars, and much of the perceived prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of foreign nations' obligations to accept the paper notes as being worth gold at the rate of $35 an ounce. Then in 1970, France looked at the huge pile of paper notes sitting in their vaults, for which real French products like wine and cheese had been traded, and notified the United States government that they would exercise their option under Bretton Woods to return the paper notes for gold at the $35 per ounce exchange rate. Of course, the United States had nowhere near the gold to redeem the paper notes, so on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon "temporarily" suspended the gold convertibility of the US Federal Reserve Notes. This "Nixon shock" effectively ended Bretton Woods and many global currencies started to delink from the US dollar. Worse, since the United States had collateralized their loans with the nation's gold reserves, it quickly became apparent that the US Government did not in fact have enough gold to cover the outstanding debts. Foreign nations began to get very nervous about their loans to the US and understandably were reluctant to loan any additional money to the United States without some form of collateral. So Richard Nixon started the environmental movement, with the EPA and its various programs such as "wilderness zones", Roadless areas", Heritage rivers", "Wetlands", all of which took vast areas of public lands and made them off limits to the American people who were technically the owners of those lands. But Nixon had little concern for the environment and the real purpose of this land grab under the guise of the environment was to pledge those pristine lands and their vast mineral resources as collateral on the national debt. The plethora of different programs was simply to conceal the true scale of how much American land was being pledged to foreign lenders as collateral on the government's debts; eventually almost 25% of the nation itself.
click for full size image With open lands for collateral already in short supply, the US Government embarked on a new program to shore up sagging international demand for the dollar. The United States approached the world's oil producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, and offered them a deal. In exchange for only selling their oil for dollars, the United States would guarantee the military safety of those oil-rich nations. The oil rich nations would agree to spend and invest their US paper dollars inside the United States, in particular in US Treasury Bonds, redeemable through future generations of US taxpayers. The concept was labeled the "petrodollar". In effect, the US, no longer able to back the dollar with gold, was now backing it with oil. Other peoples' oil. And that necessity to keep control over those oil nations to prop up the dollar has shaped America's foreign policy in the region ever since.
But as America's manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) anyone wanted to buy. Europe's cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports. Israel's constant belligerence against its neighbors caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use. Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the "Oil for food" program instituted following Desert Storm. One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq's oil back on the world market only for US dollars.
The clear US policy shift following 9-11, away from being an impartial broker of peace in the Mideast to one of unquestioned support for Israel's aggressions only further eroded confidence in the Petrodollar deal and even more oil producing nations started openly talking of oil trade for other global currencies.
Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value based trade currency, the Gold Dinar. Gaddafi announced that Libya's oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade. This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Qaddafi ( the object lesson of Saddam's lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya's oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for.
According to General Wesley Clark, the master plan for the "dollarification" of the world's oil nations included seven targets, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran (Venezuela, which dared to sell their oil to China for the Yuan, is a late addition). What is notable about the original seven nations originally targeted by the US is that none of them are members of the Bank for International Settlements, the private central bankers private central bank, located in Switzerland. This meant that these nations were deciding for themselves how to run their nations' economies, rather than submit to the international private banks.
Now the bankers' gun sights are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose. The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran's oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank. Malaysia, one of the new nations without a Rothschild central bank, is now being invaded by a force claimed to be "Al Qaeda", and with the death of President Hugo Chavez, plans to impose a US and banker friendly regime on Venezuela are clearly being implemented.
The German government recently asked for the return of some of their gold bullion from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve. France has said it will take 5 years to return Germany's gold. The United States has said they will need 8 years to return Germany's gold. This suggests strongly that the Bank of France and the NY Federal Reserve have used the deposited gold for other purposes, most likely to cover gold futures contracts used to artificially suppress the price of gold to keep investors in the equities markets, and the Central Banks are scrambling to find new gold to cover the shortfall and prevent a gold run. So it is inevitable that suddenly France invades Mali, ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda, with the US joining in. Mali just happens to be one of the world's largest gold producers with gold accounting for 80% of Mali exports. War for the bankers does not get more obvious than that!
Mexico has demanded a physical audit of their gold bullion stored at the Bank of England, and along with Venezuela's vast oil reserves (larger than Saudi Arabia), Venezuela's gold mines are a prize lusted after by all the Central Banks that played fast and loose with other peoples' gold bullion. So we can expect regime change if not outright invasion soon.
You have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures you that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied. The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven't; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion, weapons of mass destruction. Assassinations are always passed off as "crazed lone nuts" to obscure the real agenda.
The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by creation of a false sense of obligation. That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt. Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank. The fraud persists, with often lethal results, because the people are tricked into believing that this is the way life is suppoed to be and no alternative exists or should be dreamt of. The same was true of two earlier systems of enslavement, Rule by Divine Right and Slavery, both systems built to trick people into obedience, and both now recognized by modern civilizatyion as illegitimate. Now we are entering a time in human history where we will recognize that rule by debt, or rule by Private Central Bankers issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, is equally illegitimate. It only works as long as people allow themselves to believe that this is the way life is supposed to be.
But understand this above all; Private Central Banks do not exist to serve the people, the community, or the nation. Private Central Banks exist to serve their owners, to make them rich beyond the dreams of Midas and all for the cost of ink, paper, and the right bribe to the right official.
Behind all these wars, all these assassinations, the hundred million horrible deaths from all the wars lies a single policy of dictatorship. The private central bankers allow rulers to rule only on the condition that the people of a nation be enslaved to the private central banks. Failing that, said ruler will be killed, and their nation invaded by those other nations enslaved to private central banks.
The so-called "clash of civilizations" we read about on the corporate media is really a war between banking systems, with the private central bankers forcing themselves onto the rest of the world, no matter how many millions must die for it. Indeed the constant hatemongering against Muslims lies in a simple fact. Like the ancient Christians (prior to the Knights Templars private banking system) , Muslims forbid usury, or the lending of money at interest. And that is the reason our government and media insist they must be killed or converted. They refuse to submit to currencies issued at interest. They refuse to be debt slaves.
So off to war your children must go, to spill their blood for the money-junkies' gold. We barely survived the last two world wars. In the nuclear/bioweapon age, are the private central bankers willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed?
Apparently so.
Flag waving and propaganda aside, all modern wars are wars by and for the private bankers, fought and bled for by third parties unaware of the true reason they are expected to gracefully be killed and croppled for. The process is quite simple. As soon as the Private Central Bank issues its currency as a loan at interest, the public is forced deeper and deeper into debt. When the people are reluctant to borrow any more, that is when the Keynesian economists demand the government borrow more to keep the pyramid scheme working. When both the people and government refuse to borrow any more, that is when wars are started, to plunge everyone even deeper into debt to pay for the war, then after the war to borrow more to rebuild. When the war is over, the people have about the same as they did before the war, except the graveyards are far larger and everyone is in debt to the private bankers for the next century. This is why Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was funding the rise of Adolf Hitler.
As long as Private Central Banks are allowed to exist, inevitably as the night follows day there will be poverty, hopelessness, and millions of deaths in endless World Wars, until the Earth itself is sacrificed in flames to Mammon.
The path to true peace on Earth lies in the abolishment of all private central banking everywhere, and a return to the state-issued value-based currencies that allow nations and people to become prosperous.

We are staring into the abyss - Godfrey Bloom MEP

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

Paul Joseph Watson Playlist (playlist)

Paul Joseph Watson Playlist (playlist)

"Do You Have The Virus?"

UKIP Nigel Farage The Lunacy Of Wind Turbines 23/6/2013

Why Did SILVER PRICE CRASH? - Chris Duane at the Liberty Mastermind Symp...

English News Today - Amber Lyon reveals CNN lies and war propaganda

Important! Today's PROPAGANDA Jobs Number Explained. By Gregory Mannarino

Obama! A Modern U.S. President (musical spoof)

Is A Military Takeover & Financial Collapse Of AMERICA Upon Us? You Deci...