A Simple Refuatation of the Rapture

From Anglo Saxon Israel

Judgment Day Perspectives, Volume II, Number 2

 

A Simple Refutation of the Rapture

By Eli James

Unfortunately, the Protestant world (and some Catholics too) has become enamored of a very sinister deception.  It is called the “Rapture Theory.”  The Rapture Theory promotes the idea that “faithful Christians” will be spared the tribulations of the Judgment Day.  Somehow, whether it is through the medium of space ships taking them to outer space or angels whisking them from this corporeal reality into the astral plane, these Christians believe that they are not required to defend the Faith against the enemies of Jesus Christ.  Rather, they believe that all they have to do is wait around for the day that they will be rescued from all of this.

Friends, there is hardly a more pernicious idea pervading Christendom than this one, because it has had the effect of neutralizing all those Christians who should be working for the Kingdom.  Instead, they have become uninvolved in their own salvation.

Let’s look at the Scriptures whence this doctrine arises:

Matthew, Chapter 24:

“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away; so shall also be the coming of the Son of man.  Then shall two be in the field: the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord cometh.”  -- Verses 37-42

This description is assumed by the rapturists to say the following:  The good Christians (the rapturists) will be taken and the bad Christians and/or non-Christians will be “left behind” to endure the tribulation.  The rapturists will be taken away to some nether world where they will be sustained until it is all over.  Perhaps they will even be able to observe the Great Tribulation unfolding on some screen like some exciting docudrama.  Then they will be returned to earth to pick up the pieces and to presumably rebuild and rule.  This is the essence of the Rapture Theory.  I haven’t seen the movie, Left Behind, but I’m sure it paints the same scenario.

What are these people missing?

In the verses quoted above, it is clear that Jesus is comparing the future tribulation with the days of Noah just before the Flood “took them all away.”  So, let’s look at those verses and see what they say:

“And Yahweh said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for in thee have I seen righteousness before me in this generation.”  - Verse 1 

 

“And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and only Noah remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. – Verse 23.

Now, note very carefully the use of the word “remained.”   Unless I do not understand the English language, “remained” and “left behind” are synonymous.  Noah and his family were the ones who remained and the others were taken away by the Flood.  Is there any doubt as to who was taken versus who was left behind on the earth?  It is crystal clear that it is the evil ones who were taken away by the Flood and the righteous ones who were left behind on the earth.

Now, let’s go back to Matthew.

Verse 37 tells us, “As in the days of Noah...”  Jesus is making a direct comparison between the coming tribulation and the bygone days of Noah.   The evil ones were doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the day of trouble.  It was “party hearty” time.  Only the good people were making preparations. 

The rapturists cannot be compared to the good people because they are doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the day.  They may not be actively sinning, but they are certainly not promoting God’s Kingdom.  They have, in fact, become fat, lazy Christians.  The only “preparation” they are making is assuming their righteousness.  In fact, they are merely engaged in business as usual, like Noah’s contemporaries “eating and drinking, marrying, giving in marriage,”  etc.  The revelers of Noah’s time were blissfully going about their daily activities, disobeying God’s commandment to establish His Kingdom here on earth.

Verses 40 and  41 tell us, “Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

 Now, given the context that Jesus clearly ascribes back to the days of Noah, who is “taken” and who is “left behind?”  It is clear that the people who were left behind here on earth were the good people of Noah’s family.  The ones who were “taken away” were the evil ones of the surrounding country.  They were taken away by death.  There is no other possible interpretation.

The rapturists, in order to purvey their doctrine, must REVERSE the clear meaning of  Genesis 7 in order to interpret Matthew 40 and 41 to mean what they claim. 

Jesus is telling us that the ones who will be taken, AS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH, will be like the evil ones who were swept away by the Flood.  Contrariwise, the righteous ones, AS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH, were “left behind” here on earth, although they had to endure a seven month ride in the ark.

THE RAPTURISTS HAVE GOT IT BACKWARDS; and they had better start preparing for the worst, because, if you keep on reading Matthew, Chapter 24, Jesus makes it very clear who will inherit the Kingdom:

“Watch, therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.  But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come  [the rapturists don’t care when the thief will come because they assume they will be spared!], he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.  [The rapturists are standing by, idly, while the house is being broken up.] Therefore, be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.  Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord has made ruler over his household, to give them meat [instruction in the Law] in due season?  Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.  Verily I say unto you that he shall make him ruler over all his goods.  But if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My Lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken [as in the days of Noah]; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be a weeping and a gnashing of teeth.”

-- Verses 44-51.

The Rapturists belong to that very same school of non-activist, uncontentious, “don’t rock the boat” Christians (unlike those activists who founded Christianity in the face of both Roman imperialism and rabbinical persecution) who have stood by and watched the household being torn asunder by the antinomians and the “Judeo-Christians.”  How can you inherit that which you have failed to protect?  If you are not actively “contending for the faith,” i.e., working for the Kingdom here on earth as in heaven (recall the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer), then you are an evil, lazy servant.  Indeed, you are no servant at all.

Jude, Verse 3, has this to say:

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation [for true Israel], it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints [not to the antinomians and dispensationalists!].”

Notice the definite article ‘the’ in front of the word ‘faith.’  Does this mean any old faith that one might happen to entertain, or is this a reference to THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS, ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB?  Unlike our modern antinomians, whose faith is in Jesus rather than the faith of Jesus, the saints of old had faith in God’s Law.  In essence, modern Christianity puts more stock in the personality of Jesus, as a roving one-man cavalry, riding in to save us from ourselves.  The Biblical Jesus, however, is one who exhorts us to obey His Law and to follow His example.  Is modern Christianity following His example?  Didn’t He overturn the tables of the moneychangers?  Hasn’t modern Christianity let the moneychangers back into the temple?

“If ye love me, obey my commandments.”  --  John 14:15.

Biblical Christians know that if they put their trust inYah’s Law, the nation will prosper.

(See II Chronicles 7:14.)  The problem is that modern Christianity has become heretical and Pharisaic, teaching the doctrines of men instead of the Law of God.

Elaborating on this subject, in the very next Chapter, right after the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, Jesus gives us the parable of the unprofitable servant.  In this parable, the master of the household gives three different servants five, two and one talents respectively.  (It seems to me that the double meaning of the word ‘talent’ is really beautiful here.)  The housemaster praises the two servants who doubled their talents but he rebukes the holder of the one talent because he simply buried the coin and did nothing with it.

In verses 29 and 30, Jesus tells us:

“For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.  And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

I can hear the wailing and the grinding of teeth when the rapturists find out how wrong they have been.

“That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.”  -- I Peter 1: 7.

Those who are doing absolutely nothing but waiting around for the Rapture, contrary to the clear admonition of our Lord to maintain His household and obey His commandments, are the very people who will be counted among the hypocrites when the Bridegroom comes to claim his Bride [Israel restored], for they assume that their faith will excuse them from the firestorm when Scripture clearly tells us that our faith is to be tried by fire.

 “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”  -- II Thess. 2: 11,12.

What greater delusion could there be than believing that mere faith, as opposed to practicing the righteousness of Yahweh’s Law, is all that is required for salvation!  Did any of the prophets say that it would that easy?????????????  The dispensationalists and antinomians who say that the Old Testament is a “Jewish book” that has no relevance to the modern “Christian” church should read the book of Job to find out what real faith is.  Job lost all of his earthly possessions, including his children.  After enduring all of these things, Job declared:  “Behold, happy is the man whom god correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty.”  (Job 5:10)   Also:  “When He hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.” (23:10.)  The author of the book of Job tells us:  “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.”  (1:22.)   Of these modern, fair weather Christians, I would ask:  How does your “faith” compare with Job’s?  Are you absolutely, one hundred per cent positive that the Old Testament is irrelevant?

Can the rapturists, who are sitting around wasting their talents, be considered “profitable servants”?  Is their “do nothing” attitude in these times of crisis acceptable to Jesus?  I don’t think so!  The rapturists’ delusion is one of grandiose self-flattery:  “Our faith is so strong that we will be spared the fire,”  they proclaim!  How self-serving and convenient!  On the contrary, they have substituted a delusion for the Faith, and I guarantee that they will be second in line, right after the false priests of  “Judeo-Christianity,” to be cast into the fire for their failure to heed Scriptural warnings about the true nature of the tribulation and the Judgment Day.  They will be “taken away” all right, but in the same manner as the evil ones of Noah’s day.  They will be taken away by death.

Finally, Matthew 10:22 puts it this way:  “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

Does it say “he that is raptured before the end shall be saved”?  And, incidentally, nobody hates the rapturists because they are the least controversial of all Christians!   Since they have effectively removed themselves from the scene and from contention, nobody pays them enough attention to warrant hatred – certainly not the sworn enemies of Jesus Christ!   How can you hate an “enemy” whose only plan is to leave the battlefield?  Can you hear the enemy saying “Good riddance!” and “Have a nice trip”?  “See you after the battle!”  “Don’t bother to come back!” 

In summary, I would like to say that the rapturists are Scripturally wrong on four major points:

1.)    They have reversed the meaning of Jesus Christ’s prophecy regarding who will be taken and who will be left behind.

2.)    They have unwittingly obviated the need for the Tribulation because they have replaced God’s Law with antinomian “faith,” thus removing the Scriptural basis (righteousness versus unrighteousness) for the Judgment Day and the very tribulation from which they falsely expect to be spared.

3.)    They have fallen into a delusion of self-flattery, claiming that their vague, emotion-laden concept of  “faith,” even though it denies the validity of the Law, is sufficient for salvation.

4.)    They have opted for the easy way out, contrary to the clear pronunciations of Scripture which tell us that we must be “tried by fire” and that we must “endure to the end.”

In short, they have become Christian couch potatoes whose heads are so far up in the clouds that they are no earthly good.  Amen.

There will indeed be a rapture of the saints; but the “rapture” will be the joy they experience after they have endured to the end.  Frankly, I wouldn’t miss it for the world.  I want to savor the victory.  Being “chastened,” “tried,” and “made pure as gold” should be considered an honor, not something to be avoided.  Gird your loins and buckle your seatbelts, the rollercoaster leaves in five minutes!  Maybe sooner!

 (Please share this message with any rapturists you might know.  They need to hear it more than anyone else!)

____________________________________________________________________

For the record, here is the 1830 vision of the Scotswoman Margaret MacDonald, in her own words, which is the reputed source of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theory.   Pay special attention to the following sentence: 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air.  It seems that this phrase, “caught up…in the air,” has been interpreted quite literally by many to mean a pre-Tribulation Rapture “up in the sky,” but is that what she intended?  I think not, for the very simple reason that it is clear that Miss MacDonald believes in a Judgment Day and trial by fire, and the vast majority of rapturists are antinomians and dispensationalists, both of which groups believe that Christians are saved by “faith only,” not by the Law (righteousness).  Rather, Miss MacDonald talks about “spiritual discernment.”  In what sense does the “faith only” doctrine require spiritual discernment? 

 

The Book of Revelation clearly tells us that we will be judged “according to our works.”  (Rev. 20:13.)  In fact, the meaningfulness of our Faith depends upon the way in which our Faith is demonstrated in our actions.  “Faith without works is dead.” – James 2:14.   What good is your faith if it does not bear fruit for the Kingdom?  Read her insightful vision for yourself and see if Miss MacDonald belongs in the “faith only,” pre-Trib camp.

 

When Paul and the Apostles tell us that good works are not enough to save us, what they mean is that our attempts to undo all of the evil we have done as individuals and as a people could not possibly pay off the full debt that we owe to God.  Instead, by His grace (mercy), He cancels a large part of that debt on our behalf when He knows that our hearts have been converted through true repentance.  But those whose hearts have not been converted will most definitely pay the price at the Judgment Day and they will be judged according to their works.

_____________________________________________________________________

Margaret Macdonald's revelation as published in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861):
"It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just 'no God.' I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is. I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people. Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.' 'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.' This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye. Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air. I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold. I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must be, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom. I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be. I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will be shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake  everything we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold.
I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit. The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. [my emphasis – EJ.] There will be outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within - be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb. I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God.
When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! It is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross. I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy, holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her. This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Amen and Amen.  Even so come Lord Jesus.'

The Labour Party elite's secret problem... they can't stand the working class

The Labour elite's secret problem... they can't stand the working class

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail On Sunday Column

How long does it take for the penny to drop? It is amazing how slow voters  have been to see  that the two major parties have been stolen from them, and are now their enemies.
I spend a lot of time here pointing out that the Tory Party is a now a nest of anti-British, anti-family liberals. But Labour is just as bad.
The Labour Party of 1945  was pretty Left-wing. But it was patriotic, Christian and genuinely working-class. It hated cheats and it loathed crime. Several members of the Labour Cabinet of 1948 voted  to keep the death penalty.
It did not support immigration. It set up the NHS to care for hard-working people whose illnesses were in many cases caused by that hard work. It was (rightly) deeply suspicious of the first steps towards creating what is now the EU.
It supported grammar schools, seeing that they gave the children  of the poor a ladder out of that poverty. It favoured strong national defences.
I suspect that millions of Labour voters still feel roughly the same way. But the party does not. Like the Tory top deck, Labour’s London elite loathe and despise their members.
We have absolute proof of this thanks to the meeting between Gordon Brown and Mrs Gillian Duffy during the last Election, when Mr Brown responded to Mrs Duffy’s completely reasonable fears about mass immigration by calling her a bigot behind her back. He apologised – for being caught – but who can doubt it was his real view?
This week we saw two more examples of the problem. One was the absurd shadow Minister Chris Bryant, trying to be strong on immigration. Mr Bryant has been told by Labour voters that their jobs are threatened by migrants, and so he wants to keep their votes by sounding tough.
 But in fact Labour –  as I have pointed out here more than once – deliberately created that immigration. Its leaders, 1960s revolutionaries who have never grown up, knew exactly what they were doing.
But now they fear they have been found out, and that millions of Gillian Duffys – who would die rather than vote  Tory – are now thinking of defecting to UKIP.
Luckily for us all, Mr Bryant’s speech blew up in his face like an exploding cigar. This is what ought to happen more often to politicians who dishonestly seek the votes of people whose opinions they despise.
The other interesting moment was a Channel 4 programme  in which three modern welfare claimants were subjected to the rules of the original welfare state set up by Labour.
That welfare state was a proper, decent thing – people who worked hard insuring themselves against age and illness, and genuine efforts to find work for all, even the seriously disabled.
It was completely unlike the Sponger’s Charter that modern Labour has set up, under which the genuinely poor tend to suffer, and cheats prosper. Labour, like the Tories, no longer speaks for any major part of the British people. It only pretends  to. When the penny does eventually drop, what a reckoning we shall see. But I wish it would be sooner.
Read mre at Peter Hitchens Blog here 

21st Century Sexual Insanity

Sexual Insanity

When a society starts to hit rock bottom, you can be sure that sexual anarchy was a big part of the chain of events leading up to it. When immorality skyrockets, then societies plummet. When people start going over the top with all things sexual, then it is not long before their nations start going over the cliff.
Sexual insanity abounds wherever we look. Each day new headlines alert us to yet more sexual perversion and sexual suicide. Yet all this is being defended and promoted by our intelligentsia and so many activist groups. Consider just the most recent example of this moral madness.
In Germany we now have “bestiality brothels”. I kid you not. Let me simply present to you the entire article on this:
“Animal sex abuse is on the rise in Germany, with bestiality brothels being set up across the country, according to a state animal protection officer demanding stronger laws to protect mankind’s furry and feathered friends. Madeleine Martin, the animal protection official for Hessian state government, said the law needed to be changed to make sex abuse of animals – known as zoophilia – a crime.
“‘It is punishable to distribute animal pornography, but the act itself is not,’ she told the Frankfurter Rundschau daily paper on Friday. ‘There are even animal brothels in Germany,’ she said. Sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable. ‘The abuse seems to be increasing rapidly, and the internet offers an additional distribution platform,’ she said.
“She said the justice authorities had found it exceptionally difficult to convict a man from Hesse, who had offered pictures and instructions for animal sex abuse over the internet. ‘Zoophilia must be completely banned in the reformed animal protection law,’ said Martin, referring to the governments plan to rework that section of the law.
“Sex with animals was banned until 1969, when the animal protection law was introduced, but failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia, the Frankfurter Rundschau said. Martin said the current legal situation makes it too difficult for authorities to intervene – an animal has to be shown to have massive injuries before the animal protection laws prescribe action.”
There you have it folks. Commentary really isn’t even needed here, but it is nonetheless worth pointing out a few inconvenient truths. Firstly, this has not just sprung out of nowhere. This is simply the logical and inevitable outworking of the radical sexual revolution which began in the late 60s.
The push for complete and utter sexual freedom is now simply resulting in the inevitable directions we read about above. And why not, is the only thing we can really ask. If all sexual constraints have been seen as binding and restrictive, and complete sexual expression is seen as the only way to go, then why are we surprised at all this?
Indeed, when we have leading academics telling us there is absolutely nothing wrong with bestiality, then we certainly will see all this become a new lifestyle choice. Princeton University’s Peter Singer is one such leading intellectual to tell us of the joys of animal sex. See here for example: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/05/23/sweden-sheep-and-sexual-suicide/
And with the sexual activists working overtime to destroy marriage, insisting that it has nothing to do with one man and one woman for life, then of course anything goes. Homosexual marriage and group marriage are thus entirely logical options and acceptable lifestyle choices. So why not human-animal love?
Why discriminate against a person’s sexual preferences? They may even be born with an orientation in this direction, so who are we to judge these people and deny them their right to love as they see fit? Equal love must win the day, and people must be free to engage in any relationship they desire.
Indeed, reading this article, it seems that behind it is this very sort of thinking. After all, do we find in it any moral denunciation of this sexual perversion? Do we find any clear condemnation of individuals who get their kicks with animals?
No, the only thing that seems to be of concern is that the animal might get harmed! Now I am all in favour of keeping animals safe from unnecessary harm and danger. But is that the only thing we can say about bestiality today? Is that the only ethical consideration that comes into play here?
If animal wellbeing is the only moral consideration in the bestiality debate, then we have well and truly lost the plot. Then we as a society are likely beyond redemption. Then we have well and truly fallen off the cliff. Mark Steyn nicely summarises the bitter fruit of this decades-old act of sexual suicide:
“The wreckage is impressive. The Sexual Revolution was well-named: it was a revolt not just against sexual norms but against the institutions and values they supported; it was part of an assault against any alternatives to government, civic or moral. Utopianism, writes the philosopher Roger Scruton, is ‘not in the business of perfecting the world’ but only of demolishing it: ‘The ideal is constructed in order to destroy the actual.’ Who needs families, or marriage, or morality? Who needs nations, especially nations with borders? We’ll take a jackhammer to the foundations of functioning society and proclaim paradise in the ruins.”
Quite so. We are now witnessing before our very eyes what may be the final destruction of the West. Whether there is any turning back from this point remains to be seen. But the sexual revolutionaries have not given us the utopia they promised. They have given us instead death and destruction. They ought to be real proud of themselves.
www.thelocal.de/society/20120203-40531.html

Societies die when they’re based on lies

Societies die when they’re based on lies

Aug 2013

by Brett Stevens.

When a civilization is new and healthy, there exists something called “common sense” that you can expect most people to have some of.
People actually try to learn it. They study it in others, remember different aspects of it, and pass it on. It’s considered a good thing that you can have without regard to age, wealth, education or sociability.
As civilizations go on down the path of aging, they replace knowledge of reality with knowledge of themselves. People lose common sense, but they sure can read bus schedules, clip coupons, decipher political speeches and recite jokes from their favorite TV shows.
Somewhere in here, the society becomes based on lies. The illusion is that these are government lies; the truth is that they are lies told by individuals to make themselves seem more important, generous, compassionate or hip.
For example, there’s a lot of people out there trying to convince you that they have good souls and that they have found divinity. Some are preachers, but most are everyday folks and/or celebrities.
I knew one group of people who would go on missions to a desolate third world country. They’d show up, build toilets (the ones from the year before were no longer work), teach kids how to use condoms, and then go home.
Others are out there giving money to the poor, or making defenses of human rights. Some are even leakers or “whistleblowers.” All are competing for your attention, and they want you think that they have something holy within them.
I have some ugly news for such people: there is only one way to have good or holy in your soul, and that is by having it. You can’t fake it by imitating acts that you think mean holiness, and then have all of us accept that you have found wisdom.
These people would like us to think they’re Christ come down from the Mount, Buddha after seven days under the bodhi tree, or shamans emerging from mystical chants in sweat lodges. They’re not. They’re people acting like they’ve found something they obviously have not.
When someone has truly found divinity — this is something that occurs in degrees — the last thing they’re going to do is waste any time trying to convince you if this fact. Their good deeds will all be secret.
Most commonly, they won’t be doing anything you recognize as a good deed. Why? Because they’re aiming at the next generation of problems that you haven’t seen yet. They’re not trying to establish holiness in their souls; they’re trying to use that holiness to protect us.
Any fool can go out there and become a dime-store Mother Theresa and give to the downtrodden, or crusade for human rights. Those are social clichés in our society that symbolize goodness, compassion and other things that make people seem appealing to us.
In fact, it’s so common that we accept it like a rite of passage. College — check; give to the transgender minority amputee New Age orphans — check.
While people would like you to think this is normal behavior, only in a dying society is that so. It’s a form of disguise, a manipulation, and the type of role that an actor or late-night television pitchman might take.
As said above, this is a lie, and it’s part of a society based on lies. These are not lies that government uses to manipulate us. They are lies that we use to manipulate each other.
If all things spoken were measured, when the number of lies exceeds the number of truths, you know we are disconnected from reality and heading for a fall. But few will notice, because they’re too busy paying attention to the lies.

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

Reuters / Stephen Hirdjobs than native Brits - report

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.

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?

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.

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.