All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

Stumbled on this video and after watching it I thought I'd share. I searched the name of the video but did not see it so if it's already posted then I guess the thread will close.

The thing about this video is it pulls together tidbits I've read elsewhere or seen in other vieos and presents them in a pretty organized fasion and in time sequence. The way that we have been manipulated by big money or the bankers becomes pretty clear. The presenter is Michael Rivero and he talks pretty fast but he draws you in pretty quickly.

I think he takes a few liberties with facts but overall paints a pretty good picture. Take a look and let me know if you can spot any disinformation. There was at least one factoid that he rushed through about the ratification of the 16th amendment not being voted on by all the states and that the income tax is not legal. This is dubious at bes from what I understand. I give him a pass on that because the governing officials could well have been influenced by the banks to ratify the 16th amendment. I dont have any evidence but I also dont want to throw out the baby with the bathwater...




The written version is HERE

Started to drift when he went to Hitler being an ok guy. I mean it’s true that Germany, financially did what he reports. However, Hitler took the pressure from the bank backed allies as justification to do some pretty awful stuff. Was he crazy or was he somehow driven to do it by the bankers? I read he was addicted to amphetamines, I’d be interested to know how that came to be….? Who turned him on to it?

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


I watched this yesterday. I must have missd the part where he alludes to Hitler being an "OK" guy!

The point being made was that Hitler turned on the bankers and refused to play by their rules, and the rest is history. Hell, even the quotes from Churchill, post war, make it clear what it was all for.

It has been clear for such a long time that the reasons we are often presented for wars are complete BS, and those who profit the most are the ones instigating them. You don't see them or their kids getting killed or maimed for life fighting, that's for the little people who are conned into thinking we are all under some imminent threat of anhialation if we don't go kill the other side.

The sheep will wave their little flags in the belief that they are being patriotic and good little citizens, while the bankers and their political cronies smirk behind closed doors at the money they will make, and the control they will have. None of those people are worth a single life being lost, and we'd do better to shoot THEM, rather than go invade another country thousands of miles away.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
Started to drift when he went to Hitler being an ok guy.

Way to kill your own thread

Thanks to the comment below yours, left by another poster, I've saved the video to "watch later". I wonder though, how many other people though will bother to scroll down to read any further below what I've quoted above...?

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

Couldn't agree more.............







Knowledge is power, being aware of the puppet masters and their goals is the first step in combating tyranny. The global political leaders (aka: The puppets) are given their 'thrones" to distract us so that the bloodlines can continue their implementation of The Agenda.

Fight the power!

It is illegal to export gold from China. What’s mined in China stays in China…...
lets call it “life after the dollar.”
“The Chinese buy gold hand over fist!”

How the World Works by Noam Chomsky

Worth a read, doesnt ever specificaly go into too much detail but does have a fairly extensive analysis of global power structures and methodologies employed.

Probably find it online on a pdf somewhere, good stuff.

reply to post by Britguy


Yep, I got that point. In most cases it's true but I think its misguided to blame every war on bankers alone. He skipped over the wars in southeast asia (Vietnam/Korean wars). I guess you could argue the bankers were not in control there and wanted to be. Aisia has always been a challenge. Interested to here others views on that topic

reply to post by 3n19m470


Ok guy was not a good choice of words. He really just used Germany as an example of how independent or nationalised banks are a threat to the banking cartels. I feel he should have at least thrown in a clearer statement about how Hitler had pretty much lost his mind after being targeted.

Still curious what let to his mental breakdown and if that was somehow the result of bankers...

I'm not a seasoned poster and you may be right about turning others away. It's just that I try to think for myself and refuse to take anything I read or hear on ATS as complete truth. There have been many other videos that were more polished than this one that have factual errors. Isn't the motto here "Deny Ignorance?"

I"m sure there are people that could list quite a few wars that have had nothing to do with bankers.

Sure some may be but I don't think its fair to say "all" wars are bankers wars.

Originally posted by Hopechest
I"m sure there are people that could list quite a few wars that have had nothing to do with bankers.

Sure some may be but I don't think its fair to say "all" wars are bankers wars.

Maybe... but I'm trying hard to think of one. The examples I mentioned, Vietnam for instance, was one involving a country that was not underthe control of Bankers.

Just did a quick google on that one and found a statement in the following paragraph that states:

"Communists scorned democracy, violated human rights, pursued military aggression, and created closed state economies that barely traded with capitalist countries. "

The multiple starting dates for the war complicate efforts to describe the causes of U.S. entry. The United States became involved in the war for a number of reasons, and these evolved and shifted over time. Primarily, every American president regarded the enemy in Vietnam--the Vietminh; its 1960s successor, the National Liberation Front (NLF); and the government of North Vietnam, led by *Ho Chi Minh--as agents of global communism. U.S. policymakers, and most Americans, regarded communism as the antithesis of all they held dear. Communists scorned democracy, violated human rights, pursued military aggression, and created closed state economies that barely traded with capitalist countries. Americans compared communism to a contagious disease. If it took hold in one nation, U.S. policymakers expected contiguous nations to fall to communism, too, as if nations were dominoes lined up on end. In 1949, when the Communist Party came to power in China, Washington feared that Vietnam would become the next Asian domino. That was one reason for Truman's 1950 decision to give aid to the French who were fighting the Vietminh

SOURCE

So it appears he skipped over this in the video when he could have included it. That said, I'll bet other wars followed this model but I'd have to dig more. Yes, arguing with myself but picking through this for me is an excercise and one of the reasons I posted. Hopefully other will help evaluate this video from an objective point of view as you have.

Another point is Russia, or communism as a whole. Right or wrong, communism is a direct threat to Banking no? In its pure form, any banks would belong to the people. So I could argue that any aggression towards a communist country is in the best interest of the bankers. Same can be said about Islam...

Thoughts?

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


Thing is though, this is really just an evolution of how we as countries conduct wars, the vast majority of wars fought since the dawn of man were not instigated nor controlled by banks, they are now of course, but if we didnt have them you can be guaranteed, people would still, inevitably go to war.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


The further back in time you go the less you will see anything to do with banks involved in wars.

Also, what do you consider a war?

There have been many revolutions that did not have or were not guided by the banking industry.

What about the Civil War, that obviously was not about banking but expansion of slavery to the up and coming new States.

Kind of broad parameters you have laid out there.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

 

The further back in time you go the less you will see anything to do with banks involved in wars.

Also, what do you consider a war?

There have been many revolutions that did not have or were not guided by the banking industry.

What about the Civil War, that obviously was not about banking but expansion of slavery to the up and coming new States.

Kind of broad parameters you have laid out there.

I'm not attempting to lay out parameters, just make connections. It appears you missed some of the points in the video. There is time deicated to past wars. He carefully steps through wars that occurred after the formation of the first central bank (First Bank of England) and does a pretty good job in explaining the wars that followed.

The war of independence, the war of 1812, the spanish american war, the civil war can all be cleanly connected to the agenda of Bankers to control finances. I dont question those as I've read and heard about those morethan once and the evidence is a matter of public record. The more investigation I do, the more convincing his case.

I'll say it again, I posted this so we could together pick it apart. If you can give me a convincing argument I'll change my opinion. So far I can only find where he's stretched the truth a little to make his point. Like the part about the ratification of the 16th amendment. While this part is debatable it doesnt make the underlying point any less true. The establishment of an income tax was something driven by the banking lobby.

Please continue your interest in this with more detail as just making a one or two line statement doesnt really help make your point. We all need to look deeper into this and other matters to break the way we have been programmed to think.

Peace.

reply to post by Hopechest


Sorry but the American Civil War was actualy to do with controlling and exploiting the South's economy and the trade/shipping access it enjoyed. Sure it became something to do with slavery throughout it, but be under no illusion it was far more complex than that.

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

 

Thing is though, this is really just an evolution of how we as countries conduct wars, the vast majority of wars fought since the dawn of man were not instigated nor controlled by banks, they are now of course, but if we didnt have them you can be guaranteed, people would still, inevitably go to war.

Good point. Thanks for your interest.

I thought bout this and you are correct, the title of the video and the OP are misleading. Prior to the institution of the first central bank and the issuance of credit, the wars were generally fought in the name of religion or conrol of resources. In both cases it was about control.

Lets not forget tho, that the real first bank, or at least an earlier version of it was run by the Templars and the church. There are those that make connections between the Templars/Illuminati and the first bankers. However, this gets fuzzy as the founders of the US were clearly FreeMasons and I think the FreeMasons were related to the Templars. Like I said, that part is not clear to me but I'm willing to hear the case if someone wants to chime in on it...

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


I'm not saying your point is necessarily wrong only that before central banks were established, or banks for that matter, starting with the Knights Templar in the Crusades, there was no shortage of warfare.

It stands to reason that regardless of banks influence, there would still be no shortfall of warfare among the human race.

reply to post by Tuttle


Agreed that saying any war was due to a single factor is questionable. Michael Rivero speaks to the civil war and makes a compelling argument that the Bankers had a central involvement in the Civil war. They actually almost succeeded in lobbying England to enter the war on the side of the South because opposition to central banking was coming from the North. Ultimately the Bankers won by loaning the North the money it needed to finance the war and the resultant debt led to the re-establishment of the Central bank. This time they gave it a different name, The Federal Reserve.

Debt is a weapon is the underlying contention here...

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


I seem to remember Woodrow Wilson establishing the Federal Reserve.

I will need to check my history books.

reply to post by Hopechest


Point taken. We collectively choose to follow others that have an agenda that may or may not be in line with our own agendas. Like shhep being led to slaughter or lemmings running off a cliff.

Another thread altogether I'd like to start as there are those in the past that used this behavior to shape the world we live in today. I call it the movement from collectivism to individualism. Our ultimate downfall.