0 votes
in Living by
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." -- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain

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.

forced colonists conduct business printed bank notes borrowed bank england
King George III - Click for larger image

notes borrowed bank england king george iii click larger image
The Currency Act

bank england king george iii click larger image currency act
The Bank of England - Click for larger image

click larger image currency act bank england click larger image
Interest Bearing bank note from the Bank of England, 1764

"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." -- William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694

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

Following the revolution, the US Government actually took steps to keep the bankers out of the new government!

"Any person holding any office or any stock in any institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order, cannot be a member of the House whilst he holds such office or stock." -- Third Congress of the United States Senate, 23rd of December, 1793, signed by the President, George Washington

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.

president george washington bankers dedicated schemes wealth corrupt nations leaders
Mayer Amschal Rothschild

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.

bank thenbsp bank united efforts rothschilds chief supporternbsp alexander hamilton
Alexander Hamilton - Click for larger image

rothschilds chief supporternbsp alexander hamilton alexander hamilton click larger image
The First Bank of the United States - Click for larger image

Founded in 1791, by the *** 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 ************ (the only British Prime Minister to be ************ in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Je

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

40 Answers

0 votes
by
Beautiful post !
If one sits back and actually looks at history, the trail always leads to the central banks. templar kneeling
0 votes
by
Having been sent to Lutheran Sunday school and church as a *****, so my non-religious parents could have privacy on Sunday mornings gave me a warped view of Christianity. The hypocrisy I saw there drove me to seeking *** in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Native American Spiritualism before I finally met Jesus in a real Christian church.
0 votes
by
The Lutherans were new immigrants from Sweden and Norway.
Most poor Southerners then were Methodists.
0 votes
by
Yeah, true, but they partook very violently in segregation. IN fact one of the most brutal lynchings happened because a Scandinavian suspected that their daughter was being ***** by a black guy. Happened on a bridge that connects South Dakota with Minnesota.
0 votes
by
My best friend is from Duluth. LOL
0 votes
by
No this was another lynching. Lutherans have a very bad track record much like Judaism, and they act like it's ok to do.
0 votes
by
Proof?
0 votes
by
Oh Gawd, not you too. lol

**** our education is such a mess today, public or homeschooling.
0 votes
by
Me too?

One of the falsehoods you have posted is when Denmark ***** slavery.

I have been checking what bout of you have commented.
0 votes
by
They're racist. And this is not necessarily an emotional view of it. They absolutely do hate other races.

But some idiots I've ran into (such as MetalDane, though he talked more about how Denmark never had an empire, ****) for some reason don't think that is the case, but this has to do with semantics, not my view. I'm not stating my view for argument, though technically my view is against racism.
0 votes
by
Most Northerners had something to come home to in 1965.
Some did go west but Southerners and new immigrants made up the bulk of the settlers this includes some blacks too.
0 votes
by
Not "openly" racist but very much closed to outsiders and without any real love for or faith in Jesus. They use rituals as a kind of club ceremony. For example, when I told my teacher that "transubstantiation" didn't make sense to me she simply said "if you want to be a Lutheran, you have to say you believe it". NOT BELIEVE, only say you believe. THAT'S HYPOCRISY!

As to a "Danish Empire". Since viking nobles never all held allegiance to one particular king or emperor the vast areas controlled by viking lords in the 11th and 12 centuries can not be called an empire. Simply put, no one man ruled over it all. An empire requires an emperor. For example the Russ of Ukraine didn't pay tribute to Any king in Denmark, nor did the Normans in France or the Danelaw kings of England.
0 votes
by
What about Greenland? We're not talking Vikings, we're talking Greenland, conquered by Denmark in 1847.
0 votes
by
I suppose that could be called imperial.
I'm not aware of that segment of history.
0 votes
by
actually it was 1729.
(1979) Greenland granted home rule
(2008) Greenland voted to loosen ties with Denmark
(2009) Greenland ******* self-rule
0 votes
by
Wait it was 1979? Some have said 1953
0 votes
by
Here is Denmark's timeline
http://www.worldatlas.com/web...
0 votes
by
Well I'm sorry I said what I said earlier about "You too." I thought you were gonna talk about how Denmark never had an empire, and this and that. ****
0 votes
by
Also the Dakotas are predominantly Lutheran. If they had been Southerners the states would be Southern Baptist.

Lutheranism has a bad track record of bigotry, much like Judaism.
0 votes
by
Read Dee Brown's book.

book  Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee
0 votes
by
Thank thee m'lord. ;)
0 votes
by
Baloney!
The frontier by 1835 was the Louisiana purchase, Not Georgia Alabama Tennessee and the Carolinas.
0 votes
by
vampire bowing gif
0 votes
by
Pretty much yeah.
0 votes
by
Thank you ;)
0 votes
by
You missed Jackson stealing all the farms homes factories and schools of the five civilized (Native American) tribes and selling it all to rich whites to pay off the national debt, in violation of numerous legally ratified treaties an even defying the ruling of the Supreme court. Ref: "The Trail of Tears"

I agree that the Banker/Bilderberger/CFR/ Bretton woods cabal is behind most of the world's economic troubles and the NWO plot to drive people to give up their liberty for security. But this report spins history into a very one-sided anti-Semitic direction. Islam was a major threat to liberty and free societies long before there ever was a Rothschild or even a Knights Templar banking cabal.
0 votes
by
Rich whites? lol

Um, no. Semantics-wise this argument is illogical. Andrew Jackson had the back of white folks. The war against the Natives was to steal land for white settlers, most of whom were racism or at least inconsiderate. This was not a war for the rich. This was a war for the white man. Racists supported this war. It was stealing land for white settlers.
0 votes
by
The Choctaw war was fought when Jackson was a military man, long before the "Indian Relocation act" and was over and settled before he was president. It did not involve the Cherokee, who suffered the most from Jackson's illegal actions.
If not rich whites then who do you believe bought up all the stolen indian property to pay off the national debt.
0 votes
by
It was not done to pay off national debt. It was done in the name of Westward Expansion.
If anything, James Polk's war against Mexico was more for that reason than the Trail of Tears, since James Polk was about expanding slavery. Whereas Jackson was more for stealing land for white settlers.
0 votes
by
Jackson was a racist! Of course he had the back of the white folks, especially the landed agricultural and industrial Southern rich, but not the bankers.
0 votes
by
Can I have a source on that? Cause if I remember correctly, plenty of white Northerners moved out west too.
0 votes
by
*backing was what I meant
Actually "the landed agricultural and industrial Southern rich" is completely and comically wrong, all due respect. This sounds more like a cinematic conspiracy theory.

He had the support of the common white folks. Because the majority of whites were racist and religiously orthodox. And the "southern" part is wrong because this was all of America.
0 votes
by
Poor whites voted for him but entrepreneurial land and resource hungry whites supported him with funds and paid their own as well as other representatives to support Jackson's Indian Relocation Act.
0 votes
by
At least you say poor whites. You can't imagine how many idiots say otherwise. Well yeah, but that shows you this was not among class lines, but among racial ones.

A democracy is run on demand and public opinion. The majority of white folks were racist and uncaring towards natives.
0 votes
by
True, but also more popular with Southerners than New Englanders.
0 votes
by
Actually that's wrong, factually. The majority of white Americans were racist towards pretty much every other race. Wasn't there a major massacre of Native tribes in Minnesota? Weren't black people in many Northern states detained and deported. Didn't Iowa have a law where blacks had to leave within 3 days or face arrested and possibly worse -- lynching? A good half of the amount of captains in many wars were Northerners.
0 votes
by
Moravians and Quakers famously treated Indians fairly.
My tribe, Delaware, was predominantly Moravian Christian since the 1740's and many Delawares were missionaries to other tribes. White racism wasn't universal.
Lincoln pardoned most of the Indians who were sentenced to hang in that Minnesota uprising. Yet racists massacred Black Kettle's friendly Cheyennes at Sand Creek While they were flying the US flag over their encampment.
Covetousness self-defense and vengeance had far more to do with the hostilities on both sides than actual racism. Race was just a convenient excuse.
0 votes
by
It may not have been universal, but it was pretty pervasive throughout the USA.
North and South Dakota had Jim Crow. You have a case that a lot of the North didn't have Jim Crow. But most of the USA did. If states didn't have Jim Crow directly, they one of the states on a map labeled, "No specific legislation." Either a state had that or prohibited Jim Crow, if they didn't have Jim Crow.
Most of the West did.
0 votes
by
Who settled the Dakota Territory after the Civil War?
Mostly disenfranchised rural Southern Democrats with only ruins to return to looking for a better life than share cropping.
0 votes
by
lol...not a problem, apology accepted. ;)
...