The Rise of the Jewish Empire by Bob Finch

[Lix Tetrax]

:evil:
The Rise of the Jewish Empire: The Jewish Conquest of America by Bob Finch



America may have lost the war against vietnam but it has never been invaded or conquered by external forces since its declaration of independence. But since the second world war and, in particular the establishment of the terrorist state refered to as Israel, it has been conquered from within. Wasps no longer have any significant control over american politics or its foreign policies

The israelis in america control the republican party and the democratic party and even the green party. They control the left wing of american politics (noam chomsky, stephen zunes) almost as much as they control the extreme right wing. They control congress. Jack abramoff apparently had in the region of 60 members of congress on his payroll. And these were not insignificant members of congress either since he funded tom delay who provided dick cheney's power base. This israeli was not only funding american goys but terrorists in the jews-only state. And this is the political influence of just one jewish billionaire. When aipac and all the other jewish lobbying groups in america, whose prime loyalties are to the jews-only state in palestine, are taken into consideration, the jews are financing virtually all members of congress. These days when american politicians talk about the need to defend their country from external threats what they mean is any challenge to the jews-only state in palestine.

The israelis control vast slabs of the bush administration. "The neoconservatives ... control the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the police-state apparatus known as "Homeland Security." (Paul Craig Roberts 'Outfoxed by bin Laden' http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4898). Wayne madsen has suggested they're aiming to take control of the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) - America's premier electronic surveillance body. "What has some NSA officials worried is that with pro-Israeli neocons now engrained within the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State Department, and National Security Council, NSA is ripe for penetration by Israeli intelligence. With outside contractors now permeating NSA and a major Israeli espionage operation being discovered inside the Pentagon, once again there is a fear within NSA that foreign intelligence services such as the Mossad could make another attempt to penetrate America's virtual "Fort Knox" of intelligence treasures and secrets." (Wayne Madsen 'The neocon power grab at NSA and an attempt to stifle the press' http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Re ... adsen.html).

Israelis own and control the american media. They compose the largest group of billionaires in america who fund a vast network of political research organizations which determine the views of america's jewish owned media and america's jewish funded politicians.

In 1950s america, as in many other western countries, there were taboos preventing people from talking about a range of social issues such as homosexuality, incest, male rape, etc, etc. These days nobody would think twice about discussing these issues. The only taboos in the western world these days have to do with jews. There is a taboo about jewish funding of political parties (in america and britain). There is a taboo against the influence of the jewish lobby on american politicians. There is a taboo about jewish attempts to take over the russian economic and political system. There is a taboo about the tribute payments that america makes to its jewish masters in the jews-only state in palestine. "The Congress, the Executive branch, state and local governments, and national and local media have all come under the influence of the Jewish "lobby's" pro-Israel agenda to the point that none or few dare to criticize Israel or its US representatives." (James Petras 'The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective' http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606).

The israelis have even transformed christianity in america. There are now tens of millions of so-called christian zionists who have come to believe in the zionist god of vengeance rather than the christian god of forgiveness. They no longer live on a god given planet but focus solely on the god given land of palestine. The devotion of these dechristianized zionists to the sacred jewish land of palestine and jews-only state in palestine is such that one of them blurted out at a major conference the logical outcome of their beliefs. 'I love America,' Arthur said, her voice quivering with emotion. 'But if it came to a choice between Israel and America, I would stand with Israel.'" (Christian Zionist author, Kay Arthur of Precepts Ministries quoted in Justin Raimondo 'Putting Israel First' http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=0).

There is not the slightest doubt that the american military is by far and away the most formidable military power in the world. But who controls that military is an entirely different matter. The american politicians who dictate military policy are not wasps but israelis - agents of the jews-only state in palestine. So, in effect the jews-only state controls american politicians who control the american military which wages war for the sake of jewish world domination.

There is no such thing as an american empire. America does not have an empire. On the contrary, america has become part of the jewish empire which dictates america's domestic and foreign policies. The policies that america is pursuing in the middle east have nothing to do with america's national interests – on the contrary, over the last four decades it has been forced to fight the wars on behalf of its jewish master. In the so-called yom kippur war of 1973 the americans were forced to back the jews-only state against the encircling arab armies which resulted in an arab oil boycott that pushed america and the world economy into a recession which lasted nearly a decade. If america had sided with the arabs it would have enjoyed an economic bonanza selling american goods to secular arab consumer societies. If the jews-only state did not exist there would have been peace and stability in the middle east which would have boosted global prosperity. Instead, america's jewish masters have cost america vast economic losses, the losses of many american troops, and the enmity of the arab and islamic world. "The passionate attachment to Israel, the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests - has come back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy. Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a decisive shift in U..S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be."
(Ronald Bleier 'Invading Iraq: Converging u.s. and Israeli Agendas'
http://desip.igc.org/ConvergingAgendas.html).

Iran's so-called acquisition of nuclear weapons is a non-issue. And yet the jewish empire has managed to coerce america, and thus the security council, into believing the utter fantasy that it is a dire threat to world peace which must be placed at the top of the global political agenda. Iran poses no military threat whatsoever to america, china, russia or europe and yet they have all made this issue their most important foreign policy. Watching america, china, russia, and europe, dancing to the paranoid fantasies of the jews-only state in palestine is proof of jewish world domination.

There may be those who argue that just because america implements the foreign policies of another state doesn't mean to say that there isn't an american empire which pursues american interests around the rest of the world. But this is not the case. America's zionist foreign policy has drained american military resources so they cannot be used in other places around the world. The jews in american politics and their shabbat goy colleagues have become so focused on the middle east to protect the sacred judaic headquarters of the jewish empire that they have ignored, or been unable to combat, the rise of democratic forces in south america from where america imports a substantial amount of its oil. Why is american foreign policy and military intervention focussed almost solely on the middle east when countries on its own doorstep which provide it with vast amounts of oil are being allowed to drift out of american control?

America's policies towards russia have been shaped for the last forty years by neocons originating from the office of the right wing democratic senator henry jackson. They managed to abolish nixon's détente with russia which could have resulted in a vast, mutually beneficial, economic boom between the two countries. The neocons, however, didn't want any american rapproachment with the russians because russia poses the danger of nuclear obliteration to the jews-only state in palestine. Once again, jewish interests predominated over american interests and americans carried out the orders of their jewish masters.

Israeli traitors control the american media, the republican and democratic parties, congress, the pentagon, the office of homeland security, the cia, the defence intelligence agency, the state department, the national security council, and the presidency. The american military is implementing the foreign policies of the jews-only state in palestine. There is nothing american left about america. Is it not true that, "The neoconservatives are the greatest threat America has ever faced .." (Paul Craig Roberts 'Outfoxed by bin Laden' http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4898). The battle for american independence was lost before most americans realized they were under attack. America is now the biggest and most powerful colony in the jewish empire. "The conventional wisdom which perceives world imperial powers dictating policy to lesser regional powers clearly fails to deal with the US Middle East Wars. The reason why this common sense notion is inadequate is because it fails to deal with a series of unique (at least in modern history) phenomena affecting the policy-making structure of the US Empire – the active role of a privileged and influential minority deeply embedded in the decision-making structure and whose primary loyalty is to another state. It is as if the State of Israel has 'colonized' the main spheres of political power in the imperial state. These 'colons' however are not exactly transplants or emigrants from their "mother country". Rather they have mostly grown up and have been educated in the imperial center, they have pursued lucrative careers in the US and have, in most instances, been strong supporters of US imperial expansion and militarism. They have risen to and influenced the highest spheres of political power. They have not been discriminated against, nor have they suffered any economic, social or political exclusion. They have not been marginalized - they are integrated in the centers of power. Yet they have set themselves apart from the rest of the US citizens and conceive of themselves as having a special mission - of being first Jews who unconditionally support the State of Israel and all of its international projections of power. How can we explain this irrational embrace of a militarist state by a set of individuals who only vicariously share its life and destiny?" (James Petras 'The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective' http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606).

American slaves need to fight back against the jewish empire rather than pretending they have an empire that acts in their name. They should see the palestinians as the leaders in the fight against the world's jewish oppressors. "The fact leftists bust a gut to ignore -is that The Big Corporations would be far, far better off if the US switched sides completely, and supported the Palestinians to the hilt. It is difficult to argue this just because it is so screamingly obvious. The Big Corporations want oil: Israel pisses off the oil producers, bigtime. Israel does not, contrary to leftist orthodoxy, help the US control the oil." (Michael Neumann 'A Study in Dogma: The Palestinians and the Party Line' http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann11182005.html).

Americans need to liberate themselves before they start helping to liberate the rest of the world, "Regardless of the particular causes or principles that most move us, that are closest to our hearts, no issue is of greater urgency than breaking the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political, social and cultural life. As long as this power remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of history and current affairs, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the US political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace." (Mark Weber 'The Challenge of Jewish-Zionist Power in an Era of Global Struggle' http://www.ihr.org/other/thechallenge.html); "As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances." (James Petras 'Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs'
http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html).

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and iraq-war.ru as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!



The X Element: by "Y" and "Z"



In case you don't know, here is how it works. There are only about 5 million jews living in USA. They control vast parts of the financial sector and of the media, and they own an enormous share of US wealth, but most of the jews are only willing helpers, helping the power to oppress the people in exchange for a higher standard of living and greater privileges but without real power themselves. The element among the Jews who weild real power let us call the "X Element." Wealthy X Element or X Element financiers or banksters purchase majority shares in a company which then gives them control of the company. Then this company buys controlling shares in two more companies-they then control three companies. Then these two companies buy controlling shares in four companies. This gives them control of seven companies. And on and on it goes. The original wealthy X Element, X Element financier or X Element bankster has a controlling interest in all of these companies including oil companies. They have been doing this for a long time, most of what was referred to as "the British Empire" and later the "American Superpower" period has been them doing this. A lot of this swallowing up of the enterprises has been done by breaking down these companies for example with over-regulation, control factor imput markets, market manipulation, union strikes, and other means, but most of all by credit monopoly, rather than by producing better products in fair competition. But you need to understand that people have to eat and provide for themselves in this slave situation and unions, even when not secretly under the control of the X Element are powerless without the public behind them. . Of course, now what you see is the decline of the unions-they no longer protect the laborers because they have done the X Elements' work for them and most of them are controlled by the X Element anyway. All of this is caused by the weapon of the X-Element-money-the medium of exchange. There is an imbalace between what laborers are paid in the medium of exchange to produce and distribute life's necessities and simple pleasures for themselves and what they are required to pay for them due to the overhang of the companies or owners. So you see the X Element otherwise known as the international financial powers get us poor non-X Element either way. The technology and resources exist for laborers and everybody else to live very well and have lots of leisure and good things -- it is the way the financial system is set up by the X Element that prevents this from happening. We either have to borrow and give them money and interest that way-both companies and laborers or they destroy the companies they do not control through wars, revolutions, inflation, dollar crises, and the like. Now do you get the picture?



Who really creates the loan when you "borrow" from a bank?



All this talk about Subprime Mortgage Banks and Lenders having a bad day may make for great Hollywood playwright material, but the fact is borrowers are unable to make payments on loans that never really existed in the first place, or in fact, on loans that the borrower actually made through the bank to himself.


Banks lend nothing but pens with which to sign promissory notes. Did you think they lent peoples savings that were in kept in their vaults? I marvel at this shell game of the banking system, making any (other) crime in history pale in comparision; causing great addiction to its wares, with not one in a million ever feeling the needle's first pierce. The banking system has evolved into wealth harvesting device of an occupying power, whereby the assets of the many are brought under direct control of the organized ruling few.




The Great Banking Deception by Tom Schauf (a "digest" revision by E. Lane -- not for circulation)



Did you really get a loan when you contracted to borrow money from the bank to pay for your home? Or was it just an exchange (your note for cash), but the bank called it a loan? Or did two loans occur?

Have you been cheated?

In order for any contract to be valid, there must be 'full disclosure', 'good faith', 'valuable consideration', and 'clean hands'. Here is what the banks advertise: "Come to our bank. We have money to loan you". Is this really what happens?



When you entered into a loan contract with a bank, you signed a note or contract promising to pay the bank back, and you agreed to provide collateral that the bank could seize if you did not repay the loan. Did you really get a loan when you contracted to borrow money from the bank to pay for your home? Or was it just an exchange (your note for cash), but the bank called it a loan? Or did two loans occur?

If the American people are drowning in debt, where is your home loan coming from. Bankers want you to believe that depositors deposit money at banks, banks lend the money to borrowers and the borrowers repay the money and the money is returned to the depositors who funded the loan. The fact is the banking system creates the new money when contract to borrow and your promisary note -- your loan to them! -- is merely their permission slip to do so. In reality money is anything that can be sold for cash and that the banks accept as money. Legal tender- cash- money is only one kind of money. Your promissory note -- your mortgage -- is another. The loan agreement you sign is sold to investors wanting interest. It circulates, it buys, it exchanges, wether you call it a money substitute or money itself -- in function it is money.

The loan agreement you sign is sold to investors wanting interest. If you do not pay the interest, they foreclose and collect the money. The loan agreement can be sold for cash and the bankers use the loan like non-legal tender money. So what is really happening? If you exchange your own $100 of cash for a $100 check from the bank -- the bankers acted like a moneychanger and lent you none of the bank's money.



If the bank uses your $100,000 collateralized loan repayment agreement like money to fund the checking deposit they create for you, like your own cash deposit funds your check account, the banker acted like a moneychanger without the bank using or risking one cent of their money to purchase your loan agreement, aside from their transactions costs and a use of their system.

The banker got your loan agreement -- money to him -- for free. You created the new money yourself when you signed the promissory note. The banker, upon receiving and approving the note then simply created $100,000 as a new deposit. Would you agree to have the banker steal your $100,000 loan agreement and use it to create $100,000 of new money -- which he could not create without it -- and return the value of the stolen property to you as a loan? Do you see that the bank has not made a loan but simply performed a system transaction upon the loan you gave the bank? You provided the "money" note the bank will quickly sell to the securitized mortgages market while simply creating at no expense to itself the $100,000 of new money from the banking systems monopoly of credit.



Unfortunately the true nature of this process is never fully disclosed in court. Nevertheless the bookkeeping entries prove that the borrower's loan agreement funded the loan to the borrower. The bookkeeping entries prove that the banker merely acted like as a middleman, a moneychanger, exchanging one kind of currency (the promissory note you created for them) for another kind of currency and charging you as if there were a loan. You funded the loan yourself. The banker did not make a loan, here merely conducted some transactions on the loan that you made him while then creating new debt money that he did not have before from the credit power of the system. When bankers create new money and lends it to you, you must work for the banker for free to repay the loan or he forecloses and gets your home for free.

The banker says, repay the loan because the bank lent you money. But shouldn't the one who really funded the loan be repaid the money? The borrower creates a promissory note which the banker uses as money to buy other forms of money. The banker then types on a keyboard and creates the new "deposit" -- the money creation power of the credit monopoly -- to pay the seller of the house you are buying or for your own use if your note was a second mortgage.



FORM vs. SUBSTANCE

The Substance - the true transaction - shows that the borrower was the lender to the bank. Then the bank repaid the loan from the borrower to the bank. The form - the alleged bank loan agreement - shows the opposite. The substance is the money trail - the bookkeeping entries. The substance shows that there were two loans exchanged - equal value for equal value. The borrower was required to repay his loan to the bank plus interest, but the bank never repaid the debt it owes to you.



In a normal court foreclosure, the lender does not come to court to give testimony. The bank attorney uses the alleged promissory note with the alleged borrower's signature as the witness in court to claim that there is an agreement, that there was a loan, that the lender fulfilled his agreement, and that the alleged borrower did not fulfill the agreement to repay the money.



Before an attorney can sue for foreclosure, he must show that the defending party (you) breached the agreement. The attorney needs a witness to give testimony that there is an agreement and that the agreement has been breached. If Rich (as an example) testifies in court that there was a loan when he knew that there was only an exchange of equal value, Rich would be giving false testimony and would be called a false witness. Instead of the attorney using Rich to give oral testimony, the attorney used the promissory note as the witness as the evidence to sue the alleged borrower.




There is a legal concept of form vs. substance. The form is the promissory note, which says that the lender lent money to the alleged borrower. But what is actually happening and what is said to be happening can be two different things. Example: You sign a paper that says you were lent $10,000 -- the Form -- but in SUBSTANCE a theif stole $10,000 worth of diamonds from you, converted them to cash and handed over the cash getting your promissory note in exchange. In this case no one actually lent you one cent to obtain the promissory note. The thief stole $10,000 worth of your diamonds and returned the cash to you as a loan. The form says that there was a loan; your signature also says that there was a loan. The true transaction, though, proves that there was no loan. The substance-money trail and the bookkeeping entries-proves that someone took something of value worth $10,000 from you, exchanged it for a different asset of equal value and returned your $10,000 to you as a loan that you now have to pay off with interest. The attorney sues you, claiming that your signature proves that you received the loan. You hire an expert witness to prove that there was no loan, that the substance of the transaction was an exchange, and that you were charged as if it were a loan.



Economically speaking, what is the difference if a stranger received your $10,000 worth of diamonds for free, or if he got a $10,000 lien on your property for free, or if he received $10,000 of your future payroll checks for free? The substance of the transaction is the transferal of $10,000 of property from you to the stranger for free. The transfer of wealth is precisely how bankers obtain liens on the nation's homes, cars, farms, and businesses for free. If a robber were to use a gun to transfer your wealth, you would place him in prison. If a banker does the same thing by using "form," an attorney, a judge, and a sheriff, you think it is legal.



It's the substance, not the form that counts. Does the attorney use the promissory note just like a witness to give false testimony in court, claiming that the lender lent money, cash or cash equivalent to the alleged borrower? The attorney could be disbarred for bringing fraud into the court. The substance was an exchange of value for value. If the form and the substance disagree, one must rely on the substance over the form because substance always wins over form.



Example: You give Rich $100 for five boxes of toys. Rich says, "Here are the five boxes. Sign this paper that says you received the boxes." You sign. Rich refuses to hand over the five boxes and claims that the form - the paper you just signed - says that you received the boxes. You would tell the judge that you acted in good faith by signing because you were told that you would receive the five boxes standing in front of you. After you had signed, Rich refused to let you have the boxes. The form - the paper-says that you received the boxes, but the substance - the true transaction-clearly shows you never received what you had bargained for. If the attorney uses the form (paper) in court to claim that you received the boxes when, in fact, he knew that you had never received then, the attorney brought fraud on the court to sue you. The form - the paper - would be a false witness against you.

Is the promissory note used as a false witness? The promissory note has the borrower's signature agreeing that the lender lent the borrower money.

The attorney wants only the form - the promissory note with your signature- as a witness in court. You want the true substance - the true transaction - and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Some attorney's object to allowing the bookkeeping entries entered into court as evidence. The attorney must rely on the form and stop the substance.

Extortion occurs when the court does not allow information into court for one's defense.

Few people disagree that the one who provided the original funds to fund the bank loan check should be repaid the money. Few argue that we should have equal protection and full disclosure. The lender concealed the true substance in the agreement.



If the bank received $10,000 from Joe and lent the same $10,000 to Joe, shouldn't the bank return the $10,000 to Joe?

If a banker received $10,000 of capital from Joe and deposits the funds into a checking account, should the bank return the $10,000 to Joe? If all bankers agree that the answer is "yes," then all bank loans in America should be canceled tomorrow.

If the bank received $10,000 from Joe and lent the same $10,000 to Joe, should the bank return the $10,000 to Joe? The foreclosure attorney must argue that the bank should not return the $10,000 to Joe. Joe believed that the alleged borrower should repay the lender, and the lender should repay the one who funded the bank loan check. The foreclosure attorney must argue that the parties agreed to the terms and the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the money. How could the judge rule in favor of the bank, claiming that the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the money?


Want proof that this is real? Ask yourself the following questions:

1. Were you told that the Federal Reserve Policies and Procedures and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, section 1831n (a), prohibit them from lending their own money from their own assets, or from other depositors? Did the bank tell you where the money for the loan was coming from?

2. Were you told that the contract you signed (your promissory note) was going to be converted into a 'negotiable instrument' by the bank and become an asset on the bank's accounting books? Did the bank tell you that your signature on that note made it 'money', according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24) and 3-104?

3. Were you told that your promissory note (money) would be taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and be sold by the bank for cash - without 'valuable consideration' given to obtain your note? Did the bank give you a deposit slip as a receipt for the money you gave them, just as the bank would normally provide when you make a deposit to the bank?

4. Were you told that the bank would create an account at the bank that would contain this money that you gave them?

5. Were you told that a check from this account would be issued with your signature, and that this account would be the source of the funds behind the check that was given to you as a "loan"?

If you answered "No" to any of these questions, YOU HAVE BEEN CHEATED! How does that make you feel? It is now up to you to demand your deposit back and to challenge the validity of your "signature" on any alleged bank "loan" agreement or check. Since the banks and other lending institutions cannot allow "full disclosure" of your "loan" agreement and cannot answer your challenges about it, their silence is your key, along with important steps that we can show you step-by-step, to get your deposit back and "payoff" their alleged "loan" to you.



---

Eustace Mullins summarizes the true situation: "IRS is actually a private collection agency for the Federal Reserve System." It is not listed among any of the de jure services or bureaus that constitute the U.S. Department of the Treasury. See Title 31 of the U.S. Code for proof http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/ ... particularly the "organization" of that Department and the section authorizing the "Treasury of the United States". See also: http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm Also, IRC 7809 requires that all taxes collected by the IRS shall be deposited daily into the Treasury of the United States: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7809.html

The IRS is not making those deposits, it is not complying with that clear statutory requirement, ... and, their failure to do so was the main justification for this APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/erath/injunction.htm (PAST DUE) ... collections of whatever nature received or collected by authority of any internal revenue law, shall be paid daily into the Treasury of the United States under instructions of the Secretary as internal revenue collections, by the officer or employee receiving or collecting the same, without any abatement or deduction on account of salary, compensation, fees, costs, charges, expenses, or claims of any description.

Although listed as part of the Treasury Department, the IRS is actually a private collection agency for the Federal Reserve System. It originated as the Black Hand in mediaeval Italy, collectors of debt by force and extortion for the ruling Italian mob families. All personal income taxes collected by the IRS are required by law to be deposite in the nearest Federal Reserve Bank, under Sec. 15 of the Federal Reserve Act, "The moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury may be ... deposited in Federal reserve banks, which banks, when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall act as fiscal agents of the United States."



The bankers have been ingenius the bankers in creating this system. Congress, the President, judges, laywers and CPAs serve this system and in return profit from it. A continuous advertizing blitz and suppression of counter-information in all all major media keep the system an insiders secret.


Henry Ford,Founder of Ford Motor Company, understood the system: "It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning".

This secret banking allows bankers to create economic booms and busts, makes the stock market go up and down as they increase and decrease the money supply therough their monopoly of credit. You lose in investments as those who understand the secret transfer your investment money into their pocket. You lose, they win.

[joeblow]

DAMN! FUCK! SHIT! EVERYONE HAS TO READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!