Direct Link to Latest News


All Wars Defend Usury

May 1, 2013

img_nathan_mayer_rothschild_quote_fullscreen.jpgThis is what Nathaniel Rothschild (1777-1836) really meant:
"He who owns the money supply owns the people."

Banking began as a sleight-of-hand, when gold dealers with vaults realized they could issue receipts (IOU's) for much more gold than they actually had on deposit. This is the origin of currency. Then they got the State to borrow and guarantee their fraudulent IOU's which became the money supply.

The human race has been enslaved by these sociopaths, who now use bogus terrorism as a pretext to protect their credit monopoly and collect their bogus debt and interest.       A Rockefeller admitted that terror is a hoax. (3.21 min)

Money is a medium of exchange, like a coupon.  It has no intrinsic value but is essential for economic vitality. The bankers control the corporations that control the politicians and mass media. They ensure humanity is diverted and depleted by bogus wars and depressions while they erect their "world government".

Using Gentile fronts, Jewish bankers succeeded in privatizing the money supply and making it a liability of the State. (This is like controlling the oxygen supply.)  Money is just a medium of exchange, like a coupon.  It has no intrinsic value. They have bought everyone and everything worth owning, beginning with politicians and mass media, and ensured that humanity is diverted and depleted by constant wars and depressions. - See more at:
Here, Jyri Lina traces the origins of the Bank of England and its consequences:  "All great wars have been started and financed by the economic conglomerate emanating from one single banking family--the Rothschilds."

by Jyri Lina

"The Fight Against Usury"
(Excerpt from The Barnes Review, Oct 2004)

In November of 1688 (under the sign of the scorpion) the Catholic king of England James II (Stuart) was overthrown through a well-organized invasion financed by the moneyed Jews of Amsterdam and led by the Prieure de Sion and the Orange Order.

180px-Don_Francisco_Lopes_Suasso.jpg(l. Abraham Israel Suasso, helped finance invasion)

The king was exiled to France and in February of 1689 William of Orange, the prince of Nassau, was put upon the English throne. This became known as the "Glorious Revolution." Even official historians admit that the people did not participate in this coup.

England was in poor condition after 50 years of war with France and the Netherlands. William III asked several powerful bankers for help. They provided the English state with a loan of 1.25 million pounds but only delivered 750,000 pounds. The terms of the loan were as follows; the names of the lenders were not to be revealed, and these were guaranteed the right to found the Bank of England, whose directors were able to issue loans to a value of 10 pounds for each pound of deposited gold in the bank vault. They also were allowed to consolidate the national debt and secure payment for annuity and interest through direct Taxation of the people.

The privately owned Bank of England was established in 1694 with absolute control over the currency (the right to issue bank notes). The lending of money on usury continued at an even larger scale. Thus the English people suffered a huge national debt. Taxes had to be raised and prices doubled. To the Masonic bankers it was necessary to have a monopoly on money issuing. That way they were able to make enormous profits and also control political processes.

The Bank of England was allowed to lend money to an amount 10 times the security the lender put. up. With 5 percent interest it only took two years for the bank to earn back an amount equal to the original security.
By the year 1698, the national debt had risen from one and a quarter million pounds to 16 million. In 1815 it was 885 million pounds and in 1945 it had grown to 22.5 billion pounds. By 1995 the national debt had risen to more than 300 billion pounds, equal to 45 percent of GNP.

Not even the Macmillan Committee, which was appointed in 1929, managed to find out who governed the Bank of England. Only one name has leaked out--that of Rothschild. All great wars have been started and financed by the economic conglomerate emanating from one single banking family--the Rothschilds.


In the Netherlands, secret societies had been able to found a central bank as early as 1609. About 40 of the world's most important central banks were established in a similar way as that of the Bank of England. In that way the Masonic bankers ruled the long-term development in the world with loan interest as a method, the central banks as middlemen, the politicians as dummies and the people as ignorant wage slaves.

The Freemason-controlled banks thus can govern political life by acting without being seen. The English people strengthened the power of these invisible Freemasons through paying taxes during three centuries. Central banks were supposed to keep the economy stable. In reality it works quite differently.

bff.jpgBenjamin Franklin wrote of the British colonies in North America in the 1750s: "Nowhere on Earth does one find a happier and more well-being people." He explained that this was due to that "we in the colonies make our own currency," called "colonial scrip." He further explained: "By issuing our own currency we can control its buying power, and we are not obliged to pay interest to anyone."

In these British colonies in New England, there was a wealth contrasting sharply to the poverty and misery in England. There was enough money, and it was definitely interest free.

When the Masonic bankers in England heard Franklin's speech to the British Parliament, they made sure that Parliament forbade the colonies from using their own financial system. The money supply was reduced in half, and the colonies were forced to borrow money from the Bank of England. The result was steep interest and price increases. Within a year the streets were full of unemployed people.

In American schoolbooks, the reason given for the outbreak of the Revolutionary War was the tea tax. but according to Franklin "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax" (of 2 percent) on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction." The result of the influence of the English banks on the British Parliament was horrendous poverty in America. When this situation had been created, it was easy to get people ready for war which the Freemasons did with satisfaction. They wanted a safe base for their future global activities.

Among the men who drew up the Constitution of 1787, many urged protection against the financial drain of the international bankers. Therefore Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution reads: "Congress shall have power ... to coin money, regulate the value thereof..."

Alexander Hamilton, a Freemason and secretary of finance in the government of George Washington, and also the agent of the international financiers, ordered the establishment of a privately owned union bank and the introduction of interest money. His argument was simple; "A limited national debt would he a blessing to a nation " He considered it dangerous for the government to issue its own currency.

Thus the United States got its first central bank in 1791. It was privately owned but had a contract running for only 20 years. It was not renewed when it expired. Andrew Jackson referred to the fact that the Constitution had given Congress the right to issue currency in sufficient quantity but not transfer this right to others.

1812.jpgWAR OF 1812

The Freemason Nathan Rothschild (1777-1836), who partly financed the Napoleonic wars through the Bank of England, subsequently issued an ultimatum--either the contract be renewed or there would be war. Jackson called the Masonic bankers a bunch of thieves and promised to exterminate them. Rothschild gave his own orders: "Teach those insolent Americans a lesson. Force them back to a colonial status."

The British government began to limit the American sea trade and checked the American expansion in Canada. President James Madison let Congress declare war on England. Rothschild's intention was to lay waste the country so that the Americans would be forced to seek financial aid. Great Britain, however, failed to regain the lost colonies, and the United States failed to occupy Canada.

Rothschild did not triumph this time. The renewed central bank contract was again suspended in 1836 during Andrew Jackson's presidency (1829-1837), despite the fact that he was Grand Master of Tennessee. The central bank was temporarily abolished.

Even so European bankers and their American agents managed to exercise an extensive control of the American monetary system. Gustavus Myers admits in his book History of the Great American Fortunes (1910): "Under the surface, the Rothschilds had a direct influence by dictating the American financial laws. The legal records show that they were the ones in control of the old Bank of the United Slates."

In American history books there is nothing about the role of the banks in the first and second American wars of independence (that is 1775-83 and 1812-1814).

See also "Our Chains are Forged by Usury"

Historian Carroll Quigley commented on the creation of the central banks in his 1975 book Tragedy And Hope:

"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far reaching (plan), nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank For International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank ... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the Country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "All Wars Defend Usury "

Tony B said (May 3, 2013):

Steven is the one who is foolish. His knowledge of money is nonexistent. There is no commodity on earth easier to manipulate (in various ways, not just that of amount in circulation) than precious metals, any of them. Steven has no clue as to the number and denominated amounts of exchanges which take place every day. His gold and silver, all of it known to man, could not handle a half hour's worth of one day's exchanges in one country.

You would think everyone in the world would have by now noted that those who sell these precious metals to the gullible demand bank credit of one kind or another in exchange. Why would they not keep the metal if it is so "precious?" The answer is simple. Because the bank credit has been declared by government fiat (by law) to be the money of the realm. Money is a creation of LAW even when it is, as our coin is, of some particular commodity. Note too that a MONETARY VALUE is placed on the metal for exchange purposes regardless of its commodity value. A silver quarter may be worth six or seven dollars today as a commodity but it will still buy a quarter's worth of any other commodity at any store, just the same as a copper clad quarter.

Moreover, actual in-the-hand money, all of it worldwide combined, is still almost nothing compared to the amount of exchanges, most of which are done by other paper, the huge majority by "checks," the technical composition of which I doubt if one in ten million has bothered to understand.

Note that Anthony mentioned - only once, but mentioned - that interest is always COMPOUNDED by the lenders. Even if you believe that those who loan should be allowed interest THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REASON ON EARTH FOR THAT INTEREST TO BE COMPOUNDED, which multiplies the damage it does to civilization exponentially by hundreds of times as it progresses through time.

Tony B.

Doug said (May 3, 2013):

Phoney money gives us accountants instead of bookkeepers, constables instead of police officers, attorneys instead of lawyers, city managers instead of mayors, administrative hearings disguised as courts of law, professional armies instead of militia. Asking someone who works within the system about corruption is like asking a fish about water.

Anonymous said (May 3, 2013):

Nicholas Biddle admitted his tactic:

"Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress...Our only safety is pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and re-charter of the Bank."

Likewise, the manufactured Panic of 1907 established the Fed under progressive president Woodrow Wilson.

The endgame documentation is - they own us all (net worth), yet pretend emergency (budget deficit), the better to tax plebes into proper poverty. Any slave master knows: keep them just strong and smart enough to work, but not rebel.

A modern thinktank concluded outright slavery is too much trouble. Wage slavery under we're-here-to-help-you mind control works best. So progressive policy wonking fills our press 24/7/365. It's all bamboozle theater. (Stephen Coleman) the chap hurling charges at Jüri Lina needs to escape the progressivism cult and admit he's been conned by greedy bastards.

A jealousy/snitch culture is another slave mastery imperative. Notice how bankers hide in shadows behind layers of holding firms and front politicians. Meanwhile they teach us to report on one another and submit to massive surveillance apparatus. Classic.

Anthony Migchels said (May 2, 2013):

Yes, it's that simple.

We both have seen the absolute deep end of the Truth Movement and I'm pretty sure that behind the scenes the most absurd evil imagining is going on.

But it all boils down to this.

They own the money supply and through interest, the boom-bust cycle and the power to decide who gets financed and not, they have usurped the whole thing.

It goes back a little further, I think David Astle's the Babylonian Woe convincingly analyzes history in this respect.

Their avarice and lust for power has grown into what we have come to see. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Banking is the issue that has swept through the ages. It was conceived in iniquity and born in sin.

All the rest may (and probably is) true, but this is at its core.

It's weird: I've been coming to this conclusion myself exactly at this point in time.

Stephen Coleman said (May 2, 2013):

This article by Jryi Lina is an other example of mixing historic fiction with truth. Much like the smear campaign against Lincoln, the smear campaign against Hamilton and the National Bank, a bank for the people and by the people is orchestrated by the Illuminati. They purposely have twisted history and plant disinformation in our universities and smear it everywhere they can on the internet. The Illuminati do not what people to know the historical truth, because they do not want and will kill for it, a return to a national bank.

The Illuminati have made Jackson, who was an illiterate puppet of the Bank of England, that immediately plunged the USA into a massive depression. He the one that destroyed the US economy to the point that when Lincoln became president the Federal government was bankrupted and hadn't paid their employees for nearly 2 years. Jackson was a traitor to the US revolution and so is every president to various degrees since JFK.

Jryi is either an unwitting dupe or an Illuminati agent.


Stephen Coleman

Mike said (May 2, 2013):

Something that can be added, by Juri Lina, gives an idea of what happened in Russia, traceable to the usury system. And the Cheka are the DHS, same people.

A film from the recent Boston lockdown, set to a sentimental patriotic tune. The irony speaks more poignantly than words.

JG said (May 1, 2013):

What great Americans we once had. Would the people of the United States today go to war to preserve their Constitutional Rights and sovereignty against the very people that are printing their money for them? Not a chance!

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at