Sheerit Yisrael—www.age-end.com

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

With a Different Approach to the Questions of

Religion, Philosophy, Faith, Hope and the Future

 

Understanding Money and War--Part III

 

The previous Understanding Money and War articles discussed at some length how the British conducted wars for profits.  While the final chapters on the British adventures remain to be written, the fact remains that Britain has been highly successful at this game. 

 

Early on, in US history, the Americans learned from the British that huge profits can be made from war.  Thus, the US ruling plutocrats (like the Rothschilds) and their allies (like Paul Wolfowitz, to be discussed at length in Understanding Money and War, Parts IV-VI) cleaned up in the US 2003 conquest of Iraq. 

 

Before it’s all over, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and the House of Rothschild will control the Iraqi oil, money and economy for the next many years--if things go according to plans.  Frankly, I am not now totally convinced that the Rosenfeldt (alias Roosevelt) wisdom on things happening as planned will prevail much longer in the Middle East (FDR said if it happens in politics, it was planned that way).  For sure, there seems to be some trouble coming down the pike for the ruling Western plutocrats in the Middle East (as will be discussed in the succeeding articles in this series). 

 

Regardless of America’s future, the Rothschild cabal of money changers for the last 200 years has successfully caused wars all over Europe which made the Rothschild team absolute fortunes (as discussed in part II of this series).  Now some more words will be shared from history on a marvelous revelation about how this team of evil British plutocrats ripped off South Africa in the 19^th century. 

 

The British Zulu War

 

Victoria became queen in 1837.  The fat cat bankers in Britain and Victoria’s ministers went to work diligently to create the vast British Empire in the 19th century.  With the death of Victoria in 1901, the sun did not set on the British Empire.  Literally, it stretched around the world. 

 

One of the most interesting and profoundly important Prime Ministers, under Victoria, was Benjamin Disraeli, a Christian Jew, who had enormous perception about reality.  Disraeli first became Prime Minister in Feb 1868 with the Conservative party.  He lost power to the Liberal party in December of that year when William Ewart Gladstone took over.  But Gladstone had his troubles.  So the Conservative party came back with Disraeli in Feb 1874. 

 

Although Britain had Victoria on the throne as Queen, and had people like Disraeli ostensibly running the country, the real power by the 1830s was the House of Rothschild, as discussed at length in Understanding Money and War, Part II. 

 

In furtherance of the British empire and perhaps because Britain began to have some understanding about the great wealth in South Africa, the British leaders and their Rothschild masters looked with envy upon much of South Africa, then largely controlled by the Boers or Afrikaners (Dutch people and French Huguenots).  The essential problem facing the British plutocrats was how to steal this great wealth in South Africa. 

 

British Lust

 

While Britain possessed the Cape Colony; the Orange Fee State, Transvaal and Natal were inhabited and controlled by the Boers.  The British looked with lust in their hearts upon this Boer land.  Victoria, Disraeli and the British plutocrats decided that they would proceed to steal all of it. 

 

Many history books suggest that the vast gold and diamond fields in these old Boer lands were not really discovered and/or developed until the late 1880s.  However, there are some reasons to suggest that some persons had some perception of the wealth there to spur the British government on in deciding to take the lands and make them become a part of the British Empire under Rothschild rule and control. 

 

The problem that the British planners faced was how to steal the land and avoid having to fight a prolonged war with the Boers (actually, as things turned out, Britain and the Boers did eventually fight a war in 1899 to 1902 over these lands, but Britain made other efforts in the 1870s to avoid a war). 

 

The method chosen by Britain was described by Dr Stan Monteith in his video on “9/11 Contrived.”  Monteith says that the British came up with a method of stealing the Boer lands by creating a common enemy which would have to be opposed by both Britain and the Boers. 

 

In other words, if my enemy and I carry a common enemy, we can be friends of sorts in opposition to our common enemy.  Thus, in 1877, Britain created a common enemy which united the British and the Boers and allowed Britain to steal the Boer lands.  The common enemy chosen was the Zulu Blacks, then living in Zululand, across the Buffalo River from Natal. 

 

In his video, Dr Monteith says that the Zulus had been at peace with the Whites for thirty years.  Manifestly, they did not want a war with the more militarily advanced Whites.  But Britain made some impossible demands upon the Zulus, which laid the groundwork for the British-Zulu war of 1878-1879 (this British effort was much like the process George W. Bush followed to set the stage for his attack on Iraq.  Bush made demands which were impossible for Saddam to accept). 

 

While it is unclear what all has motivated the Zulus over the years, Dr Monteith mentions an interesting fact about them and their culture which probably affected their ability to fight.  Monteith says that a Zulu warrior could not have a woman to bed down with until he had washed his spear in the blood of his enemy.  Surely, this made many of the Zulu men anxious for a fight in order to kill their enemies. 

 

The Conflict of 1878-1879

 

So, in 1877, Britain annexed the Boer lands and soon made demands on the Zulu nation which the Zulu King Cetywayo (he was made king in 1872) could not accept.  War then came in 1878 and 1879.  With the war, the British and the Boers were united against the common enemy and threat. 

 

Accordingly, in January 1879, the British Commander-In-Chief in South Africa, a General named Lord Chelmsford, organized a 5,000 man army and proceeded to cross the Buffalo River and march into Zululand, ostensibly to seek out and destroy the Zulu army.  Despite a major defeat at a place called Isandhlwana (with the loss of at least 1200 soldiers in the invasion force), the British invasion eventually succeeded and the Zulus were defeated (just as happened in Iraq with the GWB invasion and conquest in 2003). 

 

Retired US Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler

 

In 1935, when the clouds were building up for WWII, Retired US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler had some wisdom to share with us today.  It is absolutely fascinating to read Butler’s own words--in sort of an autobiography. 

 

The Volume 6, 2001, issue of “Scriptures for America” (p. 3-4) quoted these remarks from Butler, evidently just after his retirement:  “I spent 33 years and four months in active 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 Maj. Gen.  And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscleman 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 Citibank 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 to see to it that 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, metals and promotion.  Looking back on it, I feel that 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.” 

 

By the way, General Butler won two Congressional Medals of Honor and would have received a third one, but his gallantry came at a time when the Medal of Honor was forbidden to commissioned officers.  He knew what he was talking about in the above comments. 

 

In another illustration, many of us remember the great Steve McQueen movie on “The Sand Pebbles.”  It was about a US Navy gun boat patrolling Chinese rivers in the years 1925 to 1928.  General Butler spoke of his work in China in those troubling years. 

 

And why was a United States ship of war patrolling Chinese rivers?  Certainly, such efforts had absolutely nothing to do with the defense of the US (and were not authorized in the US Constitution).  So why were we there?  Well, General Butler revealed why.  We were there to protect the Rockefeller oil interests.  And so it goes. 

 

In the 1939 John Ford movie “Stagecoach” (which propelled John Wayne into stardom), the banker character Ellsworth H. Gatewood said “What’s good for the banks is good for America.”  In the “Li’l Abner” Broadway play, there was a super rich industrialist named General Bullmoose.  Bullmoose had a take on the Gatewood line.  He said:  “What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for America.”  

 

To prove the incredible accuracy of the wisdom of Gatewood and General Bullmoose, the Understanding Money and War series, Parts IV, V and VI, will address the US war on Iraq in 2003. 

 

There is substantial evidence indicating that the reasons for the US invasion and conquest of Iraq were not because of the reasons cited by George W. Bush and his lackeys.  There were more secret and clandestine causes involved, as will be proven in the later articles in this series. 

 

The above article has been published by the Analysis of News to better inform people on the activities of the plutocratic financial market manipulators and what they are doing to deceive us and cheat us out of our last nickels and dimes whenever we try to play on their field. 

 

Subscribers receive the analysis of news by email weekly.  And when warranted, because of any urgent news reports, flash reports are sent by email at once to subscribers.  To enter your subscription now, please check the How to Subscribe item at the left menu of the website at www.analysis-news.com. 

 

Click here to go to the home page of www.analysis-news.com.