Analysis of News—www.analysis-news.com
Of Interest to Investors, Survivalists and Others Concerned About
Their Economic and Financial Futures
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With a focus on the Plutocrats, Goldsmiths, Super-Rich Insiders, and
their Allies
and what they are
conspiratorially doing to manipulate the financial markets,
make more profits, rip us off and install a world government under their
control
Understanding
Money and War--Part III
By R. D.
Bradshaw
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 19th 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.