All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

[knight22]

Worth watching.

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

[arbitrage001]

Finance and banking sector only serve the demand of the society.


War is the natural outcome of competition and capitalism.

[Charlie Prime]

Bullshit.

War is the health of the State.

Socialism is gang warfare.

Capitalism is non-violent competition.

Don't confuse the two.

[Ron~Popeil]

Bullshit.

War is the health of the State.

Socialism is gang warfare.

Capitalism is non-violent competition.

Don't confuse the two.

Well said. Free markets are anathema to war. Robust economic activity tends tends to make wars less likely. You can't trade with people that you kill. 

[JustBetweenUs]

Finance and banking sector only serve the demand of the society.


War is the natural outcome of competition and capitalism.

Hahaha good one. I hope you are kidding right?

Wars and poverty is 100% a result of big central banks. It's been that way since the Roman empire. If you think otherwise, you are either misinformed or way too naive.

[tooil]

Finance and banking sector only serve the demand of the society.


War is the natural outcome of competition and capitalism.

Hahaha good one. I hope you are kidding right?

Wars and poverty is 100% a result of big central banks. It's been that way since the Roman empire. If you think otherwise, you are either misinformed or way too naive.

The general public put politician in place to serve their need. And the government demand the central bank to print money to drive down interest so the general public can have a slice of American dream.

Just because the general public get the short end of the stick doesn't mean they are not responsible for what is happening today.


Remember, for every transaction, there is a buyer and a seller. You do not have to accept the deal if you think it is immoral or if you think you are getting good short term benefit at the expense of long term benefit.

[Charlie Prime]

You do not have to accept the deal if you think it is immoral or if you think you are getting good short term benefit at the expense of long term benefit.

Wrong.  You have no choice in the matter.

If you don't believe me, attempt to avoid the "deal", and I guarantee serious men with guns will show up at your door.

[twiifm]

Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.

Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking

Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet



Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..

[trashymonkey]

Has somebody has been watching too much Zeitgeist?

[knight22]

Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.

Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking

Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet



Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..

Dig a little deeper and money/power is always the true reason for wars. Any other reason is always a front.

[Ron~Popeil]

Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.

Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking

Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet



Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..

Who do you think financed those wars? Wars are backed by fiat currency borrowed in the form of treasury bills that we all pay back with interest and through inflation. 

[r34tr783tr78]

It's impossible to ascribe only one cause to war. War is a too complex phenomena.
All studies on the causes of war (see https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WPP.CHAP16.HTM) arrived to the conclusion that it's impossible to predict a war. There are circumstances that can make a war more likely between two states, like common boarders, but there are no situations that make a war inevitable.

[twiifm]

Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.

Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking

Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet



Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..

Who do you think financed those wars? Wars are backed by fiat currency borrowed in the form of treasury bills that we all pay back with interest and through inflation.  

Of course the money has to come from somewhere to buy the guns.  Doesn't mean it is caused by or fought on the behalf of banking or bankers.  

in 1980s there was a war between Vietnam & Cambodia.  Please explain how your banker theory fits into this specific situation

[spazzdla]

Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.

Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking

Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet



Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..

REALLY, how many of those countires were part of the central banking system BEFORE then after...

Believe what the media tells you and live blind.

10% of your wage goes to pay the interest on the debt your country took out against your name to be paid to the people that started this banking cartel.  Open your eyes serfs.

[bryant.coleman]

I am not very sure of Bankers' contribution to the wars. But an increase in the defence spending (and thereby an increase in the budget deficit) is a welcome factor for most bankers.

[groggin]

Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.

Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking

Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet



Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..

Who do you think financed those wars? Wars are backed by fiat currency borrowed in the form of treasury bills that we all pay back with interest and through inflation.  

Of course the money has to come from somewhere to buy the guns.  Doesn't mean it is caused by or fought on the behalf of banking or bankers.  

in 1980s there was a war between Vietnam & Cambodia.  Please explain how your banker theory fits into this specific situation

the bankers wanted a booming war economy to milk (they will finance both sides, then finance rebuilding the looser (and install a central fiat-banking system, recent example: iraq), at the victors expense, then do it again, "rinse & repeat")

why do you think no. korea is in the crosshairs?
because they don't have a central fiat-bank!

problem is, the ppl, by themselves, have no desire for war, (it's much more fun swapping coins ...)
so, they lie to the ppl, prove there is a threat
 in those days it was called the gulf of tonkin event (spelling error i think  )
  the event didn't really happen, but it got the ppl to send their boys and girls off to war (again)

[boraf]

Those who get into the top merely taking advantage of trend of inevitable outcome.

[arbitrage001]

I am not very sure of Bankers' contribution to the wars. But an increase in the defence spending (and thereby an increase in the budget deficit) is a welcome factor for most bankers.

Those who get into the top merely taking advantage of trend of inevitable outcome.

These two points.

[negafen]

One small component in a larger system.

[tabnloz]

Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.

Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking

Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet



Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..

You're right here in my opinion. Money, power and maintaining / expanding power. But as a counterpoint I think the Shock Doctrine theory of economically driven overthrows eg the US in Chile, Argentina were two Chicago School ideology driven 'invasions'. Not banking exactly but same theme park.