Recently a feud between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell gave their ratings a boost. Mel Gibson and Michael Richards also made gratuitous attacks that helped their bottom line.
What if the world's great conflicts were just as phoney? What if Bush and Chavez; Blair and Putin; Olmert and Ahmadinejad were all part of a giant Punch and Judy Show?
I have shown how World War One was made possible by British food subsidies to the Germans, and ended when this trade stopped.
World War Two, which Churchill called the most "unnecessary war in history" was also engineered through loans to the Nazis and the policy of "Appeasement." The Masonic bankers also engineered US entry into WW II.
The war supposedly was fought for the independence of Poland yet at the end, Eastern Europe was under the heel of the Russians, the 1939-1941 allies of the Nazis. Instead of Nazis, Polish nationalists were massacred by Soviets. An improvement? Sounds to me like war for its own sake, or for Communism.
Our War on Terror is the natural successor of the "Cold War"; both as phony as three-dollar bills. The war on Iraq? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Iran? Do any of them make any sense? These wars are unwinnable. How do you win a guerilla war without annihilating everyone? They are not meant to be won.
As Dick Cheney intimated, the Iraq War will last 40 years i.e. as long as the Cold War. Both sides are subsidized and controlled by the world's central bankers and their secret societies/intelligence agencies.
George is not to blame. Every President in the Twentieth Century has been a hand puppet of the Rothschild-Rockefeller cartel of cartels. They wouldn’t let George manage a gas station let alone the "Free World." Luckily, Bush just reads the teleprompter. Henry Kissinger, CEO of the visible NWO, issues the orders.
The most obvious "controlled conflict" is the two party system.
Chavez and Ahmadinejad vilify Bush and the USA, but, like Chavez' mentor Noam Chomsky, cannot pronounce the words "Rothschild" or "central banker."
CONTROLLING DEBATE
I suspect that the bankers set up Nationalist and anti-Globalist spokesmen and groups in order to control both sides. The tip off: are these people getting corporate/government support and coverage in the mass media? Probable Canadian examples are Naomi Klein, Maude Barlow and Mel Hurtig.
On the other hand, you know Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party is legit because she talks about the bankers and consequently gets no media. In the US, Aaron Russo is legit for the same reason. It's apparent that political action requires money. The bankers mint it. The rest of us are too busy making a living to be anything but bystanders and victims.
CONCLUSION
These days you can't turn on the media without someone (usually Zionists like Charles Adler or Glenn Beck,) stirring up hostility against Iran and Muslims in general. They keep talking about how war-like Islam is when we are invading them! Any future conflict may destroy Israel, but these highly paid shills don’t care. War for its own sake is the goal.
War is considered "revolutionary" because it advances the Masonic bankers' goal of the New World Order. It "overturns" civilization by destroying nation, race, family and religion. Fabian Harold Laski even referred to the two great wars as "revolutions."
To have a war, the bankers need to create and provision two sides. Thus all wars are waged against humanity by a small satanic criminal network that owns 50% of the world's wealth. The mainspring is the world's private central bankers.
The Hindus have a term for the "Matrix." They say our lives are governed by "Maya" or "illusion."
Who thought anyone would go to so much trouble to create it? Perhaps liberation lies in recognizing that conflicts are artificially created and controlled.
Doubts? Suggested reading: "The Creature From Jekyll Island"
