US was Target of Libyan-Style "Revolution"
January 30, 2012
The difference between the US Civil War and the Libyan "revolution"
is that Russia came to America's rescue in 1863 but did not intervene on Libya's behalf in 2011.
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
The US Civil War took place for reasons similar to the "Arab Spring" revolution that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi.
Yes folks, Gadhafi may have been the Abraham Lincoln of our day.
In 1832, President Andrew Jackson ended the Charter of the Rothschild-controlled Bank of the United States. This Central Bank had given the Rothschilds exclusive right to create money and control of the US economy.
The bankers decided that the US had to be weakened by civil strife and brought to heel. It was intended that the northern states should become a British colony again, and the southern states should be dependent on France.
According to Gertrude Coogan, "the American Civil War was planned in London in 1857." (The Money Creators, p. 179.)
A group of French bankers supported the South and a British group supported the North. Napoleon III was loaned 200 million francs to invade Mexico in 1861. His troops came from the NATO of the day, Austria, Belgium, England France and Spain. In 1863, Napoleon III offered to subjugate the North in exchange for Texas and Louisiana.
The bankers' plan would have succeeded but for the intervention of Tsar Alexander II. He warned the "Allies" that an attack on the North would be considered an attack on Russia. He sent his Atlantic and Pacific fleets to New York and San Francisco to make the point. The bankers' backed down but made a mental note: Remove the Tsar.
The difference between the US in 1863 and Libya in 2011 is that Russia did not come to Libya's aid.
Like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, Muammar Ghadafi was resisting Rothschild world hegemony. An article in The New American, explains how Gadhafi became an outcast after being a "trusted ally" for so long:
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi's plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars -- demanding payment instead in gold-backed "dinars" (a single African currency made from gold) -- was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan.
When Abraham Lincoln eschewed the bankers' exorbitant rates and financed the war by creating "greenbacks," the bankers panicked.
Their house organ The London Times, feared that, "if the US furnished its own money without cost, it would be without debt and would have all the money necessary to carry on commerce. It would become prosperous beyond precedent...[It] must be destroyed."
Gadhafi was shot down in the dessert like a dog; Abe Lincoln was murdered at Ford theater.
Both the US Civil War and the Libyan revolution were instigated by the bankers to undercut opposition to their satanic world government agenda.
The final irony is that now, the US is the Rothschild's chosen goon menacing Iran, the last hold-out.
"Our watchword is force and make-believe," say the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
We are in bondage to Illuminati bankers who have used their credit monopoly to take over our government and society.
But the greater bondage is a mental and spiritual one: "Make-believe."
Our true condition is hidden from us by the mass media which diverts us with sex, lies and trivia.
This account is indebted to Andre Krylienko, The Red Thread, pp. 127-129
Related- Illuminati Murdered at Least Two More Presidents
Comments for "US was Target of Libyan-Style "Revolution" "
Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at