US was Target of Libyan-Style "Revolution"

January 30, 2012


ghaddafi.jpegThe 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" "

Cheryl & Steve said (January 31, 2012):

We used to think the JFK assassination was the watershed for America. Then there are people who see
the 1913 Federal Reserve Act as the tipping point. But no, it was indeed The Civil War, and the potential
U.S. financial revolution which preceded it. Here's a historic anthem which articulates those tragic days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzIQdFlUDtI


Dick said (January 31, 2012):

I disagree with a few points in this article (chiefly your
endorsement of Andrew Jackson, who was the puppet of British agent Aaron Burr and British arch-propagandist Jeremy Bentham). But on the whole, it's a fair enough comparison.

Lyndon LaRouche has written ad nauseum about the historical
conflict between trading empires like the British and continental
nation-states like Russia, Germany and America. It's not just about the money power, but internal self-sufficiency in resources, infrastructure and industry, and public policy written in the public interest.

I don't think it's fair to say Gaddafi was ever exactly a tool of
the west. Read his "Green book". Gaddafi was one of a number of
prominent "pan-African" nationalists – Haile Sellasie, Gamal Abdel
Nasser, Robert Mugabe (if you're looking for a case study). A more fair example of the "puppet off the string" would be Idi Amin, who was trained in Britain and Israel, and was the west's new best pal until he started kicking Israelis out of Uganda and nationalizing banks and oil companies, at which point he was "discovered" to be a bloodthirsty cannibal.

Even a relatively small country like Libya can become intolerable
to an empire based on international trade, speculation and imperial management. Any nationalist impulse – like Gaddafi's currency plans or infrastructure projects, collaboration with Russia and China, and general view toward unifying the 3rd-world resource farm called Africa – will get you in serious trouble.

As for your two combatants, Stephen has obviously studied actual history rather than the lies and innuendo of Alan Stang.


William said (January 31, 2012):

Stephen, you obviously never bothered to study real history, to learn how not to make ad hominem attacks on someone you disagree with. You are the fool and purveyor of evil for buying the disinformation about Lincoln, who was a tool of the Illuminati.

Lincoln wanted the progressive income tax - a key point in the communist program. Lincoln jailed anyone who dared to oppose his unconstitutional use of executive power, including members of congress. Lincoln closed news papers who dared to tell the truth. Lincoln rewarded and applauded his communist generals who raped, robbed, and pillaged their way across the South. Lincoln was solely responsible for the "Civil War". The South did not fight the North, the United States invaded the Confederate States.

Grow up, Stephen, and get some real facts.

--

Editor- This will close this "dialogue." Others may comment.


Stephen said (January 31, 2012):

I don't know where William's info [below] comes from, obviously some disinfo org to prevent a miracle recovery as Lincoln pulled off during the American Civil war. The info William is citing is pure evil and a product of historical revisionism.

Czar Alexander II (not III) and Lincoln were allies. Russia and England just finished up the Crimean war and contrary to English speaking websites, England took a beating and had no stomach for another war with Russia. Alexander II threatened to fire a cannon ball directly at Queen Victoria should they send troops to aid the Confederacy.

Lincoln and Marx did indeed correspond, the debate between Lincoln and Marx was published in the newspapers of the time. Lincoln trashed Marx for the fool that he was and William is a fool if he thinks they were buddies.

Marx was under the employment of Lord Palmerston, Queen Victoria's pit bull. Marx's mission was to form a counterfeit economic model that was doomed to fail to foist upon the USA. Palmerston thought so well of Marx that he housed him in his own Hall and paid Marx so poorly that 2 of Marx's children starved to death during his stay.

After the war Lincoln and the Czar had joint plans to build an armada of Iron Clad ships, burn London to the ground and hang every last member of anything royal. British intelligence learned of this and through their Canadian goons organized the assassination plot.

I don't mind being snotty here, but William you are a FOOL and a dupe at best; and at worst an Illuminati shill. This kind of disinfo really pisses me off.


William said (January 30, 2012):

It has always been a mystery to me about the real reason Alexander III sent his navy to New York City. New York in 1863 was rebelling in favor of the Confederacy, after Lincoln's draft went into effect, and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Whoever advised Emperor Alexander III was ill advised in many ways. Lincoln was a friend and correspondent of Karl Marx. His yankee army was largely composed of foreign nationals invited to invade and pillage the South in return for American citizenship – which had not existed before Lincoln. All Americans were citizens of their States prior to Lincoln's assault on the constitution.

Likewise his armies were led by Marxists who had been run out of Europe after their failed 1848 Revolution. There is a lot that has been whitewashed by the Yankees after their victory. Read the below, and also Arnold Stang's “REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START” http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at