The Prussian mercenaries were paid to fight for King George in the revolutionary war were nothing more than paid assassins.
Our soldiers today are modern day are expected to obediently do what they are told without question.
The military was supposed to protect our lives, liberty and property, not to invade other nations for the benefit of the financial elite.
A true soldier fights to defend his life, liberty and property. He fights for a cause and not for money. Ever since the end of World War II the United States has engaged in perpetual wars and has been paying soldiers to represent the best interests of the international bankers.
Our modern day mercenaries are nothing more than paid assassins who are paid to help the bankers enslave the world in debt.
Our soldiers are not hired to kill the enemies of the American people, they are hired to kill those who stand between the bankers and the resources they seek. Listen to this speech by General Smedley Butler;
"War is a Racket."
If our soldiers are working for the bankers, they certainly are not working for us. The men and women in the U.S. military are being misused as the enforcers for the international corporation who rule the world. They are told to kill, so they do. The Banksters are funding BOTH sides!
"In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as 'dumb, stupid animals to be used' as pawns for foreign policy."
-- Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein, The Final Days, p. 208
Many complicated questions confront the world’s leadership and all leading religious instructors who thirst for a unanimous conclusion for global security in the current predicament of nuclear proliferation within the context of the moral crisis in political ethics and religious conflicts.
1. Is our world leadership united and coherent enough to combat the sources of terrorism and war given the rise of scientific insights that continue to design and manufacture lethal weapons for mass killing (that is, nuclear weapons)? It is the effect of our genetic nature that forces us to use whatever we have created for individual conceptions of safety and peace.
2. Is it possible for the entire world led by God for human beings to uproot the sources of religious conflicts that erupt in the blood of massacre? No! They are enthralled in the strictures of their own religious tradition. It is impossible for them to surrender their own religious profession to transcend their own faiths to fill in the religious gaps that divide human perception
. 3 Do UN bureaucracies and administrations have enough potential to lead the global community on the path toward peace and propel those in positions of leadership to overcome complicated political issues,humanitarian crises, and religious conflicts? No! The UN embodies potential political ethics beyond the reach of the general public
4 Regarding these most complicated global issues, we will have to promote the graces of literature to construct a platform whereby the world community (even the common public at large) facilitates a unanimous conclusion of the larger questions confronting the world. There are many possibilities to unify the world community by promoting the graces of literature through academic sources under UN observation
5 Are we safe neglecting these larger issues that force us to an unnatural end?
6 Do we have ample, sufficient, and appropriate ideas and resources to combat those masterminds that have converted humankind into “lethal bombs”?
Help us to unify beyond our political and religious inherited thoughts for the perpetuation of peace and solidarity. Only Military operation against brutal religious and political violence, campaigns with separate visions, conversation only for suggestions, or the political and religious demonstration, are not enough at all, to prevent the massacres by terrorism and war.
Please sign and share this petition to achieve the goals in favor of humanity, with any cost.
At least you were told they were not innocents, and the Zionist Oligarchy history books have made almost all other nations look like evils. I thank you for your service to this nation, but we all have been lied to, and are still being told lies, which have cost millions of lives on all sides!
Defend our borders, our country, period. We cannot and should not try to resolve the issues that other countries have with their neighbors. Mind our own business, not everyone else's.
"Any ideas how to reverse the perversity?"
Stop using the currency of the criminals and that ends their power of falsehood.
When the "elite" say they are the "elite" that fact of them saying that exposes them as liars. They are criminals.
Why would the victims use the words said by the criminals?
Why would the victims use the labels labeling the criminals as the "elite"?
Why would the victims allow their earnings, their productions of surplus wealth, to flow to the criminals?
That flow of currency flowing that way causes the victims to grow weaker and the criminals to grow stronger by the minute.
Sure, yes, certainly, by all means (moral), the criminals (not "elite") ought to be acknowledged as criminals when it is possible to do so without having to pay the ultimate price for failing to obey without question, or even in those cases too.
So...knowing the problem well, meaning truly, or meaning accurately knowing the problem ought to inspire a demand for an effective solution.
One might think.
Suppose 5,000 men to own $30,000 each; suppose these men to move, with their families, to some desolate place in the state, where there is no opportunity for the profitable pursuit of the occupations either of commerce, agriculture, or manufacturing! The united capital of these 5,000 men would be $150,000,000. Suppose, now, this capital to be safely invested in different parts of the state; suppose these men to be, each of them, heads of families, comprising, on an average, five persons each this would give us, in all, 25,000 individuals. A servant to each family would give us 5,000 persons more, and these added to the above number would give us 30,000 in all. Suppose, now, that 5,000 mechanics—shoemakers, bakers, butchers, etc.—should settle with their families in the neighborhood of these capitalists, in order to avail themselves of their custom. Allowing five to a family, as before, we have 25,000 to add to the above number. We have, therefore, in all, a city of 55,000 individuals, established in the most desolate part of the state. The people in the rest of the state would have to pay to the capitalists of this city six per cent on $150,000,000 every year; for these capitalists have, by the supposition, this amount out at interest on bond and mortgage, or other wise. The yearly interest on $150,000,000, at six per cent, is- $9,000,000. These wealthy individuals may do no useful work whatever, and, nevertheless, they levy a tax of $9,000,000 per annum on the industry of the state. The tax would be paid in this way. Some money would be brought to the new city, and much produce; the produce would be sold for money to the capitalists, and with the money thus obtained, added to the other, the debtors would pay the interest due the capitalists would have their choice of the best the state produces, and the mechanics of the city, who receive money from the capitalists, the next choice. Now, how would all this be looked upon by the people of the commonwealth? There would be a general rejoicing over the excellent market for produce which had grown up in so unexpected a place, and the people would suppose the existence of this city of financial horse-leeches to be one of the main pillars of the prosperity of the state.
Each of these capitalists would receive yearly $1,800, the interest on $ 30,000, on which to live. Suppose he lives on $900, the half of his income, and lays the other half by to portion off his children as they come to marriageable age, that they may start also with $30,000 capital, even as he did. This $900 which he lays by every year would have to be invested. The men of business, the men of talent, in the state, would see it well invested for him. Some intelligent man would discover that a new railroad, canal, or other public work was needed; he would survey the ground, draw a plan' of the work, and make an estimate of the expenses; then he would go to this new city and interest the capitalists in the matter. The capitalists would furnish money, the people of the state would furnish labor; the people would dig the dirt, hew the wood, and draw the water. The intelligent man who devised the plan would receive a salary for superintending the work, the people would receive day's wages, and the capitalists would own the whole; for did they not furnish the money that paid for the construction? Taking a scientific view of the matter, we may suppose the capitalists not to work at all; for the mere fact of their controlling the money would insure all the results. We suppose them, therefore, not to work at all; we suppose them to receive, each of them, $1,800 a year; we suppose them to live on one-half of this, or $900, and to lay up the other half for their children. We suppose new-married couples to spring up, in their proper season, out of these families, and that these new couples start, also, each with a capital of $30,000. We ask now, is there no danger of this new city's absorbing unto itself the greater portion of the wealth of the state?
There is no city in this commonwealth that comes fully up to this ideal of a fainéant and parasite city; but there is no city in the state in which this ideal is not more or less completely embodied.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.
There is no organized movement today to establish either free banking or 100% reserve banking. There has never been a movement to impose 100% reserve banking. It has been well over a century since a handful of economists and pamphlet writers recommended free banking.
Anyone who tells you that it would be easy to switch over to a gold standard has either no understanding of the politics of money and banking or else has been smoking some funny-smelling leaves.
To switch by official decree to a non-governmental banking system would require the wholehearted co-operation of central bankers, commercial bankers, politicians, academic economists, and political parties, all of which have a vested interest in controlling the money supply at the expense of the public. They fear above all the depositors' ability to bring down the entire international cartel through bank runs.
These bank runs would create massive deflation, international depression, and the collapse of the division of labor.
First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
Why call the frauds who cause these pogroms called wars (why call them wars if they are crime scenes) bankers? They are criminals.