But the wars we’re interested in now are not so much those waged stealthily by suppressive puppeteers, as those waged noisily by the potential trouble source puppets. This is a good time to point out how serious this is. Maybe with an example.

The “Disney” version of such example has been written by winners in the “history” books we were required to make our own when we were white pages at school, in our days of youth, trust and indoctrination. The winners canonised it under the name of “Risorgimento”, or Italian unification. It certainly comes as no surprise that such background thenceforth increases our humanoid reluctance to look at things from outside the fence; also because that was what winners wanted in the first place.
According to the Disney version, the Italian unification was a blessing that saved the people of the south of Italy from their miserable living conditions under the yoke of the oppressive tyrants of what in today’s vulgate would be labelled as rogue states, and its icons, Cavour, Mazzini, Garibaldi and so on, were heroes.
According to the not−so−Disney versions resulting from scratching the surface alone, things were just a tad different.

Let’s first arrange characters and cast on the chessboard; for greater clarity I shall group under each character as a label all its related cast:

Banksters: the parasite, the root suppressive puppeteers; the moneypulators in control of the City of London, the Rothschilds in the first place.
London: the first host organism, the first PTS puppet; the Great Britain, and its Prime Minister Lord Palmerston.
Turin: the second host organism, the second PTS puppet; the Kingdom of Sardinia, its King Victor Emmanuel II of Savoy, its Prime Minister Camillo Benso Count of Cavour, and the Banca Nazionale negli Stati Sardi (National Bank in the Sardinian States), then Banca Nazionale nel Regno d'Italia (National Bank in the Kingdom of Italy).

Naples: the first target host; the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, its King Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies, and the Banco delle Due Sicilie (Bank of the Two Sicilies), then split into Banco di Napoli (Bank of Naples) and Banco di Sicilia (Bank of Sicily).
Rome, Florence, Parma and Modena: the other target hosts; Papal States, Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Duchy of Parma, Duchy of Modena and Reggio.
Patriots: the hit−men, the hooks of the parasite; Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini, and all the others; among which Ippolito Nievo, and a less famous Filippo Curletti.

Let’s then take a look at these pieces on the chessboard before and after the treatment.

Before the “Risorgimento” treatment:
The Naples bank issued only commodity money and receipt money: gold coins, silver coins, deposit receipts, and no paper banknotes. The Turin bank practiced fractional reserve for its paper money over its gold reserves, and by the unification Turin imposed that paper money as legal tender by law because too many wars had made those gold reserves insufficient.
The economic policy of Naples was protectionist and autarchic, geared towards meeting the domestic demand first, and only then exporting the surplus alone, and its foreign policy was free of expansionist ambitions. It is observed how this produced a slow but steady development, and a middle class committed to economy, that creates wealth for the community, instead than committed to finance, that deprives the community of it. The “economic model” of Turin was that now so familiar to us of monetary sovereignty gifted to banksters – in exchange for who knows what – and of the ensuing infinite debt trap, spoliation, and cancer stage of economic parasitism.

The living conditions in Naples and Rome were so miserable that the cost of living and taxes were low, public finances were thriving, emigration and poverty were virtually nonexistent, and care facilities, often managed by the clergy, provided an excellent welfare compared to Turin, where such facilities were abolished, thus causing widespread poverty and a further increase of the already huge debt. Another meaningful indicator of the social climate is that, during a five−year period not long before the unification, the death sentences carried out were zero in Naples and one hundred and thirteen in Turin, plus nearly ten thousand pardons granted, for both common and political crimes, in Naples.
Debt, in fact. The public debt of Turin was the highest among the pre−unitary states, and it was three times that of Naples, in the face of the population of Naples that was three times that of Turin.
Banksters, needless to say, cherished Turin and hated all the other pre−unitary states, Naples, Rome, Florence, Parma and Modena, etc., and intended to turn them from dangerous examples of prosperity beyond their control to dairy cattle well aligned in their slaughterhouse.
Hence, the patriots exerted an intellectual pressure promoting the “modern”, “constitutional”, “liberal” regimes of Turin and other European countries under the control of banksters against the “backward”, “despotic”, “illiberal” regimes of Naples, Rome, Florence, Parma and Modena, etc.
Hence, London demonised Naples as a “rogue state” via a political and press campaign, and as a result the adjective “Bourbonist” became the universally accepted derogatory label under which anything traditional is stigmatised as negative. Here’s an example of this, in the form of a textbook case of double standard: In 1848, Naples intervened in a revolt in Messina supported by London; there was no massacres, and the Bourbonist army brought the civilians to safety; the King in the press became a “monster”. In 1849, Turin intervened in a revolt in Genoa; there were five hundred civilian victims; the King in the press was still a “gentleman”.

A little intermezzo is a must here between before and after the cure, to put in the explicit light they deserve a few details about the aforementioned character labelled “patriots”.
The political and press demonisation campaign against Naples alone was not sufficient to justify the invasion. Indeed, attacking another sovereign state within one’s same Italian soil could be hardly called otherwise. Therefore, to cut through that, as cliched as it is, the invasion had to be packaged as a humanitarian war of liberation. And here is the reason why, alongside the iconic Garibaldi and Mazzini, I chose to mention Ippolito Nievo and the little known Filippo Curletti.
Curletti was a secret agent of Cavour, and when the latter imprisoned him as a reward, he took revenge with a book we can still read today, “La verità sugli uomini e sulle cose del Regno d’Italia”, “The Truth on the Men and Things of the Kingdom of Italy”. And quite cliched indeed the truth is: a clandestine war, fought with secret organisations and propaganda, undercover agents and operations under the command of Turin and Cavour, such as the “spontaneous” “popular” revolt of Turin Carabineers disguised as commoneers in Florence, rushes to ransack the public coffers, accusing the attacked rulers of taking what they looted, melting the looted precious metals to ensure they couldn’t be tracked by their legitimate owners, you name it.
The heroics of Garibaldi were no different, but on the contrary the epitome of such cliched strategies: he was gifted three million French francs from the British crown, and after the fall of Naples two thousand three hundred Bourbonist generals found a tantamount position within the Turin army. Two of them were Guglielmo Acton and Ferdinando Lanza; Acton was in command of one of the ships guarding the Sicilian coast when the Garibaldians landed in Marsala, and those ships on guard duty waited for the Garibaldians to land before opening fire on their ships; Lanza was in charge of the defence of Palermo when the Garibaldians arrived, and he first kept his soldiers inside the Royal Palace and then delivered into the hands of Garibaldi the coffers of the Regio Banco di Sicilia, the Royal Bank of Sicily, amounting to about eighty−six million Euro of today, which incidentally was the first act of the dispossession of the South. Another general, Francesco Landi, in Calatafimi ordered his three thousand men to retreat without fighting facing one thousand poorly armed men. All while the Bourbonist soldiers who refused to fight against their compatriots were shooted by explicit order of Cavour, even though the Savoy law did not provide for that.

Another beneficiary of British funds was Mazzini’s Giovine Italia, who used them for insurrections, political assassinations and massacres, including those aimed at encouraging, so to speak, British allies to a more supportive attitude on the “Italian Question”.
Nievo, lastly, was a Garibaldian who went down with one of the steamships on their way to Sicily in the Tyrrhenian Sea, thirteen days before the proclamation of the Kingdom of italy; the circumstances of the sinking are suspicious: the steamship lose contact with the ship preceding it, there was delay in rescuing, and it was the only ship heading to Sicily in the Tyrrhenian Sea who went down. Nievo was in charge for administering the Garibaldian expeditionary corps, and in order to defend himself against allegations of mismanagement he had to draw up a detailed report of the expenditures incurred, a report from which the contributions received from London and Turin, the bribes paid to Bourbonist generals and officials, and the loot of the dispossession of the South would emerge; a report that went down with him.
As to the key role of secret societies, suffice it to say here that Garibaldi was affiliated to the Asile de la Vertu Masonic lodge of Montevideo, in 1864 became Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, and in 2011 his successor in that role stated that the Italian unification would have been impossible without Freemasonry. The Carbonari exalted in our schoolbooks, the Freemasonry most of these patriots were members of, were essentially at some Grand Master’s service; and the British prime minister Palmerston was the founder of the Masonic Royal Order of Sion.
So much for the “patriots”.

After the “Risorgimento” treatment:
First things first: the plunder.
One thing above all: the gold reserves of the newborn Kingdom of Italy amounted to about 607 million Lira; of these, 27 from Turin, 443 from Naples.

This said about their origin, as to their destination, the Naples bank, the Banco delle Due Sicilie, after being robbed of its gold reserves by Garibaldi, was then split into Banco di Napoli and Banco di Sicilia and forbidden from withdrawing from circulation the gold and silver ducats it itself had issued – the 65 percent of the money circulating in Italy. A Turin bank syndicate did withraw them: the Banca Nazionale negli Stati Sardi, which became Banca Nazionale nel Regno d’Italia, together with other Turin banks created ad hoc; considering the circumstances, a bank syndicate quite likely to be well rooted in the City of Rothschilds – pardon, the City of London. Thus the gold reserves, upon which credit and loans could be extended, were stolen by Turin, the only state in Italy at the time who, worth repeating, through borrowed fiat debt money, played in the hands of banksters. The puppeteers through their puppets, the banksters through theirs partners in crime, had now successfully expanded up to the whole the Italian territory subjected to their control and to their infinite debt trap.
So much for the immediate plunder. Beyond the immediate plunder, there was the fierceness, or rather, the long−term plunder.
The robbery of Naples gold was in fact merely the immediate part of the plunder, and one may say the best had yet to come. Gold backed credit and loans? And there were credit and loans, indeed. Only, they followed suit: the Turin Robin Hood took the blood and oxygen of credit and loans from the South to give it to the North. “I napolitani non dovranno essere mai più in grado di intraprendere”, “Neapolitans must no longer be able to undertake”, wrote one Mr. Carlo Bombrini, who was the general manager of the Turin bank both when its name was Banca Nazionale negli Stati Sardi, and then Banca Nazionale nel Regno d’Italia, as well as the head of the Turin bank syndicate. The outcome of this intention is history; past history as much as contemporary history.

Behind the fierceness, the personal gain, too.
Note that the looting even reached the level of grotesque, when the products of the robbed South provided the basis for the robber barons of the north to reach new monopolistic heights in personal gains. In the absence of credit for the South, it was Francesco Cirio, financed by the North, who built the first canning industry upon the products of the South; and these were so good and successful that they enabled him to enter the railway sector, at first to deliver his products, but later on to achieve a monopolistic position in it. And this was done with the help of the Turin bank syndicate headed by Carlo Bombrini. As you might expect, Bombrini was also a personal friend of Cavour, and Cavour had business interests in the agricultural sector; a meaningful precedent of such interests took place during a grain crisis a few years before the Italian unification: while in Naples the “autarchic” King Ferdinand prevented the export of grain to ensure food for all citizens, in Turin the “liberalist” Cavour openly favoured its more profitable – for him – export. And on this basis we know that foodstuffs to be exported and railways to export them with go hand in glove.
As an aside worth pointing out, then there is the coarse grain of rhetoric.
For instance, in the words written in 1851 by the young British diplomat Gladstone to London’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Naples was referred to as “the denial of God erected as a system of government”. It is interesting to note how history – or, rather, suppression – repeats itself also in terms of the coarseness of propaganda: we have heard heads of state in our times refer to some other nation with terms as crude as “rogue state”, and we might took that as insulting to our intelligence. If we didn’t, we should. The basis of this kind of insults is obviously the generalisation, and indeed later on we’ll contextualise generalisation explicitly as a specific indicator of suppression. Justice consists also in being enabled to confront both the accuse and the accuser in order to stand up for oneself on an equal footing, and this presupposes the accusation is specific and detailed. Propaganda denies it all, point by point: the control of media is a loudspeaker powerful enough to silence the target, the accusation is sufficiently vague to be impossible for the target to rebut, and its coarseness comes full circle by successfully appealing to our humanoid faults to issue the guilty verdict.

Too little, too late: the posthumous “corrigendum”.
That the posthumous one is another facet of facts worth pointing out is evidenced by the many things said about that: “time is a gentleman”, but “centuries later the perception of reality becomes reality itself and that in turn becomes history”, “historical memory is written on the sand and critical spirit is a fashion of the past”, and “history is written by the winners”. That being the case, time and truth certainly meet some difficulties, hence we cannot emphasise too much how much they need our help and our willingness to “look, don’t listen”. The aforementioned terms with which the British diplomat Gladstone stigmatised Naples were related to the prison conditions, where he claimed to have met political prisoners, but these conditions were denied by diplomats from all over the world, later on the political prisoners themselves lamented the instrumentalisation, and later still finally Gladstone himself admitted that he’d never been in a Bourbonist prison and that he lied on assignment from the Prime Minister Palmerston. The member of Piedmontese parliament Pier Carlo Boggio will state that “Piedmont cannot afford delay. Why? Because there’s bankruptcy in sight. Peace now would mean for Piedmont reaction and bankruptcy.” In support of the claim that the “Risorgimento” was a war of “liberation” and “independence”, our schoolbooks won’t discuss why Austria could defeat “Italy” in marine field despite not having access to the sea? The reason is, the Venetians fought alongside Austria, not Turin; and Venetians were Italian, too. And the Freemason Pietro Borrelli wrote in the Deutsche Rundschau in October 1882, under the pseudonym of Flaminio, “Let no one in Europe think that Italian unification, to be achieved, needed an intellectual nullity such as Garibaldi. The initiates do know that all the Sicily revolution was made by Cavour, whose military emissaries, dressed as itinerant haberdashers, travelled the island and bought the most influential persons for their weight in gold.” And indeed admiral Persano in his journals shall report: “we can at this point count on the majority of the officers of the Neapolitan Royal Navy.”

In the words of Jacopo Castellini, “The “constitutional” regime the European intellectuals bandied about against Naples, Rome and Florence was, then, the ideological cover of an economic system that ensured to the few (the private owners of the issuing banks) the power over the many (the people) through the monarch, the government, the parliament and the monopoly of legitimate violence at their disposal (on behalf of third parties). To paraphrase Ezra Pound, it was not a war between liberal state and absolute monarchy, but between legitimate monarchies and usurocracies or daneistocracies, that is, regimes in which the power is wielded by the money lenders.”

The ultimate goal of “Risorgimento” was robbing first, and then annex, the Italian territories not yet under the control of banksters through their infinite debt trap and partners in crime.
And that goal was achieved.
And “Risorgimento” is but an example.

We have here a parasite and a zombiefied host: the bankster and a nation; the parasite uses the force of the zombiefied host, its “monopoly of legitimate violence”, to attack other organisms and fatten at the expense of them all.
This is a different thing from mere international seigniorage, in which a nation forces another to accept the out exchange of its worthless paper in exchange for real products at gunpoint; and this different thing may well be at the root of international seigniorage, too.
This is particularly the case when we see a nation achieve dominance, take on the role of international policeman and then take some liberties with other nations, either with propaganda, “trade agreements” or weapons.
Needless to say, attacking its own citizens through taxation, whether explicit or hidden (inflation) is another such case, although discussed elsewhere.

Such cases should arouse no surprise, and in order to understand what’s going on, in order to ascertain the presence of a parasite and the ensuing state of zombiefication, it takes just one question:
In whose hands is the monetary sovereignty of the robber nation? The host’s or the parasite’s? The government’s or the bankster’s?

Is its monetary sovereignty controlled by a money parasite through an infinite debt trap? That is the question.

That said, up to this point we have seen how a money parasite pushes ONE host zombified organism to steal from the plates of its neighbours. Now, as Joker would put it, “Gentlemen! Let’s broaden our minds!” One step beyond that, war is designed to plunge ALL parties involved into debt. Into an infinite debt trap. To the benefit of the hidden third party fomenting it: the money parasite, the moneypulators. In the first case, one nation is PTS and attacks other nations; in the second case, all nations involved are PTS and attack each other; in both cases, the cause is a suppressive third party behind it all.