And I’m not talking about the usual middle level, the next−door politicians and gunrunners: we already know those little criminal scroungers need to feed themselves some burned dead flesh, so they are already included into our previously mentioned profit and loss account. I’m hinting at an entirely different, higher level of criminals. I’m hinting at war as another one of those Trojan horses for that new robbing scheme mentioned before; the moneypulators and their partners in crime wonder: How do we steal more freedom from people in order to steal more purchasing power from them? How do we steal more purchasing power from people in order to steal more freedom from them? Well, actually, I don’t think this robbing scheme’s features qualify it as “new” – with the exception of its order of magnitude…

War is the demonstration of the ethics of greatest benefit for all, the demonstration that sincere and honest cooperation is the system producing the greatest outcome. It demonstrates it by showing its opposite. Imagine a world at war, where anyone ends up devoted to betrayal instead of help: sooner or later thieves would exterminate producers, then there would not be product to steal any more, then thieves would end up eating each other up, then the last survived thieves would starve to death in the desert, and that would be the pinnacle of dog−eat−dog humanoid evolution.

But this medal has a second face, too: war is the most expensive insanity that exists. On both sides, nothing constructive gets built, everything gets destroyed, and all this in exchange for the highest imaginable cost. Now, do you think this is but sheer waste? When you look at during−the−war and post−war landscapes, do you think that all that was there and now is broken or destroyed simply went down the drain?

Each bomb exploded left two craters behind: that of the explosion and that of the vital survival factors people were deprived of to feed the pockets of the gunrunners, but do not settle for that stage. Each natural resource or produced wealth plainly stolen at gunpoint? Do not settle for that stage, too. And let’s not limit to just single countries or “ordinary” crises, if one can profit even more. Are you wondering how shady these “waste” dealings can be?

Well, have you noticed the historical trend in the order of magnitude of wars, of the sheer accounting of the amount of butchery and devastation and horror they produce? It’s increasing, and increasing steeply in these last centuries. As an example, the crime of genocide was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, and the word genocide was not in use before 1944. Perhaps that sudden acceleration follows the establishment of such profitable partnerships between bankers and kings and politicians?

Welcome to the age of wars fought not to win, but to squander and get bogged down in debt, and in the final analysis to produce wealth and ownership transfer. An age where the greatest butchery, horror and destruction in history is perpetrated for the actual purpose of enriching and empowering the 1% through the degradation, despair, blood, debt and slavery of the 99%. Yep, because when all this is considered on a long term basis, it also reveals a steady pace towards a world where indeed the 1% owns more than the remaining 99%…

A pearl of wisdom and compassion is attributed to the progenitor of the Rothschild family, and it goes somewhat like, “the time to buy is when the greatest amount of blood flows in the streets”. In other words, the higher the human madness, the lower the fire−sale prices of assets. Time and again we have seen the fate of the victims, the defeated, the refugees: the less safe the environment, the more we are reverted back to a primitive dog−eat−dog condition in which merely staying alive is already an achievement, and not a foregone one.

When I dedicated this work to you I pointed out how a safe environment is one where your fellows agree that your loved ones have the right to live, that they are entitled to exist, survive, and now we can extend that remark to say that a safe environment is one where your fellows agree that you and your loved ones have the right to exist and survive through the acknowledgement that your belongings belong to you, too. Acting to the effect that your home isn’t yours anymore, for instance, is a rather explicit way to inform you that your existence isn’t very welcome, isn’t it? Thereafter, when you become a refugee, your life, your future, and the meagre possessions that you managed to save and now hold in your uncertain and desperate grasp, none of this thing is safe and each could be ripped from you hands at any moment.

But the point here is that under such conditions, prices of assets are affected, too. When people is suppressed to the level of bare survival, to food and shelter now, and hopefully tomorrow, too, the family jewels are sold out for a piece of bread or a pass, priceless woodwork is burnt to keep warm one more day, the rest of the building is abandoned, just outside one’s shelter no man’s land begins, and where hunger and bombs will not work, the apathy of despair will. Not to mention as well how wartime is perfect pretext for any surviving government to shrink freedom, which doesn’t hurt, isn’t it?
A destroyed populace shrinks its field of vision and reach, thus anything outside its bare survival almost vanishes. And the level of torturers isn’t much higher than that of their victims: just like thieves destroy the value of what they steal, so torturers will sell out their loot for a fraction of its value.

To whom? Well, who was so kind to inform us of when it is the best time to buy?
And… do you think this type of individuals merely sits and waits that blood falls from the trees like ripe fruit?
Look, don’t think, it has been said.

Later on I will discuss what it’s called “The Third Party Law” in greater depth, but I already said that its fundamental is that behind any conflict breaking out or never resolving between the two or more parties involved, the real cause is always a hidden third party actively fomenting it. Again, this is a good time to point out how serious this is. Maybe with another example.

Many reaserchers, such as A. Ralph Epperson, G. Edward Griffin and Jim Marrs, on the basis of historical facts and also of official biographies of the Rothschild family and statements from German chancellor Otto Von Bismark, report how an “International Banking Syndicate” decided to “pit the American North against the South in a divide and conquer strategy, to provide the solvent U.S. federal government with an enemy that would require massive war expenditures and subsequent debt”. But their plan didn’t end there; should the war result in the Southern independence, then each of the now independent Southern states would be a candidate for having an autonomous central bank… European−controlled. And we now know about moneypulation and central banking, isn’t it? But their plan didn’t end there either: just like in Europe for centuries, those states could be thrown into an endless stream of wars between each other, with the ensuing endless stream of huge profits from loaning to the states involved. On the other hand, the bankers were afraid that the United States as one nation would attain economic and financial independence, and thus upset their financial domination of the world.
The bankers’ Trojan horse was slavery. A simply perfect Trojan horse: any compassionate human being would agree with those claiming they were fighting slavery. The facts, however, were that the North of the United States was industrialised, and attracted immigrants willing to work in conditions of economic slavery, thus did not need declared slavery, while the agrarian South still did; meanwhile, the technological advances made the demise of slavery only a matter of time, but the bankers’ emissaries nevertheless exploited and fomented the question of slavery, because it was their Trojan horse to start a civil war.

So welcome as well to the age where people allowed suppressives to achieve an unprecedented power to turn their fellow men into potential trouble sources and thus unwittingly serve their deepest goal: everyone else in the world plainly dead…

In fact, to put such deepest goal of theirs somewhat in perspective, at this point it is apt to make a couple of remarks. It has been acutely observed that governments, not people, make wars. And it has been just as acutely observed that if the crimes that a government commits in one day were committed by an individual, that individual would be immediately shut in a prison cell, and probably even in a padded cell.
These remarks bring back to the light of our attention something we already knew. Once our eyes are reopened, another remark can at that point bring to our attention something else, something that we may not be aware of…

Such remark is that without moneypulation governments could not afford wars. In other words, without moneypulators we, our loved ones and our fellow human beings would not be doomed to deprivation, starving, misery, tragedy, butchering, massacre and destruction.

Maybe it is worth pausing one moment to consider the scope of this remark (for which we must thank G. Edward Griffin in his The Creature from Jekyll Island). And then a second moment to consider it in detail.

In the words of Jacopo Castellini, “Had Piedmont kept to its gold backing, it certainly couldn’t have the liquidity required to wage war on the rest of Italy and, at the same time, it couldn’t expand its public debt so much. A situation similar to that the United States find themselves in today, whom, by letting debt−money be printed without gold backing by the Federal Reserve (private), find themselves with the biggest public debt in the world and with a budget burdened by the highest military expenditure of history. A similar role to that of Piedmont at the time, in the Italian Peninsula, that is, of international policeman on behalf of third parties.”

We know war is the most expensive humanoid folly. So when rulers want to embark upon one, they need that much purchasing power. If they levied it on people openly through explicit taxation, the amount would be so intolerable that people would have no choice but to tell the rulers to shove it, cost it what it may.
We know inflation is a theft in the form of a hidden tax. Whoever is allowed to create purchasing power out of nothing at zero cost, usually in the form of fiat money, steals with it purchasing power from people. Moreover, being hidden, people do not realise being robbed, and above all much less realise who the robbers are.
So thanks to the creation of a money which is both token and fiat, that is, backed by nothing having intrinsic value and whose acceptance is forcefully imposed, and thanks to the ensuing robbery of purchasing power through the hidden tax called inflation, rulers can afford to unleash their lunacy and throw both their and other peoples in the hell of war.
Yes, but… is that all?
We know about the mechanisms of debt money and about the banker−king and banker−politician criminal conspiracy, so we can answer this simple question: who profits the most from these crimes against humanity? The answer to that question will enable us to answer another couple of questions as well: Who is the puppet and who is the puppeteer? Which of them is the most dangerous suppressive or PTS at the root of it all?

At that point we may probably consider war as an ultimate failure and betrayal of the basic goal of life to survive in the first place, which is rather self−evident. We may then consider war an overwhelming evidence of how silly can we get, but this would hardly tell us anything new. To be more precise, we may consider it as an overwhelming evidence of how PTS can we get. And then wonder: how is it possible? How can suppression have such a hold on us? What makes us so vulnerable, exactly?