US was Target of Libyan-Style “Revolution”

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” ”
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:

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”


Gadhafi’s Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar

Written by Alex Newman

Friday, 11 November 2011 10:15

It remains unclear exactly why or how the Gadhafi regime went from “a model” and an “important ally” to the next target for regime change in a period of just a few years. But after claims of “genocide” as the justification for NATO intervention were disputed by experts, several other theories have been floated.

Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently — Libya is Africa‘s largest oil producer. But one possible reason in particular for Gadhafi’s fall from grace has gained significant traction among analysts and segments of the non-Western media: central banking and the global monetary system.

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.

“Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power.”

According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.

“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence,” Wile noted in a piece entitled “Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack” earlier this year. “Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.”

Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.

“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. “I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi’s (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”

But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.

“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”

Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels’ odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.

In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.

Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.

Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission.

While most of the establishment press in America has been silent on the issue of Gadhafi’s gold dinar scheme, in Russia, China, and the global alternative media, the theory has exploded in popularity. Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow, however, may never be known for certain — at least not publicly.

Related articles:

Libya: Now What?

“Libyan Rebels” Create Central Bank, Oil Company

Brief History of Gadhafi & His Regime

U.S. Officials Celebrate Killing of Former Ally Gadhafi

Waking up to a World Currency

Al-Qaeda and NATO’s Islamic Extremists Taking Over Libya

Fed Manipulations in the Crosshairs

TrackBack URI for this entryComments (7)
Subscribe to this comment’s feedmaryflny said:

It explains why the sudden concern that Iran maybe capable of obtaining nuclear weapons. I didnt know what could the sudden concern but I didn’t believe the media hype! I support Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

November 11, 2011

Pat Henry said:
there’s regiome change and then there’s regime change
Any “monetary system” that can be “brought down” by some people choosing to do business in gold or silver money, or even trading commodities, is inherently an unstable system. Is is smart to play such a supposed “confidence game”?

November 11, 2011

Pat Riot said:

Who would have guessed that the banksters were involved in more murderous scheming! Certainly not me! (That was sarcasm by the way!)

November 12, 2011

aubreyfarmer said:

The Zionist zeal to control the world is going to wind up destroying the world.

November 13, 2011

JackD said:
It’s now official – there’s been no actual shortage
of Holocaust Survivors :

Quote from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso in the year 2000:
‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million.’ (page 83)

I’ve checked out the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.

Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; Churchill’s Second World War totals 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.

In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.

November 14, 2011

S. Wesley Mcgranor said:

Gadhafi was an iconoclast and genius.


November 14, 2011

Ken E said:

Reading this story, and the stories it links to within it’s text, (and even some of the comments) is pretty eye-opening. It would appear there’s a very deadly winner-take-all game being played by the world’s financial giants, kind of like Monopoly and Risk rolled into one. And the ‘one-world’ economic and political system doesn’t seem so very far away.
Some suggested reading: Daniel, chapters 8-11


One response to “US was Target of Libyan-Style “Revolution”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s