The War in Ukraine

An examination of central banking’s role in war

The United States has provided billions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine. This support is mostly non-monetary in the form of materiel, arms, armor, ammo, and training. The United States has continued and continuous production of unconsumed military goods from decades of production contracts from Congressional budgets providing a constant oversupply of military goods for the United States.

This oversupply is backlogged in inventory and held in stockpiles around the world, including about a half dozen fixed stockpiles and a few floating stockpiles on ships for rapid repositioning. The materiel stored is enough to equip an army that can oppose the entire world simultaneously, which has been the objective of the American military since WWII. This represents trillions of dollars of American economic output invested in stockpiled military inventory and capability. From these stockpiles, the military can supply any conflict anywhere with rapid response deployments, and can coherently draw from supply around the world to focus capability as required for a specific response to a specific threat.

These American weapons systems are the best in the world, and it’s important to the military that people both believe and understand that capacity in a visceral sense. In order to continue demonstrations and assuage all doubt, the United States has engaged in warfare for 230 years of its nearly 250-year existence. Warfare is one of America’s greatest capabilities and has defined American dominance of the modern planet’s economy and body politic. The United States has used military aid to express power around the globe for 80 years in countless conflicts through direct and indirect engagement. Even now, the United States is engaged in numerous covert war operations in South America and Africa.

When the United States provides military aid to Ukraine, it proves American military capacity against Russian forces without the United States having to get directly involved. This ensures other nations are familiar with American capability, but without American soldiers having to be put at risk. The United States economy and military dominance is not based only on its own supply and consumption of military goods, but on its economic and political partners consumption of American produced military goods and the economic benefits the United States gains from providing this military capacity to others.

While proving and promoting the value of American capacity, military aid also draws down the stockpiles of older equipment and creates a source of new cash flow to finance the development of more advanced weaponry and the flow of more and new equipment into the stockpiles. This allows American interests to promote adoption of American arms around the world, while ensuring that the latest-and-greatest arms are kept back for American forces directly. By shifting old inventory to parties in conflict, the stockpiles are kept freshly armed to ensure that new capacity can always be supplied as needed, and that older assets can be monetized before their value is amortized and depreciated to the extent that the assets are unusable (which is a problem that the Russian military has heavily faced in the Ukrainian war with its evaporated fuels, rusted engines, and dry rotted tires).

The Ukrainian military is heavily composed of Russian product, and Russia has humiliated itself on the world stage against its own armed supply. Now that American supply is reaching Ukraine, the potential overdominance of the American products versus Russian will not only (further) ruin the Russian economy but ruin Russian prospects for military supply to its own economic and political sphere. Former Russian military aid recipients such as India and Iran are returning some of their products under the guise of providing arms support to Russia, but in reality, they now recognize the poor quality of Russian arms and are seeking to reduce their inventories while locating new suppliers, creating new demand for American or Chinese arms. Chinese arms are at this time mostly untested against American, while American arms have global war experience.

Ukraine using American arms promotes the adoption and therefore sale and supply of American arms worldwide. This in turn provides continued demand for the American-led labor and supply chains that enable the supply of the military goods, and in turn the quality of life that is produced by the world’s submission to and dependence on American armaments.

In turn for driving American arms sales globally for decades by proving their superiority to Russian capabilities, Ukraine has the pleasure of not only rebuilding itself, but repaying all of the military supply expenses to the United States once the war with Russia is over. This is how lend-lease works.

In lieu of cash payment, the United States will accept access to the resources in Ukraine, primarily its food production capacity and its energy production in Crimea. The businesses that are established to consume the food and energy production and distribute it worldwide will be set up through series of shell companies that lead back to American politicians, military, and businessmen who negotiate the arms supply and subsequent resource contracts. This is the same way that former wars have been waged: use American arms, then set up American companies to rebuild and operate the destroyed nation, while ensuring that the politicians who enabled the war receive financial benefits from its conclusion. The scheme to use military aid indebtedness to gain access to resources has been used successfully worldwide for decades.

When an enemy is needed but available ones cannot afford arms supply, the abandonment of equipment around the world after campaigns results in the availability of improved arms for regional threats, enabling insurgencies that drive further demand for additional American arms to combat the upstarts using American arms abandoned in place after the last engagement. Al Qaeda, originally trained by the CIA, used abandoned American arms, as did ISIS / Daesh, which evidences that if not for American military supply, terrorist insurgencies would have significantly less capacity to foment insurrection, which would reduce the profit-making capacity of the military industrial complex.

Materiel is abandoned in theaters where the counterparties can’t afford proper military supply specifically to enable the organization of armed resistance groups that will then justify future military action, upon which more materiel can be abandoned to ensure the cycle continues. In some cases the turnover is direct, as America will supply military goods and training to armed forces who immediately defect to the counterparty, which happened in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Mexico.

The owners of the private businesses that produce the military goods, and all their suppliers, and all the businesses that support everyone involved in the supply chain, are all dependent on this continuing to happen indefinitely around the world forever. Instead of building and growing, our military economy depends on the constant cycle of the production of civilization and its destruction, so that the wealthy can benefit from every turn of the wheel without having to make an effort, because all that’s needed is to keep the cycle of destruction going by continually producing war so that the cash keeps flowing so that a small number of families stay rich forever with no effort required.

America’s political, business, and social leaders are in on it, and benefit dramatically from it, and so is most of the political and economic leadership worldwide. These parties all collaborate to instigate and monetize aggression to profit from the supply and performance of war, at the expense of the world public. One may be tempted to believe that these conflicts between major powers are honest and legitimate. While on rare occasion this may be true, in general this has not been shown to be the case.

Herman Goering was quoted during the Nuremburg trials saying, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war… Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship… the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Further explaining that the reasons shared in public are almost never the reasons something actually happens, Hillary Clinton was recorded during the 2016 Presidential campaign that, paraphrased, “there’s always a public position, and a private position. We develop a message that is acceptable to the public to justify the actions that politicians have already decided to take, and the public message is necessarily different from the real reasons that provide the underlying private justification.” Deceit is the point, because the public would never accept the real reason for most conflicts: profit making by the powerful.

Conflicts are certainly heavily marketed and promoted as honest and legitimate confrontations between powers instead of the truth, that conflicts represent intentional theatrics between parties that know what they’re doing and do it on purpose. The father of marketing, Edward Bernays, was clear-eyed in recognizing that people understood what propaganda is, and as an understood quantity, had a built-in resilience to propaganda. Once Bernays renamed propaganda “marketing”, people were tricked into thinking that what the media tells them must be true. But media is merely a representation of the interests of the wealthy, the self-same parties who benefit from, and thus demand, continued war.

By intentionally and knowingly organizing a conflict, such as Russia did in Ukraine by fabricating nonsense claims against NATO (that Russia is keenly aware are nonsense claims, and the rest of the body politic know that they know that the claims are nonsense, etc), the public can be distracted from any problems or missteps by “the man behind the curtain” (the small number of fantastically wealthy families that control the world from behind the scenes) and instead focus on the theatrics of war.

When the bankers use war to slice the world into territories, then use politics to build economic walls between those distinct territories, the dominant financiers in each territory can consolidate power and control locally. As that power is consolidated into the fewest feasible hands, the zones are merged, or one collapses, so that the consolidated power of a region can be transferred to another party, increasing their own control and zone of control. As the truth is distorted more and more over time to ensure each sphere of influence can maintain its necessary narrative, communications must be reduced or confused between the spheres so that the public in each group is unable to see that both sides are telling different, conflicting, mutually nonsensical narratives. If the economies and communications between different spheres are not separated by war, eventually the divergence between the narratives told by the dominant powers in each sphere become so extreme that it is obvious to the public that one or both are lying. To prevent this, the powers in charge of each sphere arrange a war, which keeps people from the different spheres from talking to each other, and ensures the conflicting narratives required by each sphere of influence is able to remain unconcerned about what stories the “enemy of the week” needs to tell to justify the conflict internally. This is why the story is different for the public in each bubble.

This bubble-merger power consolidation has been ongoing since the colonial times, but has accelerated heavily as the influence bubbles have been consolidated over time to the United States, Russia, and China. Other minor bubbles remain, but are inconsequential or backwards enough that they aren’t really worth the effort for anyone to absorb at the moment. Now the primary conflict is between China and the United States, with Russian actions in Ukraine as the proxy, the question is, will Russia’s corruption consume the United States, will the United States absorb Russia, or will China absorb Russia?

The question of consolidation rises because the exploitable Russian economic production capacity has been drained by oligarchic abuses for decades, and so the Russian sphere has worked hard to infect the American sphere in order to undermine the American world order and impose the Russian order. To keep generating profits without having to perform labor, and in order to compete with American financial interests who can make more money (but have a harder time steering it due to the relatively more open and less overtly corrupt American economy) the Russian oligarchs required new resources to exploit that were independent of the American sphere, such as Ukrainian oil fields in Crimea and the agricultural capacity of central Ukraine. These infusions of wealth from exploiting Ukrainian resources, and the military spending that shifts Russian wealth from taxpayers to oligarchs via taxes funding military supply, permit the ongoing wealth accumulation by the oligarchs. This is how central banking works, and has always worked. The monopolization of the money supply is necessary to enable this behavior.

This dynamic has been documented repeatedly throughout recent history, yet remains unchanged. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler wrote a pamphlet called “War is a Racket” that describes how he worked with bankers to engage in war for American business benefit, and these wars are the source of the term “Banana Republic”, as South American governments were repeatedly deposed in the late 1800s and early 1900s to secure American businessmen’s capability to control banana production and sales.

Early in American history, the United States did not have a central bank, which meant that any warfare had to be financed through securities and other instruments provided in voluntary transactions with commercial banks. The United States had organized the First Bank of the United States temporarily for warfare finance, then dissolved it when the debts were repaid, only to later organize the Second Bank of the United States. Once it was dissolved, a movement began to organize a permanent Bank of the United States so that the nation could fund persistent, permanent military operations without having to present a business case or means of repayment to private banks that were concerned about the risks.

In 1913 these efforts paid off (for bankers) with Woodrow Wilson’s execution of the Federal Reserve Act, authorizing the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank. Like the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, the name “Federal Reserve Bank” is necessarily subject to interpretation, as the organization is not Federal (it is wholly owned by shareholder banks, and admits as much on its own website), it is not a reserve (it has no assets beyond those which it fabricates from air, or trades such fabrications for) and it is not a bank (it does not engage in savings and loans, deposits, or lending, with the exception of its direct membership). Following the Federal Reserve Act, banks were obligated to deposit a portion of their capital in the Federal Reserve district of their operations, and subsequently only depositor-owners of the Federal Reserve have been able to legally operate as a bank in the United States.

Prior to the Fed, with Treasury Notes and gold in relatively short supply, there were thousands of different issuers of bank notes in circulation that acted as local and regional currencies. These notes were issued by banks (bank notes), corporations (“company scrip”), and even notable individuals (such as Benjamin Franklin) and were redeemable upon demand under the terms of the notes’ redemption by an alternative instrument or the gold equivalency. This approach enabled capitalism to thrive, as there was no abstract 3rd party arbiter of value that was in position to decide what someone’s labor or product was worth. Instead, parties would negotiate between themselves, trade in whatever negotiated instrument was convenient, and in doing so, both parties would literally “make money” (in the sense that money which previously had not existed, now existed) through their negotiated exchange.

Once the Fed was established and these alternative currencies were outlawed, it was no longer legal to denominate capital without the permission of a 3rd party, namely an agent of one of the Fed’s member banks. The change from capital being produced directly by two parties engaging in labor or exchange, to money being printed by a central bank which had to be first obtained by a private party before it could be used to denominate capital through an exchange had subtle but enormous consequences. No longer could parties engage in capitalism and literally make money independently, but now only subject to the permission and consent of a banker who became an obligate arbiter of whether or not either party was permitted to denominate a transaction for exchange by the bank providing them access to the legal tender required to perform the transaction – an unprecedented requirement in human history.

This shift from an ad-hoc Congressionally-controlled national bank that was organized as needed and dissolved afterwards to a permanent, bank-industry-controlled Federal Reserve with a complete monopoly over the denomination of capital and issuance of negotiable instruments was a massive shift in the power and organization of the finance industry. It also resulted in the first standing army in the history of the United States. Instead of Treasury Notes issued by the Treasury at the direction of Congress backed by the stores of the Treasury (such as gold, alternative currencies, and financial instruments), the Federal Reserve began issuing Federal Reserve Notes against Treasury Bond issuances. Now that the government had a means to issue and roll over debt permanently while obligating the taxpayer to perform labor for taxable income to enable repayment of the debt, the nation could run a deficit continuously, enabling the continued escalation of future obligations imposed on the taxpayers. This permitted the nation for the first time to establish a standing army and begin stockpiling materiel.

Despite the justification for the Fed being to “stop the business cycle” (thereby referring to recurring minor regional and industry-isolated boom-and-bust cycles), within 15 years of its organization the United States was entering the worst economic downturn in its history, the Great Depression, as the increasing grip of the Fed drove out independent wealth and forced all remaining bankers, financiers, investors, and other wealthy individuals to accept the dominance of the Fed and be subject to its demands in order to obtain (or retain) wealth. FDR further increased the Feds power by outlawing private ownership of gold in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression. The Securities Acts then made it illegal to use negotiable instruments and securities without the financial industry’s (SEC’s) approval.

Even though the near-immediate occurrence of the Great Depression outcome directly contradicted the justification for the Fed (to end the business cycle), that was never the actual purpose of the Fed anyway. The purpose was to monopolize the production of legal currency in the United States to ensure the benefits of guaranteed effort-free unearned income for banks (from Treasury Bond payments) and the ability to commit expenditures that had no economic, financial, or budgetary justification for politicians was far too lucrative to let the truth get in the way of policy. And despite the fact that the government could now run up an infinite amount of debt to fund military operations, almost immediately the government began to use this power to undermine the actual soldiers in the military that are necessary for a military to operate, demonstrating that soldiers are merely a tool and not actually valued.

In 1932, during the height of the Great Depression, Maj. Gen. Butler led the “Bonus Army” on Washington DC, composed of WWI vets who had been promised a bonus that went unpaid even though the Fed meant that Congress could trivially pay that obligation. While in DC representing the Bonus Army, Butler was approached and later documented “the Business Plot”, which was a conspiracy by wealthy business leaders to direct the Bonus Army to seize the Capitol to impose a fascist government. This may sound uncomfortably familiar to 1/6 for modern political observers. Butler refused to participate, and instead recorded the sessions and took the evidence to Congress. Discovering that the conspirators were the wealthiest members of society, and prominent figures and colleagues of the selfsame Congressmen then asked to investigate, Congress decided to ignore the plot.

Authoritarianism, fascism, and banking go hand in glove, and always have. Banks financed the slave trade and profited handsomely from it, then financed the Civil War and profited handsomely again, only to finance the Reconstruction afterwards and profit further. Following Reconstruction was the Spanish-American war over Mexico, which led directly into Banana Republic military actions until WWI, each of which helped consolidate bank control over North American society and eventually resulted in cementing that control through the Federal Reserve Act. However much this was simply wasn’t enough, because a greedy glutton is never satisfied: no matter how much they have, more must be given.

Traditionally leadership of banks and bankers are authoritarian fascists, because there is no other means to be entitled to a wealthy, labor-free lifestyle than to either be so brilliant people provide it to you voluntarily, or to be so vicious, cruel, and prone to violence that you demand the product of other people’s labor without giving them back anything of value in exchange, and people give it to you to avoid your cruel violence being inflicted upon them. In other contexts we variously call this behavior bullying, armed robbery, extortion, slavery, indentured servitude, and many other similar terms that reflect the reality of the situation, its seriousness, and its extent. When men in expensive suits do it, we call it mobsters running a racket, but when they have a license from the government, we call it banking. As it is far easier to be cruel than brilliant, and bankers are accustomed and entitled to lavish lifestyles with as little effort as possible, either banking inculcates fascism, or fascists are attracted to the finance industry, but the end result is the same – that fascism and banking work together to dominate and destroy societies so that bankers can control the public, claim the wealth produced by the public’s labor, rule vicariously, and profit handsomely without ever performing labor or producing something of value.

While the account is disputed, Mayer Anselm Rothschild is reported to have said “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” Purportedly this statement was made to Congress in 1790, immediately before the establishment of the First Bank of the United States. The Rothschild family was one of the most renowned banking families in old Europe, whose name still persists on asset holdings across the world, including their famous French wineries. To the point Rothschild was making, whoever controls the money supply can disregard the laws of a nation, as the entire governmental system depends on access to that money supply, and as such becomes a puppet.

The labor theory of value espoused by Marx can be trivially refuted by demonstrating that digging a ditch and filling it in may be laborious, but produce nothing of value. What bankers need for wealth without effort is the constancy of obligate purchases, but without any need for the banker to perform any labor or contribute any utility to the market. If one can find a group and agitate them into believing that their survival is dependent on a ditch being dug and refilled continually, or any other wasteful ritual, then the people of the nation can be convinced to pay taxes to supply the corporation that employs and equips the ditch digger. Marx’s labor theory of value can be forced into truth simply by marketing a false demand and imposing the expenses on the unwitting public. Thus ditch-digging becomes a source of wealth production through bankers controlling the money supply, marketing (propagandizing) demand based on false pretenses, and financing the useless actions at the expense of the beguiled public.

Central bankers enable the non-productive act of ditch-digging to be industrialized and financialized. This is accomplished by warfare, where industries turn a profit by providing weapons to an aggressor, then once the aggressor threatens a victim, arming the victim to defend itself. In turn the military act demands provision, which creates demand for goods of a specified and predetermined nature. Once the war is completed, the victor claims financial benefits from the loser. The nation must be reconstructed, producing more profit for the industries that rebuild the nation (and enable the extraction of financial benefits by the victor). And once this is all completed, the militaries of both nations require resupply. Each of these steps is an obligate and necessary outcome of war, and produces a guaranteed profit for the banks that finance these activities at every single step. And much like digging a ditch and filling it consumes labor without producing value, the predictable cycle of production and destruction ensures that (once a war product has been developed) the demand for that war product can be both profitable and consistent without any additional effort, while financing is required at every step for every business involved in the supply and demand. Simply put, there is nothing that produces more profit with less effort than financing somethings destruction, then financing its reconstruction. This is why banks love warfare, because it guarantees them massive, risk-free profit without any effort on their part. As Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler said, all wars are bank wars.

When the Business Plot failed during the Great Depression one of the conspirators, Prescott Bush, began financing Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party to promote the adoption of authoritarian fascism across Europe by means of war. One may be more familiar with Bush through his son, George Herbert Walker Bush, or his grandson, George Walker Bush. Prescott Bush, the patriarch of the Bush crime family, was joined by prominent co-conspirators in supporting the rise of the Nazi party, including Ford Motor Company who supplied vehicle designs and production line expertise, Birdseye foods who provided food storage technologies, DuPont and Dow who provided coal gasification and vulcanization technologies required for fuel and tires for military vehicles, IBM who provided the computational systems required to keep records, and scores of other American businessmen who had previously attempted to overthrow the American government to impose fascism only a few years prior during the Business Plot.

This cycle of business leaders fomenting fascism, authoritarianism, and warfare for private profit has continued ever since. Donald Rumsfeld was explicit that the Iraqi war was about seizing the Iraqi oil resources for American interests, explaining that it would be a very profitable war – but leaving out that the profits would be kept by the private interests and politicians, while the costs would be paid by the taxpayer. This dynamic of separating the profits from the costs, and shifting the profits to private interests while putting the costs on the shoulders of the public, is explicitly why the central banking system has expanded around the world. It provides an insidious and unprecedented level of influence and control over the national and global economies, and ensures that politicians and business leaders worldwide can always instigate, then profit from war at their leisure. Notably, Dick Cheney was the chairman of Halliburton, who received hundreds of billions of dollars of no-bid contracts at the onset of the Iraqi war. During the war, truckloads of cash “footballs” were delivered to Iraq, only to vanish.

Following Bretton Woods in 1977 the illustrious and renownedly ethical Richard Nixon made the final motion to enshrine the Fed’s control over society by ending the gold standard (poor of a standard as it may have been) and established the dollar’s backing as “full faith and credit of the United States Government” (i.e. a confidence scam based on the willingness to kill anyone who complains) along with confirming the military’s willingness to wage war over oil reserves to ensure that all oil would be exchanged in dollars. At the time, Saddam Hussein was an attaché to the CIA under CIA Director HGW Bush, the son of Prescott Bush who financed Hitler, whose Nazi intelligence capacity was transferred to the United States afterwards to become the CIA. Eventually Hussein was installed by the CIA as the Dictator of Iraq, where he was a convenient and reliable agent provocateur whenever American banking interests required a public distraction to enable a coverup, such as with Desert Storm. This came in handy later when the United States needed a way to delay the end of Bretton Woods. Hussein conveniently threatened to open an oil bourse and trade oil in gold again, instead of dollars, which was a great justification for invading Iraq after 9/11 to show other nations that trading oil in something other than dollars was not tolerable. This delayed Iran’s plans to exchange oil for gold by nearly 20 years.

Notably, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and the United States has maintained close and friendly ties to the House of Saud despite Osama bin Laden. The only legal flight to leave the United States on 9/11, for example, was the family of OBL who was permitted to leave the nation. One may be wise to ask why would the family of the organizer of the worst terror attack be permitted to leave the USA on the same day as the attack, even though the government had advanced knowledge of what OBL was planning, and could have reasonably foreseen the need to detain the Bin Laden family.

The Bush family and the House of Saud have been close since Bretton Woods, with one member Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud being held in such high regard by GHW Bush and GW Bush as to receive the nickname “Bandar Bush”. Bandar himself was later convicted of receiving payoffs from OBL, and had explicit knowledge of 9/11. Despite the knowledge that 9/11 was planned by the son of one of the wealthiest oil families in Saudi Arabia, that knowledge being held by Bandar, Bandar being a close friend of the Bush family, the majority of the attackers coming from Saudi Arabia, and the financing of the attacks coming from Saudi Arabia, the United States attacked Iraq and Afghanistan while completely ignoring the influence and participation of the Saudi government and the family of Saud. The Saudis have yet to see any significant consequences for the attacks of 9/11 even though this is all publicly available information. This is because war is about using the stories that are being told, not about the truth of the events.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban had prevented farmers from growing poppies, one of the few crops that can grow in the salty soils of lowland Afghanistan. Previously Afghanistan had been a wealthy and westernized nation, similar to Iran before the Irani government was overthrown by the CIA on behalf of British Petroleum in 1952, only six years after the Nazi intelligence community was adopted and transferred to the USA to become the CIA. During the 1950s, the United States financed a dam project in Afghanistan by the Army Corps of Engineers that raised the water table of lowland Helmand province high enough to cross an underground stone outcropping and begin drawing in salt from the oceanic water table that had previously been separated by the subterranean stone formations. This destruction of Afghani crop production led to widespread impoverishment, which fomented a Russian invasion against the weakened nation, leading to the Islamic rule of the Taliban in the same way the CIA overthrow of the liberal Irani republic on behalf of BP resulted in the current Islamic rule in Iran.

As poppies were ambivalent to the salty soils and with the Taliban out of the way, American military members began guarding poppy fields to produce opiates for world-wide illicit drug supply. These opiates were then partially consumed by Purdue Pharmaceuticals courtesy of the Sackler family, resulting in the opiate crisis across the United States following the Afghanistan invasion. The opiate crisis was incredibly profitable for the banking, healthcare, insurance, police, and prison industries, all controlled by central bankers. This crisis only abated once Chinese fentanyl factories came on line, producing a lower cost product that was more profitable than naturally grown opiate, leading to the end of the profitability of the opiate supply from Afghanistan and the withdraw of American forces.

As Hillary explained to the chagrin of many, the public reason and private reason are always different. Many of these staged wars are against puppet regimes that are put in place to act as a showcase of military power whenever needed to keep other nations in line, like Iraq. Others are the product of prior military action that did not produce the outcome that was intended, like Iran or Venezuela. But many of these wars are against major powers, such as Russia and China, or proxy wars against major powers.

Donald Trump became a Russian mob underboss following his trip to Moscow in the 90s, where he took the first payoffs from the Russian mob to survive his first bankruptcies, and has been under the mob’s thumb ever since.  Subsequently, as Mayor of New York, Trump’s friend Rudy Giuliani took down the Italian mob to enable Trump’s friends in the Russian mob to take over NYC, the nations financial capital. With the loss of the Russian puppet-stooge-lackey-toadstool president Trump, who is indebted to Russian financiers by at least $375m loaned through Deutsch Bank, the Russians lost one of their primary actors who could enable their theatrics in Ukraine. In fact, withholding military aid to Ukraine, to weaken Ukraine and make the Russian invasion easier, was why Trump was impeached the first time.

Russian oligarchs have been funneling money into the American political system since the collapse of the USSR, resulting in deals such as the Bush administration selling America’s strategic helium reserve to Russian interests, and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State under the Obama Administration selling American strategic uranium reserves to Rosatom. Other examples include Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul supporting the construction of a Russian financed aluminum plant in Kentucky, or the Russian capture of the National Rifle Association under Wayne LaPierre. For decades, Russian interests have been purchasing or financing real estate assets in American cities and investing heavily in venture capital firms to own shares in high-growth tech startups.

Russian finance and funding have not only completely consumed the Republican party but have become pervasive across the political, banking, real estate, industry, and technology markets in the United States. As COVID demonstrated the weakness and fragility of these tightly controlled and heavily consolidated industries to unpredicted economic shocks, the overinflation of prices and underlying lack of fundamental value for political, banking, real estate, industry, and technology interests was exposed, showing that 15 years of ZIRP had massively inflated the price of equities, securities, and other financial instruments by reducing the value of dollars. Simply put, when a pie is sliced into more pieces, it takes more pieces to get the same amount of pie. This is why asset prices have appreciated so dramatically since the Clinton administration, not because they have become more valuable, but because the dollar has become less valuable. However, as the dollar becomes less valuable, more of them are required to purchase the same level of luxury, which threatens to force bankers to actually perform labor.

As it is intolerable and unconscionable for a banker to labor, as bankers are our superiors, we are beholden to their majesty, and the disgusting public must acquiesce to the demands of bankers no matter how outrageous such demands may be, something had to be done to produce a new source of guaranteed revenue for bankers and prevent them from the humility and humiliation of labor. Thus it is as it ever has been, and Russia invaded Ukraine to save the bankers in both Russia and the United States from any risk of the rate of increase of their wealth being reduced even marginally as ZIRP was discontinued. To further improve these returns, Russian and American financial interests have been collaborating to short-sell key companies’ equity values so that the bankers can profit from short-selling as the equity values decrease, collapsing regional banks and “category killer” retail, then profit from a fire-sale when the companies are taken over by the government or pass through bankruptcy. In this case not only are commercial equities under attack, but so are the equities of other banks big enough to be relatively valuable to bankers but small enough that they can’t defend themselves.

The big banks and financiers act in coordination to short smaller banks into receivership, wherein the same attackers purchase the collapsed bank at fire sale prices, shift any bad or worthless assets to the taxpayers via the FDIC, consolidate the valuable assets into the bank’s holdings, and profit as the remaining bank increases in value. These attacks generate a profit at every step, identical to banker-led war, but in this case inside the financial markets instead of militarily. This is financial terrorism. The purpose of these examples is to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that repeats across time, space, and industry, and elucidate the means by which this behavior is enabled to identify the parties responsible.

The Treasury issues Treasury Bills, which are sold in the financial market. The Fed purchases Treasury Bills in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes, which is how the American money supply is produced. These Treasury Bills carry interest paid to the Fed, which keeps 3% of revenue for operating costs, and pays out the remainder as dividends to the member banks. The Treasury pays the interest and settlement of T-bills from tax revenues, which in turn are extracted from the taxpayer, who performs labor to receive the cash required to settle their tax payment obligations. This isn’t capitalism, it’s monetarism, which inverts the capital production cycle to produce debt first, that debt denominates cash, and then later labor is performed to earn that cash, some of which is returned as tax payments to repay the debt that created the cash. And since its impossible to create enough cash to fully repay the debt (because the cash itself represents debt), no matter how hard Americans work, or how productive they are, monetarism constantly consumes capital produced by the public and transfers it to the owners of the central bank.

The Fed produces the Federal Reserve Notes out of thin air at zero cost (beyond printing expenses). The ability to arbitrage the difference between the cost of producing money and the face value of money, is called seigniorage.  The seigniorage on dollars is nearly 100%, as most dollars do not exist as a physical object, but instead as an entry in a computer file. This means that the banks pull money out of thin air at no cost, then exchange it for Treasury Bills. But the Treasury then uses the new currency to pay its obligations, of which the majority are interest expenses to T-bill owners, most of whom are banks. So, the banks get the new money for free pulled from thin air, all of the proceeds of that money when it is transacted, and the incomes from the repayment of the obligations that money represents.

After WWII, the United States used its central-bank-funded military stockpiles to slowly overthrow and reform every nation that did not have a central bank, and in doing so enslaved the world to a financial system that benefits the elite at the expense of everyone else. Prior to 9/11, the list of non-central-bank-controlled nations was Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea (and a few irrelevant African nations such as Somalia). Now, the list is reduced to Iran and North Korea (and a few irrelevant African nations). Notably these two nations are often proposed as the two most persistent “threats” to the United States, according to politicians and media. Not because they are a military threat, but because they resist the enslavement of central banks (and admittedly the regimes are quite awful too).

Central banking is the most lucrative, pernicious, and pervasive confidence scam that has ever been conceived, and the end product is to enslave all humankind into a system of financial obligation from birth until death, where any capital produced by individual labor is stolen before any labor is ever performed, and the laborer is only left with the obligation to repay that capital to an organization that has never done anything to deserve or justify being the beneficiary of that value, except that the government of the United States has assigned a monopoly to the banking industry, and eagerly uses overwhelming violence to defend that monopoly and promote it around the globe.

This arrangement ensures that no work can be funded or financed that is contrary to the banker’s agenda, because nobody can access sufficient capital to organize a business without permission from a financier (who is likely unaware of exactly what role they’re playing in the larger scheme of things anyway). And since the financiers rely on access to banks to obtain their cash to make investments, the financiers are complicit in promoting the bankers’ agenda whether they realize it or not.

One may complain that it’s impossible to keep something this large a secret, but I request that these objectors provide the recipe for Coca Cola, or explain how the National Security Agency spends its budget. That neither of those can be explained, despite the organizations interacting with millions of people and having tens of thousands of employees each demonstrates that keeping a large secret that involves many people is not difficult as long as the information is compartmentalized so that nobody knows enough to put enough pieces together to understand what’s happening.

All wars are bank wars, to ensure the wealth and dominance of the bankers, while relieving them of any obligation to perform work or create value, and shifting all of the obligations of capital creation and labor performance to the underclass who spend their lives toiling for the benefit of people who were born wealthy and have never worked a day in their lives, nor will they ever, for any reason. And these bankers will (have someone else) kill you if you present any risk to their effort-free life of inordinate wealth. Then they will sleep at night with bloodstained hands, as they do every night, because bankers are sociopaths who don’t care about anyone or anything except wealth and power.

Perpetual war and central banking are inextricable. Central banking and authoritarian fascism are inextricable. Central banks are in a 100-year-long war against the public, and central banks are the embodiment and epitome of authoritarian fascism. Fascism wasn’t defeated in WWII, fascism won, and the public is now marketed to (propagandized) sufficiently that fascism feels emboldened to begin demonstrating what it really is without much additional masquerade.

Until the world is relieved of the lies, manipulation, and exploitation of central banking, wars like Ukraine will persist and grow, because war guarantees the banks, politicians, and businessmen power and control while relieving them of any obligation for labor, production, utility, or intelligence.

Humanity cannot be free while central banks exist, because central banking is the source of and the seat of power that enables, promotes, and demands fascist authoritarianism, and the only outcome of fascist authoritarianism is slavery and death for everyone except the elite few slave masters at the top.