I disagree with the conflation of Zionism with Globalism, when the Rothchilds ( Who I would assert are tools of the Vatican) bankrolled American hegemony were they pushing "Americanism" when they bankrolled Britain was it because of "britishism". If they were really Zionists (which means believing in a jewish homeland including Mount Zion) would they have allowed %78 of the land promised them to be split off and given to King Hussien, would they then have allowed another %5 chunk to separated right out of the middle of Zion?
Yes the US gave them money they also gave their worst enemy money and coerced the Israelis into letting their worst enemy, PLO/Fatah, take control of the territory right in the the middle of their country.
Oh but they made them promise to be good so its OK, its not like they reneged on their promise and launched wave after wave of terrorist attacks.
With friends like the Americans who needs enemies?
I also don't think that Global Banking = Communism
rather I would say Global Banking= Communism+Islam+Vaticanism+any other culture that enslaves its participants.
It requires care to parse language at times, particularly when hidden things are spoke of.
While if you go ask your local Baptist preacher, he'll tell you zionism is about the holy land, neither I nor many others reckon the political machine that has sprung up from such roots is limited to that effort.
The Rothschilds are clearly from the zionist ilk, and just as clearly have deep roots in international finance.
From where I sit it is difficult to spy much difference between any of the groups with significant usurious interest in global finance (which pretty much eliminates Muslims) you have named. It may well be that the Vatican bank is ultimately most puissant of their ilk, or it could be the City of London, or DC.
I couldn't tell you and I don't care.
They're peas in a pod, and doing us dirty.
I reckon we can agree on that.
Absolutely I agree to that, but what I can't agree with is a premise that
yet somehow can't manage to give the Israelis a country without their enemies occupying the middle of the country.
Either 1 or 2 is true I have no problem with 1 but I find 2 laughable, if this global conspiracy that controls the finances of the world were really pro-israel their enemies wouldn't have received so much financial support, and I'm not talking about zakat but support(more money than the Marshall Plan) from the financial powerhouses like the USA.
Next thing your going to tell me is that George Soros is part of the Black power movement and their plan to take over the world because he gave money to BLM.
Bankers are nobody's friends whatever their ethnicity. So why call it Zionism? If these people were really Zionists Israel would be free,
From the Jordan to the Sea.
Well, I din't name busses either, but it's the word folks use.
Not me. I reckon he's using BLM just as zionists are using Israel--as a goad to drive their victims into the defensive corrals they want them in.
Israel is being used as exactly that, in a Hegelian Dialectic manouver to continually grant more power to the financially connected, as is the USA. Zionism is essentially a pretty racist and segregationist force, yet one of it's primary weapons has been multiculturalism, which is destabilizing Europe and the US.
Both carcasses can be picked over and their people enslaved if they collapse, and the carcass pickers I reckon are the zionists. Zion, for them, isn't really a mountain in Palestine, but world domination, IMHO.
Which is a good reason to name them properly, Globalist Bankers, and who do they work for?
No matter what you call them, they are most decidedly in it for themselves.
And no one else.
Too True!