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. STORY