The chief engineer of Vatican involvement in war profiteering was a legendary financial wizard,a Sgr. Nogara. This man, who in fact controlled and played with the Vatican's money for decades, multiplied her millions a hundredfold...and his motto was that of Pope Benedict XV: "Business is Business."...He invested in allied industries, chemicals, steel plants, and the like...Thus the Vatican, prior to the Second World War, had many of its millions involved with a vast complex producing war materials. The secretive financial transactions of Nogara also linked Vatican finances with certain large U.S. corporations. When eventually the U.S. was drawn into the conflict...the Vatican began to make considerable profits on the other side of the Atlantic
Disturbingly, we are reminded by Avro Manhattan, Jon Phelps, Bill Hughes, and other scholars who have researched the role of the Vatican in the world wars, that the far-seeing organization, supposed to be operating in the name of Christ and St. Peter, had made significant investments in the machinery of war before war in Europe became a terrible reality. The Vatican had money invested with both the Fascists and the Allies prior to the onset of hostilities. Its pose of neutrality was the perfect ruse enabling it to operate unmolested throughout the world, but it was far from being an accurate stance.
...there were no religious wars in the ancient world before monotheism.
The major conclusion of the report [Report From Iron Mountain] was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation's leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for "stabilizing society."
Politicians are fond of talking about the necessity of preserving world peace, and trade, we are told, is one of the best ways to do it. The implication is that this is a time of peace. In truth, we live in one of the most war-torn eras the world has ever seen. No continent today, except Antarctica, is free from war.
Wars, great and small, have always been a plague to Europe, but it was not until they were easy to finance through central banking and fiat money that they became virtually perpetual.
The "balance-of-power" question is particularly intriguing. Most history texts present the concept as though it were some kind of natural, social phenomenon which, somehow, has worked to the benefit of mankind. The implication is that it's just wonderful how, after all those European wars, no nation was strong enough to completely dominate the others. When the United States emerged from World War II with exactly such power, it was widely deplored, and massive political /financial mechanisms such as foreign aid and disarmament were set in motion to restore the balance.
Let us imagine a man who is totally pragmatic. He is smarter and more cunning than most men and, in fact, holds them in thinly disguised contempt. He may respect the talents of a few, but has little concern over the condition of mankind. He has observed that kings and politicians are always fighting over something or other and has concluded that wars are inevitable. He also has learned that wars can be profitable, not only by lending or creating the money to finance them, but from government favoritism in the granting of commercial subsidies or monopolies. He is not capable of such a primitive feeling as patriotism, so he is free to participate in the funding of any side in any conflict, limited only by factors of self interest. [...]
To involve a country in war or the threat of war, it will be necessary for it to have enemies with credible military might. If such enemies already exist, all the better. If they exist but lack military strength, it will be necessary to provide them the money to build their war machine. If an enemy does not exist at all, then it will be necessary to create one by financing the rise of a hostile regime. [...] While we must always proclaim the virtues of peace, the unspoken objective is perpetual war.
Wars are seldom funded out of the existing treasury, nor are they even done so out of increased taxes. If governments were to levy taxes on their citizens fully adequate to finance the conflict, the amount would be so great that many of even its most ardent supporters would lose enthusiasm. By artificially increasing the money supply, however, the real cost is hidden from view.
...The combined military expenditures of all the world’s governments in 1987 were so large that all of the social programs of the United Nations could be financed for three hundred years by this expenditure.
Creating wars is a wonderful way to make vast fortunes and destroy the status quo. You lend money to both sides to fund the war and then you lend them even more to rebuild their devastated countries. They get in debt (control) to you and you increase your wealth (power). Such control and power allows you to build a new society in the image of your agenda, when the war you have created and funded has destroyed the old structure.