The main claim of the speaker Michael Rivero, was that contrary to popular belief all major wars have been war for the profit of the private central banks. He goes on to say that “ behind all the propaganda, behind all the flag waving, lone-nut assassins, weapons of mass destruction of all the modern wars, this nation has fought our wars by and for the private central bankers” (YouTube, “All Wars are Bankers wars”) , and that “war is the bankers richest harvest”( YouTube, “ All Wars are Bankers Wars”).
Rivero firsts start at the American Revolution to support his claim. He goes on to say that the American war was fought due to the currency act of king George the Third, which forced colonists to stop using their own government currencies, and …show more content…
Rivero also claims that the war of 1812 was fought because congress at the time wouldn’t renew the charter of The First Bank of the U.S because it had only brought wealth to its bankers, and ruined the economy of the nation. The Roschild family threatened war if it wasn’t renewed and congress still refused, so the branch of the Roschild family in England financed Britain during the war, whose intention was to recolonize the U.s and make them use the British currency or force them into debt so they had no other choice. His biggest claim was that WWII was fought because Adolf Hitler rose to power and was attempting to rule Germany without a central bank. …show more content…
Rivero doesn’t present any obvious counter claims to his own argument, which leads to the suspicion it’s easy to refute. A historical website called www.history.com says in its article “World War II History” that the causes of the war were Hitler’s repeated invasions to claim land, his treaties with other countries to solidify Germany’s military, and Germany’s resentment at the Treaty of Versailles. The article also says that Great Britain and France were too devastated by the First World War to want another one, which is contrary to Rivero’s Winston Churchill quotes which made it seem his own ant-Germany mentality was that of Great Britain itself. This website paints a more aggressive picture of Hitler and Germany as a resentful nation with a power hungry ruler, whose invasion of Poland in 1939 forced Britain and France to declare war. Hitler also began to violate terms in the Treaty of Versailles, which wasn’t discussed in Rivero’s argument. In a quick search a focus point of Riveros’s argument was easily refuted because his opponent had multiple pieces of evidence, not just once select event, to support their argument. This helps solidify my view on Rivero’s argument, although well worded with factual evidence to support it, isn’t a full argument. He doesn’t include a counter claim which
Rivero firsts start at the American Revolution to support his claim. He goes on to say that the American war was fought due to the currency act of king George the Third, which forced colonists to stop using their own government currencies, and …show more content…
Rivero also claims that the war of 1812 was fought because congress at the time wouldn’t renew the charter of The First Bank of the U.S because it had only brought wealth to its bankers, and ruined the economy of the nation. The Roschild family threatened war if it wasn’t renewed and congress still refused, so the branch of the Roschild family in England financed Britain during the war, whose intention was to recolonize the U.s and make them use the British currency or force them into debt so they had no other choice. His biggest claim was that WWII was fought because Adolf Hitler rose to power and was attempting to rule Germany without a central bank. …show more content…
Rivero doesn’t present any obvious counter claims to his own argument, which leads to the suspicion it’s easy to refute. A historical website called www.history.com says in its article “World War II History” that the causes of the war were Hitler’s repeated invasions to claim land, his treaties with other countries to solidify Germany’s military, and Germany’s resentment at the Treaty of Versailles. The article also says that Great Britain and France were too devastated by the First World War to want another one, which is contrary to Rivero’s Winston Churchill quotes which made it seem his own ant-Germany mentality was that of Great Britain itself. This website paints a more aggressive picture of Hitler and Germany as a resentful nation with a power hungry ruler, whose invasion of Poland in 1939 forced Britain and France to declare war. Hitler also began to violate terms in the Treaty of Versailles, which wasn’t discussed in Rivero’s argument. In a quick search a focus point of Riveros’s argument was easily refuted because his opponent had multiple pieces of evidence, not just once select event, to support their argument. This helps solidify my view on Rivero’s argument, although well worded with factual evidence to support it, isn’t a full argument. He doesn’t include a counter claim which