Doesn't "central-banking," where it takes root, necessarily dominate any culture and political system?....

Below-copied by ap first submitted, but not published, at comments, https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.w...ards/#comments

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Awesome Power Of "Central-Banking": Isn't It Necessarily Supreme?
(Apollonian, 30 Dec 18)

I very much liked ur entire exposition as u explain much if not all. BUT, there's just one thing about the ARRANGEMENT of ur expo for the "players" and actors, relative power and influence, and that's regarding the power--the OVERWHELMING power--of central-banking and fiat currency--which I hold is the supreme power, which determines everything else. See Mises.org for expo on central-banking; use their search-engine for particular terms.

Surely, u realize the incredible Midas-like power of that ability to make and then issue currency (it's NOT real "money" which must be gold/silver) OUT OF NOTHING--literally legalized counterfeiting, just printing-up and (nowadays) digitalizing currency--this all began, for the un-broken lineage of conspirators and conspiracy u end up with with ur "secret elite," w. institution of Bank of England in 1694.

Surely u must realize these "bankers" (really just counterfeiters) are TOPMOST powers, the real power, who tell the "secret elite," as u call them, what to do, these "secret elite" mere bag-men and flunkies, including people like Milner, Churchill, and Lloyd George.

So it's excellent that u have ("Natty") Rothschild at the heart of it all, for ur own expo, when this particular "Round-Table" group is first devised, as in 1891. BUT it's Rothschild who's the boss--not Milner or anyone else--this is the only quibble I have w. ur analysis of the conspiracy. For it's got to be the bankers who calculate if any action is possible, and who ultimately give the okay for its carrying-out and execution.

Rothschild bankers (like Nathan, son of Mayer) were active in USA, right at the very beginning of the republic, and which central-banking eventually destroyed it w. definitive US Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Alexander Hamilton was instrumental for the first Bank of US (BUS), but there was one before it, during the Articles of Confederation period, and ANOTHER BUS, the 2nd, begun by Madison, and then famously ended by Jackson in 1836--a great drama in US history.

There's great, substantial history for all this banking activity, by several authors, one of the latest and best by G. Edward Griffin, in his work, "The Creature From Jekyll Island."

Everything u write for ur own outstanding works is perfectly consistent w. Griffin's work. So I was just wondering what u think and say about this central-banking concept/theme and how it fits in--isn't this central-banking necessarily definitive and primary factor?