The Rothschilds

[Agrippa]

Generally these plutocratic elites are snakes in the grass, this family is probably one of the largest. Don't know enough about what they've done, don't care to much either, as an american, joe, you should hate them, I believe they had large influence in the war of 1812.

Do you want to be ruled by chafferers, usurers, fraudsters, without any higher legitimation, with bloods on their hands for generation, which came up just by betraying others and abusing a sick money system?

What's their achievement, what was the great benefit they created, anything coming even close to parts of the misery they caused?

They overtook England, because they had their family and allies in all countries, as well as an excellent network of spies. That's how they kicked out all the gentile bankers, as bad as they were already, out of the higher league in England and overtook the City of London, being a much worse element among the already corrupted bankers...

And during the Napoleonic wars, when they multiplied their fortune and influence, they already blackmailed whole nations! Austria for example was not always "the Jew-state" in Europe, but they exploited the catastrophy for their own good and punched the whole country and its elite into submission with this fucked up money system!

Like the Plutocracy imposes Neoliberal and asocial policies on the people and states by abusing the debt slavery of nations, created by this totally degenerated financial, money and debt system, which was in its basics created in the Netherlands and England centuries ago, by the Rothschilds and people like them, just becoming even worse in meantime and of course, their profits and power, the profits and power of the Plutocracy grew, with every crisis, every war, every corrupted politician in their networks...

So this corrupted subjects come closer and closer to a totalitarian rule, which is the real thing, because money is nothing, nobody knows that better than a banker, money is just a tool people have to rely upon and morons believe in.

Its all about real goods and real power over people. But that's easy to achieve, in a modern money system, if you control, as a banker, the money flow. And since they want to abuse this "failure", this "failure" exists, it is their hole in the defence, where those snakes crept into the Europeans elite, even replaced or corrupted an independent and truly European spiritual elite!

[Joe McCarthy]

Generally these plutocratic elites are snakes in the grass, this family is probably one of the largest. Don't know enough about what they've done, don't care to much either, as an american, joe, you should hate them, I believe they had large influence in the war of 1812.

Possibly, though I'm unaware of it. There is a claim the Rothschilds funded the Confederacy, too, but that's probably a legend. I've read Niall Ferguson's The House of Rothschild, and though they were heavily involved in the Napoleonic Wars, if anything they tended to primarily be a force for 'reaction' as they funded the Habsburgs.

[BeerBaron]

Do you want to be ruled by chafferers, usurers, fraudsters, without any higher legitimation, with bloods on their hands for generation, which came up just by betraying others and abusing a sick money system?

Do you think there has ever been rulers of the world that haven't been what you describe? The reason people like this rule, is because they are the only people that really want power, most people just want to go about their lives.

And I never said I did, I specifically said they were generally snakes in the grass, in fact I have advocated public banking on here many times, which is a conflict of interest for me anyways.

[Joe McCarthy]

Do you think there has ever been rulers of the world that haven't been what you describe? The reason people like this rule, is because they are the only people that really want power, most people just want to go about their lives.

And I never said I did, I specifically said they were generally snakes in the grass, in fact I have advocated public banking on here many times, which is a conflict of interest for me anyways.

Napoleon commented that bankers have no loyalty to nations or governments, and are thus dangerous. There's truth in that charge, but thus far we seem to be dealing in vagarias, as usual, as pertains to the Rothschilds. The only really bad policy they pursued, that I'm aware, was in funding Japan against Russia, which had some bad consequences.

[BeerBaron]

Napoleon commented that bankers have no loyalty to nations or governments, and are thus dangerous. There's truth in that charge, but thus far we seem to be dealing in vagarias, as usual, as pertains to the Rothschilds. The only really bad policy they pursued, that I'm aware, was in funding Japan against Russia, which had some bad consequences.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/389053.stm

http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

I'm sure that was in Niell's book, but its a quick overview, the second link is the history of money, the rothschilds are mentioned a couple times, around the First Bank of the United States, and the Napoleonic wars.

[Agrippa]

Do you think there has ever been rulers of the world that haven't been what you describe? The reason people like this rule, is because they are the only people that really want power, most people just want to go about their lives.

Only because:
- they see just the politicians and managers in the foreground, not the bankers and Plutocratic networks in the background, so they actually miss the point! If something goes wrong, they blame the politicans and managers, they want to get rid of them, but as long as those in the background stay in charge, the structures aren't be changed, changing the personell of the politicians and managers won't change anything substantially - unless those politicians and managers have the full support of the people and get rid of the Plutocratic power which cripples them!

- that's one thing, the other is, power became a complicated issue and the real power of the Plutocracy means, you have to be a big player financially, you have to be in a large and effective network of similar people and their helpers, agents, you have to understand how it works - the best way to get to this point is being RAISED in that structure and position, for that structure and position, in the form of memetic adaptation for GENERATIONS.

So many people might want to be in charge and have powers, but they don't really get to the point where the real power lies and they are unable to get there, usually even if being gifted, because the Plutocratic Oligarchy is no longer made up of small businessmen which made their "business career" up to the top ranks, but they are a pseudo-Aristocracy - just not aristo - just not good for the people and greater whole, nor the best for the job, but well adapted for keeping their position in THIS SYSTEM.

What I described:

Do you want to be ruled by chafferers, usurers, fraudsters, without any higher legitimation, with bloods on their hands for generation, which came up just by betraying others and abusing a sick money system?

You asked:

Do you think there has ever been rulers of the world that haven't been what you describe?

Absolutely!

Not all of the leaders in the past were that good or angels, for sure not, but they had a different pathway to power, different experiences, a different background, different traits and goals. Among other things, they were usually in the foreground and could be HELD RESPONSIBLE for what they created.

Now in the "democratic" system, better the "Liberal-Democracy" or to be exact, the Liberalcapitalism, the puppets being used and can do their play, for the Plutocratic puppet masters in the background and even if the people would revolt, they might just hang the puppets, and the revolt might be - again - controlled and manipulated, by the Plutocracy.

And no, those chafferers, fraudsters and usurers were in the past so despised, that they couldn't rule by themselves! They were dependent from the grace and support of warrior kings, priests or the like - which had a legitimation. And because of that legitimation and this real political power, which was more than just economic influence, they could be punished or eliminated, if doing wrong to the wrong people.

Now things turned around and they control the people via the money and all things they can buy or control with their networks - like the mass media.

So, now not the chafferer and usurer has to beg at the feets of the political elite, for being able to do his business, what he wasn't allowed to in many regions and times anyway, but the political "elite" has to beg for money and support at the feets of the corrupted Plutocracy, the puppet masters in the background.

Just look at those miserable American presidential candidates!

Even Zionism is not the main thing, the Zionists would be just an interest group among others without the Plutocratic elements supporting AND ABUSING them - in return for their support in all Plutocratic matters of course.

So the presidential candidates have to creep into the arses of the Plutocracy, on every occasion, as good and as often as they can, just for their support and not being attacked - cut off from the money, organisational and media support among other things.

That is a degeneration, it is not old, that is very new and it was born in Britain and the USA in particular.

And I never said I did, I specifically said they were generally snakes in the grass, in fact I have advocated public banking on here many times, which is a conflict of interest for me anyways.

Of course not, I didn't suggest otherwise, but just wanted to stress certain points, perspectives and arguments on the matter. You just gave me the keywords

Napoleon commented that bankers have no loyalty to nations or governments, and are thus dangerous. There's truth in that charge, but thus far we seem to be dealing in vagarias, as usual, as pertains to the Rothschilds. The only really bad policy they pursued, that I'm aware, was in funding Japan against Russia, which had some bad consequences.

They ruined Russia and led it into the bloody revolution, because they hated the Orthodoxy and Tsars. Among other things, because they tried to stay independent from the bankers and Jews as good as they could in that environment.

Not that they were right or good in every respect, but one has to put things into context and see the various alternatives and what the Rothschilds and Plutocrats finally supported instead, in the West and East...

From the BBC article quoted above:

He is said to have ridden alongside the Duke of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo. On realising a British victory, he dashed back to London and brought government stocks before anyone else knew of Napoleon's defeat.

There are different stories about that, but clear is primarily one thing: They were informed and betrayed the competitors.

And that's how the Plutocratic networks still "run the business", if you are not in their circles, you don't have the informations about the manipulations and won't succeed beyond a certain point, unless you are the luckist and most capable speculator on this planet.

Capitalism is just betrayal and the best way to succeed is to have advantages, from the start, others don't have. Among other things: A huge network, like the Jews and especially Rothschilds have it since generations.

The banksters have all what you might call "insider knowledge" in the wider sense, that's the real "secret of their success" most of the times, especially if talking about the "less obvious" outcomes and "surprising changes" on the market. All about manipulation!

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
They ruined Russia and led it into the bloody revolution, because they hated the Orthodoxy and tsars. Among other things, because they tried to stay independent from the bankers and Jews as good as they could in that environment.

As it was the London Rothschilds that financed Japan, it's possible part of their motivation was to work in concert with Britain's anti-Russian policy. The British themselves sided with Japan in that war, as it was part of the Great Game.

[Agrippa]

As it was the London Rothschilds that financed Japan, it's possible part of their motivation was to work in concert with Britain's anti-Russian policy. The British themselves sided with Japan in that war, as it was part of the Great Game.

Yes, part of the "Great Game" - but that's again just in the foreground, there were financial wars in the background, which broke the European nations back, one by one.

And it was a major reason for World War 2 as well, as you might know.

But how much "British interests" were there anyway? A lot of the colonial and strategic business was primarily in the interest of the Plutocracy, more than anybody else in "the Empire"!

Cecil Rhodes for example was in the foreground again, but behind him:

While attending Oriel College, Rhodes became a Freemason in the Apollo University Lodge. Although initially he did not approve of the organisation, he continued to be a Freemason until his death in 1902.

In October 1871, Rhodes and his brother Herbert left the colony for the diamond fields of Kimberley. Financed by N M Rothschild & Sons, over the next 17 years Rhodes succeeded in buying up all the smaller diamond mining operations in the Kimberley area. His monopoly of the world's diamond supply was sealed in 1889 through a strategic partnership with the London-based Diamond Syndicate. They agreed to control world supply to maintain high prices.[8][9] Rhodes supervised the working of his brother's claim and speculated on his behalf. Among his associates in the early days were John X. Merriman and Charles Rudd, who later became his partner in the De Beers Mining Company and Niger Oil Company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

That's the difference between British and German, even then, even in the monarchy - even though German profiteurs always existed too, no problem, but the general perspective was more than just "the state doing something for the corporations and investors". Britain was lead like a company for quite some time already, a company in which the true English, Anglo-Saxon and others, had not too much to say, even if not all of them get that and see their helpless and exploited position.

Germans fought and died for more than that, British soldiers being usually sacrificed for the Plutocrats and in the background and virtually NOTHING ELSE!

Talking about Britain and "English" interests means, to this day, most of the time nothing else but "what do the Plutocratic puppet masters want their British puppet to do next? Which dance should they perform, which victim should they punish, if they don't comply..."

And of course, by now the Americans joined that theatre, and after the German backbones was broken by brute force, they too are largely in these ranks, even though their more healthy and community oriented mentality made them more immune and harder to infect, even after all those years of corrupted re-education and indoctrination.

"Great Game"? Yes, the Great Game of the Plutocracy.

They always jumped the Europeans in their back, to keep them weak.

An "European Union" was only in their interest, when it became clear that they could form a Liberalcapitalist bankers Europe, like they wanted it, like Coudenhove-Kalergi described it in his fever nightmares - but Coudenhove-Kalergi had also a warning for us, if "the new Jewish elite becomes corrupted" - what happened...

The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today's races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice.

The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

From the European quantity-people, who only belief in numbers, the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and Jewry.

Separate from each other both of them stick to their belief in their higher mission, of their better blood, in the different ranks of the people.

In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future: in the feudal blood aristocracy, as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by the farm, in the Jewish spiritual aristocracy as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by money [capitalism].

Nice idea, but they are so much into it and the most powerful and influential Jews were finally the full scale capitalist creatures and no others...

Coudenhove-Kalergi in his autobiography:

"At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild; one of his friends, Max Warburg from Hamburg, had read my book and wanted to get to know us.

To my great surprise, Warburg spontaneously offered us 60,000 gold marks, to tide the movement over for its first three years ....

Max Warburg, who was one of the most distinguished and wisest men that I have ever come into contact with, had a principle of financing these movements.

He remained sincerely interested in Pan-Europe for his entire life.

Max Warburg arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch."

Finance theorist Ludwig von Mises (supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation) also participated in Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan-European Movement.

Later von Mises disciples Arthur Burns and Milton Friedman spread von Mises ideas through a network of secret 'conservative' think tanks, led by the Mont Pelerin Society.

http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coud...ienna-1925.php

So the Plutocrats directly supported Coudenhove-Kalergi and after the 2nd World War, he got prices (like the Karlspreis, one could say they almost invented it just for him, what a shame for Karl the Great to have his name abused by those elements) from European officials for speaking about "European slave people", a "Jewish master race" and the future of Europe as a mixed culture and population of mongrels, under the rule of the new Jewish Aristocracy...

The Warburg family mentioned as a supporter for Coudenhove-Kalergi is the same family which helped to create the Federal Reserve System in the USA:

Warburg was born in Hamburg, Germany, to a successful Jewish banking family.

In 1891 Warburg entered the office of the family banking firm of M.M. Warburg & Company, which had been founded in 1798 by his great-grandfather. He interrupted work there to undertake a world tour during the winter of 1891-92. Warburg was admitted to a partnership in the family firm in 1895.

Paul Warburg became known as a persuasive advocate of central banking in America, in 1907 publishing the pamphlets "Defects and Needs of Our Banking System" and "A Plan for A Modified Central Bank". His efforts were successful in 1913 with the founding of the Federal Reserve System. He was appointed a member of the first Federal Reserve Board by President Woodrow Wilson, serving until 1918.

In 1919 he founded and became first chairman of the American Acceptance Council. He organized and became the first chairman of the International Acceptance Bank of New York in 1921. International Acceptance was acquired by the Bank of the Manhattan Company in 1929, with Warburg becoming chairman of the combined organization.

He became a director of the Council on Foreign Relations at its founding in 1921, remaining on the board until his death. From 1921 to 1926 Warburg was a member of the advisory council of Federal Reserve Board, serving as president of the advisory council in 1924-26. He was also a trustee of the Institute of Economics, founded in 1922; when it was merged into the Brookings Institution in 1927, he became a trustee of the latter, serving until his death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Warburg

If you go for the networks, the Rothschilds were often in the centre, and various other powerful Plutocratic families around them - like Warburg and in the USA the Rockefeller clan.

Those Plutocrats were also involved in forming the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg meetings and the CIA, among other things. With their money they influenced the academic and scientific world, as well as the media landscape, in which they had and still have powerful, mostly Jewish allies, as well.

Like in the old aristocratic classes, they often marry among themselves:

On October 1, 1895, Warburg was married in New York City to Nina J. Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb, founder of the New York investment firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Warburg

Also recently one of the Rothschilds:

On September 20, 2003, at St. Mary's Church in Bury St. Edmunds, he married heiress Kate Emma Rothschild (b. 1982), daughter of the late Amschel Rothschild and his wife Anita Guinness of the Guinness Brewery family. Their wedding was attended by 600 guests, thickly layered with blue-blooded and Old Etonian friends, among them Lord Frederick Windsor and Alexander Spencer-Churchill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldsmith

Both the Goldsmith's and Rothschilds invested in "Green Technologies", but even more so, they support the punishments of states, the certificate trade and speculation on it - as a new business enterprise for the future...

One can have doubts about their hear breaking environmentalism, if such methods being primarily used and abused to create new speculative bubbles and taking away money and life quality from the people, rather than supporting clean and alternative energy with other means.

Mister Rothschild - aristocratic-progressive type - but still talking, in the end, about "global control" - by whom? Well, coming close to the family goals I'd say:
[YOUTUBE]mtudNpL30BU[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtudNpL30BU

Look at his "honest mimic".

Good image, new speculative bubble, profits and new control mechanisms, means for blackmailing nations, while the real environmental effect is - let's say "small".

Hypocritical as always...

[Sol Invictus]

In my opinion? It is all JEALOUSY over their vast wealth.

That's no doubt part of it, but I'm willing to entertain evidence that they've been the evil force some have claimed. I just haven't seen any real evidence for that myself.

Yeah, jealousy.

Tools.

[Joe McCarthy]

I don't think it's fair to describe Rhodes' motivations as that of helping plutocrats. His beliief in imperialism was for bread and butter reasons. He wanted new colonies to relieve overcrowding in Britain.