Beware of the "American Dream" - and the Rothschilds

The following video is entertaining, yet informative. It examines the scam of banking and ends just after the internationalization of the whole enterprise under the Rothschilds:

There is just one problem: in the video, the Rothschilds are referred to as "bankers from Germany" and depicted as tentacled creatures whose faces obscured by Germanic-looking shields. This prevents the viewer from seeing seeing the truth.

That said, no, the Rothschilds were not "bankers from Germany", but rather a family of Ashkenazi Jews who came to Europe from Khazaria.  Although they built their money-lending empire in Frankfurt (which is indeed in Germany), the founder of the business, Mayer A. Rothschild and his five sons - who he brought up in the trade - all lived and died before "Germany" existed as a state. Furthermore, whereas the oldest son, Salomon, inherited his father's place in Frankfurt, the other four were sent out to establish banking houses in France, England, Naples and Austria:

  • Salomon Mayer Rothschild (1774–1855): sent to Vienna
  • Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777–1836): sent to London
  • Calmann Mayer Rothschild (1788–1855): sent to Naples
  • Jakob Mayer Rothschild (1792–1868): sent to Paris

Thus, there was nothing "German" about the enterprise. The real Rothschild coat of arms was not "Germanic", either. The actual design featured a clenched fist with five arrows symbolizing the five sons of Mayer A. Rothschild. Below the fist, in reference to a passage in the Jewish Torah, was written: "like arrows in the hands of a warrior."

As the video shows, the 19th century was critical to the fate of the Rothschild power network. Rather than work with the banks, Napoleon of France had opted to sell a huge chunk of France's Louisiana territory to the United States. With the funds, Napoleon built an army that nearly won him control of Europe. Napoleon said:
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
- Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815
(Ad Broere, Ending the Global Casino, p.57)

As the video shows, Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo. Thanks to an agent named Rothworth, the Rothschilds learned about Napoleon's final defeat before the UK government and the press. The Rothschild's began sending out the opposite message and, as a result, the value of UK government bonds plummeted, enabling the Rothschilds to buy up the shares at bare-bottom prices. When news of Napoleon's defeat arrived, UK bond values shot back up. The Rothschilds started selling their shares back and soon sat atop a fortune - the source of their enormous, money-lending empire that would finance British enterprises and even the UK government. In turn, the Rothschilds were able to influence British policy.

Because the video ends shortly after this point, and the sequel skips right to America in the 1950s, there is no discussion about what happened between 1815 and 1950, thereby ignoring the First World War, the Great Depression, the rebellion against the chaos of the international finance system in the 1930s and, last but not least, the Second World War. There is probably a very good reason for this, since the powers that rebelled against the "tentacled monster" tried to establish an independent power bloc in the heart of Europe that was pulverized by the countries that the "monster" holds sway over. Because the pulverizers are traditionally associated with the "good side" in historeography, people might be left wondering if they have been had. Secondly, just like the decision to portray the Rothschilds as faceless, tentacled creatures "from Germany", the omission of 1815 to 1950 keeps international finance faceless, and thus help to prevent any discrimination and hatred which could result from the realization that the Rothschilds (and many other, big-name internationalists) were part of a problem once dubbed "international Jewry". Thus, it is no surprise that the film opts for silence, since it does not seek to become anti-Semitic or offend the Jewish community.

The thing is, if the Jewish community is concerned about persecution, then why does this community not condemn the actions of usurers who happen to be Jewish (like the Rothschilds) and other Jews who work against the interests of our nations and undermine national stability for profit? With that in mind, I present to you the following, which explains what the cartoon does not: