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 with faces obscured by Germanic-looking shields. This prevents the viewer from seeing the truth.
That said, no, the Rothschilds were not some vague "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 established banking houses in France, England, Naples and Austria:
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 from the sale, Napoleon built an army that nearly won him control of Europe. Napoleon said:
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 public was still under the assumption that Napoleon had won. As a result, the value of the UK government bonds plummeted and the Rothschilds were able 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 exercise power and 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, considering that there was a rebellion against the "tentacled monster" within that window of time, and the rebellion ultimately led to bloc in Europe that was eventually pulverized - regardless who started it - by the countries that the "monster" held sway over, who are traditionally associated with the "good side" in history. That can lead to a lot of head-scratching, where people begin to question the narrative they are given and wonder if they have been had. Secondly, just like the decision to portray the Rothschilds as faceless, tentacled creatures "from Germany", deleting the whole block of time between 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", and taken on by you-know-who:
That's right: the one's who were complicit are the same ones we are currently told are the worst bad-guy super villains of all time: Adolf Hitler and "the Nazis". Thus, it is hardly surprising that the film just skips over the whole period from 1815 to 1950, since the Rothschilds are portrayed most unfavorably up until that period and that, by default, makes anyone who attempts to stop them sympathetic. It is easier to just not talk about Hitler and the Nazis at all than to try to say something and risk that people could walk away questioning the anti-Nazi narrative or even believing in Nazi ideology.
The thing is, if the Jewish community is concerned about persecution, then why does it feel the need to defend the 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? Why does the Jewish community step into the argument screaming about "anti-Semitism", which gives the accused something to hide behind and portray him or herself as the victim, all the while turning the conflict into one involving Jews at large, which plays directly into all the conspiracy theorists' claims about Jewish complicity in the Rothschild's scheme? It is a very poorly thought out strategy, and while it is understandable to see that the Jews could worry about an attack on the Rothschilds leading to violence against Jews by association, the Jewish community's actions are making that exact scenario all the more likely to come to life. They same is true with they way they have decided to silence discussion of certain topics for fear of the direction those conversations could go. Their strategy is flat out deny the truth, to make up claims about the genocidal intentions of the truth-speakers and denounce, shame and silence them at all costs. Obviously, this goes a long way towards creating the sort of environment where complicity conspiracy theories thrive and, when a person has their life and livelihood destroyed because of their interest in showing the truth, the desire for revenge is born. It is amazing the Jews cannot seem the see this.
There is just one problem: in the video, the Rothschilds are referred to as "bankers from Germany" and depicted as tentacled creatures with faces obscured by Germanic-looking shields. This prevents the viewer from seeing the truth.
That said, no, the Rothschilds were not some vague "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 established 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
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 from the sale, 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 public was still under the assumption that Napoleon had won. As a result, the value of the UK government bonds plummeted and the Rothschilds were able 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 exercise power and 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, considering that there was a rebellion against the "tentacled monster" within that window of time, and the rebellion ultimately led to bloc in Europe that was eventually pulverized - regardless who started it - by the countries that the "monster" held sway over, who are traditionally associated with the "good side" in history. That can lead to a lot of head-scratching, where people begin to question the narrative they are given and wonder if they have been had. Secondly, just like the decision to portray the Rothschilds as faceless, tentacled creatures "from Germany", deleting the whole block of time between 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", and taken on by you-know-who:
That's right: the one's who were complicit are the same ones we are currently told are the worst bad-guy super villains of all time: Adolf Hitler and "the Nazis". Thus, it is hardly surprising that the film just skips over the whole period from 1815 to 1950, since the Rothschilds are portrayed most unfavorably up until that period and that, by default, makes anyone who attempts to stop them sympathetic. It is easier to just not talk about Hitler and the Nazis at all than to try to say something and risk that people could walk away questioning the anti-Nazi narrative or even believing in Nazi ideology.
The thing is, if the Jewish community is concerned about persecution, then why does it feel the need to defend the 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? Why does the Jewish community step into the argument screaming about "anti-Semitism", which gives the accused something to hide behind and portray him or herself as the victim, all the while turning the conflict into one involving Jews at large, which plays directly into all the conspiracy theorists' claims about Jewish complicity in the Rothschild's scheme? It is a very poorly thought out strategy, and while it is understandable to see that the Jews could worry about an attack on the Rothschilds leading to violence against Jews by association, the Jewish community's actions are making that exact scenario all the more likely to come to life. They same is true with they way they have decided to silence discussion of certain topics for fear of the direction those conversations could go. Their strategy is flat out deny the truth, to make up claims about the genocidal intentions of the truth-speakers and denounce, shame and silence them at all costs. Obviously, this goes a long way towards creating the sort of environment where complicity conspiracy theories thrive and, when a person has their life and livelihood destroyed because of their interest in showing the truth, the desire for revenge is born. It is amazing the Jews cannot seem the see this.
