A Brief History Of The Rothschild Banking Family

1

You may not know it, but the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, has been hidden behind the curtains of civilization pulling the strings on almost every ill inflicted on western society for over 200 years.


2

1763: The founding of the House of Rothschild and the New World Order by Meyer Amschel Bauer who was taught by his father, a banker. Amschel Moses Bauer taught his son, Meyer, everything about moneylending and finance. Meyer then went to work for the Oppenhiemer’s bank.


3

He found much success in this endeavor and later returned home, purchased his father’s business and renamed it Rothschild aka “Red Shield” in German.


4

Working with the Oppenhiemers, Meyer Rothschild learned that lending money to governments was more profitable than lending to individuals – AT INTEREST!


5

Towards the end of Meyer’s life, he sends his 5 sons Nathan, Salomon, Anselm, Carl and James to different countries across Europe to establish family banks.


6

Salomon was sent to Austria, Carl traveled to Italy, James to France, Nathan to London and Anslem stayed in Frankfurt, Germany. This was accurately depicted in the 1934 Hollywood movie ‘The House of Rothschild’.


7

To this day, the Rothschild family remains the dominant and commanding force behind Globalism, Zionism, phony environmentalism (the “Global Warming” scam) and Liberalism.


8

1774: The British Currency Act is introduced which forbids the American colonies from issuing their own debt-free currency.


9

A combination of the Tea Act of 1773, the Currency Act and the Boston Massacre sparked a revolutionary spirit throughout the colonies.


10

The Rothschilds finance the British resistance while Jewish money-lender Haym Salomon funds the American Revolution.

This conflict greatly weakened both sides, leaving both vulnerable for future takeovers and heavily in debt.


11

In 1776, the Jew Adam Weishaupt establishes ‘The Illuminati’ which was a secret society for wealthy socialites.

They disbanded in 1784. Weishaupt was an acquaintance of the Rothschild family and was funded by them. In secret, they plotted to further their New World Order agenda.


12

1789: The French Revolution overthrows the Monarchy of France. King Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette & 40,000 others are killed by Jacobans.

British historian Nesta Webster, indicates a “foreign” source funding the Jacobans with hopes of starting “worldwide revolution.”


13

Throughout the years of 1798 – 1815 Rothschild banks are established all across Europe. The brothers had succeeded in their mission.


14

1790: Thomas Jefferson & Alexander Hamilton clash over the 1st Bank. Hamilton wins and the First Central Bank of America is founded.

Alexander Hamilton was a New York banker, educated in a Jewish school and founder of the 1st Bank of America – a clear Rothschild agent.


15

1799: The Rothschilds encounter their first major obstacle for world financial conquest – the French revolutionary leader Napoleon Bonaparte.


16

When Nathan Rothschild heard of Napoleon’s return from exile, he instructed his workers to start selling bonds on the Stock market.

This caused everyone to believe Napoleon had won and so proceeded to sell everything they had off in the Stock market too. 1934 film below.


17

However, when Nathan heard of the victory at Waterloo through carrier pigeon, he bought up everything at the Stock market at rock bottom prices.

This is something that is VITAL to understand. This is how the Rothschilds bought up Britain.


18

1811: The Bank of America’s 20 year charter is about to expire. President James Madison refuses to renew the charter as he disliked the central banking system. Britain soon threatens war.


19

1814: The Rothschild financed war brought British forces to Washington D.C to protest the expiration of the bank. They burn the White House.


20

Eventually, a storm extinguishes the fire and both countries makes peace through negotiations. In 1816, the 2nd Central Bank is established. America now once again belongs to the Rothschilds. Within just 3 years, the Bank creates its first panic known as the Panic of 1819.


21

The Panic of 1825 is engineered by the Bank of England. Throughout 1832-35, President Andrew Jackson battles with Bank boss Nicholas Biddle.

Andrew Jackson runs his entire campaign on “killing the bank” and kill the Bank he later did.


22

1835: Jackson pays off the National debt and closes the Central Bank. The Rothschilds now begin assassinations attempts on Jackson. All attempts on Jackson’s life ultimately fail.


23

In 1836, the 2nd Central Bank of America is finally killed, and America will remain free of Rothschild clutches until 1913 when the bill for the Federal Reserve was passed.


24

Little known fact: Karl Marx, a German Jew and author of ‘The Communist Manifesto’, was related to the Rothschild family through marriage.


25

1840-1880: 7 assassination attempts are carried out against Queen Victoria. This sends a message of intimidation to the Royal Family.

To this day, the Rothschild’s banking dynasty is run from the financial district ‘The City of London.’ The Queen does not dare confront them.


26

The Rothschilds financed BOTH sides during the American Civil War. The aim was to weaken both sides, afterwards taking control of America and consolidate power in Britain.


27

1865: President Abraham Lincoln is assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. He defied the Rothschilds by printing debt-free money called ‘Greenbacks.’


28

1881: American President James Garfield is shot and later dies from the infected wound. Garfield despised the bankers. Another assassination?


29

1881: Communist Reds finally assassinate Russia’s Czar Alexander II after SEVERAL failed attempts. The Rothschilds are now after Russia, as their money supply remains free of their control. Multiple attempts were also made on Kaiser Wilhelm’s life.


30

1894: The Communist Reds kill the popular French President Marie Francois Sadi Carnot. He was close friends with Czar Alexander III.


31

1897: Communist Reds kill Spanish Prime Minister Antonio Canovas. 1898: Communist Reds kill Elisabeth of Austria. Both were popular, nationalistic leaders that were not interested in co-operating with the money-lenders.


32

The blood-lust of the violent Communist Reds inspired to act on propaganda can be seen today with the Antifa movement who can be described as modern day Reds. “Foot soldiers of the Rothschilds” if you will.


33

So we approach the 20th Century! This has been but a mini-compilation of events of the Rothschilds from inception to 1900. If you want a more comprehensive read then please read the book duology ‘Planet Rothschild’ which is an epic chronology of events.


34

For the Rothschilds, the 20th Century was a pivotal time that saw their most success but also their mightiest of obstacles. The most monumental was the German leader Adolf Hitler.


35

Let’s get a silly myth of the way – that Hitler was a Rothschild agent. This bizarre conspiracy theory is ludicrous and holds no weight. Hitler ARRESTED a Rothschild for his banking practices.


36

Adolf Hitler and the rise of Fascism in Europe w/ Benito Mussolini of Italy, Oswald Mosley of Britain and Corneliu Zelea Condreanu of Romania, was a major threat to the Rothschild’s New World Order. National Socialism/Fascism was sweeping across all of Europe.


 

The Architecture of Language: Words And Their Power

Words are the definitive gateway to information; our comprehension of them, their arrangement, their tonality — the etymology of words holds the power of rhetoric, obfuscation, and also sub-topics such as phonologicalmorphologicalsyntactic, and semantic complexity.

Words are an undisputed facet of sociological soft power; if you sweep a pattern of language throughout a population, it will rule over itself and become a self-regulating hive mind, our exposure to something (such as language) correlates with our resulting subconscious identity, to change the social landscape is to get people accustomed to it and become part of it whether willingly or not, and then to defend it as an extension of themselves.

Soft power is: “a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence.”

propaganda-14-638“Wordier” language and verbosity is associated with knowledge, intelligence, professionalism, and the scholarly — as a result, flowery language is used liberally in masking areas that officials don’t want public meddling, they’ll also refer to “the professional opinion” as if to encourage viewers to let the “professional” do the thinking for them on the issue. Unsurprisingly, this “professional” spokesperson is often cherry-picked to back their angle on the information.

What you can’t properly understand you can’t begin to control or influence meaningfully.

clmkcvfwyaanugr-large
I can’t verify whether Juncker said this, however this sums up the kind of attitude much of the establishment has. Dependence on irreverence and ignorance.

On the other hand; simple, immediately accessible, well-articulated language is plastered over information that officials want to rapidly permeate social consciousness, it comes attached with key sociological catalysts; the emotional hook; a palatable story travels very far.

There is no topic complex enough that it cannot be taught in simple, understandable ‘layman’s’ terms that offers meaningful insight, yet simple stories for mainstream media remain too simplistic and unavailing in their delivery, mostly offering an entry-level insight with an authoritative tone, one that asserts affirmative information with no basis to make such a claim.

They can get away with this, build up the false reputation, the suits and ties, the “working studio” backdrop, these people look like professionals — and by professional, I really mean yes-men taught to write persuasively, acting as well-trained, domesticated mouthpieces for the elites.

Obfuscation has been notably used in the vaccine industry controversy, Jon Rappoport explains,

“For example: shuffling various disease and disorder labels; studies claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism; the hoops the government makes parents jump through, in order to try to obtain financial compensation for their damaged children; the legal deal allowing vaccine manufacturers to avoid law suits; the invented cover stories claiming autism begins in utero or is a genetic disorder; the pretension that autism has even been defined-

All lies. All avoidances.

A child gets a vaccine. The child suffers brain damage. That happens.

Then why does the government say, over and over, that vaccines are safe? Because they want to lie.

Vaccine damage is being called autism.

It diverts attention from the grave harm vaccines are causing.

Autism is essentially any kind of severe neurological damage a child suffers from ‘unknown’ causes.

There is not a day that goes by without the media reminding us about who and what type of people we should be afraid of (and who we should trust), this authoritative tone is how they choose to deliver their language.

Likewise, complex terms in the mainstream are wordy, yet just as simplistic as the former, saying a lot but actually explaining very little; sophistic. This inflationary use of language permeates all mainstream media.

Hence — economics for example, money (the exchange process upon which human civilization depends) is shrouded in jargon, inaccessible, dense language that dissuades the curious mind — to crush our diction, a deluge of simpleton’s language sweeps into our consciousness day in, day out, via social media, TV, and other platforms of mainstream manufactured media (they actively demand simple, stripped-down language in all journalistic writing).

George Orwell’s 1984 spoke of the ‘destruction of words’:

“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,” he added as an afterthought. 

By curtailing frivolous and “fighting” words, the Party seeks to narrow the range of thought altogether, such that eventually, thoughtcrime will be literally impossible.

Words are the hallmarks of our thought.

The soft power of inhibiting and centralizing a population’s vocabulary goes a long way in limiting the scope of that population’s thought — word control is thought control, if you can’t fathom the words to express how you feel, or the patterns of language in your head are repetitive and hypnotic; drawing upon language for an original & critical insight becomes difficult.

When all you hear is the same story repackaged on the many media outlets (all owned by the same few companies) your conscious recall can only think to draw from their small pool of hyper-centralized, dumbed-down, echo-chambered information. Most of mainstream ‘news’ is the weather, unimportant bulletins, and sports, ad nauseam.

The conscious mind is flooded with trash, the unconscious mind (where individual thought happens) is, as a result, overridden, the compartmentalization of thought by repeating the dimensions of accepted reality each and every moment of each and every day.

Like the brutally revolting, inarticulate minimalism of post-modernist architecture, the simplification of language is making the linguistic cultural landscape equally ugly and inexpressive; the death of individual expression is upon us.

Read any book from pre-WW2 era and the language is an expressive display of terminology and diction. Every word a gateway to yet more information, a whole new topic for each term — modern language glosses over this for the sake of ‘minimalism’, it argues that simple is better (true in some cases, so long as there is actually meaningful expression).

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” — 1984, George Orwell

The rise of “text speak”, memes, and emoticons/emojis is another indication language as we know it is declining into irreverence. This slackened speech has brought about a situation where people don’t want to write to express themselves, apathy has risen to dangerous levels — formality itself has lost its role outside of the workplace, as a society we cannot seem to take issues seriously on an individual basis outside of paid work, we quickly relapse into the clutches of memes and sound-bite news feeds; all fast food for language comprehension and engagement.

Emoticons have an emotional pretense, they indicate our feelings, rather than our articulated thoughts and reasoning.

Mumble rap is a prime example of the cultural degradation of language, a form of music that involves poor lyrics and slurred, nearly inaudible speech; the elites are pulling strings to get this trash over-represented in our culture; popularity and fame is an illusion today, if you buy into it without your own independent assessment of the cultural landscape, you help to perpetuate this controlled cultural decline.

LGBTQ, compelled speech, and political correctness.

5aa15f4797bfd

With the rise of major social group-think in the latter part of the 20th century through to the present day, the inability to even use certain words, phrases, and lines of thought is worrying.

Off-limits topics such as race realism, critique of Israel, the major banking families & their associated power structures, questioning the Holocaust, migration, advocating nationalism, and so on, has produced a fearful population unable to step ‘outside of the box’, we have been cornered into a mental prison.

The postmodernist bubble lacks a value structure, it lacks structure full-stop, it’s a deconstructionist ideology aimed at liquidizing Western culture and Western social and political structures that get in the way of establishing a world order. The sooner we all can realize this, the better.

 

 

Addressing The Simpsons “Apu Controversy”: Cultural Insanity

Recent backlash over Simpson’s creator Matt Groening‘s comically stereotypical Indian character and Kwik-E-mart owner, Apu, is the latest episode in the rampant Cultural Marxism that, as it is superimposed, sweeps across and infects Western culture.

Many mainstream media outlets chimed in, parroting such tripe as “The Simpsons Creators Just Don’t Care Anymore”.

Mashable said that “The Simpsons needs to die. Matt Groening, the show’s creator, made that abundantly clear this week.”

The Washington Post said “What can ‘The Simpsons’ do about Apu? A lot, actually.”

CBC said that “The real problem with Apu? There’s not enough diversity in the writers’ room.”

Apu’s voice actor, Hank Azaria, said he would be willing to stop performing the character altogether, obviously to save his skin from being deemed a “racist”.

Groening responded to the criticism, saying that “It’s hard to say. Something that started decades ago and was applauded and inoffensive is now politically incorrect. What can you do?”

Proving that he has an ounce of backbone, he was asked if he had any thoughts on the fresh criticism of Apu. “Not really. I’m proud of what we do on the show. And I think it’s a time in our culture where people love to pretend they’re offended,” he replied.

Apu (left) in the TV show “The Simpsons”.

Addressing the insanity: Understanding The Simpsons and the point of Comedy.

I ask why can’t a team of white guys who aren’t Asian make a funny stereotypical joke in a show that is already full of funny racial and cultural comical caricatures? — This kind of willingness to prod different groups and identities in jest was the very thing that made The Simpsons so beloved in the first place.

Also, why can’t an animation team be predominantly white without there being “lack of diversity” or an ulterior “evil white racist conspiracy” motive the mainstream press so obsessively highlights and insists upon?

Things fell into place and the team of animators happen to be mostly white which may have influenced the vision of the show somewhat, so what?

To the unthinking people that seriously believe this uproar is coming from actual real people (and not a carefully concerted multi-outlet corporate sponsored social engineering campaign) it all may just about seem legitimate, after all — all the mainstream media outlets are multiple heads attached to one ugly corporate body, unbeknownst to many.

The mainstream (Jew-owned and run) media constantly highlighting its warped idea of “race relations” and “white guilt” is inflammatory to racial dissension in and of itself (and is intended to be so) to keep framing the capable white man as the enemy in every circumstance.

To repeat the narrative often enough, people have eventually come to believe it and give up the “outdated ways” (organic culture before it was ruined) — especially when, over the long course of the internationally popular show since the late eighties there has been no uproar from anyone, let alone Asians in demanding that Apu be removed or rethought as a character.

Only now in the height of political correctness this “uproar” coincidentally happens.

The Washington Post claims that “engaging with the issue of representation will make for a more satirical and topical show”. Yes, really, they spouted that double negative; that self-censorship and outright avoidance of satire is the new satire, an interesting take.

I guarantee if The Simpsons’ creators cave to this censorship call from a small group with a loud voice (the corporate media) its ratings and viewership will plummet — and then The Simpsons really will die, deservedly so if it crumbles under the pressure.


The Simpsons became popular precisely because it (and its viewers) were comfortable enough to take a joke.

The Simpsons is all about ridiculing and making fun of everyday things, people, places, just about anything and everything — that’s the basis of good comedy, the poking of fun at all concerned parties in a mutually enjoyable way without it being partial or discriminatory. That’s the foundation of pretty much any decent joke, to show weakness or quirks in yourself and others and be reciprocal to the same treatment – and be comfortable with it.

That’s how people bond, build trust, and become closer together, it’s a basic social dynamic.

Some people won’t like the humor displayed in The Simpsons, to those people I suggest they turn off the show, do something else, and don’t tune in again, especially that they then don’t grovel about their elitist sense of acceptable humor (but have the right to do so nonetheless). It’s quite simple really. Look up freedom of association and freedom of speech, central pillars of liberty.

Other comical stereotypes are everywhere on the show, but ignored by the mainstream press. Only Apu gets coverage, funny that:

We see Fat Tony as the stereotypical Italian gangster; no uproar there. We see Cletus Spuckler as the stereotypical example of white trash, no uproar there. Rabbi Hyman Krustofsky as the stereotypical Jew, again, no uproar there. Ned Flanders, the stereotypical evangelical Christian, yep, no mass media campaign slating Matt Groening. Homer Simpson, a stereotypical middle class happy-go-lucky guy. Groundskeeper Willie as the stereotypical Scotsman. The list goes on and on.

You get the picture.