The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty, by Paul Vallely, The Independent, 16 April 2004 (my emphasis):
More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.
Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded – at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government – and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.
It was a new kind of power. “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply,” Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: “Take a chair.” His caller, affronted, said: “You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis.” To which Rothschild replied: “Take two chairs.” At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.
Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.
In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.
Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan’s great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of “the slow murder of 600,000 people” on the continent “we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time.” And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.
The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today’s terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.
Napoleon and the Jews, Wikipedia:
Napoleon’s indirect influence on the fate of the Jews was even more powerful than any of the decrees recorded in his name. By breaking up the feudal trammels of mid-Europe and introducing the equality of the French Revolution he effected more for Jewish emancipation than had been accomplished during the three preceding centuries. The consistory of Westphalia became a model for other German provinces until after the fall of Napoleon, and the condition of the Jews in the Rhine provinces was permanently improved as a consequence of their subjection to Napoleon or his representatives. Heine and Börne both record their sense of obligation to the liberality of Napoleon’s principles of action, and the German Jews in particular have always regarded Napoleon as one of the chief forerunners of emancipation in Germany.
(Image from Jews and French Grand Opera.)
“The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.”
Or alternatively stayed ahead by creating the Federal Reserve:
http://youtu.be/eChJd9Dobbw
Good video.
Here’s a long documentary that does a good job of demystifying the history of “complex sounding economics gibberish”: The Money Masters – How International Bankers Gained Control of America.
The bit focused on the Rothchilds starts at about 00:31:00.
“that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together;”
This bit about cousin marriage caught my attention.
Middle Easterners and Europeans are at opposite ends of the spectrum on cousin marriage – with Middle Easterners indulging in cousin marriage at rates well above the world norm, and Europeans at rates well below the world norm.
Middle Easterners are more ethnocentric than the world norm, and Europeans are less ethnocentric than the world norm.
Are these two tendancies related?
Hollywood propogates a completely false stereotype that working class, old stock White Americans are likely to marry cousins. Is this designed to create pre-emptive shame, to prevent White Americans from adopting a successful Semitic strategy?
Middle Easterners and Europeans are at opposite ends of the spectrum on cousin marriage – with Middle Easterners indulging in cousin marriage at rates well above the world norm, and Europeans at rates well below the world norm.
Middle Easterners are more ethnocentric than the world norm, and Europeans are less ethnocentric than the world norm.
Are these two tendancies related?
Excellent question. The answer, I think, is absolutely yes.
A lack of cousin marriage makes extended family much less important, creating the conditions for individualism to gain an advantage over collectivism.
Hollywood propogates a completely false stereotype that working class, old stock White Americans are likely to marry their cousins. Is this designed to create pre-emptive shame, to prevent White Americans from adopting a successful Semitic strategy? Is this designed to create pre-emptive shame, to prevent White Americans from adopting a successful Semitic strategy?
I think you may well be on to something.
It would fit the general pattern that Jews attack Europeans the most for allegedly exhibiting traits which in the real world are far more often exhibited by Jews.
“Is this designed to create pre-emptive shame, to prevent White Americans from adopting a successful Semitic strategy?“
Do as I say, not as I do. Whether by design or instinct the end result is to deny to the outgroup the same tactics the ingroup uses to its advantage.
Letter urges Israeli girls to avoid dating Arabs:
“A letter from about 30 prominent rabbis’ wives was causing a stir in Israel Wednesday because it urges Israeli girls not to date Arabs.
The open letter comes three weeks after the uproar caused by another letter, which was written by 50 state-appointed rabbis and told Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews.“
. . .
““Your grandmothers never dreamt that their descendants would do something that will take the next generations of her family out of the Jewish people,” it says.“
Jews pathologize Whites who behave this way as small-minded Archie Bunkers.
Another example is how generalizing about groups is “social criticism” or “comedy” when jews do it, but it’s “stereotyping” or “hate” when anyone does it about jews.
“Blood libel” is a really egregious example. It’s a magic phrase whereby jews falsely accuse someone of making false accusations against “the jews”. The literal “blood libel” – the story jews love to tell about how some group of jews hundreds of years ago in some other land were falsely accused by some other people – is in fact a libel against those other, long dead people, as well as whoever the self-righteous jew in the here and now is trying to browbeat into submission by crying “blood libel”. The main purpose jews have in dragging the there and then into the here and now is to guilt-trip their opponent while claiming moral authority/superiority for themselves. Try the same on them and, shazam, like magic it becomes “blood libel”, which turns you into a cretin.
“”that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together;”
The odd thing about that is cousin marriage is supposed to lead to lower IQ.
Maybe they’re all morons now and the fortune is actually controlled by lawyers.
Tanstaafl, your post is brilliant (as always), but let me add this: The original blood libel might not have been a libel.
Jewish historian gives credence to blood libel
Jerusalem Post article
Ariel Toaff’s Wikipedia page shows he has received the usual blistering assault from the Jewish community. This assault is having an effect, as it did with Benny Morris and Richard Goldstone.
Israel Shamir has written about this topic as well.
Bloodcurdling Libel by Israel Shamir
Wandrin on target again. And who owns the controlling interest in the Federal Reserve? Let me guess…
Tan, The true golden age was during a time when the jews were forcibly evicted from England. There will be another when the same thing happens in the US, again in the UK, and in the rest of the world.
______
“Finally, in 1290 on July 18th a statute was passed by King Edward I (1272-1307) and the House of Commons compelling all Jews* to leave England for ever by November 1st of that year. Any Jews who remained in the kingdom after that date were liable to be executed.”
_________
“With the banishment of the money-lenders and the abolition of usury, we may observe how the finances of the English nation were practised at the different levels of society.
For the individual who wished to buy a house costing, say, £100 he would be required to make a down-payment of £10 and negotiate a loan of £90 from a bank. He would own 10 per cent of the house and the bank would own the remaining 90 per cent. Rent would be payable on the house of which 10 per cent would accrue to himself and the balance of 90 per cent to the bank. The following year he would pay the bank a further instalment of 10 per cent, reducing the bank’s ownership to 80 per cent and the amount of rent payable to it. These instalments would be continued until he owned 100 per cent of the property.
In the event of the buyer defaulting on his rent payments he would be evicted. However, he could never lose that portion of the house he had paid for and would continue to receive rent on it. House price inflation was not a factor during this era, as the rate of inflation was zero – as it should be. In any normal society which does not practise usury.”
http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/history/money_medieval_england.htm
_________
A timeline for the centuries of satanic jew Rothschild’s helps to illustrate the truth behind what Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed stated during a speech made by him in 2003,
“Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_8290.aspx
__________
Flanders