T. Belman. We have been reading for many years that China Russia and Iran, to name a few, wanted to replace the USD as the world’s reserve currency. It was felt by these countries that it enabled the US to rule the world.
As you know there is a conspiracy theory that the CIA, acting on behalf of the New World Order advocates, headed by the late President G. W. Bush, assassinated J. F. Kennedy to stop him from returning to the Gold Standard. Many years later, Pres George Bush was making moves to return to the Gold Standard, the CIA brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11 according to this conspiracy theory.
At the end of the Obama years, the US military wanted to stage a coup to stop Obama and the Federal Reserve from printing money among other things. In stead of doing so, they approached Donald J. Trump and told him of their concerns and begged him to run for president so they would not have had to stage a coup. Trump agreed and has be working to return America and the World to the Gold Standard. To this end he has reduced the power of the Federal Reserve and the Central Bankers.
We have been witnessing the lengths China and its allies including more than 50% of Congress and the Democratic Party have gone to prevent Trump from doing so. That’s what this war is all about. And it continues. Biden has replaced Sheldon with Janet Yellin as the Secretary of the Treasury.
The patriots are hoping that China’s victory is a pyrrhic victory which will soon be undone. Trump made sure that the US military, who is partnering with him in this endeavor, has the constitutional authority to do so. Trump has not conceded the election and the military doesn’t recognize Biden as constitutionally elected. Thus they turn their backs on him.
By Natasha Frost & Gwynn Guilford, QUARTZ July 3, 2019
The once-fringe fantasy of a return to the gold standard is creeping back into the mainstream.
It has long been dismissed as a fool’s errand, on par with abandoning the Federal Reserve and other trappings of the modern economy. Mainstream economists deride it almost without exception. Reintroducing the gold standard would “be a disaster for any large advanced economy,” says the University of Chicago’s Anil Kashyap, who connects enthusiasm for it with “macroeconomic illiteracy.” His colleague, Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, struggles with its very underlying principle: “Why tie to gold? Why not 1982 Bordeaux?”
Yet the idea that every US dollar should be backed by a small amount of actual gold is more popular than economists’ opinions might suggest. Advocates include members of Congress and president Donald Trump. Enthusiasm for a return to the gold standard has become more prominent since Trump’s most recent nominees to fill the vacant Federal Reserve governorship have endorsed a return. The first two—Herman Cain and Stephen Moore—both dropped out of consideration, but the third, economist Judy Shelton, announced today in a Trump tweet, may be the most ardent in her support.
Last year, Shelton called for a “new Bretton Woods conference,” akin to the 1944 meeting that established the post-war economic order, perhaps to be held at Mar-a-Lago, where a return to the gold standard could be considered. “We make America great again by making America’s money great again,” she wrote in the journal of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
REUTERS/JASON REED Judy Shelton, vice chair of the National Endowment for Democracy, presents an award to the Dalai Lama in 2010.
Since 2011, at least six states have passed laws recognizing gold and silver as currency; another three are presently contemplating bills of their own. The surprising success of Ron Paul, a Texas Republican Congressman and ardent gold bug, in the 2008 and 2012 elections showed the potency of these ideas among the electorate. In its 2012 and 2016 campaign platforms, the Republican Party called for a commission to investigate the viability of a return to a gold standard system. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill including such a commission in both 2015 and 2017, but both times the proposals died in the Senate. Last year, Alexander Mooney, a Republican representative from West Virginia, took that a step further when he introduced a bill proposing a full-on return to the gold standard. (The bill has no cosponsors and, unsurprisingly, has gone nowhere.)
Today, with inflation unusually low and stable, the gold standard is a tougher sell than it once was. But as trust in American institutions wanes, there is renewed support for money backed by something tangible, not the say-so of the government. If inflation picks up once again, a solid base of gold standard evangelists is ready to take it mainstream. That a supporter of the gold standard may yet wind up on the Fed’s board of governors is yet more evidence that the idea’s prospects are shining brighter than they have in many years .
How the gold standard works
Money depends on trust—the faith that it will hold its value so that, when the time comes to spend it, it will be accepted without question in exchange for what the holder expects it to be worth. Inflation eats away at that value.
In modern times, governments are often a culprit behind inflation. Since they enjoy a monopoly on printing money, they can issue new currency at virtually no cost. But governments are run by vote-seeking politicians, who might print more money to juice short-term growth needed to win re-election, inadvertently causing inflation to flare up later. This quandary isn’t theoretical, and has happened with surprising frequency throughout history. To cite a recent, prominent example, US president Richard Nixon bent to this temptation (pdf) during his 1972 re-election campaign—contributing to the breakout of inflation that ravaged the American economy throughout the 1970s and early 1980s.
There’s a seemingly easy fix: Take the power of money creation out of the hands of politicians. According to the monetarist theory popularized by economist Milton Friedman in the 1970s, preventing inflation requires fixing the supply of money. The gold standard, by limiting the dollars the government can print to the weight of gold it holds in reserves, is one way of doing so.
The US adopted the gold standard in 1879, when Congress finally followed Britain, Germany, France, and other advanced nations. By holding national currencies stable against gold, the international embrace of the gold standard encouraged foreign investment and facilitated trade, giving rise to the first era of intense globalization.
Here’s a very cartoonish version of how it worked: The US Treasury agreed to redeem a set weight of gold in exchange for a fixed number of dollars, and vice versa. During the classical gold standard era—from 1879 to 1914 in the US—one troy ounce of gold fetched $21.
The gold standard’s discipline came from the fact that the government had to be sure it held the necessary volume of gold in reserve, in case anyone wanted to exchange dollars for a set amount of the shiny metal. If it printed more money than it held in gold reserves, the state risked hyperinflation or causing a financial crisis by shattering faith in the solidity of its currency.
In theory, the gold standard, therefore, limits government spending to only what it can raise in taxes or borrow against its gold reserve, and prevents it from simply printing money to pay its debts. It also takes power over the money supply away from central bankers. Indeed, it might render central banks mostly unnecessary. Bear in mind that for most of the classical gold standard era, the US didn’t have a central bank, which was introduced in 1913.
But why gold?
Had history worked out differently, the dollar might have been pegged to cowrie shells, peppercorns, or giant stone disks, all of which, like gold, have served as money at one time or another. But for reasons both aesthetic and practical, the glimmering metal became the asset of choice. “The simple answer to that is that for the last 5,000 years, so far as we are aware, man has used gold and silver as money, and particularly gold,” says Alasdair Macleod, the head of research at Goldmoney, a Toronto-based investment manager for precious metals. “It’s durable, people respect that it’s got value—it’s actually as simple as that. It is something which markets should be free to choose, and they have chosen gold.”
“Markets should be free to choose, and they have chosen gold.”
Gold is integral to the story of US growth and prosperity. In the 19th century, discoveries of subterranean veins in at least 24 states were “rungs in a ladder that culminated in America’s economic domination of the globe,” prompting westward migration and economic expansion, writes James Ledbetter in One Nation Under Gold: How One Precious Metal Has Dominated the American Imagination for Four Centuries. It is a national emblem of wealth, and “streets paved with gold” served as a myth that helped lure many migrants to the US. “From the very beginnings of our national life, it has seemed impossible for Americans to look at gold dispassionately,” Ledbetter explains. “The metal, and its seductive hint of boundless wealth, tap into a psychological wellspring that reaches beyond any purely physical qualities.”
Legislation in the past century which codified and restricted how Americans could attain or trade gold seems to have intensified the longing for it. In 1933, Americans were temporarily barred from buying and selling gold within the country; by the 1950s, the law was still in place, and a black market for gold flourished. John F. Kennedy was anxious that the dollar should be “as good as gold”; Operation Goldfinger, which launched a few years later, was a top-secret government campaign to dig up gold within US territories as quickly as possible, with the hope of propping up a post-war economy expanding at a pace that threatened to outstrip the world’s supply of the metal.
The gold standard is inextricably tied to mining. The supply of the metal depends on how much is extracted from the earth, after all. But since mining only adds a tiny fraction to the overall stock of gold each year, prices don’t fluctuate as wildly as they used to. In the height of mining activity, in the mid-1800s, big gold discoveries in California and Australia spurred a pickup in inflation. Then, as economic growth outpaced the rate of new gold discoveries, a 20-year period of deflation set in; it ended with new discoveries in South Africa and the Yukon, as well as technological advances in gold processing. That’s how things are supposed to work: When a gold shortage causes purchasing power to rise steadily, mining companies are encouraged to find more gold.
AP PHOTO The Klondike gold rush, 1897
And indeed, overall, prices and real economic activity during the classical gold standard era was remarkably stable (pdf). “If you look at the US during its classical gold standard period, the average rate of inflation is pretty close to zero—and likewise in Great Britain over its experience with the gold standard,” says Lawrence White, an economics professor at George Mason University and one of the few respected economists who’s pro-gold standard.
Gold-standard adherents often extol the strength of currencies such as the pound and the dollar in the early 20th century. Modern central banking, they say, has knocked the stuffing out of these once mighty currencies. (The fact that average hourly wages have mostly been adjusted to match the rise in inflation doesn’t seem to factor into the equation.) Where mainstream economists see constraint, goldbugs see discipline—a government that cannot spend beyond its means—and a hedge against corruption. For those who believe in small, limited government, there is obvious appeal. Believers credit it with a kind of Midas touch: the gold standard necessarily begets “balanced budgets, low taxes, small government and a healthy economy,” to borrow the words of economist Barry Eichengreen, a prominent historian of currencies at the University of California, Berkeley.
“It didn’t quite deliver the kind of nirvana that people now talk about.”
The thing is, economic success during the classical gold standard era depends somewhat on the eye of the beholder. David Laidler, a monetary historian at Western University in Ontario and Friedman’s research assistant in the 1960s, says the gold standard wasn’t as effortlessly successful as the data might suggest.
“I’m not going to tell you that the gold standard didn’t function in the 19th century—it did. But it didn’t quite deliver the kind of nirvana that people now talk about,” he says.
For some Americans, its effects were downright devastating. After the US adopted the gold standard in the 1870s, price levels of agricultural commodities fell continuously for nearly 20 years, crushing American farmers under the weight of their debts and punishing interest rates. The resulting political upheaval culminated in William Jennings Bryan’s famous “cross of gold” speech: his tirade against how deflation caused by the gold standard was ravaging rural America.
Questions of money are always political, and often a zero-sum choice between which economic class will prosper and which will suffer. Inflation erodes the value of financial assets, hurting savers but helping borrowers. Deflation benefits those with wealth and punishes debtors. Eventually, the latter group—the masses whose standard of living relies on mortgages and other forms of debt—tends to win out.
Why aren’t we on the gold standard now?
The classical gold standard era ended with World War I, because to fund wars governments have to print a lot of money. In these conditions, maintaining gold convertibility goes out the window. After the war ended, the US and most other advanced economies scrambled to re-peg their currencies to gold. But for a host of reasons—for example, the overvaluation of the pound and several other key currencies, and the decline of Britain as an imperial power—the gold standard failed to deliver the stability of the earlier era.
Many economists argue it amplified the shocks of the Great Depression, particularly in the US and France, which waited longer than their trading partners to abandon convertibility. It was for this reason that John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, called the gold standard a “barbarous relic.” Unsurprisingly, the post-World War II monetary system—of which Keynes was a key architect—made the US dollar the basis of world reserves. The dollar itself was still convertible into gold. However, other global currencies fixed their exchange rates not to gold, but to the dollar.
When Richard Nixon took office in the late 1960s, the US government was again spending heavily, due to the Vietnam War and the social welfare programs launched by his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. That effectively pushed down the value of the dollar. In 1971, to stave off a run on US gold reserves, Nixon halted convertibility (meaning that other countries could no longer redeem dollars for gold). Under intensifying pressure, in 1973 the president scrapped the gold standard altogether.
Prices started climbing, exacerbated by Nixon’s strong-arming of the Fed to keep rates low. As the 1970s wore on and inflation surged, gold found support among the likes of Ronald Reagan, who talked it up on the campaign trail during the 1980 presidential election. By June 1980, prices for consumer goods were rising 14% annually, galvanizing public support for “sound money.” After trouncing Jimmy Carter, Reagan set up a commission to determine whether to revive the gold standard.
Nixon had promised, and perhaps believed, that the US would eventually return to the gold standard. Reagan’s victory made that look possible—likely, even. But many of the president’s appointees to the commission were longtime opponents of the system (among the exceptions was a certain young Texas congressman named Ron Paul). Then came the “Volcker shock,” when Fed chairman Paul Volcker hiked rates to their highest levels in history to curb runaway inflation, which thrust the economy into a deep recession. Crucially, though, inflation dropped sharply and the commission put the official kibosh (pdf) on a return to a fixed metallic standard.
With inflation finally tamed, gold’s moment was over. Fiat currency managed by central bankers had officially won out.
Gone but not forgotten
This abandonment represents a betrayal to a few distinct, but often overlapping, groups: people who believe in limited government; people who interpret the American constitution literally; and people who fear the power of central banks, Wall Street, and other financial institutions.
Advocates of the gold standard point to the fact that because there is no way to redeem paper dollars for gold or silver, “there is no way to finally pay a debt.” One common fear is that investors will stop buying US Treasury bonds, ultimately resulting in financial ruin for the country.
“It is impossible to overstate the calamity that will occur when the Treasury bond collapses.”<
>
Their concerns can run to the hyperbolic. “It is impossible to overstate the calamity that will occur when the Treasury bond collapses,” stresses the homepage of the Arizona-based Gold Standard Institute, a peripheral non-profit “dedicated to spreading awareness and knowledge of gold.” On our current course, “we will wake up one morning and find that our bank accounts are wiped out,” it warns. “Even if we have dollar bills in our pockets, food will not last in stores for very long, because food production and distribution depends on the banking system.”
Some argue returning to the gold standard is a legal imperative.
There is a basis in the US Constitution for this, at once specific and quite vague: Sections 8 and 10 of Article I state that Congress has the “Power…to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,” while “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”
It’s entirely possible that this was supposed to guarantee convertibility between state currencies, rather than asserting anything intrinsic to gold. But these two mentions in the country’s founding document have served as ammunition for constitutionalists, including groups such as the far-right John Birch Society, established in 1958. The society, whose views align closely with Trump’s, supports the disestablishment of the Fed and a return to the gold standard, on the grounds that the constitution does not give Congress the right to delegate its money-related powers elsewhere, nor to use any currency that is not gold- or silver-backed.
The Midas touch
But if there are various arguments for a return to the gold standard, there are many more reasons to reject it. Nearly 50 years into using fiat currency at a floating exchange rate, a total overhaul of America’s entrenched monetary policy framework is much less feasible.
For one thing, says Laidler of Western University, the rise over the past four decades of politically independent central banks has made it unnecessary. That’s because, as long-time Fed chair Alan Greenspan told Congress, “a central bank properly functioning will endeavor to, in many cases, replicate what a gold standard would itself generate.”
Plus, constraining a central bank limits how easily it can adjust monetary policy to respond to economic conditions. Between 1879 and 1914, when the US adhered to the gold standard but had no central bank, private clearinghouse associations played the “lender of last resort” role for member banks, says White, the George Mason economist. The world’s financial system is now vastly bigger, more complex, more deeply integrated, and more global than it was during the gold standard’s heyday. It’s hard to imagine how anything less than a strong, central authority could stave off, for example, the scale of market collapse that threatened the world in 2008.
The US would derive minimal benefit from re-adopting the gold standard unless other major economies did too. However, even then, the system of fixed-exchange rates created by gold convertibility has some big downsides. While encouraging cross-border investment and trade, it also makes it extremely hard for governments to adjust to localized economic disruptions (the struggles of the euro zone currency union offers a present-day example of this drawback). The gold standard could also push financial contagion to viral levels, with the flow of gold and the fixed exchange rate forcing the suffering of one nation on everyone in the system.
Gold makes a comeback
Despite the myriad reasons that a return to the gold standard seems impossible, the dream remains alive, in part because of the efforts of Ron Paul. Paul was first moved to run for office in 1976, in reaction to Nixon scrapping gold standard a few years prior. “I remember the day very clearly,” he told Texas Monthly in 2001. “Nixon closed the gold window, which meant admitting that we could no longer meet our commitments and that there would be no more backing of the dollar. After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded.”
Paul’s views were shaped in part by economist Friedrich Hayek’s accounts of how the Nazis’ effective abandonment of the gold standard allowed them to beef up fiscal spending in preparation for their war of conquest, Eichengreen wrote in National Interest in 2011. Paul subsequently spent most of his career as a vocal but lonely goldbug in Congress. He retired in 2013.
These days, Mooney, the West Virginia Congressman, has taken up the mantle as one of gold’s biggest cheerleaders (Ron Paul’s son Rand, a senator from Kentucky, is also a part of this club). For Mooney, American Eagle coins are the key to reviving the gold standard. These collectibles are issued by the US mint and sold to numismatists for about $1,600 apiece, despite having a face value of just $50—roughly the cost of an ounce of gold in the early 1970s. Some goldbugs see them as a symbol of what American money should be; the disparity between the face value of these coins and the value of the gold used to make them captures how far the dollar has fallen in their minds.
Though they are not US legal tender, state law in Utah allows them to be used as currency—though it’s an expensive way to get $50 of gas or groceries. Other state laws have mostly moved to lift taxes on them, broadly recognizing them as money rather than collectibles, on the order of baseball cards and Beanie Babies. (This taxation of money is a big beef for Mooney and his allies.)
AP PHOTO/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE West Virginia’s Alex Mooney
If American Eagle coins are a symbol of how degraded US currency has become, for gold adherents, a return to the gold standard seems like the best way to protect the dollar’s value and and ensure it remains a bulwark against inflation.
It’s probably no coincidence that the most recent resurgence of gold interest has come at a time of acute public anxiety about the stability of money. The global financial system nearly blew up 10 years ago, and was saved by unprecedented monetary activism by the Federal Reserve. Nobody knew what to expect from the Fed’s epic asset purchase program. Fears of Weimar-style hyperinflation in some corners proved fertile ground for the pro-gold messages of Paul and others who see salvation in gold. Paul’s surprisingly successful grassroots presidential campaigns were further evidence that his message was gaining traction.
Hyperinflation never happened. But nor did other monetary fears recede—notably government over-reliance on debt. While on occasion president Trump has said that deficits don’t matter, the commander-in-chief credits the “very, very solid country” of yesteryear with it being based on the gold standard. In 2016, before his election, Trump suggested it might be time to stage a return: “Bringing back the gold standard would be very hard to do—but boy, would it be wonderful. We’d have a standard on which to base our money.” This might be dismissed as a throwaway comment, if not for Trump’s desire to put the likes of Cain, Moore, and now Shelton on the Fed board, giving a goldbug a seat at the table to steer the most powerful country’s monetary policy.
@ Edgar G.:
Yes, I know. I was just presenting another conspiracy theory. There are lots of myths floating around 9/11. How about this one about Rothschilds’ space laser starting wildfires in California:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/rjc-slams-marjorie-taylor-greenes-indefensible-jewish-space-laser-comments/
@ Bear Klein:
I still don’t believe he’s a Jew-Hater -just mashugga. And this is a HUGE Mishugas.
@ Ted Belman:
Actually I can’t see it yet. Perhaps it will be visible to me tomorrow. Everything I’ve mentioned about the Rothschilds is accurate. I see that they are controlling Barings now. My information from a serious study by learned professors with many footnotes says that Barings was always a family owned bank, and more Barings were created nobility because of their influence than any other bankng family. The Rothschilds ONLY came into the picture with Barings when Barings went broke in 1995 due to unauthorised specualation by a subordinate trader. I recall thematter very well as you likely do also
Rothschilds and most of the major British banks COMBINED to save Barings from liquidation. Therefore their part was relatively minor.
It is a futile attempt to straighten out that mashuggener. He is obsessed to madness about the Rothschilds. And he also is a liar. I did not bring the Rothschllds into any discussion first. It was he himself. which the still visible posts will attest to. He described them as “evil” as I recall. He is “all over the place” with his mania. Mayer Amschel was born in 1744, yet was able to help found the Dutch Central Bank in the early 1600s.. A magician. And with embezzled funds yet.
Words fail me… and that for me, is a FIRST. !!!
Tap dance, double talk, rationalize, try to muddy the waters but in end Jew haters are exposed by their own words and that applies to Michael S.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted pay no attention to that Rothschild obsessed madman. In the1690s, The Bank of England was proposed by a Scot William Patterson and founded by the Earl of Halifax who raised 1.2 mill Pounds as capital by public subscriptions, about 50 years before Mayer Amschel was even born. The English Rothschild only began banking, in a minor way, in the last years of the 18th century, and into contact with the British Govt. in a larger way about 1825. This information is readily available everywhere.
Just look up the history of the Founding of The Bank of England. If Mayer wasn’t born until 1744 how could he have founded the Dutch Bank. in the eearly 1600s. .etc and othe r drek. The Lonbardy Bankers perhaps helped , just guessing, I don’t care a jot.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted, why do you focus on the Rothschild family, and not on the world banking cartel. That is really the issue here. Edgar brought up the Rothschild connection as paramount; and Bear Kline went so far as to call me an antisemite because I dared mention it. The cartel, so far as I can see, has the City of London as its hub (correct me if I am wrong), and it has major nodes in Washington, DC and the Vatican. This is a cartel, which, you know, involves many players.
It seems that you, Edgar and Bear are equating the Rothschild family with Judaism. If that is so, you all have picked a very bad poster child. The American people are essentially at war with the world banking system, which cannot be separated from the Rothschild name:
“The Rothschild family combined with the Dutch House of Orange to found Bank of Amsterdam in the early 1600’s as the world’s first central bank…
“In 1694 William III teamed up with the Rothschilds to launch the Bank of England…
“As Bank of England Deputy Governor George Blunden put it, “Fear is what makes the bank’s powers so acceptable. The bank is able to exert its influence when people are dependent on us and fear losing their privileges or when they are frightened…”
“Mayer Amschel Rothschild sold the British government German Hessian mercenaries to fight against American Revolutionaries, diverting the proceeds to his brother Nathan in London, where N.M. (Nathan and Mayer) Rothschild & Sons was established. Mayer was a serious student of Cabala and launched his fortune on money embezzled from William IX- royal administrator of the Hesse-Kassel region and a prominent Freemason…
“Rothschild-controlled Barings bankrolled the Chinese opium and African slave trades. It financed the Louisiana Purchase. When several states defaulted on its loans, Barings bribed Daniel Webster to make speeches stressing the virtues of loan repayment. The states held their ground, so the House of Rothschild cut off the money spigot in 1842, plunging the US into a deep depression. It was often said that the wealth of the Rothschilds depended on the bankruptcy of nations. Mayer Amschel Rothschild once said, “I care not who controls a nation’s political affairs, so long as I control her currency”
“War didn’t hurt the family fortune either. The House of Rothschild financed the Prussian War, the Crimean War and the British attempt to seize the Suez Canal from the French. Nathan Rothschild made a huge financial bet on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, while also funding the Duke of Wellington’s peninsular campaign against Napoleon. Both the Mexican War and the Civil War were goldmines for the family…”
— https://www.newyork.org/history/history-of-the-rothschild-bank-worlds-biggest-bank
There is much more, which I shouldn’t have to detail it. That “huge financial bet” after the Napoleanic Wars wasn’t a bet at all. They took advantage of their connections and modern technology (the equivalent of the modern-day Italian supercomputer) to cause panic selling in the UK.
The banks are manipulators on a global scale, making a fortune on war debts — from wars in which they themselves were complicit.
The Rothschilds and Bank of England did not act on their own; they were co-conspirators with powerful gentiles: The Vatican, the Royal Family, the Federal Reserve, the East India Company… Do you want to treat those entities like ertrogs as well? They all conspired together.
@ Edgar G.:
Thank you for this. As you see, I just posted an article on the Rothschilds. If you have even better articles that deal with this subject matter, please provide the links.
Michael S Said:
Yes I have been in the military when very young. And in Israel, aged from 47-54 was in the Mishmar Ezrachi, and at target practice was regarded as a first-class marksman.
@ Michael S:
I’ve seen pictures of military cemeteries many times.. They are in every country in Europe, and in the USA as well. One looked as if it might be in Flanders. Before I pronounce you absolutely off-your-rocker, let me ask you which Rothschilds do you believe were the cause of all those deaths, because that’s what you, in your obsessive fixation, are fantasising on.. Give me names, dates, events, meetings for evil, documentary proof naming and concusively identifying the specific Rothschilds, half of whom are women.
And not from those Anti-Semitic sites you seem to gloat over.. Yes they ARE Anti-Semitic, foul dens of dangerous and damaging misinformation. And don’t come with stories about the Illuminati, the Vatican, the Rosicrucians, the Black Hand, The Cammora, The Brotherhood, etc.etc.and all that drek.
Perhaps I should send you an illustrated edition of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” for your Easter Fantasia, so that you can slaver over that.
If you want to get untrammelled facts, Wikipaedia is not the well of wisdom, Look up something widespread and non-denominational ,…like “Quora” for example, where you get the honest opinions of people worldwide, who’ve delved deeply into their subjects before sending in their opinions/answers..
”
I know the history and genealogy of the Rothschilds very well; it can be found on many sites, as well as their occupations, marriages,, children, dates of birth and deaths and more. And I have literature about them witten by serious scholars.
Now, produce what I’m asking for ,..or never again speak or post to me or refer to me in any way, until you are pronounced sane by 3 reputable psychiatrists. The Rothschilds are the most benevolent family for Charitable Works in Jewish History.-which is saying a lot. Every one of them, without missing any. It was, and is always bred into them as a strict duty to the less fortunate, and was not confined to Jews only
Today the majority of Rothschilds are not Jewish, but interact as a faimly nevertheless.
I’m telling you, rid yourself from Evil and feel cleaner for it. Mind, Soul and Body. I’ve lived through WW2 and know all about evil. Nothing can ever efface those memories.
Whan you pass away,, and come to face The Creator, what will you say if you are asked about your irrational hatred for the most Benevolent Family on earth. What are you going to answer. ……..???
*****One Rothschild account book was discovered after death, containing over 4000, institutions which received regular donations from that one lady****
Michael S Said:
@ Michael S:
Why do you criticize the Rothschilds for financing wars? Every country to goes to war finances the war in one way or another. It is not incumbent on the Rothschilds to refuse to finance wars. In many cases they were forced to finance the wars and in some of those cases they were never paid back. Such is the lot of the Jews.
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar, let me show you some pictures of the Rothschilde:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anzacsinfrance.com%2Fstorage%2Fbattle16.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/f0P6WDRHpIo/maxresdefault.jpg
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tracesofwar.com%2Fupload%2F5264170305143612.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
…and they did this all to make a few bucks. It’s one thing to earn a living. It’s a very different thing to provoke people to kill one another, for fun and profit. The scriptures describe the Rothschilds thus:
Proverbs 6:
[16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
[17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
[18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
[19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Why do you defend such people? Have you ever been in the military? Do you know what it’s like, to be called upon to kill people and risk your own life — only to help drive your own country into debt, to line the pockets of rich bankers?
A man was standing in a field with a farmer, and complained about the smell of manure. The farmer said,
“It smell like manure to you, but it smells like money to me!”
That’s what our war veterans smell like to the bankers: We’re manure in their eyes, but we smell like money to them.
Michael S Said:
I always knew you had a crazy streak which impelled you in unnatural directions, but believed you were honest, Pro-Jewish and otherwise harmless. You are still harmless-except to your own mental state, but on this other matter, I’m deeply disappointed, in you and in myself, for supporting you when you displayed an anti-Rothschild hate.. I see now that I was imagining that you didn’t mean it the way it seemed.
You are chutzpahdik in the exteeme, to try to tell ME anything about the Rothschilds.
And the UK branch is only prominent socially, and not really in any other way except bearing a very old name, -and being bankers, lost amongst the giants in that industry nearly all of.whom outmoney them exponentially.
I just posted documented facts about the wealthiest Rothschild , the Swiss banker Benjamin De R. being 1274 on the list of billionaires with $1.6 bill.
It seems I was castigating BEAR, unfairly, and was in the wrong. Deep, sincere pologies BEAR. But Michael is still not a Jew-Hater. A Rothschild hater, seemingly. But this is different. Many-or most- are not even Jewish, nor have been for centuries. Some are, and very supportive of Israel, bought many thousands of dunams of land for Jewish settlement. etc.You know all this I don’t need to repeat it. .
Michael is on one of his “ecstacy” moments when he gets carried away “on the wings of an eagle”(to meet De Lawd) perhaps indulging in a little puff or two of you-know-what, whic is supposed to cause those mental abberations. And he has lots of them from time to time.
He can be ignored. The page isn’t going to become cinders from his “Satanic” conjectures in fantasy.
Michael..if the Pope knows you are getting after him and know all his secrets, better watch out. Dig that hole deeper and make sure of the toilet paper supply first, last and foremost…because a lot of crap is being thrown around, coming from your direction.
Michael, your comments are like my getting a cheque written by a trusted friend, back from the bank (not Rothschilds) marked “insufficinet Funds”… Just use your overflowing imagination to substitute another word for “funds”…
Such a Wiki addict..they are always EMET……???!!
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar, you said,
“He doesn’t really believe that the Rothshilds are at the bottom of the Biden Mess…”
You’re right, Edgar — I don’t believe that the desperately evil Rothschild family is at the bottom of the cabal; but they certainly seem to be at the hub of it:
” The Rothschild banking family of England was founded in (1798) by Nathan Mayer von Rothschild (1777–1836) who first settled in Manchester but then moved to London (at the time in the Kingdom of Great Britain). Nathan was sent there from his home in Frankfurt by his father, Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812). Wanting his sons to succeed on their own and to expand the family business across Europe, Mayer Amschel Rothschild had his eldest son remain in Frankfurt, while his four other sons were sent to different European cities to establish a financial institution to invest in business and provide banking services. Nathan Mayer von Rothschild, the third son, first established a textile jobbing business in Manchester and from there went on to establish N M Rothschild & Sons bank in London.
From the home base in Frankfurt, Rothschild sons not only established themselves in the UK but also in Paris, Vienna and Naples in the Two Sicilies. Through their collaborative efforts, the Rothschilds rose to prominence in a variety of banking endeavours including loans, government bonds and trading in bullion. Their financing afforded investment opportunities and during the 19th century they became major stakeholders in large-scale mining and rail transport ventures that were fundamental to the rapidly expanding industrial economies of Europe.
Changes in the heads of government, war, and other such events affected the family’s fortunes both for their benefit and to their detriment at various times. Despite such changes, the UK branch of the Rothschild family is arguably the most prominent of all the Rothschild branches due its elevation to the British peerage, and its continued high-profile philanthropic activities.”
— Wikipedia
This family made its fortune off the dead bodies of soldiers and families across Europe, including the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust. I can’t think of a family more worthy of hellfire; but I’ll let God call that shot. The cabal they are part of, which includes the Vatican (should I be called an “antisemite” for criticizing the Vatican?)
Today is Holocaust Remembrance day, celebrating the day Auschwitz was liberated — the place where I lost several relatives. Bear deserves every bit of insult I could hurl at him, for his complicity in defending the scum who perpetrated that atrocity.
BEAR KLEIN YMACH SCHMO
I have a couple of biograhies of Pope Alexander V1, a VERY interesting guy, and a devoted family man.. The father of Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia, (who, poor girl was only a much maligned pawn, very badly treated) and several other children..
And bios of both Cesare and Lucrezia.
I just looked it up on several sites. The richest Rothschild is Benjamin de Rothschild, the Swiss banker with $1,6 bill. There are 1273 richer people. Their total family yearly income ( hundreds of decendants) was about $ 5-600 mill. Walmart alone had $135 bill. in 2006.about 130 bill. in 2018.
The Pope…Now that’s DIFFERENT…!! I can believe anything about the Pope…..!
@ Bear Klein:
Bear…… Naah, Michael isn’t, …not in the slightest. It seems unfair to me to saddle him with that canard. In his post below he seems to have fallen into that mystical, deliberately highly complicated collection of drek mixed with a chazar’s brains. In other words… a stinking mess. There is nothing Ant-Semitic about Michael, not a bit, and I’m sure you know it. I know it , so you do too. Nor is he of low intelligence, and I can only believe that you say this as an extra insult.
In all my hot and fierce religion-based exchanges with him, extendimg [eriodically over a couple of years, he never once showed a single Anti-Semitic trace, not once. And that is that for me, having been through the full Jew-Hate routine nearly all my life. I know.
He doesn’t really believe that the Rothshilds are at the bottom of the Biden Mess, nor even involved in any way. He’s just caught up in one of his”mystic moments”.
That he actually inderstands what he says he finally understands in his post, I highly doubt. If he examined it a bit more closely he’d see that it is far too fantastic for even a Science Fiction story. Maybe a Dianetics Cult loonie, but not real people.
Poor Rothschilds……!!!Get balmed for everything.
@ Bear Klein:
Bear, you are obviously a Nazi troll. If you can dish out BS, you should be able to take it.
@ Arlekino:
Such drek proliferates any time a disaster happens and even when Jews have not even a remote connection with them. I read several “convincing” and “eye-witness” accounts of Jews standing on tops of their cars dancing(preumably in joy) when the Towers went.
The modern cars will temporaraliy dent inwards if a single person stand on it, unless it’s a Volvo, or similar exotic well built foreign car. But, of course we can expect Jews to have the BEST. But about 500 Jews died there, and more in the years following from delayed toxicity There were disproportionally more Jews working there, because of the nature of the work. .
@ Michael S:
Michael you try and hide it but you do hate Jews it is very clear. I thought you just might be of low intelligence and that also appears to be the case. Many Jew haters fall into this thought process because they are easily brought into it because of low intellectual capabilities.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted, I wish I could study the link you provide, but accessing Israpundit has become a formiddable errand. Therefore, if I seem to be talking “off the top of my head” or needlessly touching on things you already covered, forgive me.
With your help, I have finally made sense of something that often comes up in blogs: the connection between Washington DC, the City of London, the Vatican, the Rothschild family, the Royal Family and by extension alliances such as NATO, the EU, etc. At the center of it all is the Rothschild family (which apparently owns much or all of the BOE), which acquired its wealth by instigating wars and lending money to all sides.
A very convincing historical analysis links many events, such as the War of 1812, the Civil War and subsequent Act of 1871, assasinations of several US presidents who opposed establishment of an American national bank, both world wars and other smaller wars, etc. with attempts to turn the US into a debt-financed economy. That debt is owed to the private banking billionaires in the Fed and in the City of London, who seem to use the Vatican (for a fee) as their depository. This international connection hails back to the origins of modern banking with Roman Catholic military orders such as the Knights Hospitalier and Knights Templar who provided services for wealthy pilgrims to the Holy Land.
This viewpoint seems entirely credible. At its heart is a cabal of the most powerful people in the world (which includes modern players such as Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, George Soros, the Bidens, etc.) It also includes prominent “Jews” (mostly secular or assimilated) in the banking and technology industries of which George Soros and the Rothschild families are familiar examples.
I do not doubt, that the Zionist movement owes much to these financiers and the Goy governments with which they are entangled. I also notice that Mossad holds a position analogous to the American CIA — and it doesn’t escape my attention that the Globalist “Deep State” is deeply entrenched with such intelligence organizations on both sides of the Atlantic (Viz the “Five Eyes + Israel which share intelligence and covert activity around the world).
These are very real connections, which have a tremendous impact on our lives — such as the Vatican-centered scheme to manipulate the 2020 Election. They are not related in any way to real Jews and Judaism; but Jews can be conveniently scapegoated because of their ubiquitous “outsider” status.
Altogether, this can be seen as a great psyop, going back to Cain and Abel.
@ Arlekino:
Yesterday I posted this Conspiracy Theories ‘Proving’ Israelis/Jews Planned the Attacks on 9/11 with special emphases on the myth that Mossad was responsible.
I once read a theory similar to Ted’s, that 9/11 was “a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.” Supposedly, Mossad brought down the World Trade Center, acting on behalf of Israel. Jews were supposedly informed about this ahead of time and did not show up for work on that fateful day. I read that at one point roughly a third of all Europeans actually believed that.