Concidence, result of non-participation in global economics, or MASSIVE CONSPIRACY???

It looks to me like a refusal to submit to the Anglo-European Central Banking scheme will dooms ones country to military invasion by the imperialistic US (and coalition) forces. Lets look at it historically:

https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/rothschild-central-bank/

"In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned or controlled Central Bank:"

1. Afghanistan
2. Iraq
3. Sudan
4. Libya
5. Cuba
6. North Korea
7. Iran

Ill assume most of us know what generally happened to most of these countries (and what it looks like is about to happen to the rest).

And then this:
Court sides with media, decides that Rothchilds are 'puppetmaster' in global political/financial manipulation scheme: http://ww.independent.co.uk/news/uk...cret-world-of-money-and-politics-6720015.html
Putin kicks Rothschild out of Russia: http://awarenessact.com/russia-joins-hungary-and-bans-te-rothschilds/
Russia to leave global central banking system:
http://thenewyorkevening.com/2016/06/06/putin-nationalise-rothschild-central-bank/

And who has the Anglo-European establishment most recently added to its 'hate' list? The Rooskies.

Coincidence?

 

very fascinating indeed. I had no idea our central bank was controlled by Rothchilds. Could you show us the evidence of this vast conspiracy. Thanks in advance for alerting us!!

 

https://www.quora.com/Who-are-these-Rothschilds-Do-they-really-own-central-banks-around-the-world in a short analysis of https://archive.org/stream/TheSecretsOfTheFederalReserve/MullinsEustace-TheSecretsOfTheFederalReserve227P._djvu.txt says "There have been mergers and a bankruptcy (Lehman brothers, September 15, 200 but essentially, the Fed stocks are still held by the rich and powerful banking families with the Rothschild (London branch) as the dominant force behind them."

The reason its difficult to 'prove' Rothschild control is because they (like most of the 'controlling' elite of the world) use the process of interlocking directorates (both direct and indirect, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate) within closed corporations to hide the reigns of control, because such control is decidedly monopolistic and illegal.

As for evidence, heres some:
http://www.investopedia.com/updates/history-rothschild-family/
most notably: "Like the other Rothschild banks that were subsequently set up throughout Europe, N M Rothschild & Sons furnished credit to the government during times of war and crisis. In 1811, during the Napoleonic Wars, for example, N M Rothschild & Sons managed and financed various subsidies that the British government sent to its different allies and loaned funds to pay the British troops – almost single-handedly financing the British war effort. But he also began funding Napoleon Bonaparte in secret – and even used the war to grow his own business.

On July 18, 1815, a courier working for Rothschild informed the English government that Napoleon appeared to be suffering defeat at Waterloo. The English government, believing instead that they were losing the battle, dismissed the courier's report and believed it to be false information. At this point, with England's future seeming dire, Rothschild began selling all of his bonds, encouraging rumors that Napoleon had won and that English government paper would soon be worthless. Due to Rothschild's reputation as an influential, renowned and respected investor, the panicked English public followed his lead. The mass selling resulted in a total collapse of the English stock exchange. It was then that Rothschild's agents began snatching up bonds and stock at record-low prices. Two days later, when Wellington's envoy confirmed that Napoleon Bonaparte had indeed suffered a crushing defeat, Nathan Rothschild was effectively in control of the English stock exchange. As of 2015, the English government was still paying back money owed to the Rothschild family from this Napoleonic maneuver."

http://humansarefree.com/2015/06/the-federal-reserve-cartel-rothschild.html?m=0
"J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US.

They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches.

He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York. Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3] "

To say that the Anglo-European (directed by the US Fed Reserve) Central Banking system is 'Rothschild owned' is technically innaccurate. Its likely not even run or influenced (much) by them anymore. But the system was their 'baby' and its still being used by people like them for global financial and political control. Thats what I (and most folks) mean when they refer to the 'Rothschild Central Banks' or the 'Rothschild Federal Reserve.' Its not to say that the Rothschilds are the 'top of the pyramid' of the conspiracy (though its clear they had/have heavy influence within it)... its just a 'hint' to help people in their own research of the topic.

 

Are you saying that our Federal reserve Bank is owned by Rothchilds and they tell Yellen what to do?

 

and so with control what do they direct the Fed to do, and do they force Yellen to do as they say?

 

No. The book that a site I linked from cited as a source, said that (roughly).

 

heres a bit more
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ting-that-launched-the-federal-reserve-echoes

 

for a better idea of the complexity of the corporate partnerships, sister companies and interlocking directorates that make it so difficult to 'prove' ownership and control, heres some relational charts:

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

 

Use debt to manipulate global politics to their advantage, basically.
I doubt they force anyone to do anything... but if the govt want to keep getting loans, it'll do what the loaners want.

 

Can you give us an example, in your own words?

So if they aren't forcing anyone to do anything, how do you know they are "in control"?

The government does need the Fed in order to create money, thus the Fed has zero control over the government.

 

I dont really feel like there should be examples required to demonstrate how debt, control of interest rates, supply of money and manipulation of inflation/deflation could be used to manipulate politics... that seems like a 'no sh*t, sherlock' subject to me. In my own words, a simple example would be 'if you want the money for X social program that will get you reelected, vote for Y law that benefits my corporate shares' or 'if you want X interest rate...' or something like that. And then theres the simple matter of corporations and their major/majority shareholders using profits from loaning *to* the govt to financially support candidates who will increase spending in any fashion, aka- buying themselves more 'voting' power to vote themselves more profit and repeat process in a never ending cycle of devouring the value of our production until they literally own everything...

Heres a historical example:
"Central bankers have, of course, been known to help incumbents before elections, by allowing inflation to drift up and keep employment booming. During President Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign, he lectured Fed chair Arthur Burns on the need for pump-priming the economy to help him defeat his Democratic challenger, George McGovern. Nixon won resoundingly, but Burns’ policies helped trigger the worldwide inflation of the 1970s and brought forward the breakup of the post-war system of fixed exchange rates. The long-term effects were catastrophic."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/03/federal-reserve-playing-politics-janet-yellen-central-banks-us-government

Another 'no ****, sherlock' question... putting a gun to someones head isnt the only way to control them. If I manage to steal ownership of your house (by some feat of legal loophole, for example) and offer it back to you for a favor, you will have some pretty great incentive to do me that favor. Am I forcing you? No. Am I controlling you? Essentially, yes.

First off, *if* the fed is necessary to 'create' money, and the govt *needs* it, then it could simply threaten to *stop* 'creating' money until it gets what it wants and hold the govt hostage. 'Needed' things are always a potential liability.
BUT no, the govt doesnt *need* the fed to 'create' money. The Treasury prints money, and prior to 1913 it did it without the fed because the fed didnt exist.

The govt needs the fed in order to spend money that doesnt exist at all. Without the fed, the govt's budget would be restricted by its revenue and loans from private sector or other nations. The fed is a means by which the govt can spend way more. Essentially, instead of saddling the debt onto itself, it places the debt onto We the Common Folk and can spend and grow far beyond our financial ability (or willingness) to support it. The income taxes we pay cover *only* the interest of the debt owed to the banks that finance the Federal Reserve. Thats why the national debt just keeps getting bigger. Its a credit card that we just keep making the minimum payments on. The Fed keeps allowing us to borrow more (and the banks keep paying for politicians who will borrow more) because it just makes more profits for the banks that finance the fed (finance the govt). The tradeoff for not having a 'due date' by which we have to pay the 'principle' of the national debt is rising inflation. Essentially, the bankers figured out that we would never be willing to be taxed at 100%, so the only way they could convince us to give them *all* our wealth (so they would own us and eventually reobtain defacto monarchy) is if they could devalue our currency into worthlessness. This is the innevitable (multi-generational) result of this financial system. Its just slow enough thats its hard for us to *feel* the effects.

 

The problem here is you don't understand money creation or the purpose of the Fed, but before we get there, let me ask you a very simple question.

in a fiat economy, with respect to US dollars (only US dollars), what came first, taxing dollars or spending them?

 

Not sure. Sonds like a chicken vs egg situation.

I understand that the 'income tax' amounts to a tax on the use of US (Fed) currency, as that tax is generally avoidable by using other forms of 'currency' (barter). I suppose such a system was effectively established as soon as the govt started issuing currency and taxing the goods that currency was used to purchase (though I believe such taxes were originally only levied against imported or 'luxury' goods).

Though im not sure how far we're going back here... the US dollar wasn't always a federal reserve note, nor was it always 'fiat.'

 

Yes originally excise tax only so govt had no control over individual. You could avoid tax by not buying taxed items. Today situation totally reversed

 

it seems to me that whats really happened is that the Fed prevented deflation by running up a huge balance sheet in the wake of the housing/financial crisis and that it will reduce the balance sheet if and when inflation becomes an issue.

 

Probably. Im not saying the Fed doesnt do anything useful or beneficial. It would have to if it wants to continue the charade. In the short term, the Fed has made us dependent on it for stuff like you mentioned. But the long term effects are the ones we need to be looking at.

 

but why worry if its mandate is no inflation of deflation?

 

where is this mandate coming from?

and if 'no inflation' is their mandate, they are an abysmal failure, taking the last 100 years into account

 

Looks more like the support of terrorism, but Cuba being the outlier.

 

1) mandate is now part of Federal Reserve Act
2) don't forget, Milton Friedman only took over monetary thinking in about 1980 or so. Since then the Fed has been a life saver not only as regards inflation/deflation but also in smoothing out huge fiscal mistakes liberal govt has made such as the housing crisis/financial crisis.

 

When was a 'no inflation' mandate added?

 

1977

 

then they're not following their mandate... or they suck at it

 

Well It gets a little complicated their actual target is usually 2% and so even if it's been a little more than that still for the most part under control and not a problem actually here and in Europebigger fear has been deflation so with that in mind they seem to of have done a pretty good job.

 

is that 2% per year or what?