Stop bashing the rothchilds. These quotes about them are lies. no conspiracy at all

reply to post by Foodman


"the Rothschilds dont start wars. they are to risky." - foodman
you gotta be kidding me, wars are the most money making enterprise on the planet, the invoke technological innovation, the boost industry, the create jobs, products, etc etc. it might be risky for the governments fighting the wars because they have to pay for the war, but the privet companys that are creating the bullets, guns, tanks, and keeping the war machine alive are rolling in the money. war is a huge money maker

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by antmax21
So this one quote means that they are just hunky dory squeaky clean people?
They LOVE money...Money is the root of all evil.
Therefore, I believe they are evil. I believe they've started wars for their own gain, just as others have done for themselves.

How do you know they "love money"? Love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. They may have money but how do you know they love it?

edit on 30-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

the concept of money and therefore money itself is indeed the root of all evil. the love of money is only there because of what money gives you, power. the love of money, greed, only adds to the screwed up concept of money, there would be no love for it, if it wasnt for what it gives us.

Originally posted by primoaurelius

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by antmax21
So this one quote means that they are just hunky dory squeaky clean people?
They LOVE money...Money is the root of all evil.
Therefore, I believe they are evil. I believe they've started wars for their own gain, just as others have done for themselves.

How do you know they "love money"? Love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. They may have money but how do you know they love it?

edit on 30-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

the concept of money and therefore money itself is indeed the root of all evil. the love of money is only there because of what money gives you, power. the love of money, greed, only adds to the screwed up concept of money, there would be no love for it, if it wasnt for what it gives us.

No it is not, because before money you could only barter. How is "money" evil?

reply to post by 547000


i probably shouldnt have said "root of all evil"

debate is indeed a wonderful thing, and when debating something like an abstract idea neither side can have a 100% fool proof arguement.
obviously an inanimate object like the actual physical money, is not good or evil. but an idea or concept, which is just as abstract and intangible as good or evil, right or wrong, yin and yang, positive or negative, can indeed have evil or negativity imbued into its conception.
money and trade are very different. when we barter, the items we trade have no more value than what it can be used for, however money is more like an IOU, its value can change with its economy, and those in power of that economy can, and have manipulated their currencies for their own means.
the trade/barter system doesnt have this flaw, the labor/beauty you put into the item you are trading is its value, and that doesnt really change.
our current economic system is one of manipulation, on so many different levels, so much so that it is now an accepted part of our system. speculators, lobbyists, corporate spys, all in place to make their company more money and come out on top of the economic mountain, even if that company doesnt make any kind of product and makes their money by using the economic system to their advantage.
if the economy cant be used to their advantage at that time, they send lobbyists and lawmakers to capital hill to change the laws for them, something the common man could never hope to do, create a law just for them, just for their advantage, just for them to make money, would not be allowed. only the rich and elite can do this.

money=power=corruption. men in power will change, including the Rothschild family, its just a matter of how much of their old, humbler self they will hold on to

reply to post by AMANNAMEDQUEST

I tried to research a bit more on who financed Hitler but the only results that turn up are of course Bush and Rothschild propaganda. Again, as I looked into these links, like the topic of this thread, they were not backed up with proof, only hearsay.

If you're interested in good sources and information on the financing of the National Socialists Workers Party in Germany... This is a most excellent addition for you... This book is free online...

Link ---> Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler By Antony C. Sutton

Originally posted by gorgi
The Rothchilds are paying me, so are the DuPonts, Koch brothers, he bushes and many more. I get paid big time.
Really constructive comments from you. I see Middle school in your future, The Rothschilds gave me psychic powers too.

Brilliant response, mate!!

How poetic that the individual you were responding to could not answer to your very nicely articulated argument so they had to cry "troll..." (oops, my bad! "TROLL!!!")

This is exactly why anyone as lofty as a Rothschild will never "lower themselves" to respond to such childish behavior. Because you can't fix stupid....

reply to post by primoaurelius


Wars are only profitable to the winner, and still it is extremely risky. For instance, a bank investing in nazi germany at its height in 1942, would have thought it was a good idea, only to have a huge loss in 1945. All the companys in germany were hit hard. Risk vs reward.

A country who bought confederate bonds in the civil war in 1863 might have thought it was a good idea, only to have huge losses in 1863. The same goes for nathan who bought gold thinking the war with the french would go on for years, only to have a huge loss when the war ended the same year in 1815.

You might say that companys such as lookheed martin are making a killing in these wars. That is far from the truth. There gross margin is around 10%, and in the year 2010 there stock fell while the s&p grew. During q4 of 2010 there gross profit was $983 million. Compare that to exxon mobile/apple. You see war is not profitable as much as you think it is. Nathan saw this after he had a huge capital loss in 1815, and never invested in war again.

reply to post by 547000


Money is not evil. Money is good. Without it, there would be no modern world. Did hitler kill for money, did stalin kill for money, did pol pot kill for money, did the mongels kill for money. do serial killers kill for moeny.

if you believe money is evil, plz send to my paypal account.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


You are far from the truth. Refer to gorgi's reply to you for why you are wrong. the Rothschild do not control the federal reserve. the federal reserve is not in the game to make billions and give them to Rothschild. Instead of reading infowars.com, refer to a textbook.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


100t-600t. First that is a huge number and a impossible number for the world's wealth. Not even possible for one family to hold all that wealth. jpm one of the biggest banks in the world only owns 2t in assets. Second what is with the huge spread of numbers you got there. 100-600. That is a huge difference.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


All i see you writing is personal attacks and calling people names. What i dont see is you backing up your claims.

reply to post by nickspm


You are getting your info from a book called "the secret origins of the federal reserve". Referring to a book made 200+ years after nathan's time is no source. Give me the primary source of the quote. That is all i want. I can look up any quote thomas jefferson made and find the exact primary source. Why cant i do it for this. Because he never said it. Disagree? provide it for me.

reply to post by Whiteknight2000


Thank you. You said it perfect. I just want the primary source he said that quote. All i got was a bunch of talk about the federal reserve, how the Russian royal family was murdered. And even that had no proof other then alex jones.

reply to post by j2000


what is your point in that post. all it says is the english did not believe nathan.

reply to post by crankyoldman


There is no conspiracy behind this post. I learned that this quote which is always used, has been proven wrong. I just wanted to share the info. If you disagree with my post, write why, and provide the facts. 13 pages in, and the primary source of this quote in the information age has not been found.

reply to post by ukWolf



Niall Ferguson is a professor at Harvard. He is right. Nathan never set up rumors about wellington lost. Niall provides many reasons why in his book. First is that there is no other written history of this "bond market collapse" that you seem to believe. We have a lot of history about other collapse in that time, from the south sea bubble, or the Mississippi bubble. You would think we would have at least a couple of historians at that time writing about how this man collapsed the english bond market and then bought on the cheap.

He provides more reasons why Nathan did not do this. Another is that the idea that he did collapse the market came from a nazi propaganda movie, which i have explained in my previous postings.

So the proof is against Victor Rothschild, who claimed that. He might have said that for lots of reasons. People always exaggerate dont they, or brag about non stories to seem better then they are. If you disagree, show me some historic writings from the time. Historians always right about economic collapses.

We have detailed accounts of the south sea company and the bubble it made. We know the stock price, and the date and what happened after that. How come we have no data on this "English bond collapse" on how one man stole from the most powerful country in the world, and how no one cared to protest him and how no one cared to even write about how he did it. ?

13 pages in, and in the information age, and no one has yet to provide the primary source for this quote. We can find the primary quote for any other quote. Why not this one. It is because the quote was never real. Disagree? Write why and with the primary source of the quote.

Originally posted by Whiteknight2000

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
reply to post by Foodman

 

I really hope you got paid for this.
Otherwise, this is the worst waste of time I've seen on ATS
In a LONG time.

Good work, at getting paid. Unless you aren't getting paid. Then you should probably work for us instead.'
Though you're obviously not interested in the truth, are you.

Where's the proof they are all responsible for their crimes?????

He asked a simple question and he has not recieved a response. He provided the facts now you need to provide a reponse and posts fact.

I think its a very simple task.

Every single financial calamity dating to 1907 can be directed connected to them.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Before the federal reserve and after the 2nd bank of the us, we had no central bank and we had dozens of economic problems. even huge depressions. Who do you blame this on?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Foodman


It has to be the Rothchilds fault. It has to be, its so insane that it must be true.