It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who really are the Rothchilds?

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Nobody collects on the bad debt, it just disappears. That is the thing with fractional reserve banking, if the system slows, vast amounts of money start to disappear, that is why the super rich fear deflation so much. If Microsofts stock tumbles down to being worth a few pennies, all the Bill Gates wealth that remains in Microsoft stock disappears. All other holdings tend to drop vastly in value as well.

The banks can confiscate peoples homes, but if the value of the home is a tenth of what it was when the loan was made, the bank still loses 90% of the loan amount, only the down payment amount reduces the loss. If there was little or no money down, and all that when to real estate agents and such, then it is a total loss for the bank. Often times, the people who lost the house buy it back on penny's on the dollar.

When the judge approves the bankruptcy, creditors lose their money, credit card debt is a complete loss. People who owned stock get nothing back for their investment, maybe claim to a closed down, worthless factory. If the company was an investment firm or software firm with little of no assets, there is nothing to repossess.

This might be what is about to happen again, as people start losing jobs, and their ability to pay disappears, property values start to drop, companies stop being able to make money, they lay people off, even less people have money to spend, and the whole process goes around and around again, until something is done to get the process heading back into the right direction. As the money supply shrinks as the fractional reserve system slows, the people with the most money loose the most.




posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes, but you're still proving my point the way I see it, because it is not about the money, it is about the physical property banks sieze after a depression.

They lend pretend money, inflate the system, it crashes and they collect real physical wealth.

It was never about money, it was always about debt.

Sure, it wipes out a few rich that are not part of the cartel and are not secure enough to weather things out, but at the very top people just get richer, if not in actual money cetainly in property value. This is why it is in the interest of a certain few people that own the debt to crash the system. Remember that little banks usually owe to big banks.

The system is a long term con, designed for instability and foreclosure on debt so the very top of the pyramid can consolidate. It is financial feudalism, designed to serve a stealth nobility a lot of people don't want to admit even exists.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ruse45

Originally posted by Clearskies
Thanks camilo!
I appreciate learning more about our financiers and movers and shakers within our government.


wow...it gets interesting by the hour, why did'nt they teach us all this stuff in school...this is real explosive history that is missing.....i wonder why ?
Because these are the same people who put your school system into place, to keep people ignorant. You wont see any of these people on any richest person list either, but people that do not even have a fraction of their money will be in the top three. Why dont they explain why they do that in the schools? The more you teach yourself the more you are going to find they have been teaching us all lies.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


No, because the banks are not owned by specific individuals, and the banks still owe large amount of money to depositors. The banks are forced to sell the property that they sieze. The super rich no longer have the money to hold on to their property, to continue to pay the taxes and up-keep the propery. In order to attempt to hold on to their lifestyles, they sell off large portions of the property that they hold to get away from the taxes and upkeep expenses, and to bring some revenue in to start new business ventures. In addition, besides estates most wealthy people don't own large amounts of land, and what they do, they finance for numerous purposes.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



No, because the banks are not owned by specific individuals,

What do you mean by this? Of course ownership is by individuals. (outside of government-owned banks) Even GE, which is a "widely held" stock is owned by individuals.

PS. - You seem to be knowledgeable of financial matters. I was wondering, if you short a stock and the company goes under, do you get to keep the full balance?

(I know probably a stupid question
)

Really good Rothschild info in this thread! Great work guys!

I was wondering if anyone had more information on some other great Rothschilds lost over the years? I was unaware of their French bank nationalization. What sort of compensation have they received?

[edit on 24/7/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Hmm.. I guess foundations, who are able to own stocks, are not owned by individuals. Although, it seems some are set-up with goals and agendas not always beneficial to society. (See Norman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations. (GoogleVid)


[edit on 24/7/08 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Not trying to be a no-nothing ignoramus, but where exactly is this leading to?

Does the OP intend for us to act on this information, or contemplate it?



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
thought i would toss in some info on the rothchilds that doesnt appear on this thread yet but is interesting.
the family money got started by coin dealing, numisatics, nothing big.
the fortune started when the rothschilds became middlemen in the hiring of hessian soldiers by the british to quell the colonial uprising aka the revolutionary war.
some poster said that the rothschilds had never done anything against britain. i seem to recall that in fact they either broke england or nearly so in some 19th century stock market dealings.
i found the khazar statements by some one else interesting as that part of the world has some old ideas about the rules of power and such (thinking about hassan i sabbah and the whole do as you please type of thing). that area is also an ancient trading area giving rise to many trade cultures through the centuries.
well not much but enjoy!



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 

As I'm the OP,
I wanted to learn AND act.
I hate people tyrannizing the 'common man,', don't you?
Ignoring monopolies and grand schemes is tantamount to 'condoning' it.
When I find out what's going on and by WHOM, I can watch out for myself and others!



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by seek4 truth
 


I hate to be argumenative with another poster but there is no secret group of people with 100's of trillions of dollars. It doesn't exist, if they do please provide a name and some evidence of their wealth. This thread alone has provided plenty of evidence that even the mythical Rothchilds control a fraction of the money they once had, they don't come close to a Gates or Buffet level of wealth.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


A foundation, as anyone who has studied law knows, is a way to contol wealth without formally owning it. I still consider it to be private wealth if there is no real public utility in it though, but that's just me I guess.

And people need to realise there is no accurate way to count wealth above the individual level in an international context. Of course there are people more wealthy than Gates, because they head families that spread trillions of assets over foundations and other family members internationally. Ok, it's a different yardstick, but it's still relevant to all our lives.

PS: a lot of info on the Rothshilds at this location: www.davidicke.com...

[edit on 24-7-2008 by Zepherian]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


It's good that you've brought this to light, but never forget - we stand on the outside looking into a heart of darkness the likes of which is alien to we mere common men.

There are as many branches as there are roots.

It would be dangerous, one would think, to strike at a branch and not know from where the next attack will come from.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel
reply to post by seek4 truth
 


I hate to be argumenative with another poster but there is no secret group of people with 100's of trillions of dollars. It doesn't exist, if they do please provide a name and some evidence of their wealth. This thread alone has provided plenty of evidence that even the mythical Rothchilds control a fraction of the money they once had, they don't come close to a Gates or Buffet level of wealth.
I dont see this thread showing anything except for the fact that more people on hear have self educated themselves than people who tend to be lazy and believe what they have been taught by the masses. Bill Gates, richest person are you joking?

[edit on 24-7-2008 by seek4 truth]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
that's exactly what I thought seek4truth, another claim of information out there that some of you are so enlightened by. Someone post a link, I can't find anything about this but you claim you're so educated. It's not me being lazy, I've tried to find this stuff you and others claim to see, I can't find it. Someone post something I can look at, I'm actually begging someone to enlighten me but it hasn't happened yet.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by White Chapel
 


Look at the amount they have amassed since the started compared to the Rothschild's who have been at for a long time. They're not even in the same ball park. The Rothschild's and Rockefeller's try to minimize their perceived wealth.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by White Chapel
 


What "evidence that they control a fraction of their former wealth"?
I haven't seen it.
Here's another thread that seems to show they have quite a LOT of money;
Rothschild Swiss banque

Also;
What's the net worth of the Rothschilds?


and "Lady deRothschild gives 1,000,000$(or pounds) to conservative party".
It has some good info;
Here


[edit on 24-7-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by White Chapel
 

The internet is flooded with links I am just going to post without even looking to see what they say, then we will all have more to work with.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I have no ideal what these say but what most people do not realize is they were put into place by the catholic church and this whole thing goes back at least 8000 years.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
History of the Rothschild's HERE



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Unfortunately, the links in the posts you mentioned I've already investigated. The one claiming their present value is from a legitimate news source, Forbes. The other claiming their wealth to be 100 trillion is from some guys web page. Now, that guy has some good links on there citing his information, but all the conclusion about wealth he draws on his own. There's no proof of anything, he takes news articles and then draws up his own conclusions without any evidence and then people come and claim it is factual. He also relies heavily on a book from the early 60's that estimated the wealth of the family at 6 billion in 1850. I've never read the book because I haven't been able to find it anywhere, but I'd like to see how they came to that conclusion.
One of the numbers pointed out is that in 1997 their investment group had profits up 66% from the year before. That's a great number, but it can mean many, many things. They could have had losses the year before because they took on debt, they could have had a terrible year the year before, they could have brokered some blockbuster deal in the current year that would explain it. There were many, many firms with that kind of profit during the tech boom of the 90's, it was not uncommon.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swingarm
History of the Rothschild's HERE


I've read that, you can't possibly take it seriously when it starts out like this:

The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time, and I produce my evidence for this below in a timeline.

The Rothschilds have, with their founding of Zionism, betrayed the principles of the Torah and as you will see in this timeline, the people who have suffered the most at the hands of these Zionists are the Jews.

it's someone with an agenda, it can't stand up to the burden of proof.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by White Chapel
 

You do understand they print money out of nothing dont you? what could they have lost?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join