The Rothschilds

zOMG! I discovered the true, real secret of the Rothschild family. NeonHelmet was right -- they're NOT Jewish!!!




They're really BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIANS!!!

Originally posted by spyke
All the fuss and pomp you refer to is there mainly for the tourist trade .
Its put there for you americans to have your photo taken next to.

What makes you think I'm American? And no the house wasn't put their for tourist trade. It was build well before that idea came into play. Fair enough its used as that NOW, but that is not why it was 'put there'.

Alex Kennendy
HAHAHA Thats quite funny. Jokes aside there is no denying Rothchilds are one of the most powerful families in the world.

www.whale.to...

Its a big read but interesting.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

pictures showing the establishment of the Illuminati and establish proof that there has been a diabolical plot by those we refer to as the New World Order. Showing the architectural design of the New Israeli Supreme Court Building designed and paid for by the Rothchilds reflex the presence of Free Masonry and the Illuminati. I took all but one of the pictures you are about to see so I can assure that what you are seeing is real and in place.By Jerry Goldin

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Masonic Symbols in Israeli Supreme Court Building


[edit on 20-8-2004 by Sauron]

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
How come no one questions a place in Britain where the Queen of England has to bow and ask for permission to enter?

Like the House of Commons? We constantly question that.....

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
How come no one questions a place in Britain where the Queen of England has to bow and ask for permission to enter?

Like the House of Commons? We constantly question that.....

No we don't. That's a ridiculous statement and shows a complete lack of knowledge of your country's history and tradition.
Every single time the Opening of Parliament is shown on TV, the commentators explain the ritual of Black Rod and the symbolism of the slamming of the Common's door - it dates back to the Civil War, King Charles attempt to breach the Constitution and arrest five MPs, and declares the independance of Parliament from the Crown.

As for the Queen of England having to ask permission to enter somewhere? Really? She'd have to ask permission to visit a million places in the UK. She doesn't own the country and doesn't have the power to just walk onto any premises in the land. To suggest that she can't walk into one specific place when in fact she can't walk into a million others is plain ignorant. It's yet another stupid statement that shows no knowledge of the role of the UK monarchy, it's history or it's power.

Not only that but the Queen can enter the City of London anytime she wants.

"It is sometimes asserted that the Lord Mayor may exclude the Sovereign from the City of London. The legend is based on the misinterpretation of the ceremony observed each time the Sovereign enters the City. At Temple Bar the Lord Mayor presents the City's pearl-encrusted Sword of State to the Sovereign as a symbol of the latter's overlordship. The Sovereign does not, as is often purported, wait for the Lord Mayor's permission to enter the City."



[edit on 25-8-2004 by Leveller]

getting back the the original post, "the city" in london is not under parlaimentary jurisdiction, it is completely independent. That is very scary.

the rothschilds power and influence spans oceans and centuries. Their hand can be seen in many wars, depressions and assassinations, IMO.



if money is the root of all evil, and the money is controlled by the rothschilds, are they the root of all evil ?

Originally posted by radagast
getting back the the original post, "the city" in london is not under parlaimentary jurisdiction, it is completely independent. That is very scary.

Ummm... not really. It establishes the rights of municipalities as entities throughout the commonwealth. For example, in my country, if we did not have the tradition that cities have certain rights qua cities, provincial governments would have total jurisdiction over cities. And London is not the only municipality for which this is true; it's simply the one used in most legal / constitutional arguments. Would you prefer that cities did not have jurisdiction over themselves? You'd like all police to be state police, for example, in the US?

the rothschilds power and influence spans oceans and centuries. Their hand can be seen in many wars, depressions and assassinations, IMO.

Great! Interesting opinion! Do you have any proof to back up your opinion?

if money is the root of all evil, and the money is controlled by the rothschilds, are they the root of all evil ?

Please try to quote the bible properly (I Timothy 6:10)

[10] For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

So, having money doesn't make you evil -- it's lusting after it.

Also, do you have proof that the Rothschild family has all the money in the world (which you're implying).

Originally posted by radagast
This international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric "Crown" as its symbol of power and has its headquarters in the ancient City of London, an area of 677 acres; which strangely in all the vast expanse of the 443,455 acres of Metropolitan London alone is not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, but has its own private force of about 2,000 men, while its night population is under 9,000.

Private? Private in the way that the Metropolitan Police are? Or Devon and Cornwall? Or Somerset and Avon? Or Thames Valley? Or any one of the 20 or so Police Forces that make up the UK Constabulary?
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. The City of London Police patrol the Square Mile in the same way that any other Police Force patrols their area. They are also answerable to the same authority and are funded by the taxpayer in the same way through the Home Office. Although the Corporation of London does sometimes give extra funding for expansion of some departments: ie, fraud detection, this is no different from a local Council giving extra money to their own police service.

There are also nowhere near "2000 men" in the City of London Police either. It employs a total of 1200 people including female and civilian staff.

And sure there might be 1200 men in the force (but as explained, these aren't all officers) but to imply that this is strange in some way is an absurdity. There might only be 9000 people with night-time residence in the square mile but during the day and night there are over 300,000 people working there!!!! That's a passing population the size of a large UK city. That's without even adding on the number of tourists that visit the area!!!

By the way. The City of London isn't independant. The City of London Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor and he is still answerable to the Crown and has to swear allegiance.

On the subject of the Rothschilds: I'll bet nobody has even bothered taking a look at their official site. They're not exactly as secretive about their history or their business as many would have you believe.

www.rothschild.info.../chistory1-1



[edit on 25-8-2004 by Leveller]

Big bankers with clean hands; I don't buy it.

Forgive me for not posting links to support my theories.
I didn't mean to imply the rothschilds have all the money, just more then the rockefellers.
I wouldn't expect the rothschilds site to go into waterloo, weishaupt, etc.


www.thewatcherfiles.com...
land.netonecom.net...
www.rumormillnews.com...
www.savethemales.ca...

'The city' is an interesting place, like a city in a city. The only other place I am aware of that is the Vatican.

I think the city is in 'old london'. Whenever you enter it you will see a St. george flag with 2 dragons holding it proudly! Bit of an insult when George was supposed to have killed a dragon!!

The duke of westminsiter owns 'the city' doesn't he? I can't find nothing on him. He seems faceless.

I found the duke of kent and also a royal is a freemason though. Didn't know that. www.grandlodge-england.org...

Originally posted by radagast

I wouldn't expect the rothschilds site to go into waterloo, weishaupt, etc.

Maybe not Weishaupt, but it certainly refers to Waterloo and the Napoleonic wars.

Also can anyone in England/Britain remember the program about who is richest in britain? they said the queen of course but they said a quick comment about maybe the duke of westminster is richer.

They said it was a rumour. I can't find nothing on the man though, can anyone else?? not even a picture. Maybe my google search power is fading...!

[edit on 25-8-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
The duke of westminsiter owns 'the city' doesn't he? I can't find nothing on him. He seems faceless.

I found the duke of kent and also a royal is a freemason though. Didn't know that. www.grandlodge-england.org...

The Duke of Westminster isn't royal (either by marriage or blood). His family were the most recent commoners to be elevated to the peerage.
It is widely accepted that he is the richest man in the UK, but when you get into the realms of billions, things get cloudy and there are about half a dozen contenders. Money can be made and lost so fast that people jump over each other and then fall back. The Duke of Westminster has most of his money in the property market and a slump hit him hard back in the 80s. With property prices now at a premium, he's probably back at the top (he was also ranked 38th richest in the world in 2002).

As for being faceless? Put his real name into Google - Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor. You'll find plenty of information about him.

Here's a photo of him.

www.forbes.com...

The Queen is way down the list. Most of her wealth actually belongs to the State (the people of the UK) and is not a personal belonging.

As for the Duke of Kent?
He's not just any old English Freemason. He's our boss!!!


[edit on 25-8-2004 by Leveller]

i've seen estimates of the rothschilds wealth being in the 1 TRILLION range....but you'll never see any mention of it anywhere, they don't like that attention....


Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!

Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:


$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%)
$7.8 trillion US (@ 5%)
$31.5 trillion US (@ 6%)
$125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%)
$491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)



To give these figures some perspective consider these benchmarks:

A little of $300 billion US buys every ounce of gold in every central bank in the world (see John Kutyn's estimate (www.gold-eagle.com...).
U.S. M3 money supply August 1997 was $5.2 trillion
U.S. debt is currently $5.4 trillion.
U.S. GDP (1997; 2nd Q.) is $8.03 trillion.
George Soros' empire is worth an estimated $20 billion.

Give credit where credit is due.

www.rumormillnews.com...

The problem is that there is no way that the figures quoted would be accurate. They don't take into account historical occurences like the Great Depression or the Second World War where the Rothchilds lost most of their European possessions. In a perfect business world, the figures would be accurate, but that never occured.

What the link also doesn't state is that the quoted 1960 author used the 1850 estimate of wealth because that was when the Rothchild family were believed to be at their richest in comparitive terms.

Neon Helmet asks: "How come they call themselves Jew�s when they are Russians?"

Explained fully in David Ickes latest diatribe, "Tales from the Time Loop..."

www.amazon.com...=1093478565/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-9364500-2723119?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

In brief:

Mongol hordes invade Sumeria. The more energetic, agile and scared Sumerians head for the hills. Literally; they didn't stop running 'til they crossed the Caucasus mountains, where they encountered the Khazars.

The Sumerians and the Khazars got along, intermarried, et cetera. They were trying to decide what religion to adopt. Europe and Christianity to the North, Islam south, lots of pressure to make a decision so they would know which of their neighbors to go to war with.

Along comes a group of Jews, escaping Christian persecution in Constantinople. That Christ-killing thing. These Jews informed the Caucasians that they traded with Moslems and Catholics, fought neither. So the Caucasians converted to Judaism.

Historians say nobody knows what happened to the Khazars. Historians would figure that out if they noted that 70% of the words in the Hungarian language are identical to words in the Sumerian language.

The Khazar-Sumerian-Caucasians became the Jews of Russia and Europe. Currently known as the Ashkenazim.

The Ashkenazim have no claim to be Gods chosen people. They chose Him, He did not choose them.

Original Middle Eastern Jews are Sephardim. The legitimate claimants to Chosen status. When you hear about "Ultra-Orthodox Jews" in Israel, that's the Sephardim.

Sephardim comprise about 9% of the Jews. Askenazim, 90%. The last 1% are the Ethiopian Jews.

The Rothschilds are Ashkenazim. The Star of David is a symbol of the Askenazi Zionism movement. The story that it is an ancient symbol of the Jewish people is bogus.

The Ashkenazim created Israel, and dominate the politics of that country. The Sephardim got along well with the Moslems before the Ashkenazim showed up in bunches and made things all better.

Sephardim are Semitic. Ethiopians and Askenazim are not. So when a person says another person is anti-semitic if he doesn't agree with every move made by Israel, he's talking out his tailfeathers.

Seems like there's a slight misunderstanding of some historical timeframes here:

Originally posted by Researcher

In brief:

Mongol hordes invade Sumeria.

The Sumerians were defeated and the Babylonian empire established by the Amorites before 2000 B.C. Genghis Kahn, the founder of the "Mongol hordes" was born ca. 1100 A.D. Only about 3100 years offset there.

The more energetic, agile and scared Sumerians head for the hills. Literally; they didn't stop running 'til they crossed the Caucasus mountains, where they encountered the Khazars.

As already stated, the Sumerian empire was conquered before 2000 BC. The Khazar Kingdom was founded in the 7th century AD. Here, we have 2600 years offset.

The Sumerians and the Khazars got along, intermarried, et cetera. They were trying to decide what religion to adopt. Europe and Christianity to the North, Islam south, lots of pressure to make a decision so they would know which of their neighbors to go to war with.

Not exactly. Christianity was to the West, Islam to the East. Again, there were no Sumerians there, but you're right about the basic arrangement. To the North were semi-pagan Russians. To the south were more Muslims.

Along comes a group of Jews, escaping Christian persecution in Constantinople. That Christ-killing thing. These Jews informed the Caucasians that they traded with Moslems and Catholics, fought neither. So the Caucasians converted to Judaism.

This is inaccurate, but roughly conveys the apparent reason for the Khazar's decision -- both Christians and Muslims respected the Judaic tradition.

Historians say nobody knows what happened to the Khazars.

Which historians are these? Some might state that the Khazar kingdown went into decline in the 10th century because of attacks from Vikings and Turkic tribes (try this link).

Historians would figure that out if they noted that 70% of the words in the Hungarian language are identical to words in the Sumerian language.

I find this very hard to believe, and I find it even harder to believe that this supposedly incontrovertible fact has been ignored by historians. Do you have some linguistic evidence of this similarity?

The Khazar-Sumerian-Caucasians became the Jews of Russia and Europe. Currently known as the Ashkenazim.

It's true that some people have suggested that the Khazars became the Ashkenazim. I see no evidence of this anywhere.

The Ashkenazim have no claim to be Gods chosen people. They chose Him, He did not choose them.

This would only be true if one held that conversion into Judaism is not valid. I know of no Rabbi which would agree with this view.

Original Middle Eastern Jews are Sephardim.

This is untrue. The Sephardim are the descendants of those Jews who were native to the Iberian Peninsula during the Spanish Inquisition. Try this link.

The legitimate claimants to Chosen status. When you hear about "Ultra-Orthodox Jews" in Israel, that's the Sephardim.

No. The people called "Ultra-Orthodox Jews" are in fact the Haredi. Interestingly enough, the Haredi movement started in Eastern Europe among the Ashkenazim. Try this link. You might also be interested in this link on United Torah Judaism, an Ashkenazim Haredi party.

Sephardim comprise about 9% of the Jews. Askenazim, 90%. The last 1% are the Ethiopian Jews.

I couldn't find any reference to relative proportions anywhere... where did you get this information?

The Rothschilds are Ashkenazim.

Quite possible. They are from Eastern Europe.

The Star of David is a symbol of the Askenazi Zionism movement.

Really? It's possible. Any proof?

The story that it is an ancient symbol of the Jewish people is bogus.

Really? It's possible. The earliest instance I could find apparently comes from the third century. Any proof of your assertion or its significance?

The Ashkenazim created Israel, and dominate the politics of that country. The Sephardim got along well with the Moslems before the Ashkenazim showed up in bunches and made things all better.

Really? It's possible. Any proof?

Sephardim are Semitic.

Possibly, I guess. Depends on the person. What is known is that Sephardim are originally Iberian. That's what the word means.

Ethiopians and Askenazim are not.

Ethnic Ethiopians are obviously not Semitic... however, not everyone who is Ethiopian has autocthonous ancestors, and indeed the people of Ethiopia could wee be descended from Semites. I'm interested in the reasoning that enables you to think that the Sephardim, from Iberia, are Semitic, while the Ashkenazim, from Eastern Europe (which is closer to the traditionally "Semitic" region) are not.

So when a person says another person is anti-semitic if he doesn't agree with every move made by Israel, he's talking out his tailfeathers.

Indeed, this is probably true. However, there are very few people who hold this attitude. When you start talking about how "the Jews" or even "only a small percentage of Jews" are out to take over the world / kill people / control money / etc., then yes, you are probably being an anti-semite.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy


[10] For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

So, having money doesn't make you evil -- it's lusting after it.



As long as money buys absolutely EVERYTHING you need to survive (water, food,fire,shelter etc.) what else can you do but LUST after it? I guess that makes it the root of all evil eh?

Duke of kent is you boss huh.

I thought the Queen would be quite rich as she is still head of the Empire and receives cash from all the other states under her reign? or does that money go to the state as a whole?

I might sound stupid asking this but how did the Duke of West minsiter inherit what he did when he is not of royal blood line? Also He last name apear to be of french origin...???

Anyway leveller thanks for finding/knowing his real name.

[edit on 26-8-2004 by 7th_Chakra]