It is impossible to describe the history of the banking empire and its power over humanity without including the Rothschild dynasty. Even though some rabid ”realists” automatically want to label anyone who so much as mentions the Rothschilds as anti-Semitic, it should be quite clear to anyone who has followed my articles from the beginning that I consider all forms of racism to be foolish. With that said, let us continue the story of the oligarchs.
Having previously been a reasonably prosperous antiques dealer, Mayer Amschel Rothschild had, by 1797, become one of the wealthiest men in Frankfurt. In 1770, he married the daughter of a court banker, which provided him with invaluable connections within the upper levels of the financial world. The couple had ten children, and the sons—Amschel, Salomon, Nathan, Carl, and James—were carefully trained by their father in the world of business.
Beginning in the early 1780s, Mayer Rothschild lent money to various princes and discounted their bills of exchange. Among his most important contacts was also the Thurn und Taxis family (from whom the word taxi is said to originate), who had held a hereditary right to operate postal services since the 1500s. Rothschild spent large sums on bribes, couriers, stagecoaches, and boats in order to transport information and goods across national borders.
Nathan was undoubtedly the most talented and daring of the five sons. Without knowing a single word of English, he traveled to England in 1798 at just 21 years of age and settled in Manchester, where he remained for four years and established himself in the textile industry. At that time, Great Britain was far ahead of all other countries in terms of industrial development, entrepreneurship, and commercial methods, and there was a constant need for money—especially now that the country was at war with Napoleon.
It was under these circumstances that Nathan arrived in London in 1804 and, with his brilliant business acumen, capitalized on the situation.
David S. Landes, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Harvard University, writes in his book Dynasties:
”The situation offered unprecedented opportunities for financial ingenuity and manipulation.”
During the war in 1806, Prince William of Hesse fled to Denmark to escape Napoleon’s tax collectors. William was one of the richest men in the world because of the particular form of slavery practiced by his family: leasing out their subjects as soldiers to various powers, including Great Britain during the war against the colonies. Historian Frederick Morton described Prince William in his biography The Rothschilds as ”the coldest-blooded loan shark in Europe,” and Nathan would later boast that it was Prince William’s money that laid the foundation for everything.
William’s treasurer, Buderus von Carlhausen, became a secret partner of the Rothschilds and entrusted Mayer Amschel with the management of nearly £600,000, a substantial portion of which was invested in Nathan’s ventures and would soon generate enormous profits. Nathan purchased £800,000 worth of gold from the East India Company and then lent it to the British Crown. He subsequently undertook the task of transporting it to Wellington’s army in Portugal and later to France. The assignment was so important, risky, and extensive that Rothschild was offered a commission of 2 percent in addition to his compensation and reimbursement of all expenses.
Historian Egon Caesar Corti recounted in his biography Rise of the House of Rothschild how Mayer Amschel sent his sons James and Carl to France and Italy, respectively, to manage business affairs there. Clearly, the Rothschilds had investments on both sides of the war. The imperial adviser Friedrich von Gentz wrote in his diary about how Rothschild’s brother in Paris acted as an intermediary between French ministers and bankers in Madrid. The Rothschilds would later also lend five million francs to the French king upon his return from exile.
Translation (Swedish → English):
In 1812, Mayer Amschel died, and his will made it clear that his descendants were to marry only within the family and that the business was to be managed exclusively by the men. No daughter or son-in-law was ever to become a partner or be given insight into the firm’s affairs. Corti wrote that Mayer Amschel ”had laid the foundation for a world power that, during the first half of the nineteenth century, would exercise an unparalleled influence over all of Europe and would retain this influence with almost undiminished force throughout the second half of the century.”
In 1814, the armies of Napoleon and Wellington met at Waterloo. Early reports suggested a victory for Napoleon, but after more than eight hours of fighting—and with the assistance of Blücher’s German army, which joined the battle in the afternoon—Wellington ultimately prevailed. Nathan is said to have had a courier stationed nearby who, immediately after the battle, rode to Brussels and then continued to Ostend before crossing by boat to England, where the outcome of the battle was still unknown.
When Rothschild, who was known for being exceptionally well informed, began selling large quantities of government bonds, it was interpreted as a sign that Wellington had lost, causing bond prices to plummet. As numerous market participants rushed to sell their bonds in panic, Rothschild’s agents reportedly bought them up. When news of Wellington’s victory finally reached England, bond prices soared, and Rothschild made an enormous profit.
Bank director Christian von Roth, who had close connections with the Rothschilds, wrote that Nathan’s power was enormous and that he completely controlled the exchange rate in London. Nikolaus Barbier, an official in the Austrian Treasury who had several contacts within the family, stated that the Rothschilds were wealthier than all other British businessmen combined.
The Rothschilds themselves maintain that the entire story of the courier is a myth originating from an anti-Semitic pamphlet published in 1846. However, researchers such as the previously mentioned Frederick Morton—himself Jewish—and Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University, the first scholar to gain access to the Rothschild family archives, both contend that Nathan did indeed have a courier present at the Battle of Waterloo and that this courier was the first to bring news of Napoleon’s defeat to England.
When journalist and author Ignatius Balla retold the story in a book about the Rothschilds in 1913, the Rothschild family sued him for libel the following year. However, the court ruled in the author’s favor, and the Rothschilds were ordered to pay the legal costs. (The New York Times: ”ROTHSCHILDS SUE TO SUPPRESS BOOK; Seek Injunction in England to Prevent Publication of a ’Romance’ of Their Family.”)
Professor Landes writes in Dynasties about how the Rothschilds and many of the other great family-owned enterprises of the world have often been overlooked by researchers, despite the enormous role many of them have played in history. Several of these families, Landes explains, have roots stretching back hundreds of years and have been controlled by the same family throughout that time.
James Madison, President of the United States from 1809 to 1817, said the following:
”History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the issuance of money.”
The war hero Andrew Jackson was also a strong opponent of the banking elite. In 1829 he became President and later vetoed the bank charter, writing:
”More than eight million of the bank’s stock is owned by foreign interests. Is it not dangerous to our liberty and independence that a bank with so little connection to our country should control our currency and hold thousands of citizens in dependence?”
Congress, however, failed to override the veto, and the bankers were furious. When Jackson ran for reelection in 1832, they backed his opponent, Henry Clay, with three million dollars and also controlled large portions of the press (in other words, much as they allegedly do today). Jackson understood what was at stake and embarked on a campaign tour—an almost unheard-of phenomenon at the time—and won by a landslide.
When the Secretary of the Treasury refused to transfer government deposits from the central bank to state banks, Jackson dismissed him. His replacement also refused. Jackson’s third choice, Treasury Secretary Taney, finally carried out the order, whereupon bank president Biddle attempted to persuade the Senate to reject Taney’s appointment.
”Nothing but widespread suffering will have any effect on Congress,” Biddle reportedly said.
The bankers then called in loans and refused to issue new ones. As intended, this triggered a national financial crisis, unemployment, and economic depression, all of which were blamed on Jackson.
If Congress could secure enough support through a majority vote, the veto could be overridden. The unrest, bribery, and the bankers’ campaign suggested that Jackson would lose. However, Pennsylvania Governor George Wolf stepped forward and supported Jackson’s veto. At the same time, it became public knowledge that Biddle had openly boasted about the bank’s plans to crash the economy. As a result, the House of Representatives voted against renewing the bank’s charter.
Ett misslyckat mordattentat utövades sen mot Jackson men de av hans efterträdare som utmanade bankirerna skulle inte ha samma tur. Under amerikanska inbördeskriget på 1860-talet lät Lincoln staten trycka egna räntefria pengar, så kallade greenbacks, något som fick bankirerna att åter se rött. Efter valsegern 1864 skrev Lincoln:
”Pengamakten rovnär sig på nationer under fredstid och konspirerar mot dem under motgångar. Den är mer despotisk än monarkin och fulare än diktaturer.”
Lite oväntat kom Tsar Alexander II till undsättning. Tsaren förstod att om bankirerna fick makten över USA så stod de på tur. Därför sände han en flotta för att bistå Lincoln om England eller Frankrike skulle lägga sig i. Nordsidan vann men den 14 april 1865 sköts Lincoln ihjäl på Fords Teater i Washington.
Den tyske kanslern Otto Von Bismarck gjorde påstods senare ha gjort följande analys:
”Uppdelningen av Förenta Staterna i jämnstarka federationer var bestämd långt före inbördeskriget av de mäktiga finanskrafterna i Europa. Dessa bankirer var rädda för att USA skulle få ekonomisk och finansiell självständighet vilket skulle hota deras finansiella dominans över världen.
The voices of the Rothschilds prevailed. They foresaw the enormous gains they could make if they could obtain two weak, debt-ridden democracies instead of a powerful, secure, and self-sufficient republic. Therefore, they sent out their agents to capitalize on the slavery issue and create a deep divide between the two parts of the republic.”
Also read part 1, part 2 and part 4
Michael Delavante, How the Oligarchs Deceive the Masses – part 3
