Posted on 02/22/2013 9:37:06 AM PST by Mortrey
Which "realm" would that be? The Icelandic Republic that the article falsely claims has been "dismantled"?
you don’t get out much
Actually, conspiracy theories are for people who don't get out much.
Those of us who do not live in our mothers' basements have enough life experience to know that conspiracies are tough to keep going for a few days, let alone centuries.
That Anti Semitic San Fransisco Comic Book needs to thrown into the Deepest Part of the Ocean and never seen again!
But when it came out the response from the left was simply "meh"
Disgusting!
You are either one of the self appointed(?) defenders of the realm
Which "realm" would that be? The Icelandic Republic that the article falsely claims has been "dismantled"?
I think he means the Kingdom of Heaven. Isn't that where the Jewish/Zionist/banker/commie conspiracy is headquartered?
You are very confused. Lemme guess, you attended public schools?
I have no intention of doing your homework for you. It has become obvious you intend to defend the indefensible and I’m not inclined towards arguing with fools. I don’t need the practice. You know the old saw, eh?
We all know now that you didn't read the article - you just assumed that it had to be accurate because it reinforced your unexamined opinions.
OK You have your take on events that differ very much from my take about the Rothchilds, history and family. I am not in any way,as far as I know, related to the very extensive and historical Rothchilkds and this probably affects my take. However, my take, and more, is covered by many presentations on the internet web. There is some very interesting reading there that corresponds/jibes with my understanding of history since youthful days even before WWII.
Har! Clairvoyance is not your strong suit so don’t give up your day job. Defending the realm is it? I think I’ll forego any further attempts at dialog with you since it’s abundantly clear you can contribute nothing to the conversation. So again, bye.
I just came back from Rockland County, New York, a place called Monsey which is overwhelmingly Jewish. None of them behave how you claim they do. My many Jewish friends are overwhelmingly Republican. You should try to meet more Jewish people.
Odd compulsion.
Your statements are false. This is not a matter of opinions. It is a matter of history.
I lived in Rockland County myself
Upper Nyack
Lexow and upper broadway
Monsey is Orthodox Jewish country
The very Jews who account the 20 to 30 percent who actually are conservatives
That does not however diminish the fact that the vast majority are indeed liberals or worse serious progressives
Who have it in for traditional values and the America I grew up in
Voting statistics do not lie
They are what they are and have been for a very long time
Jewish progressives do not get a pass because they are Jewish
Nor do black progressives or Latino progressives
The sensitive minded on this forum appear overly concerned about hurting the feelings of minorities
And yet they do not hesitate to disparage my particular great
White conservative country or Southern people are generalized about here ad nauseum
Yet generalize about a protected group and the p.c Long Knives come out
Even though I qualify and qualify and qualify every critical word about Jewish progressives with plenty of praise for those Jews who do not follow that garbage
They along with plenty others seek to transform my country into something I will not recognize
I will not be quiet just because some folks cannot handle the truth
I noticed that Mark Levin... Michael Savage... Daniel lapin.. and David Horowitz are very vocal about this very topic
But me wardaddy the redneck goyim supposed to just shut up and take it
Well what David Gilmour said about the Pink Floyd reunion
That ain’t going to happen
God bless you in any event
You’re a decent movie critic
I have been in relationships with Jewish women....have Jews..libs all...in my extended family
Lived in Manhattan...Miami....worked in Ramat Gann
Had Israeli partners....diff animal entirely
And know plenty in Dixie...who btw tend to be more like the rest of us...conservative
Not sure how much more Jewish experience I need...I bet I have 100 times that of the average rural goy
And my eyes are wide open...
My opinions are not only from the internet but from reputable reference books. You appear to be very touchy about the history of the Rothchilds. I don’t think you can change recorded history by denying the writings. It would be much better, at least to convince me and others, if you would cite the many good deeds the international bankers, including the Rothchilds, have have done with involvement in affairs of nations.
Lemme guess, you're a John Bircher?
I used to be one too!
Your opinions are demonstrably false.
You appear to be very touchy about the history of the Rothchilds.
More accurately, you appear to have an unnatural obsession with the Rothschild family, attributing actions to them that they did not undertake.
I don’t think you can change recorded history by denying the writings.
Again, you are the one who has made historical assertions that are clearly false. I notice that you have failed to cite even one bit of specific evidence to defend your claims, but have instead made vague references to "the internet" and "reference books."
It would be much better, at least to convince me and others, if you would cite the many good deeds the international bankers, including the Rothchilds, have have done with involvement in affairs of nations.
The job of bankers is to provide credit to their customers and to do it honestly.
If they do not, they lose credibility and therefore customers.
The Rothschild brand is still a respected one among normal people (as opposed to obsessive anti-Semitic internet cranks) after three centuries , precisely because of the quality of their customer service over that time period.
You have a conspiratorial mindset which is apparently self-justifying because you can't produce a shred of evidence.
Let's take one example:
You claimed that George Soros was given his "start up funds" by the Rothschild family.
This is completely false, but let's unpack it a bit.
What do we mean by "start up funds"? Soros was a self-made businessman in interwar Hungary.
If these are the funds you mean, his initial funds were provided to him from money he and his employer stole or extorted from vulnerable Jewish families.
If some of his victims were related to the Rothschild family, would you consider this the Rothschilds giving Soros "start up funds"?
Or we could talk about Soros' first public investment fund, which received its anchor funding from First Eagle in 1967 as I recall. First Eagle was an investment division of Arnhold and Bleichroder.
Arnhold Brothers acquired Bleichroder in 1931.
Before Bleichroder was acquired, it was an independent banking house since 1803.
The Rothschild family owned shares in Bleichroder early on - it is unclear if they were bought out in 1931 or if they had sold their shares before Arnhold acquired Bleichroder.
That is about the closest relationship between Soros and the Rothschild family that can be verified historically.
In other words, the investment fund that seeded Soros' first public fund was owned by a bank that 35 years before had purchased another bank and that other bank once had Rothschild family members as investors.
That's pretty weak tea for someone who understands economics and history.
However, if one is unintelligent and anti-Semitic, this sort of "connect the dots" work becomes "proof" that a member of the Rothschild family called Soros into some secret meeting and wrote him a personal check to launch his fund.
However, I note a parallel phenomenon at work on these threads.
That is, the notion that economic success is probably immoral by nature and certainly morally inferior to political success.
The fact is that successful politicians and successful generals are as much directed by personal ambition as successful businessmen.
Many Europeans revere Napoleon as an almost semi-divine figure. Those same Europeans usually despise his contemporary Mayer Rothschild, who in my opinion was equally important historically and a much more benign figure.
If we set aside the most sinister motives for this discrepancy in relative appreciation, it comes down to this: Napoleon was successful at war and politics, while Rothschild was "only" successful at commerce.
When Napoleon indulges in naked self-interest under the guise of "the nation" he is a noble hero.
When Rothschild intelligently manages a strong return on capital for himself and his business partners, he is a crass opportunist.
This notion that people involved in voluntary commerce are morally inferior to people involved in coercive government action seems to suffuse the clouded minds of the left and the so-called "Old Right."
I point out again that you and I are from different views as to the matters of international bankers on the history of the USA including the history of the Rothchilds. You probably have an extensive background, perhaps even personal, as to your views as shown by your criticism of my remarks. You deride my use of history information as some conjured mental fantasy. I will tell you my views have been shaped by many years going back to before WWII. I served in that war overseas and my only sibling brother died fighting for the USA. I have attended excellent schools in my lifetime culminating in one of the most renowned universities in the world with an education that does not brook superficial analysis. I am a first generation of Russian immigrants before the Bolshevik revolution won out. My mother was of German Russians and my father was a ‘White’ Russian who fought the Bolsheviks which the Rothchilds supported as pay-back because the Czar would not join in on a pan-European union. I do not like communism whether it be by gun or money. As such I have a family as well as historical interest in what I speak of. As to matters of international bankers influence on the USA it will be interesting to see and judge Congress and Obama on the matter that the 100 year contract signed in 1913 that allowed the European controlled Federal Reserve to be the banker for the USA will be renewed in with the same group.
1)Why do you ignore the First and Second Banks of the United States (1791-1811 and 1816-1836), the former of which was signed into law by President George Washington?
2)Where do you stand on HaShem and the Torah?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.