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.
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.