Rothschild own UK

File: image.jpg (156KB, 750x1211px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 750x1211px

>>134106498

It's ok dude, they bowed to the Bogdanoffs.

>>134106498
newfag detected.

Here are the names of the fmilies that own all the central banks of the world except for North Korea and perhaps Syria (a.k.a THE NINE):

The Rothschilds
The Goldman Sachs
The Rockerfellers
The Lehmans
The Kuhn Loebs
The Warburgs
The Lazards
The Israel Moses Seiffs
The Schiffs

File: ponzi.jpg (206KB, 1067x600px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1067x600px

Stop complaining about things you have no control over.
Don't you have an interest payment on your mortgage coming up?
Seems like you have more important things to worry about.

>>134106498
You should read Tragedy and Hope, the situation is a good deal more complex than that. It's a long book but quite readable. Quigleys other stuff is good too.

Now don't just take everything he says as the final word but it is definitely worth reading, gives a lit of information in an easily graspable way.

>>134106498
The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 when we were utterly broke. Also, the Rothschilds weren't even the largest aristocratic shareholders, not the mention the King Williams major stakehold.

>>134106498
>The Rothschilds control the world.

$20 says it's the Khazars, and they've been using tactics like these for centuries on other nations before they took the bank of England.

>>134106498
Saturn is the final redpill, Rothschilds are the people who keep the status quo and the slow spiral downward.

>>134106498
How come there is only one Rothschild listed on Forbes list of billionaires? From Billy Gates to those with only 1 billion, one is named Rothschild

>>134106825
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QJm1tzKrhs

>>134106825

Actually you forget so many companies that it's mindblown.

You even forgot CIA / AIG ,which was bail-outed in 2008.

>>134107546

The Rothschilds work in secret. Guess who controls the bilderberg meetings?

>>134107725
families > companies

>>134107806

Not really.

You see, all Rothschild's did, was to spread credit, not ownership.

>>134107127
This
>The Bank of England is owned by the UK government. Parliament has given us powers through legislation, which means that we are accountable to both Parliament and the public.

>>134107806

Rotchild's did provide capital for Russian Oil companies, as well as for Dutch-UK joint partnership for Royal Dutch Shell.

And so many of others. JP Morgan is not exception as well, but most of this funding was done via loans - credit expansion, not ownership stake.

So , in logical terms, all they did, was expand "banknotes supply" all over world, but not their own - ownership.

>>134107873
The Nine crete all of the world's money. Ownership does not mean owning property or favour. It means owning the next x generations of human beings. You, your son and daughters, theirs and so on.

Why? Because all money is creted at interest which can never be paid back without creating more money (debt). This enslaves future generations and results in ownership of the world. Forever.

>>134108194
Okay so how did anybody live before 1800?
You think everybody was super rich and free before somebody came up with the idea of credit and debt?

>>134108194

You can always "default" on these loans and such things do happen often times, therefore such ownership is merely 'terminology' used.

Without Credit and fixed money supply, you can't achieve growth as a whole.

>>134108505

Therefore Credit and indebtedness is critical part of our financial system.

Debt is to be. Always and forever.

>>134106498
The ((Rothschilds)) are the PR group for the actual shadow government. They're low-level players.

>>134108612

>t. kike

Money and banking are lifelong brothers. Actually, banking can be traced to the historical times when first units of 'exchange' was used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking

We literally gave them Israel in 1917.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
This was my very first redpill.

>>134108381
Of course not. We arrived at thncurrent situation by degrees; the 'boiling frog' principle applies. We're now in the situation where almost every government on the planet has a national debt and is beholden to creditors while relying on future generations to repay debt which can never be repaid.

Credit and debt have been an integral part of the economies of the world. It is a question of scale. If private financiers fund governments to go to war with other governments funded by the same private financiers, then we quickly reach an inextricable situation which results in abject slavery of the populace and generations to come.

Defaulting has its own horrific outcomes. Fireales ensue and real wealth is simply bought for pennies on the dollar by the very same people that create the money. They have us all by the balls and they just keep squeezing.

>>134106498
Once the British Empire collapsed, the Jews needed a new powerful country to control :^)

>>134109310

You are making an assumption, that same people always manage to get their hands on cheaper assets after financial collapses, panics or even crashes, which is not even close to truth.

Finance is place with fearsome competition, there are those that lose, and those that win.

Inflation, and various tends of stuff tarnishes away wealth.

Open up archives of Rotchild's history and check out how many of them were without children to pass wealth too.

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/exhibitions/timeline/

>>134109784
I'm afraid you may be being naive. Trade and commerce is an untra-competitive environment, certainly. But look deeper and think about who owns the central banks that control the monetary policy of the nations of the world. Then look at the banks that create the money by fiat and you will find that there is tremendous overlap between owning entities. The Nine are at once at the top of the pyramid and the foundation of the global system of banking and commerce.

>>134107546
because some people are both wealthy AND secret about it. and when you're that wealthy, you can do anything you want, like pay people to keep your name secret.

>>134109310
What happens if somebody isn't in debt? Does that mean they have no use to these "evil overlords"

I have never borrowed money.

Muslims for example are not allowed to borrow money, why import them all if they can't make profit from them?

None of this makes any sense

>>134111128
Other people borrowed money for you, don't worry.

>>134110292

Central Banks regulate commercial banks , via interest rates and other policies, however, you are right to a certain degree.

Commercial Banks, by issuing loans create money. (Fractional Reserve Banking).

The owners off central banks, may very well be commercial banks and I'd argue that they are. Say NY example: Board of New York Reserve bank.

A lot of these 'powerful' houses, commercial giants, were founded on banknotes earned via oil sales or gold mining sales.

Therefore, usually the banks were created by merchants whom were already rich trough oil, steel or precious metals trade or else.

It's so happens, that a lot of loans - capital were provided by Rotchild and Rockefeller related families. Although, most of credit with whom capital was provided, newer stood at controlling stake in say, Wells Fargo or other financial institutions, therefore it's sufficient to state, that wealth is not simply maintained in one 'hands' , but to certain degree some is.

Check out "Old Money" families of New York.

Vanguard funds, are largest capital providers in equity markets and most of the cash pooled there, are by simple families , pools of money.

>>134111128
>Muslims for example are not allowed to borrow money, why import them all if they can't make profit from them?
to destroy white European culture and spark a right wing movement to justify israeli expansionism

>>134110292
>134110292

Having fun discussing with you,

>>134111128

Not borrowing is not an achievement.

Borrowing in case of attaining wealth is extraordinary good.

Borrowing in case of buying assets is bad. Because their value depreciates, and you have to repay more.

Vice versa, if you take credit buying wealth generating assets, to certain degree it depends on your investment return, (ROC). Return on Capital Invested. It may be good it may be bad.

>>134110292

You can borrow 2 billion via equity issuance giving ownership of your enterprise of no more say 5%, maintaining 95%, all of wealth generated via business, would go in your pocket, and only 5% of Assets base, would be in ownership of say "Rothschild" that provided you that amount. Therefore, wealth is not something that is kept in 'one' hand only.

>>134111271
So they're willing to sacifice their money making scheme which is the source of all their power to make Israel a little bigger.

What then?

Still makes no sense.

>>134111264
You do know that's how money works right?

I have a cow, but I can't be arsed to carry the cow everywhere so I write on a piece of paper "IOU one Cow"
That piece of paper now has the worth of a cow, I give that to somebody and then I owe them a cow, I'm in debt of a cow.

So I go to work, people give me money for that which is saying "I owe you something" for your work, but instead of me going to get that 'something' I can just hand that to somebody else. The money means that they now owe that person that 'something'.
Since nobody ever wanted to redeem for that 'something' we took that away, that's all.

>>134107546
Because they're considered royalty, and therefore are treated differently, I believe.

>>134112558

I'd bet my money, that they are not rich at all, compared with others ;)

too bad this topic died.... :(