[deleted]

Listen, can we get a thorough documentation of the world and its financial systems on September 11th, 2001, and the same ten years later? I'd like a well-sourced explication of the notion that central banks owned by Rothschild families now pervade the world, please. It is difficult to go on believing something without proof of what should already be documented regardless of nefariousness.

Listen, can we get a thorough documentation of the world and its financial systems on September 11th, 2001, and the same ten years later?

Good luck finding some, none really exists publicly. In fact, I'd be impressed if you could find an official list of the banks that own parts of the various private central banks around the world, let alone the actual individual shareholders.

All right, I accept that. Isn't there anything even close that's sourced on reliable, if not official, information?

There isn't which is really a huge part of the issue.

These people and banks quite literally own the money supply itself and the means to create more out of thin air and this is true for a huge majority of the currency in circulation around the world - yet there isn't any transparency whatsoever and none of these people have been elected by anyone.

But if creating money in a world of electronic fiat currency is as easy as understanding the systems and having access, couldn't the intelligence agencies themselves be in control of the flow?

Of course they could, and especially when you consider the information a group like the NSA could have access to. And high frequency trading accounts for a substantial percentage of day-to-day activity in markets around the world (there's probably no way to get an accurate number) which is another way electronic transmissions could be compromised at some level.

I think what you would want to start researching is the history and creation of the BIS - the bank of international settlements. They are like the central bank of Central banks.

Yep I agree and I have quite a bit, what I found is that it was created with the help of western oligarchs and financial interests along with a bunch of European aristocrats and Nazis.

jo biden, look into Ukraine.

Here is a start:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/libya

It isn't like any of this is a secret. It is simply not part of the narrative fed to the average information consumer.

It isn't like any of this is a secret. It is simply not part of the narrative fed to the average information consumer.

All right, then why isn't one of the many posts I've seen about this over the course of a year simply a sourced list of what I've already discussed?

If you expect rational, reasonable discourse from us you're barking up the wrong tree. We exist in a world of stress. We eat poison every day. Some of us have PTSD, and wake up on the floor in the next room a few times a month. Afraid to kill ourselves only because we know the balance of our life has been to cause suffering to people who, ultimately, weren't our enemy. And if there is another level of hell below this, maybe we can earn our way the other direction this time.

And we can't afford bodyguards, and security systems, healthy food. So we suffer in terror, or just eventually accept the fact that our things will go missing, we will be shot at even after coming home because our cities are in such bad shape, and if we watch the news we might just GO FUCKING INSANE and use the IED we learned how to make on people who we know, through their absence, will make the world a better place.

us

Hm.

You have an interesting account with an interesting (and short) history. Are you trying to encourage discussion about blowing people up with bombs? I wonder how many triggers you set off with that kind of thing.

I don't support the notion of carrying out such actions, myself.

You're certainly not gonna get far in politics with that attitude.

Are you offering me a position somewhere?

We have to remove part of your brain first. Don't worry, the subsequent implantation will more than compensate!

%gh%

Intriguing. /u/aharonn deleted his account less than 24 hours after this exchange. The account was 5 days old, had 50 link karma, zero comment karma, and a lot of... odd things to say.

How is this getting downvoted? I logged in just to say thanks for posting it.

Pretty sure it's because the world is full of happy puppydogs and butterflies. I'm just a terrible cynic who has no idea what I'm talking about.

Then do it.

How does this offer anything of value? It is just as trivial as if I were to tell you to do it. Why wouldn't someone making these claims want to substantiate them? Why can't one of the many posts about the Rothschild ownership of all central banking systems in the world that has spread to all but a handful of countries be clear illustration of even tangential Rothschild connection to the extant central banks of the nations of the world?

Do you believe mainstream narratives without evidence? If not, why do you believe this one? If the evidence is clear and everyone who espouses this narrative examines it, point me to something other than a five hour YouTube documentary or a disorganized website that shows the current complete Rothschild domination of the financial system.

The Rothschilds have undeniable global influence over the course of the last several hundred years. But what is it that now says they control every single aspect of finance the world over? Why is there not a list composed of the central banks and their owners that demonstrates this apparently clear-cut association?

Exactly, how do those that claim this is true know that it is true? Wouldn't we all be better served by knowing the truth rather than believing what we are told without sufficient evidence to believe? I am sure, if they are really so certain, that there must be some evidence that can be provided. Knowledge is power, pass out the ammunition FFS.

Interesting how homicide is acceptable as soon as we put the rubber-stamp approval of "legality" on it. If someone says "kill the Rothschilds" it is unacceptable, but "try the Rothschilds in court, then kill them" is fine.

It's a good example of how the criminal justice system exists primarily for the protection of persons in power. There is no chance for individuals in positions of power to end up in the legal system, convicted and executed. They're effectively immune from this kind of "justice."

If anything, a vigilante mob dragging them out into the street is both more honest and more realistic.

Thanks. I was the original post.

Are you suggesting that vigilante mobs would be a better alternative to the current justice system? I'm not saying it's perfect, but, vigilante mobs? C'mon man

What I am saying is that the current justice system has failed. It does not work. People in positions of power - politicians in particular - can literally commit war crimes and genocide, and walk around as free men and women.

There is no legal remedy, then. If any form of justice is to be done, or more importantly if these people are to be stopped, then it will take the form of vigilante squads, militias, individual activsts, peoples courts, etc.

Completely failed? I agree that there are problems with it, but to say that it has completely failed is a bold claim that I don't think has much substance.

How many politicians are paying for major crimes in supermax prisons and in the gas chamber? About zero.

What about corporate overseers and oligarchs? Also zero.

I'd say that is a 100% failure rate.

Okay, so your point is that the law doesn't apply to those with money/power/influence, and I agree with that to a slightly lesser extent but still mostly.

Maybe we're split on different definitions of the word justice, I think it means more than the act of trying/punishing oligarchs, but extends further.

Putting aside mob rule, how do you think the system could be transformed/improved?

Yes I'm speaking in the context of the powerful. The justice system works well for punishing poor people. (Even if they turn out to be innocent.) Ultimately the problem is the nature of power itself. We all say "power corrutps," but we're too hesitant when it comes to applying technology to limit power.

Decentralization of power structures, such as replacing the state with community-level direct democracies, would eliminate a lot of the too-big-to-touch situations we see with politicians and oligarchs.

This guy speaks the truth right here. To the guy arguing, our justice system is an absolute failure and is on the side of the elite and a big tool to keep lower class in chains. There have been very rich people some apart of dynastys that have gotten in trouble and with their money they get a slap on the wrist compared to a poor or working class guy with a public defender who gets fed to the dogs and without the money, connections and no paid attorney hes gonna face alot more than the rich folk......even with a lower status of offence. Those rich socalled elites commit horrible acts and still get away with it. One from the du pont family was convicted of molesting his INFANT daughter and was sentenced to prison but the judge ruled he wouldnt fair well there and gave him house arrest........there are many more examples.

du pont family was convicted of molesting his INFANT daughter

In case you thought he was talking out of his ass....

[deleted]

If only it was upheld...

The justice system doesn't even work for poor people because the punishments that are handed out are disproportionate to the crimes committed. The whole thing is a farce.

Decentralization of power structures, such as replacing the state with community-level direct democracies

By the state here, do you mean replacing the state/federal government as a whole with a federation of small communities?

Perhaps he is referring to establishing town or county courts with elected judges and prosecutors to handle criminal matters. This, of course, is much easier said than done. The state remains sovereign in its responsibility for handling such matters, and to have so many sovereigns would create a nightmare whereby there would be so many sets of disparate rules, law enforcement procedures, methods of adjudication and punishment, making the legal system even more difficult to navigate for the layman. Uniformity does have its advantages in keeping much of the power to adjudicate civil and criminal matters with the judiciary of the individual states. And to politicize the the role of the judge or prosecutor could be equally dangerous, seeing as elections always come down to money and power.

Yes you hit on the several of the points that I was trying to make to him in a later comment:

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/36ekmj/lethally_inject_the_rothschilds_after_charging/creajru?context=3

Yes, a federation of small communities would be a good solution. It's definitely worth a try.

Interesting! Let's go with it (I'm enjoying this discussion btw, I you are as well.)

If I understand correctly, each community will have:

• A judicial system
• A police to enforce the judicial system
• A legislative system (you mentioned before a direct democracy, I think)
• Some form of currency for trade with neighboring communities

Some questions I have:

• Private Property rights (less of a question and more of an ask that you address that component)
• As each community has it's own judicial system, how do you settle disputes between communities?
• In a globalized economy with other countries that have amalgamated their ultimate force (a gov't), what stops those countries from dominating us?

Nonsense. There are all sorts of politicians and business figures in jail or paying heavy penalties for crimes they've committed.

It's just not the ones you want to see locked up, so you're ready to burn down the system and start killing people in the streets.

While screaming about "The Constitution!!" and "Rule of Law!!" no doubt.

Name them

You think it's impossible to produce a list of politicians/business figures in jail? You're kidding yourself.

ave you ever been through our glorious judicial branches or perhaps been to our Corrections facilities? You will get a different view about this all if you had. I say sop paying taxes, its the only non-violent way to get a real point across. And be prepared to get your head smashed in, because it will all be for shit unless people have the balls to stand up for it, even if it is a little inconvenient.

Sure, vigilante mobs are just reacting to previous unprovoked crime.

The current justice system shoots first then yells "Freeze".

but "try the Rothschilds in court, then kill them" is fine.

Not really, because there is no court with jurisdiction over "the Rothschilds" that would carry out the death penalty for whatever crimes Flytape imagines they have committed.

No, this is the same call for blood but with a totally transparent cloak of "due process" intended to make it seem less abhorrent and fascistic.

If anything, a vigilante mob dragging them out into the street is both more honest and more realistic.

You hear all the far-right libertarians (et al.) pining for "The Constitution" and "The Rule of Law" and "liberty." But you help demonstrate it's all an act. While praising The Constitution out of one side of their mouths, they call for murder out of the right.

If you were just an outlier, I wouldn't say anything. But this has become typical of American conservatism. You are just one of millions who speak this way.

People fear the alien. They especially fear innately strange people who threaten to kill them on a continual basis. So far, to my understanding, we're basically in a situation where everyone's threatening to kill everyone else, a situation which does not breed a lot of mutual trust.

Some of us are just hot for consistency.

Though I disagree with murder in all forms, even when sanctioned by the state, I get your point and have upvoted in solidarity against the hypocritical thought police admins.

On the other hand though, as Denis Diderot once said:

Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest.

In this case, we could replace the king with a representative of the family mentioned by OP.

You disagree with murder in all forms, but you approve it here.

Funny how that works.

I think you missed the point both OP and I were making

Because he called for the ending of a life that has caused an unfathomable amount of sorrow and death along with all the poverty and oppression? How stupid can you possibly be? Don't answer that, because i'm sure you can show an incredible amount of inept on this.

Don't be a fucking dick.

I don't feel that i am. I don't see why anyone should have a single ounce of remorse for those animals and i don't take it lightly. See, i can see past the whole sympathy aspect the way you can't. Sympathy and empathy is usually a sign of weakness.

You're attacking your brothers and sisters. That makes you a wee little bit the same as any oppressor.

And you really shouldn't presume shit about what I can and can't do, either, based on me telling you to calm down.

I'm not presuming. If you consider me presuming, then you lied about your original sentiment. So, did you? I'm not mad man. And i don't consider a supporter of that family a brother or sister to be honest.

The Rothschilds funded both sides of the war against Napoleon

Yeah. And if this happens to be true, the people responsible are long dead. Are you advocating the murder of the current generation based on crimes [you claim] they committed 200 years ago?

In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:

Can I see your sources showing that the US Federal Reserve is owned by "a Rothschild?"

For that matter, can you produce evidence that "a Rothschild" owns all the central banks in all the other hundreds of countries in the world?

Making such an amazing claim, surely you don't expect people to just take your word for it.

If this is true, I imagine it's pretty easy to prove. If "a Rothschild" owned all the banks in the world [but 7], you would think it would be a very well known fact! Why isn't it?

Genuinely interested in these answers.

Literally didn't answer any of his questions though did you...

So you are comparing modern day mentality to the Nazis? Come the fuck on man. You are adding fuel to the fire for anyone that wants to make fun of the users within this sub.

Please don't just dismiss what I am saying. For every step we make within this sub showing we are not all loons and wack jobs some shit like what you just said gets posted. When a mod says shit like that it is construed as the voice of user base.

Crimes against humanity are not delt with in todays judicial system that even come close to this instance.

You may not agree with commiting murder but you are pretty much saying its how you perceive the world in your statement. So bleak and dismal.

Dismissed. Nuremberg trials were OF Nazis, not by Nazis.

If you factor in the money they suck out of the world every day it could account for at least a couple hundred deaths a year, this is not including the funding of both sides of various wars, the loss of many jobs, and the misdirection and enslavement of the entire planet, in conclusion what you consider crazy is not that crazy, if we dragged them onto the street right now and slaughtered them then many lives would be saved, I know its not ideal and there is no due process, but the problem is that they are above due process, and all that "evidence" u talk about is gone for a reason, so that people like you can say that believing they own the world is crazy nazi talk, they want you to keep looking for proof so that they can hide themselves in the defenders chair in the supreme court

Nazi talk? Bit extreme there isn't it?

I don't think we need proof. We need to use fear. Show anyone that would take their place what we will do as a group.

I assure you killing isn't the answer.

So how would you use fear to stop that unstoppable force, fear is their weapon, fines, jail, etc means nothing to them, sometimes they prefer to be fined if the financial benefit is greater in the end, if you want to show everyone what happens if you take their place then I can't think of a better way

How does bitcoin play into this theory because it's not centralized and yet is being adopted by major financial institutions?

The blockchain enables large-scale, transparent direct democracy w/o having to put trust in any third party. Bitcoin, as it exists today, can be used for trust-less, decentralized, transparent voting.

I know all that as I've followed it since it's conception. What I would like to know is why isn't it under siege from the Rothschild dynasty in the same way that these other countries have been. My own personal opinion is they see an opportunity to use the technology for a one world currency however I think the grass roots development in cryptocurrency is leaning more toward privacy and anonymity.

I would speculate that they would like to besiege bitcoin, but they realize only the most extreme and publicly visible forms of attack would be effective. Take bit torrent for example; the government spent billions trying to clandestinely disrupt / hack bit torrent with literally zero effect. Like bit torrent, bitcoin is designed from the ground up to be very resistant to attack. Short of making bitcoin illegal, which risks drawing attention and further popularizing it, what can they really do?

I agree and on top of bitcoin being hard to attack there are new cryptocurrencies that use Tor and even steganography to encrypt transactions for added privacy. So its becoming even harder for them to siege crypto.

If you can print "money" out of thin air, and you acquire bitcoin with money...what do you think will happen?

The amount of bitcoin you can acquire with printed money will be less and less and the value of bitcoin will go higher and higher.

And will continue to be bought with nothing other than promise backed paper.

Until people are no longer willing to sell them for useless paper. I understand what your trying to insinuate but being educated on how cryptocurrency works and what gives it value i disagree that it's value is pegged to paper money. Obviously not or it would be worth a lot less.

Until people are no longer willing to sell them for useless paper.

Do you think the people abusing the monetary system currently are oblivious to this? If it were me and I was intent on continuing to exert financial dominance, I would buy a bunch of stuff(grains, metals, cars, houses, ect...) to continue amassing bitcoin with. And as I would be printing 'promise ' money to buy those resources, I could have a limitless supply of goods to trade for bitcoin. There is no way to escape the grasp of those who currently dominate the financial world while non-local currency rules.

I'm all for forgiveness and rehabilitation etc etc, but if ever there was a case for public safety, this is it.

Like if you endanger a dozen people, you're a crimial, but if you endanger a billion people... it's okay as long as you grease enough palms with all that money? Pretty messed up

I say, we should not kill anyone from this network of psychopaths. We have a systemic vulnerability to their corruptions. We need to imprison them for the rest of their lives and study them.

One thing about psychopaths is that they do what is good for themselves, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, calculating the risk involved. So, take that predictable behavioral protocol into account to create a system whereby we can retrieve the important contents of their minds.

They also often have strong egos, so gratifying them by praising their intelligence, apparent superiority and magnificence can also get us places.

For this to work well, contrast is very important, so start them off in poor, yet healthy, conditions in prison. Then after a time, a year or so perhaps, offer them upgraded conditions in exchange for verifiable information on the methods, operations, protocols, and skeletons of their network of co-conspirators. Don't give them all of the upgrades at once, but slowly, incrementally over time, in order to milk them of all of what they know. Freedom from prison is not to be an upgrade. Also, keeping them from communicating with each other could avoid unnecessary shenanigans and coordinated deceptions.

"It is not simply against future conspiracies of evil men which we have to guard ourselves but it is against ourselves, against weaknesses and faults in our own social order, in our own ways of living against which we have to be on continual guard."

These psychopaths will relish being rewarded for calling us stupid and telling us our faults. Let's let them sing like birds in cages, drinking champagne. Why let our thirst for vengeance get in the way of the permanent eradication of the potential for their way of life to flourish? Let's not the be the fools they think we are.

We should just tell these sociopaths that they're the best people ever, and make them like kings and queens in europe... powerless but with the appearance of respect and power... that's how you take them out of commission without causing a big stir. Europe figured this out, and it was a great tactic we should learn from.

We could turn them against each other and let them solve the problem for us. Maybe Thunderdome;)

I don't think that would work. They'd just start another bank while in the rink and get the Thunderdome in debt, and then they could change the thunderdome laws and then end the contest and walk away scott free and more wealthy than before.

:0

(just in case it wasn't obvious, I was totally joking)

So there's a central bank in Russia? Tell me how that works out.

What are you suggesting?

Yes, there is. - it's part of the BIS. Did you not know that?

and the Zionists/USA and Russia are fighting a war? Be real.

Yes, they've funded both sides many times before, what is hard to understand?

Why don't you try thinking logically?

Why the hell would Putin allow a Rothschild owned Central Bank to exist in his country if he was the Anti-Zionist hero?

It's not about being 'funded' by both sides. The Central Bank essentially means slavery for that country.

The point is they don't care who wins. They just want conflict, because conflict is profitable. Two puppets run by the same puppeteer.

the point still remains. Why wont Putin get rid of the Central Bank? It's all a farce. And if it isn't then this Central Bank story is just bullshit.

He won't get rid of it because they've got him by the balls. The central banks run the show, not the governments. Don't put the cart before the horse.

The central banks run the show, not the governments.

I know that.

Then why the hell is there such a big war? What's the point? There's much better ways to be profitable and risk nuclear warfare. Then they're controlling the whole world. This sounds like some serious paranoia.

Selling weapons, duh. And there's still Syria and Iran and Cuba and North Korea left to take over. Not to mention the oil contracts. Plus there's still sub-battles, actual disagreements between organizations on the east vs west. It's not like the banks control every single little thing, just the big things

And there's still Syria and Iran and Cuba and North Korea left to take over

This is contradictory. Syria and Iran are largely dependent on Russia.

Selling weapons, duh

They control almost the entire world but they need to sell weapons to gain profit?

But they have government-owned central banks, unlike the rest. Even though they have financial relations with Russia, this is still true.

No, the military-industrial complex is what sells the weapons. The money is useless if no one wants it, and it can't just be all financial institutions, there needs to be physical goods industries involved as well like oil or gold or arms. It's a complex network that is self-supporting.

But they have government-owned central banks, unlike the rest. Even though they have financial relations with Russia, this is still true.

So, then it isn't Rothschild controlled central banks?

In my opinion no, they aren't at all. The faux "lead up to WWIII" is all part of the theater.

can we try them first? I mean, it's gonna take a lot of pitchforks just to pull that off, but if we have the power to execute them, could we maybe have a jury trial first? We don't need another French or Soviet revolution.

No. The title says to kill them, after charging them. There is literally no mention of trying them. Here, I'll quote:

lethally inject the Rothschilds, after charging them with treason and crimes against humanity.

If you kill their money , it will hurt them far worse than any public beating , or vigilante pitchforks weildinng mob would ever scare them.

Except it doesn't.

Listen. When you say, "lethally inject them after charging them," there is no implication or insinuation of a fair trial.

To the contrary, you are literally saying, "take the person into custody and kill them." It is pretty much the opposite of demanding a fair trial. You called for murder first, detainment second, and a trial... not at all.

Hitler arrested the Rothschilds come /r/conspiracy to the light side

Fuck the "light" side. I is where I is.

Just remember, the wrong side won ww2. Adolf Hitler turned Germany from the hyperinflationary Wiemer Republic into a world super-power of the Third Riech because he KICKED THE BANKERS OUT OF HIS COUNTRY and re-established a non-debt based currency.

Did you know that the federal reserve, made up of the nation's largest banks, gets 6% interest in perpetuity on the money? It is in their Charter. That is why it is debt based money, that is why we are not free. Revolution and public flayings are not good enough for these criminals.

He may have done all that, but you seem to be forgetting one tiny little thing, and that would be the fact that he killed 8+ million people

I'm not forgetting something that never happened.

It gives me hope for a Jew-free future.

Finally, a non-biased opinion. /s
Enjoy your downvote, bigot.

Trolling my comment history and you missed this gem?

I long ago realized that they have no power over you with the exception of votes and trolling your comment history.

Kek.

bigot

Call me Sideshow bob, because I'm guilty, as charged.

So, how's all that hatred going for you? Keep you warm at night? It must, feeling all superior to others based on some arbitrary thing like blood lines or skin color. I'll bet the whole world opens up for you when you share your true opinions with people, you know, face to face. Unless of course, you're a coward and only share your thoughts about non-whites online where its safe and warm. Hatemongers like you are like cockroaches. You breed filth and hide when the light is shined on your face. Go back where you came from, vermin.

Lol, your internet justice boner is amusing.

Provide me with concrete evidence that the Holocaust never happened or go back to stormfront

That's not how this works. Prove to me that the holocaust did happen. Show me a single official written document that ordered the mass extermination of people via gas the chamber. Just one, that's all I ask.

I'll be waiting.

The burden of proof lies on the person making claims that are contradicting 99% of modern accepted history. That's like saying that George Washington was a Lizard and when I ask you to prove it, you say "Well, prove that he wasnt"

Burden of prove is always on the accuser.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. How about you ask the man who is accusing Hitler of killing 8 million and referring to the holocaust to prove it?

Wrong. Prove to me that God exists, or alternatively prove to me the holocaust happened.

By the way, you didn't refute the red cross report, and you haven't produced a single document that proves there was a National Socialist mass extermination program via the gas chamber. Surely if there were such a program that killed an alleged 12 million as commonly accepted, then there would be at least one document? I.e a smoking gun.

Hell, I'll even play your game. Here is the official red cross report with estimated death toll from typhus plague and starvation at the forced labor camps after inspecting them...

https://archive.org/details/ReportICRC1939-1947RedCrossOnConcentrationCampsJews

I know you'll simply move the goal posts after frivolously dismissing this report, but that's fine. I'm here to open others' minds and for helping me to do that, I must thank you.

He was in on it.

Did you know that the federal reserve, made up of the nation's largest banks, gets 6% interest in perpetuity on the money? It is in their Charter.

Holy shit, this is so incorrect. 97% of Federal Reserve profits go back to the US treasury, furthermore the Fed is self financed.

The largest number of US debt I can find the Fed ever holding is 8.7% which is tiny, compared the other holders of US debt, private citizens, China, Japan, a handful of Caribbean nations, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

It's not wrong, its in their fucking charter. I can get a link to it in in a about 1 or 2 googles. Our monetary system costs us 6% dividend annually.

The twelve Federal Reserve banks provide the financial means to operate the Federal Reserve System. Each reserve bank is organized much like a private corporation so that it can provide the necessary revenue to cover operational expenses and implement the demands of the board. A member bank is a privately owned bank that must buy an amount equal to 3% of its combined capital and surplus of stock in the Reserve Bank within its region of the Federal Reserve System.[12][13] This stock "may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan" and all member banks receive a 6% annual dividend.[10] No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to the public, to foreigners, or to any non-bank U.S. firm.[14] These member banks must maintain fractional reserves either as vault currency or on account at its Reserve Bank. As of October 2008, the Federal Reserve has paid interest to banks' holdings in Reserve Banks' accounts.[15] The dividends paid by the Federal Reserve Banks to member banks are considered partial compensation for the lack of interest paid on the required reserves. All profit after expenses is returned to the U.S. Treasury or contributed to the surplus capital of the Federal Reserve Banks. Since shares in ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks are redeemable only at par, the nominal "owners" do not benefit from this surplus capital. In 2010, the Federal Reserve System contributed $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[16]

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

Hang those fuckers and keep the corpses hanging.

And hang them.. For the world to see.

I'm sorry but godlikeproductions is not a credible source on anything really, unless the original poster on that site also provided a source, which he didn't.

I've heard this notion that all but x banks in the world are owned by the Rothschild's. I have yet to see a source that actually proves that this is real. I'm not saying I don't believe you either, because I most certainly do believe that the House of Rothschild has a hand in most of worlds central banks, because that's what initially made them their fortune. The Rockefeller's and likely many more elite families have branched off from the main Rothschild family tree, so I would suspect that perhaps the Rothschild's themselves don't own every central bank themselves, rather they are at the very least close business associates and possibly the boss of other banking families.

Further research needs to be done, and I suspect we will find that the Rothschild's do have the leading authority over the majority of the world's banking schemes, but I also think they are manipulating how they are perceived to some degree.

You know what isn't a credible source?

Anything that comes out of Flytape's mouth.

I made another post in this thread just now because I noticed something odd about this post and Flytape's recent post history. He deleted a thread that was nearly identical to the one he posted here, just so he could reconstrue its message, which he executed very poorly from a rhetorical standpoint. I can't tell what the original post contained because he deleted it, but his rhetoric is pretty shit.

The post you're referring to was removed under orders from the Reddit admins. The mods here had no choice but to remove it.

Stop your enabling son.

That would be nice. Then kill off their entire family bloodline and let freedom and peace flow across humanity and the planet!

If you use state sanctioned murder as a tool against the powerful, you legitimize it as a tool against the weak. Against the weak having no true attorney in the matter, will suffer in much greater number.

He said "after charging them", which suggest a trial. That's not a tool against the powerful. That's just the law being used in the same way against the powerful as it is used against the 'normal' population.

Which would be a fresh breath of air, rather than excluding the rich and powerful from common law.

I'm not advocating against a trial. I'm advocating against them being put to death.

Fair enough.

We should go back through everyone's family history and evaluate if their ancestors have committed grievous crimes. Then we can kill them too! Because that makes sense.

The usual suspects, out in full force. "It wasn't me."

Andrew Jackson should be our most celebrated president. Thomas Jefferson secondly but Andrew Jackson hands down for his aggressive defiance of the central bank and the Rothschilds.

http://smoloko.com/?p=478

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/Synagogue.of.Satan/1821-1875.htm

EDIT: Nevermind, see below. Thanks /u/the_brown_stockton for reminding me of his devious side.

Except for yknow the whole trying to commit a 2nd genocide on the remaining Native American population

Ah, You got me. I feel ashamed for overlooking that one. Scratch my first post.

Hmmm. Kill them so we can take over the world? Seen this before. Like ten times. Then "we" become corrupt by our power we took. Then someone kills us. And they become corrupt. Maybe just killing the other side and taking the moral high ground sounds good but I'd if it has ever.worked in practice.

what shall be done with current and wouldbe mass murderers?

Try to fix. If can't fix them then killthem so a non broken human can be born. But it doesn't make sense to kill 500k people to get to kill one murderer. Focus on love and spreading it. Not on hate and killing. In all honesty 99 percent of people are non violent. The rest is craziness and planned wars by the elite. Peace doesn't come from war. It comes from peace.

They are traitors. Good for nothing scheming traitors to humanity. How can you do this to your fellow species? My lord it's nice to see people here begin to talk about expunging this plague of a family off of our earth.

rothschild's own half the worlds net worth 480 Trillion

The real trick is the world is convinced it needs money. Once everyone realizes they don't need money then the family Rothschild becomes impotent.

I'm not for the death penalty, but it's not exactly a strong view of mine. In fact id be willing to waive it for the Rothchilds.

This should be stickied.

I'm against the death penalty.

Public display on a global tour would be more interesting.

Another thing I noticed, Flytape deleted this thread a few hours before he posted this.

He did this because he quotes: "I've removed this post because it advocates the committing of a serious crime. If you would like to repost with a more civilized method of dealing with the rothchilds (like a court of law and appropriate non-mob punishment) then I will let it stand. Sorry but we just can't advocate murder, among other serious crimes."

But the first thing the title of this thread mentions is "lethally inject the Rothschild's."

I don't care if one is legal and the other isn't, they are saying the exact same thing.

Flytape jacked the subject of another thread and then through in some extra bullshit from an un-backed source on another conspiracy forum that was posted 4 years ago.

This is probably the single most unoriginal post I have ever seen on this subreddit, and we can obviously see this is a sloppy and lazy plea for attention from Flytape.

We shouldn't be upvoting this kind of stuff incessantly, just because the title is "anti-Rothschild." We need to be checking facts and sources. Flytape has no ethos in this argument, and he stole the logos from another user. Beyond that the emotional appeal here is simple and overused.

godlikeproductions.com

Really? Are there not enough issues at this moment on the news that baiting and 'controversies' are needed to flood this sub?

What is killing them going to accomplish?

As soon as they are gone another will rise to take their place. Getting rid of a family will only bring more violence. If you want them to go away then you will need to think of a better way.

Problem with all of you is you think they have all the power. They don't because there are less of them and more of those that feel they are fucked over by them. People have to start getting more creative with their demands for stupid shit in here.

Many of you need to learn there are so many more greater forms of fucked up then just killing someone. You get into their heads. This family is still confined to the planet same as the rest of us. So it isn't like they can get away. Also you know the forms of transportation they would use so its easy enough to confine them.

Damn people get with the program and stop just wanting to kill someone.

edit....

[–]oldguynewname 0 points 15 minutes ago

yeah that makes since fuck a logical idea that can actually make a difference. It better to just kill people and feel it will work.

Killing is the only thing that gets things done on this planet. Or are you part of some alternate reality the rest of us are not privy to?

Killing people makes shit happen does it? You are so wrong on man levels. All it does is force retribution.

You have to get into the mind of your enemy. Become what they fear the most and execute the plan.

What do these people have that you don't? Pretty much everything tangible I assume. They have no worries about finances. So you have to use that as a weakness.

Well what do they take for granted all the time? Give up yet?

Modern standards of living wherever they may reside. So you take that away and force them to stay there. Lock them down and make it so they can't leave. Constantly making as much noise as possible to fuck with their sleep patterns. Make the sewage back up in their homes so they have to deal with shit.

Cut off the water so they can't have clean water. Shut off the gas and electricity so they can't have that. Just relentlsy fuck with them until they are forced to change.

Killing people doesn't solve anything. If it did then war would be so much eaiser.

Psychological torture. I have no problem with that.

There's only one problem, you'll eventually run into holdouts who refuse to change and double down. Those are the one you eventually have to kill. It's nature.

Death is the great equalizer in our reality. It keeps all creatures in balance.

It won't do anything for benefit in this circumstance. I am sure there are ways to force change that don't involve death. Say drugs. Inject them with enough heroin to get them hooked and then take it away.

Force them into withdrawls. You are not thinking outside the box at all. You need to stop thinking practical and start thinking playstation.

The main thing is leadership to organize all this instead of talking about it. Actually fucking doing it rather then the consistant bitching. Organize it to a point that it would make a change or at the very least get attention.

That is all you need is attention. Want another way to force change. If you are on foot as soon as you see a police officer run the opposite direction.

Just flat out run till they say stop and let them hurt you. When they find out you have no reason to run say because I wanted you to chase me as I am starting a new movement to prove police want to assume everyone is guilty.

You have to use mind games anymore. Breaking shit and setting cars on fire is over. You are going to have to prove things to the public. Like running from the cops that shouldn't matter. Just cause you are running away don't mean you are guilty and require to be fucked up.

People need to take back this country and show how bad shit really is. Remember there are way more of us then there are of them. That is a fact.

Killing only the Rothschilds wont do anything.

Killing anyone won't do anything. Another will rise to take their spot. Its the way it works.

Use them as an example of how far we as the people are willing to go. Just relentlessly fuck with them. Everything when they are getting fuel hit the emergency stop.

When they are at an airport cause a scene that will make it so the plane can't take off. You make it show to everyone the complete disconnect there is between us and them.

So everyone how unfair it all is. Keep doing it till enough people join the cause that real shit starts to happen.

The Rothschilds probably get a ride to the runway in a private helicopter and fly on their own private jet. They don't mingle with the unwashed hordes. Their grandiose view of themselves and a huge load of paranoia prevent that. Your ideas are helpful, though. The problem is widespread complaceny among the masses.

My ideas are extreme and require participation of many. Would be nice to get it done.

The desire to murder political opponents is a defining element of fascism. That's why the American far right, most clearly manifest in the extreme libertarian / tea party / militia types, are the pure essence of American fascism. They routinely call for the execution of journalists who don't report the news the way they like, citizens who support the 2 parties, all of our past and present leaders at all levels of government. You can't go to any right wing web site, mainstream or fringe, including examples from Stormfront to Brietbart to Fox News, without finding conservatives tripping over themselves dreaming about violence and bloodshed.

They talk about "liberty." The pretend to be opponents of authoritarianism. But bypassing democratic solutions with violence and imposing political preferences by force are the classic hallmarks of fascism. The militarization of politics is historically exemplified by the Nazi Sturmabteilung, but finds a modern parallel in rightwing movements like The Oathkeepers, and the many, many Republican / libertarian spokesmen who have openly fantasized about killing all their opponents over these past 6.5 years.

You claim that the far right are the pure essence of facism?

Where does Obama stand on that scale? Is he far right??

The desire to murder political opponents is a defining element of fascism.

It's also a defining element of revolution, but that isn't happening any time soon here in the US.

Killing journalists and US citizens and even politicians is a bad idea, and it's nowhere comparable to the idea of eliminating the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds are a HUGE problem and have been for a long time. In any case, it's not a good idea to talk about killing people any time you're online. Or talking on your phone, or speaking near your toaster, or TV.

left/right has nothing to do with it. It's powerful vs non-powerful. Any other label is just transitory.

r/facepalm, advocating harm on others solves nothing.

There are only THREE nations in the entire world whose central bank is not owned by the Rothschilds. They are N. Korea, Cuba and Iran. Tell me these facts don't disturb you:

I would like to know where this information comes from. In my opinion that's unverifiable speculation that is rampant on sites like fourwinds10, usagold.com, humansarefree.com.

Speculation like this is clearly damaging the credibility of the claims being made.

EDIT: Downvote all you want, but you know I'm right. There is no proof to that claim.

[deleted]

Because it's unprovable, there is no verifiable way to confirm this affirmation as truth. The large majority of Central Banks are publicly owned, there is no one sole owner of these banks. Just saying they OWN a bank is in itself incorrect.

This entire conspiracy claim comes from Eustace Mullins, under the direction of his mentor Ezra Pound. All of this stuff comes from Nazi Aryan propaganda, Ezra was a well known leader in Aryan League of America.

In the late 1940s, when the poet Ezra Pound was incarcerated in St. Elizabeths Hospital on treason charges against the US, he corresponded with Mullins. In their correspondence, Mullins exclaimed "THE JEWS ARE BETRAYING US", in a letter written on Aryan League of America stationery. The two became friends and Mullins often visited the poet while he was detained.[16] In his "Foreword" to The Secrets of the Federal Reserve Mullins explains the circumstances by which he came to write his investigation into the origins of the Federal Reserve System: "In 1949, while I was visiting Ezra Pound ... [he] asked me if I had ever heard of the Federal Reserve System. I replied that I had not, as of the age of 25. He then showed me a ten dollar bill marked "Federal Reserve Note" and asked me if I would do some research at the Library of Congress on the Federal Reserve System which had issued this bill."

His October, 1952 article "Adolf Hitler: An Appreciation" was mentioned in a report by the House Un-American Activities Committee.[21] In it, he espoused anti-Semitic views and expressed the belief that America owes a debt to Hitler.[22] The article first appeared in The National Renaissance, journal of the National Renaissance Party

In 1968, Mullins authored the tract The Biological Jew, which he claimed was an objective analysis of the forces behind the "decline" of Western Culture. He claimed that the main influence that people were overlooking in their analysis of world affairs was "parasitism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins

The entire federal reserve, Rothschild conspiracy comes from the American Nazis man.

The large majority of Central Banks are publicly owned

If this is true, name the banks and the individuals who own them.

If this is true

It is true, this is not an IF.

name the banks and the individuals who own them

I don't think you understand what publicly owned means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership

I don't think you do either. In what way is the Federal Reserve, for example, publicly (or state) owned? None of its owners were elected democratically and none of them are publicly known.

The Federal Reserve is different, I said the majority of central banks are publicly owned. Like in Europe for instance, and Canada.

The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System. These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.

The concept of “ownership” needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Bank’s board of directors.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

That doesn't say a word about who owns the Fed and thus the money supply itself. What 38% of banks? Which ones specifically? And who are the shareholders?

And the European central banks you alluded to but didn't name are all governed by the centralized ECB and are also all a part of the BIS. None of the shares in any of these banks are publicly traded.

In 1997 the largest shareholder banks for the Federal Reserve were:

Chase Manhatten Bank

Citibank

Morgan Guaranty Trust Company

Fleet Bank

Bankers Trust

Bank of New York

Marine Midland Bank, and

Summit Bank.

There is no public list as of 2015 that I can find.

And the European central banks you alluded to but didn't name are all governed by the centralized ECB and are also all a part of the BIS. None of the shares in any of these banks are publicly traded.

Once again I think you are misconstruing what publicly owned means. Publicly owned means controlled by the state.

The ECB does not govern, it is governed. You are misconstruing this fact.

The ECB, the capital stock of the bank is owned by the central banks of all 28 EU member states.

The ECB is governed by European law directly, but its set-up resembles that of a corporation in the sense that the ECB has shareholders and stock capital. Its capital is five billion euro held by the national central banks of the member states as shareholders. The initial capital allocation key was determined in 1998 on the basis of the states' population and GDP, but the key is adjustable Shares in the ECB are not transferable and cannot be used as collateral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Central_Bank

The BIS is owned by it's member central banks, all of that information is public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements

In 1997 the largest shareholder banks for the Federal Reserve were

Those are only for the NY Fed and say nothing about any of the other member banks, nor can the list be corroborated or substantiated since none of the Fed's shareholder information is public.

Once again I think you are misconstruing what publicly owned means. Publicly owned means controlled by the state.

The ECB is not "the state". It's a separate entity comprised of its members and does not represent any single one of them but rather all of them collectively. Did you even read the part you quoted?

"The ECB is governed by European law directly, but its set-up resembles that of a corporation in the sense that the ECB has shareholders and stock capital."

It operates as a for-profit corporation and, again, none of the shares of any of its member banks are publicly traded.

The BIS is owned by it's member central banks, all of that information is public.

See above. The BIS works similarly to the ECB only on a much larger scale, operating as a for-profit corporation which doesn't represent any single one of its members but rather all of them collectively.

The BIS was also founded by western financiers and Nazis, among others, for whatever that's worth.

The ECB is not "the state". It's a separate entity comprised of its members and does not represent any single one of them but rather all of them collectively. Did you even read the part you quoted?

I wasn't talking about the ECB I was talking about the publicly owned European banks.

My ECB comments were separate.

It operates as a for-profit corporation and, again, none of the shares of any of its member banks are publicly traded.

yes, and so?

On a side note, none of this back and forth has anything to do with my original comments on the issue.

The comment I originally addressed: "There are only THREE nations in the entire world whose central bank is not owned by the Rothschilds. They are N. Korea, Cuba and Iran. Tell me these facts don't disturb you:"

Is unprovable, that was my entire point. I am not sure why you keep trying to dig further into this than necessary.

I agree with your original point that there's no definitive evidence that the Rothschilds own all central banks in the world besides three and in fact that's an absurd claim to make that in my opinion (and probably yours too) undermines the legitimacy of the complaints regarding central banking.

The point I was making, though, is that central banks' shares aren't publicly traded and there is very little transparency with regard to their regulation, ownership, or management and so it's very hard to say who actually does own or control them despite the massive amount of influence they wield all around the world. And that that is an issue that needs to be addressed rather than downplayed from where I'm sitting.

I can agree with your sentiments, the financial system is too complex and secretive. And needs to be simplified and more open to public scrutiny.

I am not trying to muddy the waters or downplay this fact.

Fair enough, perhaps I misunderstood you a bit and if so I apologize. I do dislike this whole "Rothschild owns all central banks in the world" meme because even if the truth of the matter is that they are an immensely powerful family involved in international finance, and to me historical events and precedent suggest they probably are, they certainly wouldn't be acting alone nor would they be the only family involved.

And it also makes the entire concept of central banking and it's lack of transparency very easy to dismiss entirely once this core premise is challenged and unable to be proven definitively.

I do dislike this whole "Rothschild owns all central banks in the world" meme because even if the truth of the matter is that they are an immensely powerful family involved in international finance, and to me historical events and precedent suggest they probably are, they certainly wouldn't be acting alone nor would they be the only family involved.

See I think the Rothschild family has been so diluted by marriage, and spread out that they really have no legitimate power over anything anymore. The richest Rothschild today is not even listed on the top 10 richest people in the world. Evelyn Rothschild is only net worth $ 20 Billion, paltry sum in comparison to Bill gates and his $ 79.2 billion net worth.

I just don't think the conspiracy holds any weight, if the conspiracy community isn't blaming the Rothschild family it's the Rockefeller family.

I just think it's way more complicated then that. And given the origins of this conspiracy are rooted in the American Nazi - Aryan League, I tend to not take it very seriously.

The world is a fucked up place, but I don't think we have secret rulers. The scarier thought is that no one is in control.

I mean the global price of gold was fixed in the offices of NM Rothschild and Sons for literally hundreds of years and as recently as a decade ago so I don't think it's fair to say the family has lost all of its global power. You don't get to that level of wealth and influence and then have it evaporate overnight - at the very least we'd have some very specific reasons which led to the downfall of the family (like we do for the Kennedy family, as the first example that comes to mind).

And I don't really trust the Forbes lists personally. Bill Gates' wealth is minuscule compared to the hundreds of trillions of dollars that are at stake in the shadowy derivatives markets, for instance, as well as the hundreds of trillions of dollars the world is in debt (and as we know, where there is debt there's a person or persons who are owed the payment on that debt). I wouldn't expect to see the name of the actual wealthiest person on Earth on that list.

As another example, the RCC/Vatican is the largest land-owner on the planet the last time I checked. That's a level of wealth and power that Bill Gates couldn't even touch yet none of it is reflected on the Forbes list. I realize that the RCC is not one single person but the point here is that the Forbes list is not the be all end all when it comes to international wealth and influence.

if the conspiracy community isn't blaming the Rothschild family it's the Rockefeller family.

I don't think it's either of those two specifically but I think both families, among others, have had an incredible level of influence on global affairs for the last few hundred years and I don't see how that can be denied. I mean you can listen to them tell you as much in their own words in various historical sources.

But you're right, it is certainly a hell of a lot more complicated than "Rothschild owns every central bank on Earth" but I wouldn't go so far as to say "Rothschild has no power whatsoever".

The scarier thought is that no one is in control.

I don't agree. It's far scarier to consider that the huge majority of people on Earth are being enslaved and controlled by a tiny group of powerful people hiding in the shadows. But being afraid is useless in either case so shouldn't be a factor when it comes to considering or discussing these things.

Because its such an amazing claim that if it were true, many people would be very eager to verify it. But no one has. So you know it's made up.

This Rothschild thing is a mantra these conspiratards chant so they know who's in their club or not. Its not true at all, but that's not the point.

Okay, so your point is that the law doesn't apply to those with money/power/influence, and I agree with that to a slightly lesser extent but still mostly.

Maybe we're split on different definitions of the word justice, I think it means more than the act of trying/punishing oligarchs, but extends further.

Putting aside mob rule, how do you think the system could be transformed/improved?

On the other hand though, as Denis Diderot once said:

Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest.

In this case, we could replace the king with a representative of the family mentioned by OP.

You disagree with murder in all forms, but you approve it here.

Funny how that works.

Nonsense. There are all sorts of politicians and business figures in jail or paying heavy penalties for crimes they've committed.

It's just not the ones you want to see locked up, so you're ready to burn down the system and start killing people in the streets.

While screaming about "The Constitution!!" and "Rule of Law!!" no doubt.

This Rothschild thing is a mantra these conspiratards chant so they know who's in their club or not. Its not true at all, but that's not the point.

It isn't like any of this is a secret. It is simply not part of the narrative fed to the average information consumer.

All right, then why isn't one of the many posts I've seen about this over the course of a year simply a sourced list of what I've already discussed?

Intriguing. /u/aharonn deleted his account less than 24 hours after this exchange. The account was 5 days old, had 50 link karma, zero comment karma, and a lot of... odd things to say.

:0

So how would you use fear to stop that unstoppable force, fear is their weapon, fines, jail, etc means nothing to them, sometimes they prefer to be fined if the financial benefit is greater in the end, if you want to show everyone what happens if you take their place then I can't think of a better way