Rule 3 of their sub:

No posts asking for misunderstood or misrepresented history.

Conspiracy theories are going to fall under that.

Expect a 72hr mute lul

Welcome, friend. You've been radicalized.

Oh poor baby keep virtue signaling

I know the facts

Sounds like you weren't posting there in good faith. It's an academic sub, so some humility is expected.

Then they can remove the post with an explanation to OP. A ban is pretty harsh, though.

You posted nothing about jews, yet they ban you for "anti-semitism". That is all the proof you need for the fact that elite jews do have immense power in the world -- eg, running international banking, Establishment press and media, Hollywood, etc. And they even have power to censor posters on Reddit you get close to talking about them.

Over the past 10 years or so, I have been banned from so many forums, for talking about the NWO and jewish power. Censorship is one of those things that enrages me. But the truth wins in the end. Their censorship will not defeat us. It only makes me fight harder. And it only puts up a gigantic red flag to others, causing them to investigate the things that we are talking about.

Fuck Jews.

Okay mate settle down - like any race you can't blame the many for the acts of a few.

You know who he's talking about. Is he supposed to write (((they)))? Zionists doesn't cut it when it's about conquering the planet.

Really? They actually accused you of being "anti-semitic" because you expressed a bad opinion of the Rockefellers??? Wow... If they had different surnames then it would be acceptable?

Haha! You are right. It is not anti-Semitic to ask a non-religious question. It may be anti-Zionist, but that is much different.

Well, on a positive note, its a great conspiracy post!

So you can't even debate historical events? You have to espouse a belief in the kosher "official" version given to us by the Establishment? Wow, what a way to get to the truth. What's the point of the sub? To regurgitate Establishment-Hollywood-Government propaganda?

The second World war is probably the most important historical event of the last 200 years, and all we get are lies and half truths. I wonder why.

talk about how nazi's were completely evil eugenic super men bent on worldwide genocide of all non-perfect aryans and i'm sure you wont get banned and get upvotes.

But don't even whisper that there were black people in hitlers armies because that goes against their narrative.

also dont point out how many times the "death camps" had to change their numbers of people killed, yet we all still here 6million over and over.

There were also Jews too

Basically. There is no debate permitted. You are expected to circle jerk over the official story and the Hollywood history.

Its not a debate sub. Its an ask the expert sub. All the ask subs are like that. I thought this was common knowledge.

r/history is not an ask sub

Ah fair enough. Look at their titles though. Its not like his at all.

The point of the sub is to get sourced explanations for historical events. I'd wager that if the phrasing were something more like; "Is it true that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families funded both sides of several wars?" or, "What were the possible political reasons for the sinking of the Lusitania?" OP would have gotten some answers rather than a ban.

try it and find out

That's a bit tautological, isn't it?

Starting with the assumption that it's 'misunderstood or misrepresented' is exactly the problem. The idea that some form of Official^TM history is inherently correct to the point where it can't be questioned is dangerous.

Mother. Fucking. Bingo.

Not if you believe that the weight of the evidence suggests that the conspiracy theory is bunk.

Victors don't write history, scribes do

scribes do

at gunpoint

Whose scribes lived to write again afterward? Not the losers scribes, thats for fucking sure.

Gotta get crafty and ask in a way that leads people there to look into how history has been misrepresented. If OP had asked about how banking institutions fund wars it would spark this discussion and wouldn't be ban-able.

Very well put.

Not a theory. Fact.

Tldr; Our version is the only version.

So all of the mainstream can "misrepresent" history and tell us it's misrepresented and off limits. Cool.

The mods probably looked at your post history, saw you frequented r/conspiracy, and chalked you up to a retard.

Well your thesis was, basically, all wars are banker's wars but then you used the lusitania as proof of this, and pretty weakly. It's common knowledge the lusitania was used to garner support for the war, which you correctly pointed out, but you failed to link it at all to the bankers.

why not point out the American Industrialists supporting Hitler and then playing both sides as the conflict began in earnest?

Why not talk about the Crassus' role in the first roman triumvirate?

History is full of confirmed conspiracies by rich people (especially Rome) you could have used.

I think you'd do fine if you tried again with better examples.

You're not wrong, but the question is why the OP's response deserved a straight-up ban from the subreddit.

Mods can ban literally anyone they want.

they should allow discussion, if someone is wrong about history, tell them why and how. then it's problem solved. we get banned here too though if we use some unwords.

...literally?

a straight-up ban

This is the part that really frustrates people. They don't even get the chance to defend themselves. Happened to me on several subreddits. Reminds me of what H.L. Mencken had to say about people today.

r/history bans unsourced posts. His source was unsourced, so he got banned.

Didn't know one needed to use citations for every post and comment in that sub.

Nonetheless the attempt would've been to no avail anyway as I would've gotten banned any way.

I don't think you would have if you took the time to create a good, organized post. That r/ is full of very smarts so, honestly, you should have known better.

Also, if I were you, I would work on a better version of this post and message the mods. I honestly find it hard to believe you were BANNED for this. It doesn't seem like you spam them or anything and, chances are, a verysmart mod acted out of turn.

Woah man, I don't see anything about them accusing you of anti-semitism. I think it's putting the cart before the horse here to just assume that's the basis of them banning you like this.

Still though, I'm with you in thinking this ban was a bad reaction. Again, I would have removed your post as a Mod, but I would have requested you try again. If you were spamming shit posts in this vein, I could get the ban, but you weren't.

Keep protesting. Hopefully there's a more benevolent that sees it eventually.

Well, shit. If the OP above was your original post, and it didn't actually include the words "Jews" or whatever, this is indeed alarming.

I too am fucking sick of being called anti-semitic for being against israeli apartheid. I'm shocked that just mentioning Rothschild now makes us anti-semitic too. They're just bankers and everyone hates the bankers.

Especially when I'm on here battling holocaust deniers and reminding people of how oppressed the Jews actually were throughout history. I just wish you had a better post that got removed. This could have had legs.

Happens to the best of us man lol. Even the old, good Alex Jones(if u remember the good old days) had his silly temper tantrums. Thanks for replying to my comments and posting these shots. Keep up the good fight.

the ol " to know who is really in control, see who you can not criticize" Guess you know now. Any critique of the rothschild is anti-semitism. Exactly the way they would like

What a bunch of total douchebags over there. Fuck that subreddit OP.

Reminds me of that David Icke clip where he explicitly says his repitiallian conspiracy IS NOT A JEWISH CONSPIRACY and the interviewer says "well some people think by you saying it's not a Jewish conspiracy actually means it is a Jewish conspiracy. "

I mean what the fuck. I don't know anymore

Whoa. I see nothing in that screenshot or in their rules 2 or 3 about "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories".

I think your agenda is showing.

Here is the wiki write-up on the origin and use of the Rothchild conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories See also: List of conspiracy theories § Antisemitic conspiracy theories, and Antisemitic canard § Accusations of controlling the world financial system

...

These conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family are not based on evidence, but rather arise from anti-Semitic prejudice and various antisemitic canards.[84][85][86][87][88][89]

That's why they banned you. You are using buzzwords that have a history of anti-Semitic uses (whether you mean it that way or not) and have nearly no support among academic historians. That's an academic sub that has those rules precisely for your kind of post. That's not a personal affront, but just a description of who they are and how they roll.

The tone was also pretty combative.

Why do we ignore the international banking cartels (Rockefellers, Rothschilds) and the fact that they obviously fund both sides of almost every war? It seems like we always look to find the cause of tyranny and war, when in reality we've been ignoring the real answer that sits right in our faces. The most obvious piece of evidence is the sinking of the Lusitania. It was so blatantly an attempt to gain citizen support of sending troops to Europe. Before the Lusitania was sunk, virtually all Americans were opposed to joining the war. Afterwards millions volunteered. http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm

That suggests that historians were "ignoring" and missing an obvious answer "right in our faces". In a sub designed for people that don't know the answer to ask academic historians (or enthusiasts) you came claiming to know and implying the academic subject they love is flawed and misleading. Seriously, what did you expect? Know your audience.

it's too bad any mention of rothschilds is called antisemitic. they happen to be jewish but who cares.

A lot of people that believe in the conspiracy.

So any speaking out against them immediately means your anti-semitic?

That doesn't follow.

Fun fact. Did you know Aliester Crowley came to New York on the Lusitania?

Lol no shit? I don't think it's actually that unlikely he would have considering there could only be so many ocean liners going back and forth back then... But a fun fact indeed.

He is apparently suspected to be the spymaster responsible for the Lusitania getting sunk. He supposedly infiltrated German occult groups who used them as fronts for spy operation. He supposedly leaked the fact that the Lusitania had munitions on it to these groups.

http://feralhouse.com/secret-agent-666/

I had never heard that. A quick google reveals several secondary and tertiary sources. Are there any primary sources to support this?

Screenshot of ban?

I hear ya. i have had multiple interactions with the mods at r/history and they all went just like yours did. they will refuse any type of discussion and will immediately mute and or ban you for simply and politely asking them questions. they've are impossible to deal with!

The moment it gets big it would be taken over.

It's a paradox I hav no idea how to solve.

destroy reddit. That's the only one.

where are their servers located

hmmm thats is a question we should look into.

You could try posting this on r/askhistorians, but unless you present your question very clearly and with sources, they'll probably remove it too.

askhistorians is just as bad.

I'm curious as to why you say that, I consider it one of the best subreddits on this site.

They're one sided. If you say something that goes against what they say, they'll just ban you. Even if you've got the sources to back it up, they don't care.

Examples?

common knowledge

so much worse

Or how about a sub perfectly suited for such discussions that are outside of the common consensus and we shall name it r/conspiracy ?

/r/AlternativeHistory

It's sad that mentioning a specific family and their atrocities over many centuries results in a ban. Using the term anti semetic is offensive to use in this situation and waters the term down for when it is being used correctly. But I guess mods gotta have a cover for their censorship.

That's because none of the educated historians, political majors buy into these conspiracies. Educated people don't browse /r/conspiracy.

how bout carroll quigley

anthony sutton?

Of course /r/history is controlled; it has to be. So is all of Reddit and almost all of the media you consume. And your education, church, politics, law enforcement, legal structure, medical industry, food supply...

You see the problem?

"[D]idn't spread rumors or agendas".

What did you think you were doing when you implied the "international banking cartels" are the "cause of tyranny and war"?

What did you think you were doing when you implied the "international banking cartels" are the "cause of tyranny and war"?

stating the obvious?

the history subreddit is very strict about only accepting substantive posts. pretty sure the rules state that they have very low tolerance for inquiries that are less than academic which would include OP's post.

/r/history is a joke.

/r/AlternativeHistory will never ban you my friend

that sub is like wikipedia, you need official sources for everything. and would the rothschilds who own all the sources allow them to print or report anything making them look bad, no. All of history is full of conspiracies but that sub doesn't allow discussion of them.

who are you not allowed to criticize. that is who is in charge. Trump? You're allowed and encouraged to send 2 minutes hate at him.

Moderators are thought police

Who cares? If they ban you for that, then you're not going to find any useful information there, anyway. Recognize that and move on.

You asked a loaded question. You should ask 'What role have international banking cartels played in wars?' You basically said bankers are the source of wars which many historians probably don't agree with.

There have been wars that had to do with debts and money. And wars where tons of money was lost. You went into your question in 100% /r/conspiracy mode and then asked a conspiracy subreddit why they didn't agree with you. Maybe because not everyone agrees with the theory you're pushing, and a lot of people who blame everythin on the Rothschilds come from some weird anti-Semitic position.

It doesn't seem like you're asking a question about history. You're asking why people today ignore something you assume to be true.

If you asked a question about banking involvement in the Lusitania you probably would have gotten an answer, and a well sourced one at that. But really the only question you ask would be better geared toward a modern sociology sub.

/politics another horrible one. Thanks for the warning.

I didn't spread any rumors or agendas

Every war is staged by "banking cartels"

Lol

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Just banned from r/history for asking question about international banking cartels.

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Don't posit your conclusion in your question. Don't ask them to answer a non historical question.

Your question as framed is really "Why do we ignore..." You are asking historians why they are ignoring something, not about it.

Also you cite the Lusitiania but fail to link it to your thesis. The Lusitania was propagandized, and we lied about her cargo and used it as an causus belli. But none of those facts link it to banking cartels.

Ethical historians approach history based on the documentary (which these days includes video, audio, etc, but used to be only books and letters) evidence. Any conclusions drawn need to be directly supported.

If you want historians to answer your question you first have to ask what actual evidence exists. Setting aside your question about why they are "ignoring" something, you need to restructure your question.

To get to the heart of your question, you seem to want a discussion of how international banking drives military conflict. So you should structure your question something like this:

"The wars of the 20th century were on an industrial scale never before seen in human history. To what extent did commerce, international financial institutions and major industrial concerns drive the military build ups that contributed to the scale of the warfare in World War I and II?"

"There are numerous examples of groups profiting from and driving both sides of the major military conflicts of the last century. For instance, German and Allied forces traded military supplies with each other during the first World War, exchanging rubber for high-grade optics. And Switzerland profited during World War II acting as a middle-man for financial transactions with the Reich. Texaco essentially gave free oil to Franko during the Spanish Civil War, contributing to the fall of the Republican government."

"How widespread was the corporate abetting of military conflict in the last century and based on historical trends are corporations and financial concerns increasingly driving conflict today?"

Because you didn't follow their rules...

No current politics or soapboxing.

Submissions & comments that are overtly political or that attract too much political discussion will be removed; political topics are only acceptable if discussed in a historical context. Comments should discuss a historical topic, not advocate an agenda. This is entirely at the moderators' discretion and violators will be fed to the bear.

Post in the right subreddit.

Some content is better suited for other subreddits and might be directed there:

For image image links us /r/HistoryPorn (or put them in a text post and provide proper context)

Specific questions may be directed /r/AskHistorians.

Homework questions will be directed to /r/HomeworkHelp

Personal material with multiple updates (blogs, history journals, academic publications) belong in /r/HistoryBlogs.

Link submissions that follow the "this day XX years ago XX happened" format belong in /r/ThisDayInHistory .

Submissions following the "What if X" format (alternative history) belong in /r/HistoryWhatIf.

Try r/askhistorians.

It's history for Reddit, not for people want something other than what they've been fed already.

You were banned for saying Hitler was right without actually saying Hitler was right.

Didn't you know the Fuggars run r/history

Basically. There is no debate permitted. You are expected to circle jerk over the official story and the Hollywood history.

Its not a debate sub. Its an ask the expert sub. All the ask subs are like that. I thought this was common knowledge.

The point of the sub is to get sourced explanations for historical events. I'd wager that if the phrasing were something more like; "Is it true that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families funded both sides of several wars?" or, "What were the possible political reasons for the sinking of the Lusitania?" OP would have gotten some answers rather than a ban.