Victor Rothschild, third baron and former chairman of the London bank, N M Rothschild, always maintained that Nathan had made a killing by encouraging rumours that Wellington had lost when he knew he had won, though the historian Niall Ferguson in his magisterial history of the family recently disputed that.
Their [the Rothschilds'] Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan's great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of "the slow murder of 600,000 people" on the continent "we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time." And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

"The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty," (This week NM Rothschild & Sons pulled out of trading in gold, the commodity that made their name in banking), by Paul Vallely. April 16, 2004. [Note the date please.]

That article is interesting. I found it because I watched Niall Ferguson's four-part series, "The Ascent of Money" last night. ( ; ) I found it interesting but questionable in a number of places. Starting out, I was immediately struck by where he began, not in ancient times, but in what is called the Italian Renaissance. He did mention ancient money matters but didn't actually disgust the moneychangers or moneylenders of Jesus's time or before, which I find a huge hole in his historical treatment, at least in the videos. Perhaps he goes into these matters in writing elsewhere.

It concerns me that he appears to take at face value nearly everything he cites and shows in this videos from the various museums and archives he visited. I'm also wondering about patronage in his case. Who sponsored all his travels and filming, editing, production, marketing, etc? The videos were far from cheap to make on a mere professor's salary. Obviously, he had some deep pockets interested in getting his spin into the public consciousness or perhaps the public's stupor, depending.

He didn't touch on the origins of fractional-reserve and central banking where the Rothschilds so excelled even though Ferguson dedicated a fairly large chunk of the videos to the Rothschilds. What I took away from that chunk was a feeling of PR for the current Rothschilds doing a bit of self-deprecating but most wanting to give the impression that their fortunes were more happenstance than intrigue, which history does not bear out.

I really became suspicious about Ferguson's ideology and the degree to which his efforts were really not so much about pure education but rather pushing an ideology when he covered what he apparently thinks is the "Chilean miracle."

The laissez-fair-monetarist blend of Milton Friedman was placed on the pedestal and the atrocities of the Chilean dictatorship were unemotionally given short shrift very nearly to the point of relegating them to irrelevant. Ferguson also dismisses the still existing plight of the poor in Chile, as if there need be any poor.

He paid no attention to the outside pressures that were brought to bear upon the Salvador Allende government of Chile. The viewer is left to believe (unless educated by sources other than Ferguson) that all the economic woes of Chile were completely the result of ignorance and bad management by the "leftists." Such is never the case. All leftist governments in the world are hugely pressured from outside and inside by rightist. The more potentially successful the left-leaning government, the more that pressure.

Make no mistake here, I'm not apologizing (defending) left-wing violence, but right-wing violence is a fact too.

Cuba for instance has not been in hardship due so much to bad management as to American sanctions and intrigue against Cuba. America has been ruled by those who refuse to allow Cuba to trade as a nation-state as opposed to so-called capitalist corporations that Americans and others, but mostly Americans, can buy up and control. Those who want to buy up and control are not interested in the poor in Cuba. They are interested in gaining more private wealth, power, and control for themselves and secondarily their offspring who will laud them in the history books and videos they order produced for effect (to place them in the right psychological place in the minds of others for the sake of continuing and advancing that very wealth, power, and control).

This does not mean that I hold with the coercion of Fidel Castro. I don't. I don't though hold with the coercion of the Rothschilds or Niall Ferguson or the Cuban Mafia in the U.S. that wants back into Cuba.

I don't buy Niall Ferguson's spin on Nathan Rothschild and Waterloo.

According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan's successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. In some versions of the story, Nathan witnessed the battle himself, risked a Channel storm to reach London ahead of the official news of Wellington's victory and, by buying bonds ahead of a huge surge in prices, pocketed between GBP 20 and GBP 135 million. It was a legend the Nazis later did their best to embroider. In 1940 Joseph Goebbels approved the release of Die Rothschilds, which depicts an oleaginous Nathan bribing a French general to ensure the Duke of Wellington's victory, and then deliberately misreporting the outcome in London in order to precipitate panic selling of British bonds, which he then snaps up at bargain-basement prices. Yet the reality was altogether different. Far from making money from Wellington's victory, the Rothschilds were very nearly ruined by it. Their fortune was made not because of Waterloo, but despite it.

Ferguson is attempting to lessen the exposure of the devious methods used by Nathan. Ferguson is doing damage-control that is not helpful to the cause of the whole of humanity.

Ferguson joins these thoughts 1) "an oleaginous Nathan bribing a French general to ensure the Duke of Wellington's victory" and 2) "deliberately misreporting the outcome in London in order to precipitate panic selling of British bonds, which he then snaps up at bargain-basement prices." Ferguson says, "The reality was altogether different." Ferguson counts huge gold stores as somehow bad because they are ill-liquid. That's nonsense. He also says that buying bonds starting at bargain-basement prices which buying spurred prices was "hugely risky bet on the bond market." It was nothing of the kind. Nathan Rothschild first crashed the bonds' value then drove up the price on the bonds before he sold his position. Buy low, sell high is far from "hugely risky" when you know when to let go and how so that the price doesn't tumble before you're out. The only risk is that the common people get fed up with the entire scam system that Ferguson seems to love so much, since he's social and mammon climbing via his books and videos and from his ultra-rich patrons who deal in secret from shell corporations. Remember what Paul Vallely wrote in his article:

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who settled in the Jewish ghetto in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1744, specialised not just in clever accounting practices but also kept secret books and subterranean vaults which he ensured were never the privy of auditor, lawyer or taxman.

You don't tell the truth. You mislead. You keep secret what gets you and keeps you on top of the money pyramid. You don't let them audit you, even if you are supposedly working for a democracy such as the U.S. and you're the Federal Reserve. That's reportedly in the first Rothschild's will to his family. You pay people to spin everything to dupe the common people into being fleeced over and over and over. You force them to pay taxes to pay you interest even though you've done nothing of value but rather lessened the collective strength of the people via finance capitalism as opposed to strengthening them via a real and good, productive enterprise. I mentioned yesterday how even the dreaded Nazis understood this.

The Germans moved away from finance capitalism and into private-public capital formation. They apparently reduced their unemployment rate faster than any other nation during the Great Depression, and they did it via non-finance capitalism and via an industrial policy set as national, centralized planning. As I mentioned yesterday, the mistake they made was in arming. They should have pumped it all into peaceful enterprise. Perhaps though Hitler and his group feared that if they were to do that, they would have been attacked by plunderers, which certainly is an historical pattern. The challenge is in getting the rest of the world to go along with the buildup of bringing in real peaceful bounty and stability. God loves this idea and is waiting for humanity to catch on.

Now, how do you know whom to trust who lives on the fortune created via such means as Nathan Rothschild used? You know whom to trust by what that person is trying to do and is doing. You know the person by his results. Where are the results? Are they in the targeted philanthropy that is clearly designed to further the continuation of the entire system that psychologically allowed for the creation of that fortune in the first place? No, the only tree that bears even the suggestion of the Commons is nowhere to be found in the Rothschilds' family, so far at least.

So what are you going to put passed Nathan Rothschild and other Rothschilds? Was it beneath Nathan to cause panic selling of British bonds before buying them up? Business is business. Taking the suckers is what smarter people do. Isn't that the mentality? "Nice guys finish last" is the old saying. Well, according to Jesus Christ, it's not over until it's over. Where is Nathan now, and where will he be in the end?

If you don't believe in anything beyond the flesh, then by all means, eat even your own young when you're hungry. Of course, if you believe in Satan, you can do it too. Might makes right, and use military might now to take all the money away and to have all the sex of any kind you want. Scare everyone into being afraid to go against you. What's the point in being a compassionate atheist or Satan worshipper? It's rather stupid. Then there are those who are so messed up that they believe Satan is righteous.

I don't say don't watch Niall Ferguson's videos. I say watch them with a block of salt. Others apparently did:

You can see just the section in question about Nathan and Waterloo here:

Pay attention in the full videos to how Ferguson goes straight at anti-Semitism that if he hadn't later in his videos come to the rescue, he would probably have been tarred and feathered by Abe Foxman of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

What Ferguson did though was to more than hint that anyone who suspects Nathan Rothschild of putting Nathan before the British Empire and its entire people is falling for Nazi lies. Well, the Nazis "solution," final or otherwise, certainly was never any real solution at all, but covering Nathan Rothschild under the reverse, even child psychology employed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is a disservice to humanity, which necessarily includes many Jews.

Do I believe that the Rothschilds all march in exact lockstep? I do not. I do not though see any of them yet turning their vast but fractured holdings into the Christian Commons, as called for by Jesus Christ (their fellow Jew more worthy to be heeded than the Rothschilds' forbearer, Mayer Amschel Rothschild). Why none has seen that and done the ultimately right thing speaks not only about the Rothschilds but also about planetary society and psychology as a whole.

I stand firmly against racism and ethnic bigotry. I don't care what family or nation you come from, you are granted by God the right to turn and repent. You alone, if you can rise above your fear, may choose the real God who is the God of Jesus Christ.

I will give Niall Ferguson this, he got the "trust" part right. Unfortunately, he appears to worship at the mammon altar. He credits money when in reality, money is not needed, as his own history suggests when he referred to the error of the Conquistadores in Latin America who slaughtered for gold and god (lower case since their god was not God). Ferguson doesn't go on to explain, not because he doesn't understand but because it wouldn't pay him mammon in his eyes, that money still is not necessary.

On the Christian Commons, money is not only not necessary but also not wanted and is rather even hated as money. Trade for recompense is wrong. Giving and sharing are right. The only good thing to do with money is ultimately translate it into not having it but rather holding in common a system in which there is no money.

Finally, don't buy into Paul Vallely's idea that the Rothschilds are only as wealthy as they appear on paper that Vallely and others are allowed to see. It is not in the Rothschild family's interest to appear to be the wealthiest family in the world. Have their fortunes changed over time? The nationalization by the French did set them back some for awhile. When the family has the controlling interest in the World Bank, Bank of London, and Federal Reserve, their setbacks are actually illusory. The only way to really set them back in the mundane sense is to abolish the global banking system, which should be done not by force but by softening hearts. Then the Rothschilds too can be freed from the delusion that is the system that is mammon.

A much less flattering historical timeline: "Rothschild's Control of Central Banks."

Unfortunately, this timeline does not contain citations of sources. It is very difficult to know what is the result of embellishment. Of course, citing sources hardly guarantees truth. One can cite falsehood. The only real way to be on the right track is to judge what people say and do. Is it consistent in itself and with what would result in Heaven on Earth if humanity were to adhere?

I won't go into everything on this page, but a statement such as the following without any record is something that should be made clear is speculation:

1770: .... Mayer Amschel Rothschild draws up plans for the creation of the Illuminati and entrusts Adam Weishaupt with its organization and development.

The likelihood that the Rothschilds had nothing to do with the Illuminati is rather hard to imagine considering the reach of the Rothschilds. However, crediting Mayer Amschel Rothschild with drawing up the plans is another matter. Where's the connection other than money and power? Why isn't it the idea of Adam Weishaupt's that he sold to others? Is this timeline setting up a straw man easily knocked down as anti-Semitic so that everything said is then discounted? Is this site actually an anti-Jew site where garbage is pumped out as the Big Lie mixed in with truth so it's more difficult to sort the truth from the garbage? Is it the site of someone who actually believes all the points on his timeline?

By mixing in speculative information, it detracts from substantiated facts that draw a damning enough picture without any embellishment. The Rothschilds were and are behind the central banks in the U.S. That's not speculation. The connections are there even though they are not widely circulated in the mainstream media for obvious reasons.

1862 "Times of London" "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

That is a circular quotation. I found only one reference to anyone actually looking through the 1862 papers at the library, but he said he did it manually by looking at microfilm/microfiche — hardly the right way to go about it. He admitted he could have missed it.

1897: The Rothschilds found the Zionist Congress and arrange its first meeting in Munich. [citation?]
1913: The Rothschilds set up the Anti Defamation League (ADL) in the United States. [citation?]
1939: I.G. Farben ... was controlled by the Rothschilds. [citation?]

I'm not going to do that for every instance where citations would be most helpful. Original source materials would be best, of course. That's why Niall Ferguson comes across as more credible even though he's engaging in quite a bit of false propaganda on behalf of and likely under the patronage, direct or indirect, of certain of the Rothschilds.

Of course, the greedy will try to make money wherever and to come out on top. Original source material would be helpful but at least some sourcing of material in this long timeline would be helpful. The only thing actually cited up to this point, I believe (I'm not double checking that; the real citations are few), is the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is then spun into suggesting something it actually doesn't say and that is that the Rothschilds didn't return prince Williams money to him. It is my understanding that they did but that while they had the money, they employed it to turn a huge profit, sharing none of it with the prince. Of course, what was the original deal? Did they say they would not employ the money while they banked it for the prince? Did they say that they would share all the profits with the prince or just that they would return the principal perhaps at some pre-agreed rate of interest?

The real answer regardless does not excuse the Rothschilds funding both sides in wars or causing panic selling or runs on banks, etc. The robber-baron mentality has never been right-minded. I don't care whether one is Jewish or not. Robber barons are evil, and huge Empires that plunder are just grandiose caravan raiders and highway men.

It is true that President Jackson killed the Rothschilds bank in the U.S. and that there was an attempt on his life. It is also true that Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy issued government United States Notes rather than going through the bankers for private bank notes and that each of them was assassinated.

Of course, the Rothschilds are behind privatization. That's why Niall Ferguson builds it up while trying to avoid the land mines of history. He's one of those so-called intellectuals bought and paid for by the mammon worshipers to mesmerize the dimwitted. Of course the Rothschilds are elitists who influence everywhere they are able such that people who are more intelligent but closer to God than they (and hence if followed would bring real bounty and an end to war and artificial scarcity and booms and busts) will still not be heard by the masses in any meaningful way or where their points are taken on the merits.

Please don't get me wrong here on the following either. I am not saying that the Rothschilds do not have the upper hand in global finance. Based upon the evidence, I believe they do. I don't base it upon statements of others who don't ever seem to concern themselves with the difference between inference and so-called hard evidence. Inference is fine, but they ought to want hard evidence. I also definitely believe that 9-11 was an inside job. The only question is how much, not whether or not. The circumstantial and hard evidence is overwhelming.

Insane, criminal gangsters are ruling this planet but only in the mundane sense. They, together with the spirits that control them, do not have ultimate control. They only imagine that they do. God is the ultimate power, and God is not a harmful hedonist, materialist but rather the exact opposite.

What do I also think? I know that one day, the person who is the richest in mammon in the world at that time will ask, "What am I doing" and will turn it all to righteous ends and not a bit of selfishness. He might not be the first superrich person to do it, but when he does, it will be the turning point for the whole of humanity. Those who went before will lose no credit in his eyes.

I'm sorry for everyone who suffers and makes soul-killing errors. I'm not glad by bad news for Rothschilds. "Rothschild dynasty: A true tale of rags to riches." ( October 23, 2008.)


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Ganpati23

      Dear God, you are insane.  You ask who funded NF's "videos" as its
      beyond the means of a professor.  The Ascent of Money was a major,
      prime-time series on Channel 4, which is a publicly-owned national
      broadcaster with a public service remit.  It's like the BBC with
      adverts.  Over here in the UK, thanks to the various BBC channels and
      CH4, we do have prime time, big budget educational documentaries.  

      "Who sponsored all his travels and filming, editing, production,
      marketing, etc? The videos were far from cheap to make on a mere
      professor's salary. Obviously, he had some deep pockets interested in
      getting his spin into the public consciousness or perhaps the public's
      stupor, depending."


      You say you were wondering
      about the patronage.  Well you didn't wonder all that much, did you?  Or
      a quick google would have found that it was yet another one of NF's 
      big budget series for a nationally owned broadcaster, and a globally
      renowned one at that.

      Were you really so stupid that you thought he'd made the programmes (not "videos") himself?

      You're not the brightest, are you?

      It doesn't say much for these American universities you attended.

      what's the Bank of London when it's at home?  There's no such thing. 
      And you can't mean the Bank of England as that's owned by the Treasury.

      "That's why Niall Ferguson comes across as more credible even though he's
      engaging in quite a bit of false propaganda on behalf of and likely
      under the patronage, direct or indirect, of certain of the Rothschilds."

      I don't know how things work in your bum[expletive deleted] country, but that wouldn't
      be allowed over here.  The private televisions channels, such as ITV,
      have to make clear any sponsorship behind any of their programmes, and
      the public stations would never engage in even that.

      You'd be
      hard pushed to claim that the BBC was part of some Jewish conspiracy as
      it's continually attacked by the Israelis for showing the Palestinian
      side.  Indeed, it's the only Western news organisation that has a bureau
      in both the West Bank and Gaza strip. 

      If you remember, when
      Hamas took over Gaza, they forced the group that had kidnapped Alan
      Johnston to free him because of the respect they had for the BBC.  I
      hardly think Hamas would do that if British public-service broadcasters
      were involved in some Jewish conspiracy.

      So can you please
      correct these inaccuracies.  As this website is viewable in the UK, you
      would be in breech of the hate crime legislation.  I doubt they bother
      to try an extradite you but you wouldn't be able to travel to the EU. 
      Though most septics don't have a passport so I doubt it would bother you.

      please remove the reference to the Bank of London, and point out that
      the Ascent of Money, just like 'China' and 'Civilisation', was one Niall
      Fergusson's big budget prime-time series for CH4,  a state-owned,
      national, public service broadcaster.  He's been a fellow and lecturer
      at Cambridge, and a professor at Oxford, which gives him slightly more
      insight than a student at the University of Bum[expletive deleted], Arizona.

      Do you really believe that God wants you to waste your time spreading hate-filled conspiracy theories?

      • You quote my article but show that you didn't consider it when composing your Zionists false-propaganda reply or hoped others wouldn't check your commentary against what I actually wrote. That was very weak-minded of you.

        My article makes perfectly clear that I said Ferguson had the aid of those with deep pockets and that, among other things, that aid certainly came in the form of money from the very system of mammon upon which the Rothschilds both built but were built: evil usury in a word.

        You can't see that from my article? If you can't, no wonder you cannot comprehend the Gospels. Try harder if you're able, if you are given to do so by God.

        Further, I also made clear that I am not an ethnic bigot, contrary to your false allegation that I'm an anti-Semite. I am more pro-Semite than are you any day of the week. The Arabs are Semitic, or didn't you know that?

        I obviously have zero problem with ethnic Jews, as Jesus himself was such and still is.

        You posted the exact same comment three times, which constitutes spamming. In addition, your failed reply contained the lowest of words, which I edited out.

        For those reasons and others that are plain, your profane, pro-Zionist, greedy, land-thieving, ethnic-cleansing, anti-Christ commentary is not welcome here. This site is for truth, not racist pro-Zionism.

        "How BBC views Gaza through a Zionist looking glass"