/ Is this true?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Ice Doctor - on 13 May 2017
If it is, then conspiracy becomes fact. No?

http://www.anonews.co/rothschild-bank-lists/
7
Red Rover - on 13 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

So the Rothschilds control the bank of england? Sounds like the usual anti-semitic conspircay crap
3
Red Rover - on 13 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
It's the same old anti-semetic 'secret cabal of jews controls everything and screws everyone' rubbish thats led to a lot of past bad feeling

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/626/economics/who-owns-the-bank-of-england/
Post edited at 22:59
1
Ron Rees Davies - on 13 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Although Rothschilds have regularly acted as directors, the Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, and so is wholly owned by the state.

Don't know about any of the other banks.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 13 May 2017
In reply to Red Rover:

"As to the supposed ‘Rothschild’ connection, I don’t know why people should think that the family own us. But a number of the Rothschilds have served on the Bank’s Court of Directors over the years."

Well that's OK then. Nothing to worry about at all.




5
wbo - on 13 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor: no, and not much else on that site stands up either.



bouldery bits - on 13 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
They do not control the People's Bank of China.
Post edited at 23:47
Big Ger - on 13 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

https://www.conspiracies.net/rothschild-conspiracy/

And they are reptiles too...
1
Red Rover - on 14 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The Rothschilds are a well connected banking family so they stand a decent chance of getting high up jobs in the banking world. Not the same as that website claiming that they secretly have control over most of the worlds money movement which is straight out of Mein Kamph
1
Postmanpat on 14 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

No, it's complete and utter nonsense.
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Red Rover:

> The Rothschilds are a well connected banking family so they stand a decent chance of getting high up jobs in the banking world. Not the same as that website claiming that they secretly have control over most of the worlds money movement which is straight out of Mein Kamph

A bit more than a 'well connected family': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family. The fact that they are Jewish is a red herring, the problem is they have had far too much power, money and influence for far too long.

Obviously a lot of the stories about the Rothschilds are massively exaggerated puerile nonsense but that is also a useful diversion from the stuff that is true.

I think it is shocking that a member of a family with that kind of history could be a director of the UK central bank and people just accept it as normal.

7
Postmanpat on 14 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think it is shocking that a member of a family with that kind of history could be a director of the UK central bank and people just accept it as normal.
>
What kind of history?

And what exceptional "power and influence" have they had in recent times?
Post edited at 15:11
tom_in_edinburgh - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> And what exceptional "power and influence" have they had in recent times?


Even the Torygraph thinks they have exceptional power and influence.

"This multinational banking family is a byword for wealth, power – and discretion... The Rothschild name has become synonymous with money and power to a degree that perhaps no other family has ever matched."

There's not many families can buy a country the size of Israel a new parliament building as a charitable donation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Modern_businesses.2C_investments_and_philanthropy

Surely it is obvious that a secretive family with such large scale business interests poses a massive risk of conflicts of interest if they have any influence over a central bank or access to confidential information from a central bank.

Post edited at 18:29
3
L Stichtplate on 14 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Let's just pray they never team up with the Kardashians.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Let's just pray they never team up with the Kardashians.

They're already teamed up with Paris Hilton's sister....

"In 2015, James Rothschild married American heiress and socialite Nicky Hilton, the great-granddaughter of Hilton Hotels founder Conrad Hilton"
1
L Stichtplate on 14 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

We can all breathe a sigh of relief then because their next generations IQ is about to take a nosedive.
Postmanpat on 14 May 2017
In reply to E
> Surely it is obvious that a secretive family with such large scale business interests poses a massive risk of conflicts of interest if they have any influence over a central bank or access to confidential information from a central bank.
>
So bankers should not be allowed to be central bankers?

Red Rover - on 14 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

They don't seem a bad bunch

http://www.rothschildfoundation.org.uk/history/philanthropy/

There's lots of other powerful families with their fingers in pies, like the Clintons, the Rothchilds get a lot of stick for being powerful and Jewish
1
john arran - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> In reply to E> So bankers should not be allowed to be central bankers?

Wouldn't that mean they were complete bankers?
Jim C - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Red Rover:

> They don't seem a bad .
There's lots of other powerful families with their fingers in pies, like the Clintons, the Rothchilds get a lot of stick for being powerful and Jewish

You are not conjuring up good images of Clinton when talking about fingers and pies.
Remember, Bill 'Did NOT have sexual relations with that woman'
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> In reply to E> So bankers should not be allowed to be central bankers?

Don't you think there's a bit of a conflict of interest in people with vast family fortunes making decisions and recommendations about what a government agency that can print money does? Not just the Rothschilds but any of the US banking dynasties or former senior executives of the largest banks.

Is it that surprising when central bank boards are stuffed with banking executives that the QE programs put in place to deal with the financial crash primarily benefited banks and the property of the rich while the real economy has suffered.


Post edited at 09:43
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Don't you think there's a bit of a conflict of interest in people with vast family fortunes making decisions and recommendations about what a government agency that can print money does?
> Actually, does it make any difference whether the person has £1mn or £1bn or £100bn.? If you are arguing that they can manipulate policy to increase their own wealth it doesn't matter what their wealth is. Indeed, if they are not very wealthy it may be a bigger temptation.

It is a problem that is true across the board. The HofL, as an example, is packed with experts in their fields advising government on their fields of expertise. Should people who are experts, and therefore will tend to have a vested interest (financial or otherwise)or axe to grind, be prohibited from public service?

You haven't supplied any reason why the Rothschilds, who are immensely wealthy, but in fact just own or own stakes in some small banks and medium sized asset management companies, should be singled out for special treatment.
Post edited at 09:57
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It is a problem that is true across the board. The HofL, as an example, is packed with experts in their fields advising government on their fields of expertise. Should people who are experts, and therefore will tend to have a vested interest (financial or otherwise)or axe to grind, be prohibited from public service?

Which is one of the reasons the House of Lords is not geographically representative. The Government's pet experts are people they know which disproportionately means people who live and work at a convenient distance. The House of Lords should be abolished.


> You haven't supplied any reason why the Rothschilds, who are immensely wealthy, but in fact just own or own stakes in some small banks and medium sized asset management companies, should be singled out for special treatment.

The Rothschilds shouldn't be singled out. Any other family of banking billionaires should get the same treatment.

It does make a difference how wealthy people are. If someone who's got a few million swings a deal for themselves then the government could be out a couple of million. That's bad but in the scale of things not really noticeable. If someone with a fortune the size of the Rothschilds influences central bank policies on a trillion dollar quantitative easing program, say arguing it should be used to buy debt from financial institutions rather than finance infrastructure or handed out to citizens as spending money straight into their bank account, the effect is a hell of a lot larger.

Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Which is one of the reasons the House of Lords is not geographically representative. The Government's pet experts are people they know which disproportionately means people who live and work at a convenient distance. The House of Lords should be abolished.
>

You sound deeply confused. What do you mean by "swings a deal for themselves". What are you actually envisaging the Rothschilds, or anybody else, might do as government advisors that costs the government.

No doubt the world would be a better place if the HofL were abolished or moved to Scotland, but that avoids my question. Do you think that people who are experts, and therefore will tend to have a vested interest (financial or otherwise)or axe to grind, should be prohibited from public service?

PS. As far as I can tell no Rothschilds has been a director of the BOE for decades.
Post edited at 12:16
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> > You sound deeply confused. What do you mean by "swings a deal for themselves". What are you actually envisaging the Rothschilds, or anybody else, might do as government advisors that costs the government.

What they have done many times in the past. When there is a situation where banks are likely to lose an uncomfortable amount of money they will do their utmost to persuade government / central banks to fix it for them.

If government ask Rothschilds or the former CEO of HSBC for advice on central bank policy they are going to get advice that benefits the Rothschilds and HSBC. Ask bankers about a QE program and they will say buy government bonds and financial assets from financial institutions with the money. Ask bankers about how to support industry and they'll say give money to banks to lend to industry and then they'll sit on the money to prop up their own balance sheet or give industry sh*tty deals on interest rates.

It is a hell of a lot safer for a government to take advice from say a biochemist on biochemistry than to take advice from a billionaire banker on central bank policy.
Post edited at 15:15
Timmd on 15 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
The 'cabal of Jews running things' story is a horrible conspiracy that seems to pop up everywhere on youtube comments.

Even if, statistically speaking, Jews do go into finance related jobs more than people from other backgrounds (I don't know whether it's true), if I'd come from a historically persecuted minority, I'd probably be wanting to amass something of a cushion of wealth too, just in case. It'd probably have been absorbed into my psyche to need to be able to be safe in that sense if circumstances changed. That's my take, at least. One couldn't blame them I think.
Post edited at 16:05
2
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> What they have done many times in the past. When there is a situation where banks are likely to lose an uncomfortable amount of money they will do their utmost to persuade government / central banks to fix it for them.
It is a hell of a lot safer for a government to take advice from say a biochemist on biochemistry than to take advice from a billionaire banker on central bank policy.
>
But ask a former general for advice on the military, or a head of the NHS about healthcare, or an ex head teacher about education funding, or the head of an NGO about charities and you will likely find somebody with an axe to grind. But if you don't ask those people you will be ignorant not only of their interests but of the detailed mechanics of the activity.

That is why the Board of directors of the BOE, for example, is always of mixture of (ex)financiers and other, independent, people. Frankly it would be irresponsible not to allow such experts in their relevant fields to advise on public policy.

Anyway, can we agree that singling out the Rothschilds, as opposed to any other wealthy person or banker, as especially dangerous people in such a context has no evidential base at all?



1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Anyway, can we agree that singling out the Rothschilds, as opposed to any other wealthy person or banker, as especially dangerous people in such a context has no evidential base at all?

They are no more dangerous than any other secretive family whose ancestors funded wars between European powers and founded companies like De Beers, Rio Tinto and Sun Alliance as well as large numbers of banks and which owns a collection of palaces and makes hundred million dollar donations to nation states.

Post edited at 19:06
3
jelaby - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think the difference here is that a biochemist has experience of biochemistry, so asking one about biochemistry makes sense; a medical expert or manager have experience of making people better (directly or otherwise), so asking them about making people better makes sense; a banker had experience of making banks money, so asking them about how to improve the economy doesn't make sense.

Edit: I agree that singling out a family is, indeed, especially dangerous.
Post edited at 19:36
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> They are no more dangerous than any other secretive family whose ancestors funded wars between European powers and founded companies like De Beers, Rio Tinto and Sun Alliance as well as large numbers of banks and which owns a collection of palaces and makes hundred million dollar donations to nation states.

Er, that's what banks do. Is it your view that a bank or person that finances successful corporations and its host government is dangerous or doing something wrong?

Is your view that philanthropy is wrong?

Is it your view that everyone should open their finances to public scrutiny and that we should assume the worst of those who don't?

Is it your view that people should be disqualified from public service by the activities of their ancestors?
Post edited at 19:43
jess13 - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think the point about bankers expertise being about making the banks money and not about creating a healthy economy is quite telling - they are just a vested interest. Giving them too much control over the economy is like putting monkeys in charge of the bananas. However their financial expertise should be listened to but with reservations.
Bulls Crack - on 15 May 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I'm sure a body called Anon News is to be trusted implicitly
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to jess13:

> I think the point about bankers expertise being about making the banks money and not about creating a healthy economy is quite telling - they are just a vested interest. Giving them too much control over the economy is like putting monkeys in charge of the bananas. However their financial expertise should be listened to but with reservations.

Which is why the BOE has other independent directors. All experts are a vested interest, as I said, and Tom failed to address the point.
Timmd on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Er, that's what banks do. Is it your view that a bank or person that finances successful corporations and its host government is dangerous or doing something wrong? Is your view that philanthropy is wrong? Is it your view that everyone should open their finances to public scrutiny and that we should assume the worst of those who don't?Is it your view that people should be disqualified from public service by the activities of their ancestors?

Good questions. A relative had it as a rule in his company that everybody knew what everybody else was paid, in that if it couldn't be justified it shouldn't happen. That example has me wondering whether private wealth shouldn't be similarly open too.
summo on 15 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> That example has me wondering whether private wealth shouldn't be similarly open too.

Not sure on Denmark, but in Norway and Sweden, you can view what a person's annual income was and how much tax they paid. The breakdown of it is private.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Er, that's what banks do. Is it your view that a bank or person that finances successful corporations and its host government is dangerous or doing something wrong? Is your view that philanthropy is wrong? Is it your view that everyone should open their finances to public scrutiny and that we should assume the worst of those who don't?Is it your view that people should be disqualified from public service by the activities of their ancestors?

It's my view that scale matters and the scale of the Rothschilds is mind blowing. It's not about everyone, it's not even about Warren Buffet or Bill Gates its about a multi-hundred year international dynasty with vast amounts of money hidden in a maze of tax havens and holding companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Modern_businesses.2C_investments_and_philanthropy

There's nothing wrong with philanthropy but when a family donates a new parliament and supreme court building to a country you can be forgiven for wondering if there's influence being bought. Especially when the family have a several hundred year history of influencing countries with money.

Also nothing wrong with public service. If Baron Rothschild wants to volunteer as a community policeman then fair enough. Director of the Bank of England less so.





Timmd on 15 May 2017
In reply to summo:
> Not sure on Denmark, but in Norway and Sweden, you can view what a person's annual income was and how much tax they paid. The breakdown of it is private.

Can you imagine the outrage if somebody proposed that in the UK? I'm starting to seriously dislike this country in certain ways. :-/
Post edited at 22:30
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

But there's lots of them!Individually they are very wealthy, but so are lots of other people.
And as I've said, the motivation for influencing policy is the same if one one is worth £1million or £10 billion. Arguably there is much less motivation to exploit one's influence for financial gain of one is so rich that money is no longer really an object.

As you'll be aware, it is a central part of Jewish culture to be philanthropic, particularly to the State of Israel. Nothing to see there.

Why have you got this obsession about how long they've been around?

I find it shocking that people should feel that allowing members of such a distinguished and talented family that has made such a huge contribution to the UK should be prohibited from public service on the basis of being wealthy.

Are you going to answer my other questions?
1
FactorXXX - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Can you imagine the outrage if somebody proposed that in the UK? I'm starting to seriously dislike this country in certain ways. :-/

You could always start the ball rolling by declaring your annual income and tax details...
FactorXXX - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Why have you got this obsession about how long they've been around?

Because it means that they're probably vampires?
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Why have you got this obsession about how long they've been around?Because it means that they're probably vampires?

Or lizards....
FactorXXX - on 16 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

There's nothing wrong with philanthropy but when a family donates a new parliament and supreme court building to a country you can be forgiven for wondering if there's influence being bought.

Not as bad as The Krankies, who appear to have donated Nicola Sturgeon in an attempt to rekindle their following in Scotland.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.