Who are the Culprits that Threaten World Peace?
By Karl Pomeroy
March 3, 2017
Edited September 11 and 12, 2017
[Preliminary note, September 12, 2017, by Karl Pomeroy, Chief Editor of Quemado Institute: I have noticed a lot of misunderstanding among certain readers when we, or other websites, criticize public figures who happen to be Jewish. This is especially true in the case of the Rothschilds. I want to clarify that neither I nor Quemado Institute ever criticizes anyone for their race, religion, gender or ethnic background. What we criticize about powerful public figures is behavior that is damaging to other groups of people. For example, we criticize Christians Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their advocacy of US foreign intervention, in the same way that we criticize the Rothschilds for dominating a banking industry that has financed weapons manufacture on both sides of many wars. We also criticize the Saudi Muslim leadership for bombing Yemen. We do not single out any race or ethnic group for criticism. We feel that public figures who have acquired inordinate power need criticism in order to curb their destructive activities, whether intentional or not. The world is facing possible environmental catastrophe, economic ruin, and nuclear war because of the unchecked operations of the deep state, New World Order and globalist corporate factions. These people need to be stopped, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Chinese, African, European, North American, South American, Middle Eastern, Russian, or Australian.]
It’s all too easy to blame the Americans for neoconservative foreign wars. Analysts cite the Deep State is as the instigator of U.S. aggression, while many accuse the Democrats of the treasonous drive against President Trump. And in a weird twist of politics, demonization of Russia has not abated since the election of our Russia-friendly President. Instead, left-wing mania has escalated, until a chat with a Russian ambassador is claimed grounds for impeachment.
Senators such as insane John McCain and flaky Jeff Flake, both from Arizona, decry the aggression of the Russian Federation. And as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said at the Brookings Institution on February 23, 2017, “Russia is an existential threat to the United States.”
Yet the only incident these Russophobes can cite is Russia’s adoption of Crimea. What they fail to mention is the following self-evident principle: After a violent government overthrow—such as the US-backed Maidan coup that ousted Ukraine’s President Yanukovich—there exists no national or international law to decree who governs a country. Short of military conquest, the only law is the will of the people. The Russians did not invade. The Crimeans voted to join Russia. Thus, Crimea is not in any sense a case of Russian aggression.
In fact, Russia—unlike China, but especially unlike the United States of America—has not overstepped its borders since the fall of Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the U.S. has extended its reach through a violent, blind and shameless foreign policy, having destroyed the stability of the Greater Middle East in just 16 years.
The charges against Russia are nonsense. This leads to question of who is behind the subversion of Trump’s foreign policy.
The following article from Veterans Today offers more background:
The Rothschilds Own John McCain
February 28, 2017
By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Bank of England was dominantly controlled by the Rothschild family.
We have argued over the past few months that John McCain is still around dancing like a parrot because he has been paid to say weird things, crazy things, and dumb things in the media. He has accepted a large sum of money from terrorist states like Saudi Arabia, and the Guardian even reported back in 2008 that McCain’s funding came from a very interesting source: the Rothschilds. The report states:
“A US campaign watchdog has accused presumptive Republican president nominee John McCain of violating election laws by accepting campaign contributions from two prominent Londoners.
“At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London’s Spencer House, during McCain’s swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their ‘kind permission.’”
But what’s wrong with taking money from the Rothschilds? Well, plenty. Keep in mind that one of the “industrial forces” that controlled the financial world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries through covert operations was none other than the Rothschild family. The Independent itself reported in 2008 that the Rothschilds have dominated the political landscape through covert means for at least 200 years:
“The Rothschild family and politics have been intertwined for generations, ever since Nathan Rothschild, who founded the English branch of the family business, financed Britain’s war against Napoleon two centuries ago…
“When another member of the clan, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, married the New York businesswoman Lynn Forester, they spent the night of their wedding dinner in the White House as guests of Bill Clinton. Lady Rothschild was a fund-raiser for the Democrats, but defected to the McCain camp after her friend Hillary Clinton was beaten to the nomination by Barack Obama.”
The Rothschild’s dominance and power through covert means was even admitted by historian Gustavus Myers, who wrote in The History of the Great American Fortunes that “under the surface, the Rothschilds had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were the power in the old Bank of the United States.”
S.C. Mooney writes that “the Rothschild family stands out in history as the prime example of manipulating the power of international banking… By means of usury on international scale, they were able to consolidate great wealth and power to turn world affairs according to their own fancy.” The Rothschilds financed wars in England and America, collecting huge interest rates and making a massive profit.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Bank of England was dominantly controlled by the Rothschild family. As Jewish Austrian writer Frederic Morton wrote, by the middle of the nineteenth century, “Rothschild was now banker to empires and continents—to all the principal European countries, to Eurasian Russia, to the Americas, to the Indies…In Paris, in Vienna, in Frankfurt and Naples, the titanic brother branches were just as busy.”
Jewish historian Esther Benbassa has similar views. She states that “the Rothschilds were Scottish Rite Masons,” but Benbassa saw Freemasonry as a noble and tolerant religious organization that had welcomed Jews.
Philo-Semitic historian Niall Ferguson declared that Nathan Rothschild “was able to become the principal conduit of money from the British government to the continental battlefields on which the fate of Europe was decided in 1814 and 1815.” Nathan, according to Ferguson, “became the master of the bond market” and “the master of European politics” during the Napoleonic war.
By the nineteenth century, Nathan established “the biggest bank in the world.” An American magazine complained in the 1830s that “not a cabinet moves without [the Rothschilds’] advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from Petersburg to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington.”
The Rothschilds, in relation with the Rockefeller Foundation, were behind the “fiat money and inflationist policy of the early New Deal.” (In 2012, the Rothschilds again attempted to merge British and French banking operations in order to gain more control. David de Rothschild declared that the new system would “better meet the requirements of globalization in general and in our competitive environment in particular, while ensuring my family’s control over the long term.”)
Ferguson, of course, does not attribute the Rothchild’s economic power to usury or economic manipulation or even theft but to “sheer good luck,” something that is hardly rational.
There were other voices, however, who thought the Rothschilds were up to something. In 1828, Thomas Dunscombe declared:
“Master of unbounded wealth, [Nathan] boasts that he is the arbiter of peace and war, and that the credit of nations depends upon his nod; his correspondence are innumerable; his couriers outrun those of sovereign princes, and…ministers of state are in his pay.”
Henry Clews, the American financier who wrote Twenty-Eight Years in Wall Street in 1888, declared that the Rothschilds were making a fortune in America through German banker August Schonberg, who changed his name to Belmont when he came to the United States.
Clews states that through his “avariciousness” and “penuriousness,” Nathan Rothschild in particular would “manipulate the market.”
Carroll Quigley claimed that the Rothschilds, among other bankers, were secretly misleading governments and people; he says that Mirabaud and the Rothschilds became the dominant financial system between 1871 and 1900. British economist J. A. Hobson declared in 1902 that nothing could be pursued “by any European state…if the house of Rothschild…set their face against it.”
The Rothschilds ended up making a fortune during the Napoleonic Wars. Austrian-born Jewish writer Frederic Morton (born Fritz Mandelbaum) declared that the Rothschilds “conquered the world more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before or all the Hitlers after them.”
Morton’s assertion is corroborated by biographer Derek Wilson, who declared that the Rothschilds were so financially and politically powerful that even royal governments and political leaders were afraid of them. Their influence was so covert that Wilson moves on to say that
“clandestinity was and remained a feature of Rothschild political activity…Yet all the while they were helping to shape the major events of the day: by granting or withholding funds; by providing statesmen with an unofficial diplomatic service; by influencing appointments to high office; and by an almost daily intercourse with the great decision makers.”
Ferguson himself declared:
“No one does more to further the revolution than the Rothschilds themselves…and, though it may sound even more strange, these Rothschilds, the bankers of kings, these princely pursestring-holders, whose existence might be placed in the gravest danger by a collapse of the European state system, nevertheless carry in their minds a consciousness of their revolutionary mission. I see in Rothschild one of the greatest revolutionaries who have founded modern democracy.”
In many ways, they founded “modern democracy” by destroying the old system and replacing it with Jewish mammon. “Rothschild…destroyed the predominance of land, by raising the system of state bonds to supreme power, thereby mobilizing property and some income and at the same time endowing money with the previous privileges of the land. He thereby created a new aristocracy, it is true, but this, resting as it does on the most unreliable of elements, on money, can never play as endurably regressive a role as the former aristocracy, which was rooted in the land, in the earth itself.”
Ferguson even admitted that the Rothschilds represented “a new materialist religion,” which is none other than money. Heinrich Heine saw the same thing: “‘Money is the god of our time,’ declared Heine in March 1841, ‘and Rothschild is his prophet.’”
Heine saw this as dangerous to the Jews. Marx saw it too. But the only people who are still wondering whether there is any problem at all are puppets like John McCain, who can never get tired of slaughtering and torturing men, women and children in the Middle East for the Rothschilds and Israel. No wonder John McCain cannot make sense whatsoever.