ldereport.com/about/

World According to...
Lynn Forester de Rothschild

by Lloyd Grove Oct 05 2007

The American entrepreneur—and friend of the Clintons and the Blairs—talks about India, telecom, Conrad Black, and her marriage to Sir Evelyn Rothschild.


Full article: www.portfolio.com/views/columns/the-worl...h-Lady-de-Rothschild

Congrats for posting the first thread in this section, novum!

Here, have a gold star.

(At this point, I'd normally post an image of a gold star for you, but unfortunately, I can no longer post images. So, you'll have to use your imagination).

Ab Origine wrote:
Thankyou kind sir.

Dont worry about the gold star, next time i clean lynns pool ill ask her for a brick so I can make my own...evvie has plenty...

I do enjoy Icke's take on finances and those in control (and who more active in both than the manky, murderous Rothschilds?).

It's peculiar to imagine that ridding the world of this one family's rule would crash many of the foul systems around us overnight.

Down With The Rothschilds, I say!

cantata wrote:
Are you volunteering your services as bounty hunter/executioner extraordinaire here, cantata?

I'm sure we could all have a whip round if this is the case.

Ab Origine wrote:
Ooo, yes please, Abs! I'm volunteering.

Ever heard of this?

www.imdb.com/title/tt0025272/

The House of Rothschild (1934)

The story of the rise of the Rothschild financial empire founded by Mayer Rothschild and continued by his five sons. From humble beginnings the business grows and helps to finance the war against Napoleon, but it's not always easy, especially because of the prejudices against Jews.



Don't know if it's any good, I seriously doubt it, but it's hard to imagine it being put out now.

I enjoyed that, thank you wub I'm sure it's about as accurate as any "Hollywood History" that's gone before it but I like a melodramatic old movie now and then! I do think you're right though: it COULDN'T be made today.

wake_up_bomb wrote: seen it a while ago,its pretty good, really.

however, i dont see how the rothschilds are worse than the todays big banks

hadabusa wrote:
Don't they ultimiately own them too though?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
A bit of background about FOX film corporation, and 20th centuries pictures.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox

Mr Fox didnt have much of a good time before he lost it all it seems

And this...

psketti wrote:
Dont know if it would be all them...there are more elites...for one the royal houses of UK and Europe and related bloodlines, of which the Rothschilds and Goldsmiths are a part of.

In Quigley's Tragdey and Hope he states that the Rothschilds were / are important, but he also names J. P. Morgan as being the other pre-eminent banking family. He also names numerous other banking families that should be considered important: "The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should he more so. They include Raring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan". It does speak about the Rothschilds regularly, but also mentions the Rockefellers and Morgan as being, possibly, equally influential.

psketti wrote:
the 1 bank i know for factthey own is the rothschild private banking bank, typicaly rather few but very wealthy clients there.
but they got public shares, me and you can buy them if we like.

now for the bigger banks, they are owned by shareholders, and its impossible to know how many shares that family owns from those, they probably have strawmen figures buying for them.

and then theres this conspiracy floating around thatthey own all but 5 central banks in the world, which i think is ridiculous and impossible.because central banks return revenue to the treasury departments.there is no direct profits by private persons to be made by owning central banks.
in switzerland, they certainly dont own the central bank.that ive researched.
in england its impossible to tell who owns it.it doesnt even matter, central banks dont make money, they make it up and loan it to the big banks for little interest and the big banks then cash in by means of interest on loans, mortgages etcetc.

if i had a choice, id rather have a big bank than a central bank,its more profitable.

and by looking at how few of that family are still into banking, its hard to imagine theyre the top force in banking these days.

however they do advice govts on financial issues, thats def true

So the Rothcholds did it ?

To easy a scapegot in my opinion

theres that saying they own 500 trilions, but thats a stupid claim, there arent 500 trillions in circulations even.

but this here is a better approach:

In 1817, Nathan Rothschild bragged of having 50 million pounds. At a 5% annual rate of return that would equate to roughly 500 billion pounds today. In 1850, Jacob Rothschild was worth 600 million francs. At a 5% annual return that would equate to 860 billion francs, which would have been converted to Euros in 2001 at a 6.56 to 1 ratio, equalling €130 billion. By 2012, that fortune would total €224 billion.

Combined their fortunes would equal more than 1 trillion US dollars, which could do any one of the following:

1. Buy every stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange

2. Support the military of every NATO country combined for a year

3. Buy everyone on earth an iPod
4. Pay of Greece’s debt 2.5 times

5. Run the Australian government for nearly 3 years.


the familiy claims some of their wealth has dwindled over time, but there are no numbers.

could be could not be.

the medici dynasty has gone under and they were the most wealthy and powerful ever, so everythings possible.

dawnbreak wrote:
Well the aristocrats and euro royalty are entertwined with them, dare i say they are related to those on or about to be on the british throne in my opinion.

so its not that simple i think.

I do see for example lynn very active in the think tanks, CFR, chatham house, DAVOS etc...and i see this policy on the ground and pushed by politicians globally, especially here in Oz where they like to try stuff first sometimes.... the results of which seem to benefit corporations and companies they are involved in....so in my mind they are still no doubt major players.

how many people get to honeymoon at the whitehouse? (its in my interview link up near the top)

Like the vid in the OP says, the queen may possibly function in a similar manner to an egyptian pharaoh of old, sounds crazy to most, but images often convey information....



More: sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/Symbolism--Subli...-Symbolism.html#1163

Hey Novum, very interesting what you mention about the Queen representing ancient deities and the possible subliminal you pointed out. Good eye! Reminds me of Princess Beatrice's hat that was joked about and its odd similarity to the head dress of the Egyptian goddess Isis..

Even the neckline sort of resembles an Egyptian necklace...