Europe, Victim Of …. Whom?
Hm, very original way to look at history of Europe. Liked the connection of all the Events to its starting point, the disastrous (from Roman and European point of view) battle at the Teutoburg Forest. Who knows how would look European history if not this arrogant failure “Plutocrat”, Publius Quinctilius Varus. Connecting the outbreak of another disastrous war to the conservative “Plutocrat” of Germany, who felt threatened by the socialist in Germany (by the way many of them Jews) seems worth to consider. Yet I have to oppose your continues odor of conspiracy I can feel throughout your writings. It is pity you use your knowledge to propagate the dangerous idea of belief in conspiracy, that practically doesn’t exist and can’t exist. To my experience, many wicked egoistic people driven by their personal greed are at the top of any political or economic empires, but these are the last that can cooperate to the level of conspiracy. Their instinct to compete is to strong for it. The only real conspiracy in the latest history was done by the Nazi and Communistic revolutionaries. They both used it as a legitimate tool to arise hatred. By the way the Nazis used Rothschild’s name as part of their conspiracy theory, twisting completely the historical facts, (he never did money out of Waterloo, in contrary he almost bankrupted because of it), see the following;
THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD
Money’s Prophets, 1798-1848
By Niall Ferguson
“The most widespread Rothschild myth was that Nathan, after receiving news by carrier pigeon of Wellington’s victory at Waterloo, made a vast fortune speculating on the rise in British government securities. The reality, says Ferguson, was quite different. The Rothschilds’ couriers did alert them first to Napoleon’s defeat, but since they had bet big on a protracted military campaign, any quick gains in bonds after Waterloo were too small to offset the disruption to their business.
Rothschild capital did soar–but over a much longer period. Nathan’s breakthrough was a deal to supply cash to Wellington’s army in 1814. Waging a high-risk campaign of exchange-rate transactions, bond-price speculations, and commissions, the family garnered huge profits from this governmental financing. Then, from 500,000 pounds in 1818, Rothschild capital rose to 4,330,333 pounds in 1828–about 14 times the resources of their nearest competitor, Baring Brothers, which had been a close second. Their strategy: financing the postwar stabilization of Europe’s conservative powers. That meant luring monarchs and ministers, such as Austrian Chancellor Metternich, into their orbit. What made the Rothschilds ”the dominant force in international finance after 1815” was ”the sheer scale–and sophistication–of their operations.””
I am with you if you resist financial Barons unjustly exploiting their position, causing by their short term, greed driven behavior agonies to people, viz;
but in the same breath I have to oppose your purposeful misinterpretation of facts. And let me cite here your phrase at the beginning of the article;