I think you’re confusing Illuminati Defector Details Conspiracy Plans with Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.
Rothschild, please (a name literally translating as “red shield” in German). For those unfamiliar with their family history, the Rothschilds are a Jewish financial dynasty that started building up their empire in the late 18th century when five brothers left their hometown, Frankfurt, Germany, and spread over the financial centers of Europe. In the 19th century, the various branches of the Rothschild dynasty operated a profitable network of banks throughout Europe and did have considerable influence on European politics - one famous stunt they helped pulling was helping the British government to purchase a majority of Suez Canal shares in 1875. Clearly, several generations of them were among the world’s wealthiest individuals.
Their influence today? According to Wikipedia, the revenue the Rothschild group made in 2003 was 828 million euros. Surely a nice sum, but not enough to control the world.
In summary, they are a considerably rich family with a long tradition. Nothing less, but also nothing more.
Welcome to the boards, quicksilver6. You DID come to the right place, but you just got started with the night crew. 
The trading of personal insults in forums outside of the BBQ Pit is not allowed. Even a mild one, like “goof” is not what we want. Try not to do this again if you stick around.
samclem GQ moderator
The rest of your post proves you’re not sorry at all.
My knowledge comes from facts, not unsupported conspiracy theories.
I did help you. I showed you how to tell the difference between a book of fiction (conspiracy theories) and non-fiction.
You’re going about it wrong. (See? More help from me to you–the individual who insulted me at least twice in this very thread.) You need to get factual evidence to prove the claptrap that’s being spouted to you is true. But seeing as you seem to think it’s true…well, maybe you are in the wrong forum. Cafe Society discusses fiction quite often.
Oh, even more help: Whacked out conspiracy theories are fiction, and usually inconsistant fiction at that.
TIME OUT!!
Let’s end the general bashing in this thread and get back to solid evidence and cites. Try to emulate Schnitte.
Thank you.
samclem GQ moderator
quicksilver6,
As a guest, it is likely that you weren’t aware of the etiquette of this board. As a member, I cannot claim the same, even for what I considered to be gentle ribbing. I do apologize.
My only excuse: As a recent guest, and with this thread containing your only posts, I suspected that the intent of your post was to start up a topic such as Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Your specific reference to the Rothschild family does not shake my suspicion. I hope that I am incorrect; as samclem noted, it was late and I should have been more diplomatic.
If your intent of posting here is a genuine quest for knowlege, you are most welcome here. You mention that you have been reading a lot, and you found a list of thirteen families. What is your reading material, and who are the families referenced therein and their (claimed) economic holdings or control?
plynck
That the compilers of that site finger the Russell family as one of those ruling the world caught my attention (Bertrand and all that). As an example of how shoddy their research is, take this passage from their page on “The Russell Bloodline”:
For a start, there was never anybody called “Ordo W. Russell”; they presumably intend to refer to Sir Odo William Leopold Russell, 1st Baron Ampthill (1829-84).
Sir Odo is an interesting enough figure of his period, particularly because he was the British ambassador to Berlin during Bismarck’s time as chancellor. But it seems slightly to miss the point to single him out as a member of “the Russell bloodline” largely because his son was later a mason when the obvious significance of the family at the time is that, umm, his uncle Lord John Russell was Prime Minister. And one of the most famous of all Victorian statesmen at that. (Odo’s father was his elder brother. Bertrand Russell was then descended from Lord John rather than Odo.)
It seems a rather warped - and/or ignorant - view of Victorian history to focus on the “unofficial ambassador” to the Vatican as one of those supposedly ruling the world and miss the fact that his uncle was already openly running the greatest empire the world had ever seen.
Or am I not being paranoid enough?
I was browsing through the link provided by Little Nemo. I was doing fine until I hit this:
“But the Romanovs were also an occult bloodline, and so the IlIuminati secretly took children of the Imperial family to serve as breeders for the IlIuminati so that the Illuminati could channel in the Romanov’s occult blood into their bloodlines.”
Those eyeroll cramps hurt like fire.
Likely, this crap about 13 familes controlling the world is a follow-up to the “14 families” that largely controlled El Salvador since it’s independence from Spain in 1821.
A google on “El Salvador 14 families” provides a lot of interesting information about entrenched corruption.
quicksilver6, I second Plynck’s questions. Where did you hear of this? What have you been reading?
You see, part of the reason people were so quick on the gun is that a LOT of this stuff has been addressed before on the Boards, and some people get tired of these ideas being raised with no primary research. They weren’t really snarking at you, just at the same ideas being raised over and over again.
Now we know guests can’t search, but around here this is the way it works.
I heard about these 13 families from this book (name book). In it, he gives this evidence. (list evidence or point to a link). Is this evidence real? Are there truly such families ruling the world?
Your OP was vague and therefore hard to answer. And this Board is full of skeptics - myself included - who look at every conspiracy theory from 15 angles before even considering it.
So…I don’t think anyone meant any hard feelings. And we’re sorry. Welcome to the boards.
Define “control” and " the World".
Hey guys. Sincerely I do apologize for being mildly insulting I just didn’t appreciate being so rudly dealt with. Thanks for the good posts today. And for the record no I don’t believe that 13 families control the world I’ve just heard this idea tossed around on a few web sites and I wanted to know if there was any credability to it. I mean you look at the world right now and with all the greed and corruption in our Gov’ts and the missuse of tax dollars eg. the Canadian Gun registry program and Adscam to name a couple. You have to admit that there are some pretty crazy things out there. I wouldn’t say that I’m a conspiracy theorist but the Masons do have a lot of interesting things said about them and reading about them led me to the 13 family stuff. But you’re right it’s probaby all crap. But I wanted to know so I came to the place where ignorance is suppose to shed so I wanted some straight answers and proof that those 13 families don’t exist. I jumped the gun last night with some petty arguing and I apologize I won’t get into that again. Like I said I was just after some intelligent discussion. And I did look as a newcomer I went through about 150 questions asked to Cecil and I found some Illuminati and Masonic references but nothing about the 13 families maybe next time I’ll look harder.
Thanks
Quick
Ok heres an interesting essay i found. Tell me what you think…
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rothschild2.html
One problem with a conspiracy theory like that is that it doesn’t account for changes in the world. The power and influence of many of those families peaked 100 or 200 years ago. Today, I suspect that other families and individuals, such as the Gates family (Microsoft), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), the Walton family (Walmart) and of course the president’s family, have more influence than the specified thirteen families which are also less wealthy than many other people today. (For example, I doubt that all of the Astor money amounts to a billion dollars today.)
Conspiracy theorists take a few facts, add some suppositions, bridge the gaps with outright lies, and build a wonderful theory about how everything works. If you happen to come across one of the facts, it seems to add credence to the theory. If you happen to come across one of the lies, the theorist will claim that of course you were told it was a lie, they’re covering up the truth.
The best way to handle one of these huge conspiracy theories is not to try to pick apart the details, it’s to look at the whole picture. Assume it’s true; does it make sense? If the entire government is controlled by a secret conspiracy, would they choose to kill President Kennedy by shooting him in the middle of a public motorcade? No, they’d poison him in the White House and make it look like natural causes. If the Communists have thousands of agents controlling every level of the American government, would they use them to secretly rule the United States? No, they had that much control, they’d come out in the open and declare us a People’s Republic. If thirteen families secretly rule the world, would they pretend to be ordinary millionaires? No, they’d come out and take over like the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, or the Romanovs did. Families like the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Kennedys are exactly what they look like - families with a lot of money, strong influence because of their money, and some members holding political offices.
Well, nobody can prove the 13 families don’t exist, especially if every argument against them can be shot down by a conspiracy theoriest saying “that’s what they want you to believe”.
Well, the author uses the word “undoubtedly” quite a bit; eleven times by my count, and usually attached to a claim for which he otherwise provides no evidence. As for the Rothschilds being low-key, I find it hard to view that as suspicious. It’s a family of bankers - most of what they do involves complex high finance in boardrooms and conference halls. It’s not flashy enough (or even particularly interesting enough) to get a lot of play in the newspapers, except for occasional mention in the financial pages. By comparison, the Kennedys get a lot of press because they get caught up in politics and the occasional sex scandal.
How is that ironic? Diana and Theresa were already famous at the times of their deaths, Baron Rothschild less so.
I thought the calculations of the Rothschild fortune, estimating an annual return of 4% to 8% since 1850 and thus giving them a current wealth of $1.9 to $491 trillion were hilarious. The author also describes (five times!) a commonly-held view that gold (as a commodity) is a barbarous/barbaric relic. I understand most (if not all) nations have abandoned the gold-backed currency standard, but when did people start to believe that this former practice was barbaric?
His closing sentence:
Said by whom? And isn’t this identical in premise to the old chestnut about a millionaire’s factory being oiled with the blood of the workers, or similar populist bullshit?
Who is “Markus Angelicus”, anyway? A google only shows entries discussing the Rothschilds. Does this person have any actual training in macroeconomics? Has he ever written about anything else? I don’t like resorting to such ad hominem questions, but the subject matter is complicated and it would help to know if the author isn’t just another conspiracy theorist.
-
You were not dealt with rudely.
-
The link you provided in post #34 have at least these two give-aways to show it’s bunk:
{bolding mine}
The rest of the page is equally scandalous.
If you stick around these boards, you’ll encounter a phrase fairly often: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” That page is pure conspiracy theorist stuff: extraordinary claims, leaps of logic, and no proof whatsoever to back up either.
The Freemasons are not ruling the world, they’re not the Illuminati, and those who recognize that are aware that the bad things said about the Freemasons are bunk.
Someone else asked you above and I’ll repeat the query: Where did you read this stuff? What’s the title of the book? What’s the reference to the websites?
Drat!
Should be:
The main problem with most, if not all, long term conspiracy theories is that it requires the assumption that there exists a cohesive group of people who will act in concert, have near perfect analytical skills, execute operations flawlessly with high levels of effectiveness, and in near complete secrecy.
Usually the people making these assumptions about conspiratorial groups are willing to grant these groups mysterious powers and influence bordering on the superhuman. The truth is usually much more mundane.
Deep Throat is a perfect example. There were grand and elaborate conspiracies surrounding the identity of this source and all sorts of Machiavellian reasons given for his motivation in giving the Washington Post this information. In the end it was revealed that he (Felt AKA Deep Throat) did this primarily (initially at least) because he was pissed he didn’t get a desired promotion.
Humans are greedy, petty, gabby, emotional and make stupid decisions all the time. Every time the top is removed from some secret government operation or elaborate criminal scheme it’s more of the same. It’s ALWAYS more of the same.
To hold that an extremely elaborate, incredibly powerful and influential conspiracy is able to maintain itself in relative secrecy across decades and centuries requires (IMO) a comic book level of faith in the nature of man and social groups.