Can you please provide a source or context to aid in finding this statement? The one piece of information relating to this I found in primary sources was this, which didn't say anything about anything like this at all.
Apparently it has happened quite a few times. A search on the library of congress newspaper archives gives over 200 hits. First one was in 1850 (on that search).
A lot of those are false positives. Searching for "Rothschild" and "arrested" turns up many irrelevant hits where someone else's arrest was mentioned on a page which also happened to mention the Rothschilds. Actual Rothschild arrests are few and far between - and a ransom only happened once.
I did not look through all of the reports; however, the search parameters limit the search to "Rothschild" and "arrested" being within 5 words of each other.
I looked at 4 at random, and they were 4 for 4 relating to a Rothschild arrest; so not "false positives." I may have "gotten lucky" but it does indicate they aren't all false positives.
Suggesting "a lot" in such a circumstance, without some actual measurement (as I did, with 4/4 but perhaps on a larger scale to get a better statistic) is not really saying anything at all, even though it suggests... well, "a lot."
I didn't say they were all false positives. I just don't think there's been over 200 Rothschild arrests since 1850. From the ones I clicked on (about half a dozen or so), half or more were unrelated. I don't have time to dig through and check all 12 pages of the search results to give you a proper measurement of exactly how many are relevant and how many aren't. I was just pointing that out for yours and others' benefit.
I appreciate what you were saying. I was pointing out your characterization of "a lot" was in no way meaningful, but still highly suggestive. We have two very small samples, mine was 4/4 and yours was (by your report) 3/6. Perhaps the real measure is then the average of those two samplings, which would be 75%. That would put your statement of "a lot," while not untrue, as very misleading.
I'm not trying to chastise you. I use such rhetoric all the time myself, though I am training myself not to. It is exactly such misleading estimates, based on quick judgements of poor measurements, that create the beliefs we have that have so little to do with the truth, that they become lies of context. It is lies of context that create the division, the echo chambers, that keep us locked in The Matrix. It is lies of context that the media has been using for forever to create The Matrix and keep us there.
I still consider 25% (which it might be more than that - as that's apparently the minimum we've come up with), to be "a lot"... maybe because I don't exclusively use "a lot" to mean "the majority." That's why I didn't use the word "most." I purposely avoided saying "most of those are false positives," and instead opted to use the term "a lot," as to me it seemed like I had a 1/2 chance of getting a false hit, give or take 10-20%.
Evidently the issue here is miscommunication, which I often find to be a lot more problematic in the patriot movement than "lies of context." I do appreciate precision and accuracy, although in an informal setting like this, I find too often that we patriots quibble amongst ourselves about the meaning of one word rather than focusing on real issues... just my 2 cents. I think this is a small enough argument to not damage us too much in terms of locking us into the matrix 😉. Thanks for your explanation anyway.
I find too often that we patriots quibble amongst ourselves about the meaning of one word rather than focusing on real issues
Words create The Matrix. We have been trained within it, and we unconsciously use that training to perpetuate it. The Matrix is, imo, the only problem that actually exists. All other problems immediately disappear the moment everyone understands that they live in The Matrix.
That is why I feel it is important to point out these uses of rhetoric that guide belief. Implicit in your "a lot" is "there really isn't as much to see here as you think." To which I say, that's not true at all, because if there are in fact 160 reports of Rothschild arrest your follow up sentence of " Actual Rothschild arrests are few and far between" would be completely untrue. So it's not as innocent as you are suggesting, even if not intentional.
I really don't mean to start shit. I consider exposing The Matrix to be my job. It is self appointed, but I feel it is something that I can do, and it is imo the most important thing that I can do to help people, and to ensure this works out as a victory for We The People.
For those interested in the full history - how Nazi's were funded by the Banking Cabal and then Hitler turned against them, this timeline would be interesting.
Rothschild's agent Hjalmar Schacht was invited by Hitler to run the Reichsbank in 1934. Here, Schacht architected two different forms of currency that allowed Hitler not only to squash the inflation, but also rapidly expand Germany's economic growth without causing inflation (incidentally, he has outlined very clearly what kinds of printing money causes inflations and what kind does not).
In 1937 was when Hitler decided to go on his own. Schacht refused to continue printing money for his war effort, and Hitler fired him and took control of the central bank directly.
Next year he was able to convince Austrians to become part of Germany. I am guessing there is also a financial connection between taking control of the CB and getting to the point of incorporating Austria, if someone is willing to dig into it.
On the very same day, the Austrians arrested the Rothschild and held him for ransom. The ransom paid was the biggest ransom ever - $400 million in todays money. AND, they that was not the only thing they got. They were able to acquire Witkowitz - largest Iron and Steelworks, at a huge discount as well, which helped them with the war effort.
On May 11, 1939, after being held hostage for fourteen months, the Nazis exchanged Louis Rothschild for a staggering $21 million (over $400 million in today’s value), a ransom believed to be one of the largest ever paid for an individual in history.
But that wasn’t the only thing the Rothschilds had to pay for one of its key people. The Nazis forced them to sell the Witkowitz concern at a discounted price of £2.9 million ($260 million in today’s value)
That's not how the international bankers roll. They can easily and quietly dump money into someone's bank account without public backlash - they do that sort of thing all the time. They're too prideful to allow someone to hold one of their own for ransom like that. In some of their own publications, they admitted applying "informal financial pressure" internationally in order to get the Germans to let Louis go. It really pissed them off.
Nazi Germany hated the Rothschilds. They even had a movie made about them and their sick bullshit. Don't forget the Rothschilds helped fund the German civil war that started in 1919, funding the communist jew side and also turned much of post-WW1 Germany in a hive of debauchery which centered around a lot of prostitution and pornography which served to try and disintegrate the family. No wonder the nazis hated the jews.
More to the point of the OP however, I do recall reading that Nazi Germany did manage to capture at least one prominent member of their family though I can't remember if it was this guy.
He was held and ultimately they paid up, 21,000,000 in 1938, so 380,000,000 in today's dollars.. Crazy
u/bubble_bursts
Can you please provide a source or context to aid in finding this statement? The one piece of information relating to this I found in primary sources was this, which didn't say anything about anything like this at all.
Not the only thing that was paid. They also managed to acquire the largest iron and steelworks at a discount.
Could the truth be the opposite of everything we've been taught?
Think mirror image
Could someone please provide a source for this? It would help in my paper. If not a source, at least some context so I can find it.
Apparently it has happened quite a few times. A search on the library of congress newspaper archives gives over 200 hits. First one was in 1850 (on that search).
A lot of those are false positives. Searching for "Rothschild" and "arrested" turns up many irrelevant hits where someone else's arrest was mentioned on a page which also happened to mention the Rothschilds. Actual Rothschild arrests are few and far between - and a ransom only happened once.
I did not look through all of the reports; however, the search parameters limit the search to "Rothschild" and "arrested" being within 5 words of each other.
I looked at 4 at random, and they were 4 for 4 relating to a Rothschild arrest; so not "false positives." I may have "gotten lucky" but it does indicate they aren't all false positives.
Suggesting "a lot" in such a circumstance, without some actual measurement (as I did, with 4/4 but perhaps on a larger scale to get a better statistic) is not really saying anything at all, even though it suggests... well, "a lot."
I didn't say they were all false positives. I just don't think there's been over 200 Rothschild arrests since 1850. From the ones I clicked on (about half a dozen or so), half or more were unrelated. I don't have time to dig through and check all 12 pages of the search results to give you a proper measurement of exactly how many are relevant and how many aren't. I was just pointing that out for yours and others' benefit.
I appreciate what you were saying. I was pointing out your characterization of "a lot" was in no way meaningful, but still highly suggestive. We have two very small samples, mine was 4/4 and yours was (by your report) 3/6. Perhaps the real measure is then the average of those two samplings, which would be 75%. That would put your statement of "a lot," while not untrue, as very misleading.
I'm not trying to chastise you. I use such rhetoric all the time myself, though I am training myself not to. It is exactly such misleading estimates, based on quick judgements of poor measurements, that create the beliefs we have that have so little to do with the truth, that they become lies of context. It is lies of context that create the division, the echo chambers, that keep us locked in The Matrix. It is lies of context that the media has been using for forever to create The Matrix and keep us there.
I still consider 25% (which it might be more than that - as that's apparently the minimum we've come up with), to be "a lot"... maybe because I don't exclusively use "a lot" to mean "the majority." That's why I didn't use the word "most." I purposely avoided saying "most of those are false positives," and instead opted to use the term "a lot," as to me it seemed like I had a 1/2 chance of getting a false hit, give or take 10-20%.
Evidently the issue here is miscommunication, which I often find to be a lot more problematic in the patriot movement than "lies of context." I do appreciate precision and accuracy, although in an informal setting like this, I find too often that we patriots quibble amongst ourselves about the meaning of one word rather than focusing on real issues... just my 2 cents. I think this is a small enough argument to not damage us too much in terms of locking us into the matrix 😉. Thanks for your explanation anyway.
Words create The Matrix. We have been trained within it, and we unconsciously use that training to perpetuate it. The Matrix is, imo, the only problem that actually exists. All other problems immediately disappear the moment everyone understands that they live in The Matrix.
That is why I feel it is important to point out these uses of rhetoric that guide belief. Implicit in your "a lot" is "there really isn't as much to see here as you think." To which I say, that's not true at all, because if there are in fact 160 reports of Rothschild arrest your follow up sentence of " Actual Rothschild arrests are few and far between" would be completely untrue. So it's not as innocent as you are suggesting, even if not intentional.
I really don't mean to start shit. I consider exposing The Matrix to be my job. It is self appointed, but I feel it is something that I can do, and it is imo the most important thing that I can do to help people, and to ensure this works out as a victory for We The People.
This might be the same story, albeit not the same newspaper.
Same story, another source: https://www.jta.org/archive/baron-louis-de-rothschild-dead-paid-21000000-ransom-to-nazis
/u/CreamSupreme: could you provide the source newspaper and date for this particular article?
$ talks bs walks... repeat
For those interested in the full history - how Nazi's were funded by the Banking Cabal and then Hitler turned against them, this timeline would be interesting.
Rothschild's agent Hjalmar Schacht was invited by Hitler to run the Reichsbank in 1934. Here, Schacht architected two different forms of currency that allowed Hitler not only to squash the inflation, but also rapidly expand Germany's economic growth without causing inflation (incidentally, he has outlined very clearly what kinds of printing money causes inflations and what kind does not).
In 1937 was when Hitler decided to go on his own. Schacht refused to continue printing money for his war effort, and Hitler fired him and took control of the central bank directly.
Next year he was able to convince Austrians to become part of Germany. I am guessing there is also a financial connection between taking control of the CB and getting to the point of incorporating Austria, if someone is willing to dig into it.
On the very same day, the Austrians arrested the Rothschild and held him for ransom. The ransom paid was the biggest ransom ever - $400 million in todays money. AND, they that was not the only thing they got. They were able to acquire Witkowitz - largest Iron and Steelworks, at a huge discount as well, which helped them with the war effort.
Nowadays it's: "Guilty for your crimes until you can bribe"
Was that just a mechanism to give the Nazis $21M overtly without public backlash?
That's not how the international bankers roll. They can easily and quietly dump money into someone's bank account without public backlash - they do that sort of thing all the time. They're too prideful to allow someone to hold one of their own for ransom like that. In some of their own publications, they admitted applying "informal financial pressure" internationally in order to get the Germans to let Louis go. It really pissed them off.
Nazi Germany hated the Rothschilds. They even had a movie made about them and their sick bullshit. Don't forget the Rothschilds helped fund the German civil war that started in 1919, funding the communist jew side and also turned much of post-WW1 Germany in a hive of debauchery which centered around a lot of prostitution and pornography which served to try and disintegrate the family. No wonder the nazis hated the jews.
More to the point of the OP however, I do recall reading that Nazi Germany did manage to capture at least one prominent member of their family though I can't remember if it was this guy.
The Rothschilds are just money handlers for the Roman Catholic Church. Hitler was just a roman puppet.
They started wwii