INFORMedia - alternative free media news and reviews - during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act

Acting greatly surprised, British investment bank Rothschild in response had said it regretted “that the firm is linked in any way to the inhumane institution of slavery.” Supposedly big news to them, the ancient Rothschild establishment quickly muttered sounds of indignation after the report appeared in the new world order’s main media outlet, the Financial Times.

According to the 2009 FT article, the chief archivist of the Rothschild family papers “reacted with disbelief when first told of the content of the records, saying she had never seen such links before.”

The archivist in question must have either suffered from long-term memory loss, or her masters have employed the woman because of her excellent lying skills. Although called a “scoop” by Lionel Barber in his pick of the week, the family’s links to slave trade have been thoroughly documented throughout the last decades by numerous independent researchers. But never mind that.

The Financial Times nevertheless claims to have broken the story on June 27th that Nathan Mayer Rothschild benefited financially from slavery. According to the article, records at the National Archives in Britain contain evidence that the family patriarch “made personal gains by using slaves as collateral in banking dealings with a slave owner.”

Well yeah. It should come as no surprise for anyone who has even superficially glanced over the annals of Rothschild history that the family has engaged in slavery, not just “with links” to slave-owners. They, like all other black nobility, are the slave-owners.

Should we be genuinely surprised about links to slavery from the man who told us “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, (…). The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply.”?

Obviously Nathan Mayor Rothschild’s links to slavery have not been limited to just incidental financial ties to slave-owners, the name of Rothschild is synonymous with the very concept of slavery- which the dictionary defines as “a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others.” And that just about covers the entire history of the Redshield genealogy, from its registered beginnings in the 18th century to our current days- where the family uses not chains to put people into submission, but carbon credits and other global taxation policies in the name of “sustainable development.”

Another definition of slavery is given by the online dictionary, summing up the family practices pretty well:

“The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.” The only difference between the slavery practiced by bearded slave masters on creaking coffin-ships and the Rothschild family is the scale of the slavery, magnified to proportions way beyond normal human understanding. Unless you disregard bounding nations in economic choke-holds as a form of slavery, the family Rothschild is the ultimate slaveholder, exceeding anything a regular slave master could possibly be engaged in. This whole dirty business in which the family excels is reminiscent of the words of Joseph Stalin: “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

By focusing in on this or that incidental involvement in the slave trade, the Financial Times cleverly shifted the true blame away from the real crime perpetrated by the family: the enslavement of nations by controlling the money supply. This allows for the family to react with feigned repentance over long forgotten mishaps, while breathing a sigh of relief that the carefully contrived plan for world domination remains safely locked inside the family chest of secrets.

Perhaps it would be an idea to pull out a shovel and visit some of these archives- including the fresh Rockefeller reading room in Geneva. No doubt a treasure of confessed treacheries will surface and we may be able to use their own “transparency” against them.