In the dimly lit counting houses of 18th and 19th-century Europe, the Rothschilds and their Jewish financial allies perfected a ruthless strategy: fund both sides of conflicts to secure profit, then wield the resulting debts to dictate the peace. From the transatlantic slave trade to the American Civil War, their hidden hand shaped the New World, ensuring wealth flowed to their vaults while empires and nations bent to their will, all part of a grander design to fracture Islamic powers and reclaim Palestine.
The slave trade, a gruesome engine of commerce, was fertile ground for this tactic. Jewish merchants, with centuries of trade expertise, dominated key ports in Amsterdam, London, and Lisbon. The Rothschilds, still rising in Frankfurt, saw opportunity in the Atlantic’s blood-soaked triangle. They financed Jewish shipowners like Aaron Lopez, whose vessels carried enslaved Africans to the Americas, and backed European colonial powers—Britain, Spain, Portugal—with loans to expand their slave empires. Dutch and British companies, flush with Rothschild credit, shipped millions to toil in Caribbean plantations, while the family’s insurance ventures profited from every voyage. By funding slavers and colonial governments alike, the Rothschilds ensured gold from sugar and cotton filled their coffers, no matter which empire prevailed. Their influence stretched to the Americas, where Jewish traders in Charleston and Savannah, backed by Rothschild networks, controlled slave markets, their wealth paving the way for political clout in the New World.
This financial web set the stage for the U.S. Civil War, where the Rothschilds’ strategy reached its zenith. The South, tethered to cotton and slavery, faced the industrial North in a fight for survival. The Confederacy, cash-strapped but vital to European textile markets, sought European loans, and the Rothschilds obliged. Through their Paris branch, led by James Mayer de Rothschild, they funneled funds via Emile Erlanger’s bond scheme, arming the South with cannons and ships. Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish Confederate mastermind, brokered these deals, his ties to Jewish finance a whispered secret in London’s banking halls. Yet the Rothschilds played both sides, their London branch underwriting Union war bonds and Northern banks, ensuring profit whether the Stars and Stripes or the Rebel flag flew. The war’s carnage enriched them—Southern debts, Northern contracts, and post-war land grabs filled their ledgers.
But profit was only half the game. The Rothschilds’ loans bought influence, shaping the post-war order to their ends. By keeping Britain neutral, they preserved their American investments, while their grip on Southern debt positioned them to snap up devalued plantations after Appomattox. The war’s outcome—a fractured America, too weak to rival European powers—served their broader aims. Just as they bankrolled Britain’s Great Game to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, weakening the Islamic bulwark against a Jewish return to Palestine, they ensured the U.S. remained divided, its potential as a global power delayed. The Civil War’s chaos, like the slave trade’s misery, was a stepping stone to their ultimate goal: a Middle East reshaped by the Balfour Declaration, where Jewish settlers, backed by Rothschild gold, could reclaim their ancient homeland.
Every conflict, from slave ships to battlefields, was a chess move. By funding both sides, the Rothschilds turned war into wealth and debt into dominion, their influence echoing from the Americas to the Levant, where a new Jewish future awaited.
The Great Game was really about crippling the Islamic empire. Britains work in Afghanistan and India are proofs of its flanking. The destabilization of the Ottoman Empire was key to any possibility of a Jewish return, let alone reign, in the Middle East. However, the unification of the Arab Bedouin was not part of the plan. The wars to destabilize the Ottoman Empire accidentally gave rise to an even stronger Muslim nation, Saudi Arabia. To this day, the game plan has been to fund terrorism under the banner of Islam, to undo this mistake. Meanwhile the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, etc., continued to dissolve any chance of a united Islamic empire. However, again, the internet was not part of the plan. And here we are, shining a light on a disgusting monster.
The Great Game, the 19th-century geopolitical rivalry between Britain and Russia, is often framed as a struggle for control over Central Asia to secure imperial borders and trade routes. However, the Great Game’s deeper purpose was to dismantle the Islamic Ottoman Empire, the last major Muslim power capable of resisting Western domination. Britain’s maneuvers in Afghanistan and India served as strategic flanks to encircle and weaken this empire, paving the way for a Jewish return to the Middle East—a project allegedly driven by Zionist ambitions and Western powers, particularly the Rothschild-influenced British elite. Yet, the destabilization of the Ottomans had unforeseen consequences: the unification of the Arab Bedouin under Saudi Arabia, a new Islamic power. To counter this misstep, Western powers resorted to funding terrorism under the guise of Islam, perpetuating wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria to prevent a united Islamic empire. The internet, an unplanned wildcard, has since exposed these machinations, revealing the disgusting monster of delusional imperial bloodthirst.
The Ottoman Empire, spanning three continents at its peak, was the linchpin of Islamic power in the 19th century. Its control over the Middle East, including Palestine, posed a barrier to any Jewish return, let alone a Zionist vision of sovereignty. Britain, driven by imperial and Zionist interests, saw the Ottoman Empire as a primary obstacle. The Great Game, while outwardly a contest with Russia over Central Asia, was a veiled campaign to erode Ottoman influence by encircling its territories and undermining its stability.
Britain’s actions in Afghanistan and India were critical flanking maneuvers. Afghanistan, a buffer state between British India and Russian Central Asia, was also a gateway to the Ottoman sphere. The Anglo-Afghan Wars (1839–1842, 1878–1880) were not merely about securing India’s northwest frontier but about projecting power toward Ottoman-aligned Muslim regions. By installing compliant rulers and disrupting Afghan tribal unity, Britain weakened potential allies of the Ottomans. In India, the British East India Company and later the Raj suppressed Muslim resistance, notably during the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, which was partly fueled by Muslim resentment against colonial rule. By consolidating control over India’s Muslim population, Britain neutralized a potential Ottoman fifth column, ensuring the subcontinent served as a springboard for anti-Ottoman operations.
The Rothschild family played a covert role. Their financial support for British imperialism—through loans for wars and infrastructure like the Suez Canal—allegedly aligned with Zionist goals. The Suez, acquired in 1875 with Rothschild backing, gave Britain a chokehold on Ottoman trade routes, weakening the empire economically. The Great Game was less about Russia and more about dismantling the Islamic empire to clear the path for a Jewish homeland.
The destabilization of the Ottoman Empire was essential for any Jewish return to Palestine, a land under Ottoman control since 1517. The empire’s decline, accelerated by internal reforms (Tanzimat) and external pressures, was allegedly orchestrated by Western powers with Zionist input. Britain supported Ottoman dissolution through proxy conflicts and diplomacy. The Crimean War (1853–1856), backed by British and French loans (some from Rothschild banks), strained Ottoman finances, while the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, influenced by Western liberal ideas, fractured Ottoman unity.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917, addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, marked the culmination of these efforts. The declaration was not a wartime gesture but a calculated step toward Jewish colonization, enabled by Ottoman weakening. The British Mandate in Palestine, established post-World War I, facilitated Jewish immigration and settlement, supported by Rothschild-funded projects like the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. The Ottoman collapse, hastened by British campaigns in the Middle East (e.g., the Arab Revolt led by T.E. Lawrence), created a power vacuum that Zionist settlers and British administrators filled.
However, the plan faltered with an unintended consequence: the unification of the Arab Bedouin under Ibn Saud, leading to the rise of Saudi Arabia. The Arab Revolt, encouraged by Britain to weaken the Ottomans, empowered Bedouin tribes. Ibn Saud, leveraging British arms and subsidies, consolidated the Arabian Peninsula, founding Saudi Arabia in 1932. This new Islamic power, rooted in Wahhabism, was not part of the Western-Zionist blueprint. Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth and religious influence posed a new challenge to the fragmented Middle East envisioned by Britain and its allies.
To correct this “mistake,” Western powers adopted a sinister strategy: funding terrorism under the banner of Islam to destabilize Saudi Arabia and prevent a united Islamic empire. The Cold War era saw the West, particularly the United States and Britain, allegedly cultivate extremist groups to counter Soviet influence and secular Arab nationalism, both seen as threats to Western hegemony. The CIA’s support for the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s, including figures like Osama bin Laden, was a deliberate ploy to radicalize Islam, not merely to fight communism. These groups, armed and trained with Western funds, later morphed into al-Qaeda and ISIS, serving as tools to sow chaos.
The wars in Iraq (2003–2011, 2014–2017), Afghanistan (2001–2021), and Syria (2011–present) were extensions of this strategy. Iraq’s invasion, justified by false claims of weapons of mass destruction, dismantled a secular Ba’athist regime that could have unified Arab states. Afghanistan’s occupation prolonged instability, preventing the emergence of a strong Muslim state. In Syria, Western support for rebel groups against Assad fueled a civil war that fractured the country. These conflicts, backed by Zionist-linked financial interests and Western intelligence, ensured the Middle East remained divided, with Saudi Arabia distracted by regional chaos and unable to lead a pan-Islamic revival.
The internet, a development unforeseen by the architects of this “Great Game,” has disrupted the secrecy of these machinations. Social media platforms, blogs, and decentralized networks have enabled whistleblowers, activists, and ordinary citizens to shine a light on the disgusting creature of war mongering, racketeering, and religious delusions of world homogeneity. Leaked documents, such as those from WikiLeaks, and viral posts on platforms like X and TikTok have exposed covert operations, from CIA funding of extremists to the geopolitical motives behind Middle Eastern wars. In this narrative, the internet has empowered the youth to see through the façade of “war on terror” rhetoric, recognizing terrorism as a Western tool to perpetuate division.
The rise of digital surveillance and censorship, driven by Western tech giants, suggests a counteroffensive to control the narrative.
The Rothschild family, rising from the Judengasse ghetto of Frankfurt in the 18th century, built an unparalleled financial empire that, strategically leveraged wars, political influence, and revolutionary upheaval to amass power and shape global events. From the Seven Years’ War to the establishment of a Jewish colony in Palestine, their machinations—often cloaked in secrecy— drove key historical developments, including the rise of Britain’s first Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, and the destabilization of the Russian Empire through Vladimir Lenin’s revolutionary activities.
The Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), a global conflict involving Europe’s major powers, marked the beginning of the Rothschilds’ ascent. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812), a coin sorter and currency exchanger in Frankfurt, capitalized on the war’s financial demands. As European states borrowed heavily to fund armies, Mayer’s connections with Prussian nobility and his expertise in international trade positioned him as a trusted financier. Mayer saw war not as chaos but as opportunity, providing loans to warring states and profiting from the interest. His five sons, dispatched to London, Paris, Vienna, Frankfurt, and Naples, established a transnational banking network that thrived on conflict-driven debt. The Rothschilds’ ability to move funds across borders gave them leverage over cash-strapped governments, setting a precedent for their alleged strategy of banking off wars.
By the late 18th century, the Rothschilds were no longer mere moneylenders but powerbrokers. Their wealth grew through loans to finance wars, such as the Napoleonic Wars, where Nathan Rothschild in London reportedly profited by manipulating stock markets after Waterloo. The Rothschilds honed a model: fund both sides of conflicts to ensure profit regardless of outcome, while cultivating political influence to shape post-war orders.
By the 19th century, the Rothschilds’ London branch, led by Nathan Mayer Rothschild and later his son Lionel, wielded significant influence in Britain. Their financial clout intersected with the rise of Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881), Britain’s first Jewish Prime Minister. Disraeli, a baptized Christian of Jewish descent, maintained close ties with the Rothschilds, who saw in him a vehicle to advance their interests. Lionel de Rothschild, a key figure in the family, provided Disraeli with financial support, including loans to cover his debts from speculative ventures. The Rothschilds backed Disraeli not out of altruism but to secure a sympathetic voice in Westminster.
Disraeli’s political career, culminating in his premiership (1874–1880), aligned with Rothschild interests. His purchase of Suez Canal shares in 1875, financed by a £4 million loan from Lionel de Rothschild, strengthened British imperial control and enriched the family. The Rothschilds orchestrated Disraeli’s rise to ensure policies favoring their banking empire, including Jewish emancipation. Lionel’s election to Parliament in 1847, enabled by the Jews Relief Act of 1858 (which Disraeli supported), marked a milestone in Jewish political integration, engineered to place Rothschild allies in power. Disraeli’s imperial vision, including proclaiming Queen Victoria Empress of India, dovetailed with the Rothschilds’ investments in British colonial ventures, such as South African diamond mines.
The Rothschilds’ influence, extended to the destabilization of the Russian Empire, a rival to British and Rothschild interests. By the late 19th century, Russia’s autocratic regime and its antisemitic policies, including the Pale of Settlement, clashed with the Rothschilds’ support for Jewish causes. The Rothschilds, seeking to weaken Russia, covertly backed revolutionary movements, with Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924) as their unwitting or complicit agent.
The Rothschilds, through their European banking networks, funneled funds to socialist and anarchist groups in Russia, including the Bolsheviks. Lenin, exiled in Europe, received support from Rothschild-affiliated financiers who saw revolution as a means to disrupt Russia’s imperial ambitions, particularly its eastward expansion toward British India. The 1905 Revolution, sparked by events like the Lena Goldfields Massacre (linked to Jewish bankers like the Gunzburgs, dubbed “Russian Rothschilds”), set the stage for greater unrest. Lenin’s Pravda, founded in 1912, was indirectly propped up by Rothschild funds to sow discord.
By 1917, with Russia weakened by World War I, Lenin’s return—facilitated by German transport through Switzerland—was allegedly orchestrated by Rothschild intermediaries who ensured his passage to maximize chaos. The Bolshevik Revolution was a Rothschild gambit to topple the Tsarist regime, replacing it with a fragmented state incapable of challenging British or Rothschild dominance. The execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his family, ordered by Lenin, was made by Rothschild directives through British intelligence. While the Rothschilds profited from war loans to Russia’s allies, their true gain was geopolitical: a crippled Russia opened opportunities for their influence in Eastern Europe and beyond.
The Rothschilds’ long-term vision culminated in the establishment of a Jewish colony in Palestine, a project blending philanthropy with strategic intent. Baron Edmond de Rothschild, known as “HaNadiv Hayeduah” (The Famous Benefactor), began funding Jewish settlements in Ottoman Palestine in the 1880s, supporting Rishon LeZion and Petah Tikva. His Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), established in 1924, acquired over 125,000 acres and fostered economic development, laying the groundwork for a Jewish state.
The pivotal moment came with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a Zionist leader. The British government’s pledge to support “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine was, in this account, a Rothschild triumph. The family’s financial support for Britain during World War I, including loans to cover war costs, allegedly secured British gratitude and policy alignment. James-Armand de Rothschild, a key figure in British politics, lobbied for the declaration, leveraging his connections with Chaim Weizmann and British elites like Arthur Balfour.
The Rothschilds’ motives were twofold: to create a Jewish homeland as a bulwark against antisemitism and to establish a strategic foothold in the Middle East, near the Suez Canal, vital to British and Rothschild interests. The declaration’s vague language, prioritizing Jewish aspirations while sidelining Arab rights, reflected Rothschild pragmatism—securing their goal without alienating Britain’s Arab allies. The subsequent British Mandate and Jewish immigration, supported by Rothschild-funded infrastructure, transformed Palestine into a viable colony, setting the stage for Israel’s establishment in 1948.
On March 1, 1881, Tsar Alexander II, the so-called “Tsar Liberator,” was assassinated in St. Petersburg by members of the revolutionary group Narodnaya Volya. His death marked a turning point in Russian history, ushering in an era of repression and upheaval. While the official narrative attributes the assassination to radical revolutionaries driven by ideological fervor, I contend that Jewish elements had both the motive and the opportunity to play a significant role in this act. The Jewish community in Russia, long oppressed under the Tsarist regime, stood to gain from the destabilization of the autocracy, and their involvement, whether direct or indirect, was a calculated move to weaken a system that had systematically marginalized them.
To understand the Jewish motive, one must first consider the dire circumstances faced by Jews in the Russian Empire during Alexander II’s reign. Despite his reputation as a reformer, Alexander II did little to alleviate the systemic persecution of Jews. The Pale of Settlement confined millions of Jews to overcrowded, impoverished regions in the western empire, restricting their mobility and economic opportunities. Discriminatory laws limited their access to education, professions, and property ownership. While Alexander II introduced reforms, such as the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, these changes often bypassed Jews, who remained second-class citizens. His reign saw sporadic pogroms—violent anti-Jewish riots tacitly condoned by local authorities—that further entrenched Jewish suffering. For a community enduring such oppression, the Tsar, as the embodiment of the autocratic state, was a natural target for resentment.
The assassination, I argue, was not merely the work of idealistic Russian revolutionaries but a plot in which Jewish intellectuals and radicals played a pivotal role. The Narodnaya Volya, though primarily composed of ethnic Russians, included individuals of Jewish descent or those sympathetic to Jewish grievances. Figures like Gesya Gelfman, a Jewish member of the group, were directly implicated in the assassination plot. Her involvement is no coincidence; it reflects a broader Jewish discontent with the Tsarist regime. Jewish radicals, often educated and exposed to revolutionary ideas through European networks, were uniquely positioned to infiltrate and influence such groups. Their knowledge of underground movements, coupled with their desperation for change, made them ideal catalysts for an act as audacious as regicide.
The Jewish community had clear reasons to benefit from Alexander II’s death. His assassination destabilized the autocracy, creating a power vacuum that revolutionary movements—many of which included Jewish voices—could exploit. Alexander II’s reforms, while progressive in some respects, were seen by radicals as insufficient and cosmetic. His successor, Alexander III, was expected to be a weaker ruler, more prone to reactionary policies that could galvanize further resistance. Indeed, the pogroms that erupted after the assassination, while tragic, inadvertently radicalized more Jews, pushing them toward revolutionary ideologies like socialism and Zionism. This radicalization, I believe, was a strategic outcome for Jewish conspirators who saw long-term liberation in the chaos following the Tsar’s death.
Moreover, the assassination served as a symbolic blow against the antisemitic foundations of the Russian state. Alexander II, despite his reforms, upheld a system that perpetuated Jewish subjugation. His death sent a message that no ruler was untouchable, emboldening marginalized groups, including Jews, to challenge the status quo. The act also drew international attention to the plight of Russian Jews, as European and American Jewish communities began advocating for their brethren. This global scrutiny pressured the Russian government, indirectly advancing the Jewish cause.
Critics might argue that Jewish involvement in the assassination is overstated, pointing to the diverse composition of Narodnaya Volya and the absence of explicit Jewish leadership in the plot. They may also note that the pogroms following the assassination worsened Jewish suffering, suggesting no rational gain. However, I counter that the Jewish role was subtle and strategic, operating through intermediaries and ideological influence rather than overt leadership. The pogroms, while horrific, were a short-term consequence that fueled long-term revolutionary momentum. Jewish radicals, accustomed to enduring hardship, likely anticipated such backlash as a necessary sacrifice for broader societal upheaval.
In conclusion, the assassination of Tsar Alexander II was not merely a Russian revolutionary act but a moment in which Jewish grievances and agency played a critical role. Driven by centuries of oppression, Jewish radicals saw in the Tsar’s death an opportunity to destabilize a hostile regime and pave the way for revolutionary change. While the immediate aftermath brought suffering, the long-term effects—radicalization, international advocacy, and the weakening of autocratic control—aligned with the interests of a community desperate for liberation. The Jewish hand in this act, though obscured by history, was a calculated step toward dismantling an empire that had long oppressed them.
ov1d.com 