The World's Fair

[mkrnhr]

Indeed, all these destruction events around the 10th century can be related to the ending of the roman era if we consider a more or less corrected chronology. There is ample evidence that this destruction struck different place around the same time.
Now if these world fairs were used to destroy roman era remains or giants-related artefects or something, that would be another can of worms for which serious data is to be sought after as well.

 

[dennis]

Henri Poincare gave a presentation titled "The present and future of Mathematical Physics"at the 1904 St Louis expo. It might be interesting to consider what was happening in science and art at the time.

In September 1904 Henri Poincare delivered an address to the Applied Mathematics Section of the International Congress of Arts and Sciences held that year in St Louis.

Poincare and the future of mathematical sciences - his St Louis paper from 1904

Introduction/Abstract In September 1904 Henri Poincare delivered an address to the Applied Mathematics Section of the International Congress of Arts and Sciences held that year in St Louis. That paper, titled "The Present and the Future of Mathematical Physics" has become overlooked for two reasons.

www.linkedin.com

Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso, exemplars of genius, inspiration for generations of artists and scientists, are icons of the twentieth century. Modern science is Einstein and modern art, Picasso. How this came about is one of the great sagas in the history of Western thought.
...
The tools to understand these parallel biographies come from cognitive scientific theories. Among them are results on how information held in memory is processed during unconscious thought and Gestalt psychological concepts. This approach is explored in Chapter 8, which also serves the important role of summing up and drawing conclusions.

The search for parallels leads inevitably to the general issue of parallelisms in how art and science developed in the twentieth century. The common trend toward abstraction and new forms of visual imagery turns out not to be serendipitous. That art and science should have progressed in a parallel manner in the twentieth century is abundantly clear from the intellectual struggles of Einstein and Picasso. As Gertrude Stein put it, in words that hold for Einstein, too: "The things that Picasso could see were the things which had their own reality, reality not of things seen but of things that exist."

Einstein, Picasso

 

[stellar]

Now if these world fairs were used to destroy roman era remains or giants-related artefects or something, that would be another can of worms for which serious data is to be sought after as well.

That's perhaps something C's might give us a clue.

Motive: So far I'm looking at connections between the Rothchilds, jews, illlumiatti, catholic church, etc. who stood to benefit a great deal in ruling the world through, of course, the monetary system and wars.

Opportunity: Accumulation of wealth and power from at lest the 1500s, post devastations, enabling the highjacking of records, entitlements, etc.

As for the hundreds of thousand of orphans, at least in the US, a great number were german and french speaking according to records. Curious. Where did they really come from, including the incubator infants? Did they just pop up from underground? IDK

Oh, and of course the veracity of the claimed architects would benefit from deeper scrutiny.

 

[stellar]

Some of the technology on display at the fairs (and their origin) is a tougher nut to crack but not impossible, I think.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Do you realise how that sounds if you put it to a context of any known disinformation of today? There are no reports on something so it didn't happen?
...
That's what they said about the WTC and most still believe it. The virus came from china; and they still keep repeating it.

I don't think that's a good comparison. To use WTC as an example, a better comparison would be if no one prior to 9/11 had recorded the existence of the twin towers. There are certain things that you would expect to be recorded in the normal course of things, and which are. Large pre-existing buildings are one of those things.

As if that were not enough. At what point in history was it normal to start building a cathedral or entire streets of conjoined buildings a whole story underground. Who in their right mind builds hundreds of acres of to tear them down in several months.

In this case it wasn't months, but years, but here's a modern example:

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/world-verify/viral-video-shows-new-ghost-city-high-rises-demolished-in-china-fact-check/536-4e16d5fa-1465-4e1f-aed9-4804e57142bb

Except in that case, the buildings never fulfilled their function in the first place. Presumably the WF buildings fulfilled their function, provided a "return on investment", and were destroyed after, as planned. On a much smaller scale this happens in Hollywood all the time with film sets. In the case of the WF, the scale was just much larger. It may seem wasteful in retrospect, but that doesn't mean the planners saw it that way.

 

[stellar]

I don't think that's a good comparison. To use WTC as an example, a better comparison would be if no one prior to 9/11 had recorded the existence of the twin towers. There are certain things that you would expect to be recorded in the normal course of things, and which are. Large pre-existing buildings are one of those things.

My point is that the whole truth of what people were seeing was the something else more nefarious.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

My point is that the whole truth of what people were seeing was the something else more nefarious.

Yes, and that is a fair point on its own. However, you responded to this from A Jay: "but such a massive event or series of events would not be possible to cover up without a trace." He is correct. There may be sinister things involved that aren't publicly known, sure. But such a cover up - such as covering up the pre-existence of advanced building structures - would not be possible. It would be more like covering up the fact that 9/11 happened at all.

 

[anartist]

Hey you guys that went to the Montreal expo, do any of you remember the UK exhibit?? It was insane and definitely a social engineering wake up call even though I was a 17 year old.

So, they had a polished chrome floor (or something) and an overhead arched roof that made it look like you were walking through a tube. There was this pulsating soundtrack like a pounding heart and a Brit narrator going on and out about how pollution forced man into domed cities and now even the air outside the domes was too polluted to filter. IOW, the SAME narrative we have today: man is ruining the earth. It was so depressing. I have never heard anyone remember this or talk about it. Do any of you?

It's a bit blurry, my first camera, a Brownie.

 

[stellar]

Yes, and that is a fair point on its own. However, you responded to this from A Jay: "but such a massive event or series of events would not be possible to cover up without a trace." He is correct. There may be sinister things involved that aren't publicly known, sure. But such a cover up - such as covering up the pre-existence of advanced building structures - would not be possible. It would be more like covering up the fact that 9/11 happened at all.

Who controls the science, newspapers, history archives, education etc.? I think it really is that nefarious and, understandably, unbelievable. Bare with me and see if it is beginning to make sense.

 

[stellar]

In 1462, the Frankfurt ghetto had been established by the intervention of Emperor Frederick III. The first known members of the family lived in number 69 Judengasse in a house called zum Rot(h)en Schild (German for “Red Shield”) though the name Rothschild means Red Coat, as in coat-of-arms, in the Yiddish language.

Isaak Elchanan Bacharach (d. 1585) had the building erected about 1567 and began to use the name “Rothschild”, which his descendants kept even after they moved to No. 188 in a rear building called zur Pfanne (“Pan”) in 1664.



[In America, John Swinton, then the pre-eminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying,

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with,”]



1800: In France, the Bank of France is set up. Napoleon would soon see that a free France would mean a country free of debt, and he subsequently states.

“ The hand that gives is among the hand that takes. Money has no mother-land, financiers are without patriotism and without decency. Their sole object is gain.”



In 1814: With regard to the $3,000,000 Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau had entrusted to Mayer Amschel Rothschild for safekeeping, the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1905 edition, Volume 10, page 494, gives the following account of where it ended up,

“ According to legend this money was hidden in wine casks, and, escaping the search of Napoleon’s soldiers when they entered Frankfurt, was restored intact in the same casks in 1814, when the elector (Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau) returned to the electorate (Germany). The facts are somewhat less romantic, and more businesslike.”

This line indicates the money was never returned by Rothschild to Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau. The encyclopedia goes on to state,

“Nathan Mayer Rothschild invested this $3,000,000 in gold from the East India company knowing that it would be needed for Wellington’s peninsula campaign.”



1815: The five Rothschild brothers work to supply gold to both Welllington’s army (through Nathan in England), and Napoleon’s army ( through Jacob in France), and begin their policy of funding both sides in wars. The Rothschilds love wars because they are massive generators of risk free debt.

Risk free, because the debts are guaranteed by the government of a country, and therefore the efforts of the population of that country, and furthermore it doesn’t matter which country losses the war because the loans are given on the guarantee that the victor will honour the debts of the vanquished.



The following is the “MYTH” of how the Rothschilds hit it rich after the Battle of Waterloo, published many years ago:

One of Rothschild’s couriers, a man named Rothworth, upon learning the British won the Battle of Waterloo, takes off for the Channel and delivers this new to Nathan Mayer Rothschild a full 24 hours before Wellington’s’ own courier.

Nathan Mayer Rothschild subsequently enters the stock exchange and instructs all his workers to start selling consul (know a bonds today). Due to Rothschild’s reputation for being one step ahead with regard to information, the other traders panic, think the British have lost the war, and start selling frantically.

As a result the consuls plummet in value, at which point Nathan Mayer Rothschild discreetly instructs his workers to purchase all the consuls they can lay their hands on.

When the news comes through that the British had actually won the war, the consuls rocket up to a level even higher than before the war started, leaving Nathan Mayer with a return of approximately twenty to one on his investment. In fact, he openly brags that in his seventeen years in England he has increased his initial 20,000 pounds stake given to him by his father, 2500 times to 50 million pounds.



The Rothschilds also use their control of the Bank of England to replace the method of shipping gold from country to country and instead use their five banks spread across Europe to set up a system of paper debits and credits, the banking system of today.

By the end of the century, a period of time that becomes known as the “Age of the Rothschilds” it is estimated that the Rothschild family controls over half the wealth of the world.



1822: The emperor of Austria makes the five Rothschild brother, “Barons”. Nathan Mayer Rothschild chooses not to take up the title.



1823: The Rothschilds take over the financial operations of the Catholic Church, worldwide.



1827: Sir Walter Scott publishes his nine volume set, “The Life of Napoleon” and in volume two he states that the French Revolution was planned by the “Illuninati” (Adam Weishaupt) and financed by the money changers of Europe (The Rothschilds).



1836: Following his years of fighting against the Rothschilds and their central bank in America, President Andrew Jackson finally succeeds in throwing the Rothschilds central bank out of America, when the bank’s charte is not renewed. It would not be until 1913 that the Rothschilds would be able to set up their third central bank of America, the Federal Reserve.



1833: From the State of the Union History records on Preserving a Legacy – Retiring the Federal Debt, Andrew Jackson writes,

“ I must earnestly and respectfully press upon Congress the importance of abstaining from all appropriations which are not absolutely required for the public interest and authorized by the powers clearly delegated to the United States. We are beginning a new era in our Government. The national debt, which has long been a burden on the Treasury, will be finally discharged in the course of the ensuing year.”



1845: Andrew Jackson (7thPresident of the United States) dies. He leaves instructions for the following inscription to be placed upon his tombstone, in accordance with what he regarded as his greatest service to humanity. The inscription is,

“ I Killed The Bank. “

This is done and is, of course, in reference to the fact he destroyed the Rothschilds’ Second Bank of the United States in 1836.



This is when the moneychangers saw the opportunity to divide and conquer America by plunging it into Civil War. This is confirmed by Otto Von Bismark when he was Chancellor of Germany ( 1817 – 1890 ), who stated the following in 1876,

“ The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe, these bankers were afraid that the United States if they remained as one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial domination over the world.



1862: President Lincoln begins the printing of $450,000,000 worth of American currency. These bill are printed in green ink on the reverse side, in order to distinguish them from other bill in circulation, and are called ‘Greenbacks”. These are printed at no interest to the Federal Government and are used to pay the troops and purchase their supplies. President Lincoln would be the last President to issue debt free United States notes, and on this subject he states,

‘ The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government’s greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles… the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

He also states,

“We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.”



1863: President Abraham Lincoln discovers the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II (1855- 1881), has been having problems with the Rothschilds as well, as he had been refusing their continual attempts to set up a central bank in Russia. The Tsar then gives President Lincoln some unexpected help.

The Tsar issues orders that if either England or France actively intervene in the American Civil War, and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war, and take the side of President Lincoln. To show that he wasn’t messing about, he sends part of his Pacific Fleet to port in San Francisco and another part to pot in New York.



1864: President Lincoln is re-elected on November 8thand on November 21sthe writes a friend the following,

“The money power preys upon the nations in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.”

Rothschild agent, August Belmont, who by now is the Democratic Party’s National Chairman (1860-1872 ), supports General George McClellan as the Democratic nominee to run against President Abraham Lincoln in this year’s election. Much to the anger of Belmont, President Lincoln wins the election.



Gerald G McGeer also stated that Lincoln’s assassination was not purely because the International Bankers wanted to re-establish a central bank in Ameriaca, but also because they wanted to base America’s currency on gold, which they of course controlled. They wanted to put America on a Gold Standard. This was in direct opposition to President Lincoln’s policy of issuing Greenbacks, based solely on good faith and credit of the United States.

The Vancouver Sun article also quote Gerald G. McGeer with the following statement ,

“ They were the men interested in the establishment of the Gold Standard and the right of the bankers to manage the currency and credit of every nation in the world. With Lincoln out of the way they were able to proceed with that plan and did proceed with it in the United State. Within eight years after Lincoln’s assassination, silver was de-monetized and the Gold Standard system set up in the United States.



1871: An American General named Albert Pike, who had been enticed into the “Illluminati” by Guisseppe Mazzini, completes his military blueprint for three world wars and various revolutions throughout the world, culminating into moving this great conspiracy into its final stage. These details are as follows:

The First World War is to be fought for the purpose of destroying the Tsar in Russia, as promised by Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1815. The Tsar is to be replaced with communism which is to be used to attack religions, predominantly Christianity. The difference between the British and German empires are to be used to foment this war.



1881: President James A. Garfield (The 20thPresident of the US who lasted only 100 days) states two weeks before he is assassinated,

“ Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.



In ‘The Cause Of World Unrest”, published this year, H. A. Gwynne, contributes an introduction in which he states the following,

“ In earlier history…kings, princes, governors stood between the masses and their exploiters…roughly speaking, the people were prevented by established authority from being victimized. Today all that is changed, and we now live in and age which will be known, perhaps, in history as the age of the exploitation of the people…

The pages of this book will trace the threads of a conspiracy engineered by people whose main object has been to destroy utterly anything – kings, governments, or institutions – which might stand between them and the people they would exploit…



All these topics are available as told to us by Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Ci...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfu...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_A...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothsch...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Th...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6mer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...

 

[stellar]

It would be more like covering up the fact that 9/11 happened at all.

I think more to the point is to convince people they are seeing something else.

 

[Nević Nenad]

In my part of the world there are buildings older than 1000 years. None flooded. Also, journals written by orthodox church, the mud flood never mentioned.

 

[Persej]

In my part of the world there are buildings older than 1000 years. None flooded. Also, journals written by orthodox church, the mud flood never mentioned.

I'm not an expert in construction, but in my village, in my yard, we have a problem with mud every spring and autumn. People asked my father why he didn't put some gravel to protect the area where the cars park in the yard from mud. My father said that he did, several times, and that huge amount of gravel were unloaded in the yard, but that the earth after some time would swallow everything. It's hard for me to believe such statement because there is not a single piece of stone at that place at this moment, but there is no reason why would he lie about that.

Perhaps old buildings in some places were simply swallowed by earth, just like it happened with gravel in my yard.

 

[Beau]

I am not taking it as a personal attack. My skin is a little thicker than that. I simply hoped for some help to search for clues. If I am not making myself clear by now then I don't know what else to tell you.

You said, "Now do you want to keep berating my efforts or see IF there is anything more we can find."

You made yourself very clear. You feel like people are berating you, even though what's happening is people are applying critical thought and analysis to what you're writing. mkrnhr's reply addressed that. Your reply above, that I quoted, stands in contrast to saying you feel like you're being berated. This seems like a clear case of you moving the goalposts around. If your skin is so think, why can't you handle people applying critical thought to what you write without seeing it as being berated?

 

[iamthatis]

I have recently been reading Matthew Ehret's take on American history, and I thought to mention his view of Jackson. There is some debate surrounding Jackson as a 'liberator from the Rothschild's central bank' as discussed below.

1836: Following his years of fighting against the Rothschilds and their central bank in America, President Andrew Jackson finally succeeds in throwing the Rothschilds central bank out of America, when the bank’s charte is not renewed. It would not be until 1913 that the Rothschilds would be able to set up their third central bank of America, the Federal Reserve.

1833: From the State of the Union History records on Preserving a Legacy – Retiring the Federal Debt, Andrew Jackson writes,

“ I must earnestly and respectfully press upon Congress the importance of abstaining from all appropriations which are not absolutely required for the public interest and authorized by the powers clearly delegated to the United States. We are beginning a new era in our Government. The national debt, which has long been a burden on the Treasury, will be finally discharged in the course of the ensuing year.”

1845: Andrew Jackson (7thPresident of the United States) dies. He leaves instructions for the following inscription to be placed upon his tombstone, in accordance with what he regarded as his greatest service to humanity. The inscription is,

“ I Killed The Bank. “

This is done and is, of course, in reference to the fact he destroyed the Rothschilds’ Second Bank of the United States in 1836.

According to Ehret, it was not a Rothschild bank, but the product of American patriot Alexander Hamilton.

Book Review: Alexander Hamilton (The Core Principles of American System Economics)

By Matthew Ehret At a time that the United States teeters on the edge of a full disintegration into Civil War and ungovernability, and as a financier oligarchy prepares to impose a post-nation stat…

canadianpatriot.org

At a time that the United States teeters on the edge of a full disintegration into Civil War and ungovernability, and as a financier oligarchy prepares to impose a post-nation state world order run by the City of London and cadres of social engineers drooling over a “Great Reset”, certain lessons of history need to be internalized. Quickly.

In the new book Hamilton vs Wall Street: The Core Principles of American System Economics recently published by American System Now (ASN), Nancy Spannaus (ASN President) has laid done two things: On the one hand she has constructed the most concise overview of the origins of the American System of Political Economy written in modern times with a focus on the figure of Alexander Hamilton as the first US Treasury Secretary, and on the other hand has showcased the necessary pathways available to the USA and other nations who wish to avoid disintegration and world war now hanging over head like a modern Sword of Damocles.

Nancy obliterates the popular slanders repeated for over two centuries that “Hamilton was just a Rothschild tool creating a proto-Federal Reserve in America” and that his death at the hands of Vice President Aaron Burr was somehow a great service for the nation. Other popular myths made promulgated over the years which Nancy confronts is the oft-repeated lie that President Andrew Jackson was a hero for killing Hamilton’s 2nd National Bank, paying the debt and opening the USA to free trade. On deeper inspection we find the truth to have been carefully turned inside out on all counts with the true City of London puppets being none other than Wall Street founder Aaron Burr and his later lacky Andrew Jackson- both of whose policies ushered in only destruction and corruption in the USA leading to the otherwise avoidable Civil War of 1861-65.

By deriving her research from both rich first hand sources and also a study of the physical economic history of the nation with a sensitivity to British imperial operations embedded deeply within the American establishment, Nancy is able to cut through Gordian Knots of misinformation. In doing so, Nancy sheds light on the actual unifying policy that Hamilton created in the early days of the republic and which have been taken up time and again by patriotic presidents (who tend to die in office) like Harrison, Lincoln, McKinley, FDR and JFK who fought to develop a full spectrum, sovereign economic systems in opposition to British Free Trade.

As Nancy lays out, this anti-imperial system of political economy is based on several interconnected practices considered heretical by all standards of British Imperial schools of thought now dominant in the west:

1) National Banking and productive credit generation giving the nation the power to avoid the usurious traps of Wall Street or City of London private banking in order to channel investments into long term nation building enterprises. These are practices that are both profitable for individual investors and coherent with the General Welfare principle (a key component to the Constitution made possible by the leadership of Alexander Hamilton and his mentor Benjamin Franklin).

2) Selective protection of manufacturing including government incentives (which Hamilton called “bounties”) in order to favor the growth of sovereign powers of production, high skilled and highly paid labor. It is no coincidence that this practice has provided the greatest rates of economic growth in every nation which has put it into practice over the last two centuries and has provided the greatest tool of defense against the dumping of cheap goods by a dominant foreign power. Under the post-1971 era of “globalization” which saw the rise of such monstrosities as NAFTA, WTO, and the Euro, protectionism has been entirely banned as a near-criminal act in order to keep all nations shackled to cash cropping, cheap labor, speculation, debt slavery and dependency.

3) Internal Improvements. This is the vital ingredient to any nation’s success as it channels the national priorities and energy into projects and goals which transcend short sighted thinking or individual lifetimes which is why Hamilton shaped Article 1, Section 8of the Constitution. Through the creation of projects like the Erie Canal, continental roads, rail, water projects and tying those practices to other nations inspired to do the same (as is exhibited by the 135 nation strong New Silk Road today), the true self interest of a nation and the community of mutual interest in which all nations find themselves are best ensured.

In more specific terms, here's the vision of the National Bank and its policies:

How to Save a Republic Part One: Hamilton’s Genius

By Matthew Ehret Today’s world calls out desperately for a systemic change. This means not only a change in thinking about diplomacy, the superiority of win-win cooperation over “might …

risingtidefoundation.net

The Origins of the American System​

During the crisis of 1783-1791, The newly established American republic was an agrarian economy in financial ruins with no means to pay off its debts or even the soldiers who fought for years in the revolutionary war. It was only a matter of time before the fragile new nation would come undone and be reabsorbed back into the fold of the British Empire.

The solution to this unsolvable crisis was unveiled by Washington’s former Aide de Camp and now Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton who studied the works of the great dirigiste economists like France’s Finance Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, and introduced a four-fold solution:

1. – Consolidate all unpayable state debts into a singular federal debt secured by the issuance of new bonds. This was done via his 1790 Report on Public Credit.
2. – Tie these new bonds to internal improvements like roads, canals, academies and industrial growth which would create a qualitatively new form of debt that would permit the nation to produce its way out of poverty which would lead to “the augmentation of the active or productive capital of a country”. In this sense Hamilton distinguished bad debt from good debt using the important guiding principle that the “creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.” [to illustrate this more clearly: think of a farmer taking on a debt in order to feed a gambling addiction vs investing his loan into new farm supplies and a tractor.] The thrust of this conception was found in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures of 1791.
3. – Guide that new national power over finance by a system of national banks subservient to the Constitution and the General Welfare (instead of a system of central banks under the British model that ensured nation states would forever be subservient to the laws of usurious finance). This was illustrated in Hamilton’s 1790 Report on a National Bank and his 1791 On the Constitutionality of a National Bank.
   
   
4. Use protective measures where necessary to block foreign dumping of cheap goods into the nation from abroad which essentially makes it more profitable to purchase industrial goods and farm products locally rather than from abroad. Hamilton also promoted federal incentives/bounties to encourage private enterprises to build things that would be in alignment with the national interests.

Hamilton’s idea for the national bank was premised on the unification of private profit with the welbeing of the whole nation in order to overcome the dichotomy of state vs individual rights which has plagued so much of philosophy and human history.

[...]

In opposition to the Jeffersonian crowd promoting British Free Trade and attacking the idea of manufactures or a strong federal government, Hamilton wrote that there is:

“a general principle … inherent in the very definition of Government and essential to every step of the progress to be made by that of the United States; namely—that every power vested in a Government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution; or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.”

Hamilton added that this must exist “to give encouragement to the enterprise of our own merchants, and to advance our navigation and manufactures.”

Throughout all of his works, Hamilton is clear that value is not located in land, gold, money, or any arbitrary value favored by followers of the British School like Adam Smith. In defending the growth of manufactures and internal improvements, Hamilton states that:

“To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.”

So Ehret puts Hamilton in direct opposition with pathological 'deep level punctuators' like the Rothschilds. But he did marry Elizabeth Schuyler, who is rumoured to be in the Rothschild family:

The Story Behind The Most Insidious Rothschild Dynasty Conspiracy Theory

<p>In 1791, Washington was undecided about a central bank and asked Hamilton for advice after Thomas Jefferson and Attorney General Edmund Randolph advised against it.</p> <p>Hamilton wrote nearly 15,000 words in what was evidently a successful rebuttal; Washington signed the bill, which...

www.businessinsider.in

Alexander Hamilton married into the Rothschild family December 14, 1780, Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler… [The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, by Allan Hamilton 1910]

But the article goes on to state that the quote is found nowhere in this book. It's a lie! Or is it? I searched the book using archive.org and received no hits for the term Rothschild. I'd say the claim is most likely false. Why the intent to associate Hamilton with the Rothschilds? Most likely to associate his debt-based development policies with predatory banking interests. This would support the narrative that all debt is bad, giving those very same banking interests a major justification for non-intervention, ie. living beyond the law under the guise of a critique of big government. Kinda reminds me of what's happening with the narrative around China today.

The man who killed Hamilton - former Vice President and Governor or New York Aaron Burr - looks to be an agent of the British deep state, intent on reducing America to a British vassal. It's interesting to imagine this all happening in the background of a Mary Balogh novel...

As I mentioned in my recent paper on Alexander Hamilton’s Genius, America’s first U.S. Treasury Secretary killed by Aaron Burr (aka: the father of Wall Street) in 1804, was indispensable in the young nation’s survival during the first 30 years after 1776. Even though it hasn’t been taught in any western university in generations, Hamilton’s system of political economy which arose from his four reports of 1791 was premised on the practices of 1) national banking, 2) productive credit generation for long term internal improvements, 3) industrial growth (vs slave-based production) and 4) protective tariffs. Most importantly, this system set “economic value” not upon the worship of money but rather on the creative mental activity of citizens through constant scientific and technological progress.

Between 1776 until his death in 1804, Hamilton used every ounce of his influence to ensure that the many traitorous movements launched by diverse branches of British operations in America (including from his own Federalist Party), and often under the leadership of arch-traitor Aaron Burr, failed to achieve their goals. These operations which included Canadian United Empire Loyalists, New York financiers and southern slave interests, can collectively be defined as the “founding fathers of today’s deep state” which evolved over the years and took over much of the nation after the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

One of Hamilton’s most important victories during this precarious time occurred during the 1800 presidential elections which still confuses some scholars today. These scholars cannot understand why Hamilton’s feud with Jefferson didn’t stop the former from devoting all of his energy into helping the latter gain the victory over presidential hopeful Aaron Burr. Speaking of his motives for this paradoxical maneuver, Hamilton famously said:

“Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government – Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.”


To understand the conditions shaping this strategic fight only 11 years after Ben Franklin died, one must understand how the British Empire used an evil cancer embedded in the young nation to destroy it from within when it became obvious that external force could not succeed.

Slavery: America’s Achilles Heel​

Despite the fact that slavery was nearly extinguished by 1792 (1), forces loyal to the British Empire within the “eastern establishment” led by aristocratically minded traitors like Timothy Pickering, Aaron Burr, Col. James Wilkinson, George Cabot and Albert Gallatin worked hard to advance a plot for breaking up the republic into two separate confederacies under the guise that “slave states and free states could not co-exist”. While this fact may have been true, rather than continue the struggle to abolish slavery by imposing the authority of the Constitution, such traitors made the argument that it were best to dissolve the nation and constitution completely. Under these designs, British Canada would merge with northern “free states” under a new Anglo-Saxon confederation, while the slave power would be free to create its own southern confederation. Under this design, both northern and southern confederacies would be defined by a special relationship with England and dominated by the City of London’s economic web of finance.

After Burr’s defeat to Jefferson in 1800 (becoming a distrusted lame-duck vice president), the direct Federal support required for a dissolution of the union was no longer attainable, and so a new plot was hatched that came to life in 1803 which required Burr’s control of New York state.

The New England Secessionist Plot​

Describing this plot to his co-conspiratorial senator Richard Peters on December 24, 1803, Timothy Pickering (former Secretary of State under President Adams and guiding hand behind the cabal known as the Essex Junto) wrote:

“Although the end of all our Revolutionary labors and expectations is disappointment, and our fond hopes of republican happiness are vanity… I will not yet despair: I will rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the South. There will be – and our children at farthest will see it – a separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary. The British Provinces, even with the assent of Britain, will become members of the Northern confederacy …”
The strategy described above hinged on bringing New York into the northern secession plot as the economic powerhouse needed to fuse the other “free states” into British Canada.

Proof of Aaron Burr’s Treachery​

While many popular historians adamantly choose to deny this fact (some going even so far as to celebrate the life of Burr as a hero), surviving letters have irrefutably proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Aaron Burr was the unquestioned leader of this plot- as demonstrated by a journal entry written by Essex Junto leader Senator William Plumer who described a conspiratorial meeting at his house involving Senator James Hillhouse, Burr, and Senator Uriah Tracy in the winter of 1803-04. During this meeting, Plumer wrote that Hillhouse “unequivocally declared that it was his opinion that the United States would soon form two distinct governments’; and ‘Burr conversed very freely on the subject … and the impression made on his mind was, that Burr not only thought a separation would not only take place but that it was necessary.”

Writing to Opium-pushing Junto leader George Cabot, Timothy Pickering stated:

“We suppose the British Provinces in Canada and Nova Scotia, at no remote period, perhaps without delay, and with the assent of Great Britain, may become members of the Northern League. Certainly, that government can feel only disgust at our present rulers. She will be pleased to see them crestfallen. She will not regret the proposed division of empire. If with her own consent she relinquishes her provinces, she will be rid of the charge of maintaining them; while she will derive from them, as she does from us, all the commercial returns which her merchants now receive. A liberal treaty of amity and commerce will form a bond of union between Great Britain and the Northern confederacy highly useful to both …”

In another letter of March 4, 1804, Pickering wrote of Burr’s leading role in the plan:

“The Federalists here in general anxiously desire the election of Mr. Burr to the chair of New York; for they despair of a present ascendancy of the Federal party. Mr. Burr alone, we think, can break your Democratic phalanx; and we anticipate much good from his success. Were New York detached (as under his administration it would be) from the Virginia influence, the whole Union would be benefited. Jefferson would then be forced to observe some caution and forbearance in his measures. And, if a separation should be deemed proper, the five New England States, New York, and New Jersey would naturally be united. Among those seven states, there is a sufficient congeniality of character to authorize the expectation of practicable harmony and a permanent union, New York the centre.”

The Plan is Modified Again​

As Pickering alluded to in his letter, this plan hinged upon Burr’s 1804 victory as Governor of New York State and once again, just as in the presidential fight of 1800, Alexander Hamilton devoted all of his energy to ensuring Burr’s defeat resulting in 28,000 votes going to Burr and 35,000 going to his opponent Morgan Lewis.

Without New York on board, the plot for Northern secession could not succeed, and again a new strategy had to be concocted.

Without going into details, it is enough to say that an enraged Burr had decided that Hamilton had to be eliminated once and for all, and in the wake of his gubernatorial defeat, Burr put all of his chips into organizing a duel with his nemesis, resulting in Hamilton’s death on July 12, 1804. (2)

[...]

It would be a much different world if there was still an option for someone to challenge Jerome Powell to a duel...

Burr Returns Home and a New Plot is Hatched​

Finally returning to the United States in the months before the War of 1812, Burr began rebuilding his political machine with a new focus on the use of the Wall Street dominated Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren which would ultimately drive America into a Civil War five decades later.

In 1815, Burr laid out the earliest plan for raising the racist puppet Andrew Jackson to the status of President of the USA in a letter to Joseph Alston (Burr’s son-in-law and former Governor of South Carolina) saying:

“If, then, there be a man in the United States of firmness and decision, and having standing enough to afford even a hope of success, it is your duty to hold him up to public view: that man is Andrew Jackson. Nothing is wanting but a respectable nomination, made before the proclamation of the Virginia caucus, and Jackson’s success is inevitable. If this project should accord with your views, I could wish to see you prominent in the execution of it. It must be known to be your work.”

Though it took another decade, the eventual federal takeover of the Burr machine under the combined presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren (ruling from 1828-1840) represented a massive defeat of the Hamiltonian networks then led by John Quincy Adams, William Harrison, Matthew Carey and Henry Clay. The only two successes of the Hamiltonian nationalists then centered in the Whig party to regain control during the 1840-1860 period found Whig presidents dying under mysterious circumstances before they could extract the British rot (Harrison in 1840 and Taylor in 1852).

The man who killed Hamilton's bank, Andrew Jackson, seemed to be an agent as well:

Under Jackson and Van Buren, protectionism was dismantled in favor of British free trade, speculation grew rampantly as did the southern slave power as the south was cleansed of Cherokee under the Trail of Tears and given over to racist oligarchs. The National Bank was destroyed in Jackson’s last year in office, cutting the USA off from its only means of generating sovereign credit for development resulting in the panic and depression of 1837. All major infrastructure projects were cancelled under the banner of “paying the debt” and America’s path to dissolution dreamed of by Burr and his Deep State cohorts in 1804 was accelerated in short order. This story is documented thoroughly in Michael Kirsch’s ground breaking 2012 article How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States.

All this said, it looks to me like Lincoln's greenbacks were a continuation of the spirit of Hamilton - that of sovereignty and development - and not in opposition to it.

Maybe some Rothschilds were involved in the Second National Bank, though I'm pretty ignorant of American history so I don't really know who was involved. It's easy to imagine a family of rapacious banksters and other pathologicals would flock to any major financial institution like the Hamilton's Bank, tho. I think it would be hard to avoid that kinda thing in 3D. In the same vein, maybe some Rothschild or other was responsible for bankrolling the World's Fair craze. Does anyone know who paid for any of these thinngs?