WHAT IS THE ROTHSCHILDS' MOTIVE FOR SUPPORTING WIKILEAKS?
On the face of it this is a bizarre claim. The Rothschilds are one of the most prominent families in the super-rich elite behind globalisation, the New World Order, the coups and invasions carried out by the US, NATO and coalitions of the willing. WikiLeaks releases documentary evidence of crime and corruption by the corporations and governments controlled by these same super-rich individuals. Why would the Rothschilds support a loose cannon like Julian Assange releasing dirt on the crimes and corruption of the super-rich? The article provides an answer:
“At first blush, it is incredulous that the The Economist, the pinnacle of the establishment, would give their award to Assange knowing full well that he was releasing classified government documents and being overly aware of the havoc this will create in the world. The Rothschilds’ oft-stated goal (over the centuries) is for a One World Government (i.e. The New World Order). To this end they engineer conflict between nations, to create crises that will then be utilized to increase the power of international entities – the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc. For example, they (and other closely-related families like the Schiffs) financed the Bolsheviks. In the past, the Rothschild empire have profited by bankrolling both sides of war. (…)
“Most people seem to believe that current events just happen, that events in the news are chain reactions of accidents, and that people with money and power sit idly by, watching events unfold. However, the Rothschilds thrive on manipulating the markets by having insider information while propagating contrary misinformation. In this way, they make huge profits. (...) Wikileaks is an invaluable tool for the Rothschilds to manipulate the financial markets, the whole monetary system, the future of nations, and the public.
“The information (or misinformation) from Wikileaks also serves the Rothschild’s aim to increase conflict among nations in order to further their goal of One World Government.”
Here we see a significant error slipped into the last sentence. The author writes that WikiLeaks provides “information (or misinformation)”. This is the most important error in the whole article. Here the author hides the fact that WikiLeaks actually has a 100% record for presenting accurate, reliable information. Its great claim to fame is that everything it publishes is a true and correct account of a genuine document. It provides copies of authentic documents and NONE OF THEM has ever been shown to be bogus or fake. If the Rothschilds want to manipulate the world with misinformation then WikiLeaks is not going to do it for them. The will need to stick to the mainstream media they own for presenting misinformation and falsehoods.
Apart from this explanation of alleged the motives of the Rothschilds, evidence is presented to show that WikiLeaks is more or less run by the Rothschilds. Now it is time to look at this.
ROTHSCHILDS ALLEGEDLY USE WIKILEAKS TO UNDERMINE A RIVAL
The story goes like this: In 2008 WikiLeaks disclosed material provided by Rudolf Elmer, a former employee of Bank Julius Baer, which named ten clients who had engaged in tax evasion. At that point Julius Baer got an injunction in California, where the server was located, which shut WikiLeaks down. At this point the law firm Fox Rothschild represented Wikileaks, got the injunction overturned and Wikileaks got back on line. All this is alleged to be relevant to the Rothschilds' banking interests in Switzerland. Julius Baer was their rival for elite customers who wanted to evade tax. As a result of these disclosures Julius Baer shares lost 60% of their value and the 52 year old owner died about the same time. Later, in January 2011, Julian Assange held a press conference where Rudolf Elmer gave WikiLeaks more private files from the Julius Baer's Cayman Islands’ operation.
While it is possible information revealed by WikiLeaks may have played a role in undermining a banking rival of the Rothschilds, the article provides no information about the links between Rudolf Elmer and the Rothschilds. In wishing to expose tax evasion, he may have inadvertently encouraged customers to move from Julius Baer to a Rothschilds' bank. However this on its own does not show the Rothschilds had a hand in releasing this information. We find an allegation of collusion between WikiLeaks, Rudolf Elmer and the Rothschilds, but no evidence of collusion except the coincidence that losses at Julius Baer might well have been gains for the Rothschilds. In the courts this would be called circumstantial evidence, which is a long way from definite proof. There is a “link” here, but is it more than coincidence?
But there is more (circumstantial) evidence consisting of other “links” to the Rothschilds:
1. The Economist (a Rothschild magazine) gave Assange its New Media Award in 2008,
2.The Guardian and The New York Times, two of Assange’s media partners, are linked to the Rothschilds,
3. The owner of the mansion where Assange was eventually put under house arrest has links to Rothschilds.
4. Assange’s lawyer is also a Rothschilds’ lawyer,
5. US Senator Joe Lieberman who was ultimately responsible for making Assange the largest media personality of the decade, is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations (a Rothschild organization),
6. A sister-in-law and second cousin of the Rothschilds posted bail for Julian Assange,
1. THE NEW MEDIA AWARD MADE BY THE ECONOMIST
The Economist is seen as a Rothschild publication. The article gives clear evidence of Rothschilds' influence over the Economist:
“Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist’s board. The Rothschild family also has a large shareholder interest in The Economist.”
The Rothschilds may have influenced the Economist to make the award to WikiLeaks, but how does this show the Rothschilds have influence over Wikileaks? The difficulty for the author of the article in PUPPET99 is this: How does this “link” establish influence or control? Is there a threat behind it? Behave yourself or we will take the award off you?
2. TWO OF WIKILEAKS MEDIA PARTNERS ARE LINKED TO THE ROTHSCHILDS
The author of this article does not seem to be aware that there are many publications around the world who have used information from WikiLeaks, perhaps over 100 in all. Each publication must make their own decision to use this material. Are they all “linked” to the Rothschilds? WikiLeaks offers material on a take it or leave it basis. How does the use of WikiLeaks material by a Rothschild publication show that they or any other publication has influence over WikiLeaks?
Let's have a further look at the Guardian.
“The Guardian has been infiltrated by Rothschilds. The Guardian is controlled by Guardian Media Group whose chairman is Paul Myners a past employee of N. M. Rothschild Limited & Sons Limited. Guardian Media Group is owned by Scott Trust which became a limited private company in 2008 with all trustees becoming directors of the Scott Trust. Anthony Salz was appointed as a trustee of Scott Trust in 2009: He is currently executive vice-chairman of the investment Bank Rothschild.”
While the Rothschilds clearly have influence over the Guardian, the author of the article at fails to realise this publication has been an implacable enemy of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. I have followed WikiLeaks since 2010 and seen Guardian journalists attack them again and again. If the Rothschilds' control of the Guardian shows anything, it is that a Rothschild influenced publication was not “influencing” or controlling WikiLeaks but undermining it every step of the way. This “link” proves just the opposite of what is claimed, namely that a Rothschild publication has done its utmost to destroy the reputation of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
3. OWNER OF JULIAN ASSANGE'S HOUSE ARREST MANSION LINKED TO THE ROTHSCHILDS
The owner of the mansion where Assange was eventually put under house arrest has links to Rothschilds.
“Assange was 'imprisoned' in a countryside mansion at the home of Vaughan Smith, the owner of Frontline Trust, a news organization that seeks to influence TV journalists. Frontline is funded by George Soros’ organization, Open Society Institute, and George Soros is intimately intertwined with the Rothschilds. George Soros has been a frequent business partner with James Goldsmith (father of Jemima Khan and cousin of the Rothschilds). The director of Soros’ Open Society Institute, Richard Katz was director of N M Rothschild & Sons for 16 years. Other board members like Nils Taube also hold positions in Rothschild banks, etcetera.”
Even if the Soros and the Rothschilds asked or ordered Vaughan Smith to provide safety for Julian Assange, how does this offer show they control or influence WikiLeaks? You need to assume that Julian accepted this accommodation only on the promise to ever after protect the Rothschilds' interests. ("We will provide this accommodation only if you promise...") Any evidence of such a promise? An offer of assistance is not the usual way to make someone do what you want them to.
This allegation also backfires on the author. The articled explains:
“The Economist is the voice of Britain’s establishment (led by the British Rothschilds) which has, for example, on balance, supported Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989.”
So would the Rothschilds been happy when a Rothschild operation like WikiLeaks released “Collateral Murder” and the “Iraq War Logs”? Or did they encourage their release in order “increase conflict among nations in order to further their goal of One World Government”?
The same applies to any alleged Soros influence coming from Vaughan Smith and the Frontline Trust. Everyone should know by now that the Democratic party in the US is REALLY IS a Soros Operation and he is a prominent supporter of Hilary Clinton. So if Soros had any influence over WikiLeaks why did he allow them to publish the leaked Democratic National Committee emails?? To me this is shows that if WikiLweaks had support from Soros and the Rothschilds at some point, they have no control over WikiLeaks.
4. JULIAN ASSANGE'S LAWYER IS ALSO A ROTHSCHILD'S LAWYER
“Julian Assange’s lawyer is Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, a major London elite law firm. They are the legal adviser to the Rothschild’s prestigious Waddesdon Trust.”
Julian Assange has many lawyers and legal supporters. Do the Rothschilds “own” every lawyer and law firm that works for them? We can safely assume they employ the best lawyers, and Julian would want to do the same. This point might have significance if the only lawyers who would dare to work for Julian Assange and Wikileaks were ALL Rothschild lawyers encouraged by the family to support freedom of speech and the press. I can find no evidence of this in the article. And how do lawyers influence or control a person such as Julian Assange? I always thought that if you don't like the advice of your lawyers, you simply sack them and find some others. Julian's lawyers are working for Julian. They are hardly going to influence the policies of WikiLeaks and remain on the job.
5. SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN, CONNECTED TO THE ROTHSCHILDS, MADE JULIAN ASSANGE WORLD FAMOUS
The article claims it was US Senator Joe Lieberman, a member of a Rothschild organization, who was ultimately responsible for making Assange the biggest media personality of the decade. I would like to quote this claim in full just to show I have not distorted it:
“US senator Joe Lieberman is the Rothschild’s point man in America. During the last presidential election, he took his friend, Republican candidate John McCain to Jacob Rothschild’s house for a fund-raiser for McCain. Lieberman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (a Rothschild cabal which is essentially the shadow government of the US). Lieberman’s recent actions resulted in cutting off the money supply of Wikileaks: Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, stopped accepting donations for Wikileaks. Lieberman publicly took credit for censoring Wikileaks’ website by pressuring Amazon to stop hosting the website. The result was that Anonymous hactivists launched attacks on the websites of companies (above) which had discontinued service to Wikileaks. Lieberman’s campaign against Wikileaks had the effect of increasing the martyrdom and hence the popularity of Assange and Wikileaks. Lieberman made Assange a star, nearly becoming Time magazine’s Man of The Year.”
I believe this bit of information is somewhat distorted. If Senator Lieberman, a Rothschild fellow-traveller, acted to get PayPal, Mastercard and Visa to cut off WikiLeaks money supply, I would say that a Rothschild agent cut the funds of WikiLeaks because the Rothschilds were now unhappy with the organisation they once gave a New Media Award. The way they tell the story, Lieberman was not acting against the interest of WikiLeaks but doing this only to enhance its reputation. Considering the actual damage the actions of PayPal and others caused, this looks very much like twisting the facts to fit into the preset agenda: Rothschilds are bad and because of his “links” to the Rothschilds, Julian Assange cannot be trusted.
6. A PERSON RELATED TO THE ROTHSCHILDS POSTED BAIL FOR JULIAN ASSANGE
Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith) posted $32,000 for the bail of Julian Assange after his arrest in London. Here is the background of Jemima Kahn:
“Socialite, heiress Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith) posted 20 000 pounds ($32 000) for the bail of Wikileaks’ leader Julian Assange. She’s genetically related to the Rothschilds and she is a sister-in-law (Daily Mail Online, 10 May 2010). Her father, the late James Goldsmith—British banker, publisher–is a cousin to the Rothschilds. James’ grandfather Adolphe Goldschmidt came to London as a multi-millionaire in 1895 and changed the family name from the German Goldschmidt to the English Goldsmith. The Goldschmidts, like their neighbors and relatives the Rothschilds, had been prosperous merchant bankers in Frankfurt Germany since the 16th century (Wikipedia).”
It should be noted that the total amount of bail posted for Julian Assange was $375,000, so her contribution was less than 10%. For a Rothschild this is just petty cash. But this is not the whole story. She was also the executive producer for the documentary (?) film We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks by Alex Gibney, released in 2013.(2)
The author of the PUPPET99 article probably does not realise that this film is seen by supporters of WikiLeaks as complete fabrication designed to slander Julian Assange. The title itself proclaims the lie that Julian Assange steals secret document. In fact the documents are given to WikiLeaks by other parties who usually have authorised access to them but feel that they should be released to the public because they demonstrate crime or corruption. By posting Julian's bail Jemima would get street-cred from the lefty elite in the UK and put her in a perfect position to make this film by a “friend” of WikiLeaks. In my view the connection of Jemima Kahn with WikiLeaks can be seen as Rothschild malice against WikiLeaks just like the Joe Lieberman story does. Here again the facts have been twisted to make Rothschilds' opposition to WikiLeaks look like support or even control.
My conclusion is that the case for Rothschilds' influence on WikiLeaks is hardly proved. Some of the “links” provide no basis for the allegation of influence or control, while at least three of them seem to show that people and organisations linked to the Rothschilds have worked to undermine trust in Wikileaks, just as this article does. We may speculate that whatever they first thought, the Rothschilds, like the rest of the super-rich, want to shut WikiLeaks down. They don't like the documents he provides to the press and other interested parties. Just for information I should point out that WikiLeaks documents are cited in more than 28 thousands academic papers, US court documents and Formal documents from the UN, the European Court of Human Rights and the UK courts. There are many important people who don't want these documents to see the light of day, and I would be very surprised if the Rothschilds are not among them.