Why is "nationalism" sweeping the globe?
28 2016-12-24 by outtanutmeds
Before the French Revolution, monarchies ruled Europe. All of Europe's royal families had inter-married, because by doing so, there was less of a chance of a European country going to war with another. Say, for instance, that the King of France's sister was married to the Prince of Spain. This would help prevent a dispute of some sort blowing up into a full blown conflict between the two countries. Wars were very expensive, and before there were central banks, King's had to pay for the wars they engaged in out of their own coffers, or they borrowed with high interest from the pope. A broke King was easily overthrown.
In 1763, a 19-year-old, the brilliant Mayer Amschel Rothschild, had just graduated from the finest financial institution in Europe, and he put together a plan on how to gain total control of Europe, and eventually the whole world. He presented his plan (which became known as the "Rothschild Blueprint") to 12 of Europe's richest men, and they loved it; saying "we're in!!"
The first thing on the Blueprint's agenda was to get rid of the monarchies and replace them with Republics. Rothschild knew that fortunes were made from financing wars, and you couldn't have wars with Europe's countries getting along with each other. So, for the next 150 years (starting with the American Revolution and the French Revolution) European monarchies, one-by-one, lost their power, but kept their wealth, and the monarchies were replaced with Republics. Republics are easily controlled by outside wealthy influence, because the "vote" can be manipulated in a Republic. With the monarchies no longer in power, European nations resorted to their old animosities that each country used to have for one another. European nations didn't trust each other; even hated each other. So, during the 1800's, they turned to the House of Rothschild and borrowed astronomical amounts of money building up and improving their military and navies. With their continued distrust and hatred for one another, WW1 (which is in the Rothschild Blueprint) was inevitable, and by the time it began, all of Europe was broke. Let's fast forward to today.
WW3 is going to be a religious war. Christians and Muslims will exterminate each other. The central bankers, who work for the "Rothschild Matrix", are forcing European governments to take in millions of Muslim refugees for the sole purpose of having the naturalized citizens of each country become resentful against Muslims. The hate and resentment is so strong (because of the chaos that is now developing all across Europe), Europeans who were once all inclusive, liberal, and non-racists, are becoming filled with nationalistic pride in self-defense of their once peaceful countries becoming a bedlam of insanity and terror.
Each European country is blaming the other; turning on each other, while trying to deal with the "Muslim problem". A divided Europe is a "weak" Europe, and is setting the stage for WW3, which will not only be one nation fighting the other, but each country will be torn apart internally with anarchy and chaos. Eventually, people will be so desperate for an end to the insanity, they will be willing to surrender their sovereignty and their nation's sovereignty to a one-world government that promises peace and security.
24 comments
11 Romek_himself 2016-12-24
because middle class is dieing everywhere and "globalisation" is only good for the 1% - the 99%ers feel left behind. there is nothing to win for the normal people on a global market so they vote for "national"
-3 b4nk 2016-12-24
did you even read the post
2 reclaim_constantinop 2016-12-24
Yep.
5 padubenay 2016-12-24
This is too glib to be an accurate summation of the dynamics of political history; the struggle between kings and their subjects which resulted in republics goes back long before Rothschild - Magna Carta, for example.
1 outtanutmeds 2016-12-24
I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to my post being "glib". You meant your response was glib. But, you make a good point. The struggles between the Royalty and their subjects definitely played a major part in the overthrow of the monarchies, but I would like to point out that Rothschild helped to 'stir the pot' and financed and supported many "revolutions" throughout Europe.
1 padubenay 2016-12-24
Yes, stirring the pot is something that went on. But was it decisive? What historians think so?
-1 outtanutmeds 2016-12-24
How is it "glib"? It's a summary. I didn't want to write a book. The theory is simple. Rothschild developed a plan that goes all the way back to ancient Babylon on how to control the world. He modified it. He saw that the Pope made a fortune loaning money to Catholic countries at war with each other; that you could loan to both sides and always "collect", even from the losing side. If I am incorrect in my summary, please tell me.
2 LurkMcGurck 2016-12-24
He may have been speaking about his own response being glib, just from an outside perspective
1 outtanutmeds 2016-12-24
I think you're right. I thought he was referring to my post. Thanks for pointing that out.
2 padubenay 2016-12-24
That seems quite reasonable. The 'glib' impression arises when you skate over the struggle between monarchies and their populations, represented for example by Parliament versus Charles I in the mid 17th century, with the intention of making it look like part of Rothschild's plan to replace monarchy. Other historical interpretations exist which see different dynamics at work.
3 CrimsonBarberry 2016-12-24
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein
Not that globalism, at least in its current "McDonalds" form, is any better.
2 ardvarcus 2016-12-24
Why is "nationalism" sweeping the globe?
Because people recognize that to control their own destinies they must choose their leaders from their own culture, their own history, their own lands.
Foreign leaders who rule from a distant land, who don't speak their language, don't know anything about their culture, let along about what they want as a people, and don't really care about their fate, make poor leaders.
Globalism may be good for the ruling elite class, in the short term, but nationalism is better for the peoples themselves both in the short and long terms.
-1 pebaa55 2016-12-24
Because fear? Too many people, too fast. Our cities cant handle it. We become stressful. People want something to hold on to.
-8 bobjimenez_22 2016-12-24
Firstly, nationalism isn't that strong right now, especially in America. The nation is disappointed with the election. Each country is divided about the Muslim situation too. This seems like a nice attempt at historical fiction, and I only say fiction because it seems unlikely that the Third World War would be fought over religion when faith is at an all time low for the millennials. However, the Rothschild blueprint would make for an interesting separate post
5 Beasty_Drummer 2016-12-24
No, the "Nation" is not disappointed. Take a look at the counties that Trump won. 3,084 out of 3,141. Just because California, New York and Illinois are upset does not mean that we as a nation are disappointed. Those states do not define the USA. The media just likes to pretend that all Americans are outraged.
1 bobjimenez_22 2016-12-24
If you ignore some of the most populated states then yes, no one is upset and or disappointed. But I'm living in reality
1 marionfamous 2016-12-24
Well to play devils advocate. "Winning" a county certainly does not mean that everyone in that county is for the winning side.
3 reclaim_constantinop 2016-12-24
Bullshit.
Nope. Everyone knows they have to go back or die.
0 bobjimenez_22 2016-12-24
What are you talking about? Half of people will say yes and half will say no, a point you just proved
2 BoyWhoreWithASword 2016-12-24
That doesn't matter since the millennials won't be choosing whether to start a war, they will only be sent to die in it.
1 marionfamous 2016-12-24
When is this war supposed to happen, because millennials are almost reaching past military age.
1 BoyWhoreWithASword 2016-12-24
i'm a millennial and already done with my 6 years of military service. if I knew when a war would start i'd be making money off it i'm not fuckin Nostradamus.
1 marionfamous 2016-12-24
Already done..
2 conspiracy_polak 2016-12-24
Downvoted for shillery
-1 outtanutmeds 2016-12-24
How is it "glib"? It's a summary. I didn't want to write a book. The theory is simple. Rothschild developed a plan that goes all the way back to ancient Babylon on how to control the world. He modified it. He saw that the Pope made a fortune loaning money to Catholic countries at war with each other; that you could loan to both sides and always "collect", even from the losing side. If I am incorrect in my summary, please tell me.
1 outtanutmeds 2016-12-24
I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to my post being "glib". You meant your response was glib. But, you make a good point. The struggles between the Royalty and their subjects definitely played a major part in the overthrow of the monarchies, but I would like to point out that Rothschild helped to 'stir the pot' and financed and supported many "revolutions" throughout Europe.
1 padubenay 2016-12-24
Yes, stirring the pot is something that went on. But was it decisive? What historians think so?