Zimbabwe is a land-locked country just across the northeast border of South Africa. It was chartered in 1889 by the Queen of England and the land was given to the "British South Africa Company" (BSAC), and it was all funded by the Rothschilds. Before it was called Zimbabwe, it was called Rhodesia, after Cecil Rhodes. Here's a map:

• http://www.rhodesia.me.uk/images/RhodesiaLocationMap_final2LoRes.jpg

Cecil Rhodes (of the Rhodes Scholar program, where Bill Clinton later studied) was given control of the BSAC, and this was all financially backed by Baron Nathan de Rothschild who was also financially backing the Queen (through the N M Rothschild & Sons bank, a bank founded by his grandpa):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_South_Africa_Company#Board_divisions

According to historian Niall Ferguson, "For most of the nineteenth century, N M Rothschild was part of the biggest bank in the world which dominated the international bond market. For a contemporary equivalent, one has to imagine a merger between Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, J P Morgan and probably Goldman Sachs too—as well, perhaps, as the International Monetary Fund, given the nineteenth-century Rothschild's role in stabilising the finances of numerous governments."

The Rothschilds, through their company N M Rothschild & Sons, have overseen the finances of British Royalty for quite some time now. This goes right up our modern era. From the wiki page of N M Rothschild & Sons: "Chairman Sir Evelyn Rothschild is currently the personal financial advisor of Queen Elizabeth II, and she knighted him in 1989 for his services to banking and finance."

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_M_Rothschild_%26_Sons

To make overall situation more clear, here is the Rothschild family tree. We are looking at the London branch. Nathan (1777-1836) was the founder of the London bank, and his grandchild (on the left) Baron Nathanial (1840-1915) is the one who funded the BSAC that conquered Rhodesia. And Evelyn (1931- ) is the one who was knighted 28 years ago and is the (singular) financial advisor to the Queen, according to the wiki article above.

• https://pearlsofprofundity.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rothschild-family-tree.jpg

After Queen Victoria issued the charter for Rhodesia in 1889 in cooperation with Cecil Rhodes with the Rothchild's backing, the BSAC troops marched up from South Africa in 1890, just one year later. They weren't wasting any time.

The BSAC troops (or "police" in the language of the BSAC) overthrew the existing regional governments in the location of Rhodesia at the time, called the "South African Republic" or "Transvaal" prior to becoming Rhodesia. The original 100 BSAC "pioneers" who led the very first expeditions in 1890 were each promised 3,000 acres of land and 15 mining claims as a reward for their service. Essentially they were mercenaries, paid by the BSAC, which was financially owned by the Rothschilds.

By 1896, the local Zimbabwean population was getting upset with the growing numbers of BSAC entering their country and taking resources by force. By this time there were over 4,000 BSAC mercenaries in Zimbabwe. As a result of the tensions, a battle broke out with the BSAC in what is now retroactively called "The First war of Zimbabwean Independence" but is also known as the "First Chimurenga" or the "Second Matabele War". Approximately 400 BSAC were killed in this battle, but over 50,000 natives died. That's not a typo. That's a 125:1 ratio. That's not a fight, that's a slaughter.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Matabele_War

It was almost certainly due to the British's superior technology. Namely: The Maxim Gun. It was the first fully automatic machine gun, invented in 1883 and consequently used by the British to take over much of Africa. The common saying among the British at the time was "Whatever happens, we have got \ The Maxim gun, and they have not."

After killing the fifty thousand, the BSAC then ruled Rhodesia until 1922, when the BSAC turned it over to the British Crown.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_Rhodesia

Moving forward, look at this territorial map of Zimbabwe in 1965, which demonstrates how much territory the British had conquered within the country. They controlled all this land, in addition to controlling the government, despite still being a tiny minority of the population who had just appeared 70 years prior.

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Rhodesialand.png/300px-Rhodesialand.png

The Second War of Zimbabwean Independence happened from 1964-1979 and was a bloody civil war mixed in with a rebellion against the foreign ownership of the country. This lasted until the country gained independence in 1980. The guerrilla warfare, partially led by Robert Mugabe, killed 1,361 "Rhodesian Security Forces" (read: British/Rothschild Troops) and also resulted in the deaths of another 10,000 local Zimbabwean guerrilla fighters.

Here is an animated historical political map of Africa, starting in the late 1860s, showing the peak of the "Scramble for Africa", which went from 1881 to 1914. You can see the British Empire in red at the bottom:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzKejJIwieE&t=5m50s

Also take special notice at the timestamp 6:17 (showing 1979) where the ONLY country in Africa that doesn't have official independence is Rhodesia. It was the last hold of the British Empire, at least outwardly in name. The British quickly realized this didn't look good, so they granted it "independence" (while still having heavy control behind the scenes) with the stipulation it be called Zimbabwe.

So as we showed earlier when the British Empire controls something, essentially means that we know the Rothschilds basically have control over it as well since they control the purse-strings. So we can reasonably conclude the Rothschilds had control of Zimbabwe until at least 1979, and probably after that as well, as England voluntarily gave Zimbabwe independence in a sudden surprise move, which indicates that they weren't actually losing that much power by doing so, but it clearly improved the optics of the situation in the eyes of the public.

Since independence in 1980, Zimbabwe has had exactly 1 president, and his name is Robert Mugabe. Maybe you've heard of him, he's 93 years old now. He's a self-declared "Catholic Marxist" who wants the minority whites out of the Zimbabwean government and fought with the guerrillas in the Second War of Zimbabwean Independence. Here's his picture:

• http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2016/02/19/zimbabwe-president-robert-mugabe-attends-independence-rally-harare..jpg

The 1979 Lancaster House Agreement that outlined the transition to Zimbabwean independence also "ensured that the country's white minority retained many of its economic and political privileges with 20 seats to be reserved for whites in the new Parliament", and heavy ties to the debt structure of the new country.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Lancaster_House_Agreement:_1979

However Zimbabwe currently has 90-95% unemployment at the moment because of the collapse in value of the Zimbabwean dollar due to hyperinflation from 2004-2009. The central bank was printing $100 Trillion banknote denominations, and had to "redenominate" their currency by arbitrarily removing zeros in the hopes of resetting it to something not-ridiculous. They did this 3 times, in 2006, 2008 and 2009.

Printing money and creating hyperinflation is typically a strategy to resolve debt, because if the debt is a 100 trillion dollars, you can just print 100 quadrillion dollars and then the debt is nothing, but it screws the economy up very badly because everyone's savings become worth nothing so everyone is poor and no businesses can keep running. It's the ultimate reset switch, and it often comes with a heavy price, like 95% unemployment and an almost completely collapsed economy.

In some nations, the governments rule the central banks. In most nations, the central banks rule the governments. So that means this inflation is typically done by the central bank, not the government, because the central bank control the lending rate (interest charged to the government for new money creation).

The founder of N M Rothschild & Sons said it best himself - "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply":

• http://www.australiannationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screen-shot-2014-12-08-at-12.01.50-PM.png

Over in the US, Thomas Jefferson understood it as well - "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.":

• http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/ff_quotes/jefferson_168-1.jpg

So now that we see the Rothschilds very likely own Zimbabwe, let's shift gears and talk about the country next door: Botswana. Just to the west of Zimbabwe right across the border, just north of South Africa, is the country Botswana where the company of De Beers has maintained operations for 130 years. Cecil Rhodes and Nathan de Rothschild started De Beers in 1888, just one year before they created the BSAC in 1889. They were busy guys.

De Beers' primary location of operations is Botswana, through a company called Debswana, which is now a 50-50 joint venture with the government. The largest export in the country is diamonds, the economy heavily relies on diamonds, and thus on De Beers, and thus on the Rotshchilds.

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Tree_map_export_2009_Botswana.jpeg

De Beers has been shown to at one point own approximately 90% of the world's diamonds, and the amount they release out of supply that year essentially determines the price of diamonds. The Rothschilds control the price of the entire diamond market. Diamonds are only artificially rare because of De Beers. One might even say the culture of buying diamonds for wedding engagements, which only came about in the 1940s, was a result of the De Beers too, as it was their advertisements through De Beers that created this cultural standard, using the media. All to create more demand for their artificially limited product. This funny video from "Adam Ruins Everything" documents it well:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

In fact the collusion is so obvious they've gotten caught multiple times, even recently. For example in 1994 they got caught colluding with General Electric to fix the price of industrial diamonds, and paid a paltry $10M fine to the US Dept. of Justice in 2004 (more like the government wants their cut, because I doubt it actually stopped anything):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Industrial_diamonds

Former CIA chief Admiral Stansfield Turner even claimed that De Beers restricted US access to industrial diamonds needed for the country's war effort during World War II.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Oppenheimer_control

So by controlling the economy of Botswana, De Beers and thus the Rothschilds control a big chunk of the country. In a similar manner to Exxon's ownership of Chad, which I covered in a previous article that you can read here:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/magnora7/comments/6aaabs/exxon_owns_the_country_of_chad/

That article discussed petro-imperialism in Chad. De Beers practiced diamond-imperialism (blood diamonds) in Botswana. And then the story of Zimbabwe is a yet another different type of imperialism, endorsed by the Royal Crown, but in this case carried out by a hired private corporation (the BSAC) instead of the National Army as one might expect in a traditional imperialism scenario, and funded by a billionaire family.

With the top-down ownership of these three countries understood in proper context, one must wonder: How many other countries in the world are owned by corporations or billionaires? How subtle can the mechanism of ownership be, while still remaining pervasive enough to own everyone? Going by what history shows us, it usually comes down to ownership of the money, and ownership of the means by which new money is created. Which means owning the central bank, and owning the means of production.

You've heard of company towns, where the company runs and owns everything? Well these are company countries. And now we've seen 3 examples, out of the 196 countries in the world. How many more are there?