10 votes

Question about Rothschilds/international banking families owning all the gold

While all this economic discussion is going on about investing in gold/silver etc., and we middle class people are buying paltry amounts of it, it should be pretty obvious that the MAJOR players, the ones that control the central banking system, are also preparing themselves as well.

I find it hard to believe that after over a century of controlling interests in the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve system that they haven't queitely put aside large amounts of mineral wealth for themselves (it's what I would do with that kind of power). So I have some questions:

1. How do we know that the Rothschilds/whoever controls the central banks don't have thousands of tons of gold/silver safely tucked away for themselves somewhere?
2. Perhaps they will allow a gold standard to come back because they own almost all the gold/silver now. I am fairly certain whatever system we get to replace the current one will be to their advantage. How do we know that this is not the case?
3. Is it possible that all the figures we hear about 'all the gold ever mined being xxxx tons' is really false? Perhaps a significant amount more of it was mined but quietly hidden in underground vaults and shielded from public view with shady accounting practices.
4. If YOU had control over the banking system for this long, wouldn't you have spent almost the ENTIRETY of that time ensuring you were acquiring and preserving vast amounts of wealth? I mean, given that people could figure the system out at any given time, I would have vaults located throughout the world so I could 'bail' any territory at any given moment and still control vast sums of wealth.

5. How do we know that the 'Rothschild' family is the predominant family? This is another thing I don't understand. Why would the REAL/TRUE power players want everyone knowing their name? Are they arrogant enough to think that no one can touch them? I know if I had that kind of power I would have ensured my family name was changed over the generations, and would also have created a 'front family' that could be targeted publicly for the blame (ie someone other than the Rothschilds is really in control, and deliberately ensures the narrative is focused on them).


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


If I wanted to be a successful drug dealer, the one thing I would not do is call attention to myself by driving exotic cars, wearing a lot of bling, flashing heavy cash, & generally standing out in mostly poor surroundings for the police to see. So it is with the Rothschilds. Example? When was the last time anyone ever saw their name on any of the top richest people's lists? You won't. They own the media. They figured this one out when they started buying information bureaus like Reuters. For a very accurate timeline of the Rothschilds's ascendancy, google: Iamthewitness.com. The internet "Reformation" is a fabulous thing. Use it while you still can.

The Rothschild Family Name

....was changed many years ago.
I believe it was once "Bauer"?

In an age of 2nd Amendment infringement, huge gated/guarded estates and sophisticated security, (not to mention huge influence in police depts),now these people are "untouchable".

Our last hope was JFK, and RFK, it all went downhill from there.

The Clintons are the first examples (in modern times) of openly arrogant abusers of the public trust....their arrogance continues to this day...the people (citizens) have short memories.

Corporations were not a common entity, they had to seek approval to be chartered, had to exhibit a necessary service with the good of the community in mind....charters were very short term.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

On a side note, something I have been pondering...

It would be interesting to see if any of the prominent European/American banking families are 'intermixing' through marriage with prominent Chinese banking families.

Englishmen operating in America to control the Federal Reserve are A LOT less obvious than them being in China and doing the same thing because they LOOK so different. It would be too obvious to Chinese citizens and government officials if prominent white bankers were constantly making their decisions for them.

In order for their families to retain power/prominence, they have to 'blend in' by having children over there.

Curious to know if this is true because if so, it shows how psychotic these people are.

There's not much evidence to

There's not much evidence to substantiate the myth that they own or control the central banks. The don't own any banks in the US, which of course own the shares in their respective Federal Reserve districts.

The banks they do own are not commercial ones. They are relatively small investment and merchant banks. Some of them may be corrupt Establishment types but others (who are billionaires) are more like Peter Schiff. They are very conservative as are most wealth management organizations.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

What would you do if you were

What would you do if you were one of these banking families that had enormous, unthinkable wealth? Wouldn't you try to obscure it so no one knew?

Here's what I would do: I would create holding companies (asset management, charities, trusts, etc.) and make sure it was so complex a web of ownership that no one could trace it back to me without great difficulty (they would be based in jurisdictions with strong privacy rules). Then I would buy large stakes in the FEDs membership banks. EASY.

If you notice, some of the largest shareholders of these banks are exactly as I described: pension funds, asset management funds, etc. Not individual people (that's too obvious!).

I'm normally not a conspiratorial type person and require STRONG evidence for these kinds of assertions. I can readily admit this is ALL speculation. However, the best way to guess what's going on is to THINK like someone who 'controls' the system. If you start to think like them, you can take educated guesses as to what they have done as well.

Primarily - DEFLECT ATTENTION and create 'misleading' trails for people to follow (ie Rothschilds may NOT actually be that important, but are distractions).

Secondly - HIDE YOUR WEALTH this ties into the first one as well - don't let people catch on to how much you actually have - they will be angry!



Cyril's picture

You might want to check out "So, Where is the Gold?"

You might want to check out "So, Where is the Gold?" :



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

My Take

1., 2., 3., 4.) The answer is yes, the Rothschilds, and their Central Bank Systems own most of the World's gold.

But it is more than just simply that. The Banksters also either own, control, or greatly influence (by large investments) a large array of Multinational Corporations in many different areas of Industry. For example, look at any "Large Cap" or Blue Chip Company and the majority of them have some of the CEOs or Board members recruited into The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) roundtable group. So they become indoctrinated into the same system that supports "Globalization", and centralized global control sought by the private Banksters. Bill Gates is CFR, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Google, Oil Companies, etc., all the big companies usually end up aligning with this big club of Elites. So the in addition of owning most of the Gold, the Banksters most certaintly also own or control most of the Mining Companies as well. They can manipulate the perceived supply and production for gold, just like they can distort and manipulate the supply of dollars. And, of course, they control the COMEX market (paper gold certificates) to help them distort the perceived value, and (very real) exchange price.

This is why I personally believe that having private Banks creating the money is more dangerous than what the actual medium of money used is. Private Banks should just be in the business of lending existing money, not creating it.

5. The Rothschilds invented the private Central Bank scheme. All the nations are now indebted to these type of private structures, and are forced to obey them. The World Bank and the International Bank of Settlements are structures that manage the money of all the Central Banks globally.

There is no escaping them. We already have a "World currency" in the form of the U.S. Dollar as all other currencies must be based and valued off of this. When the time comes to replace this with an International "gold based" currency, the private Banking system will still control things.

Only Sovereign Money (money controlled by the people, and produced transparently with no debt directly by the Treasury), would be something that is Independent from the private Banks and their schemes. This is the kind of reform that people like Bill Still from "The Money Masters", and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

"Dont invest in anything of value..."

"The bankers have already done that"

The Rothschild's are nobodys. Read Murray Rothbard on the banking interests in the united states through the 1980's(70's?) Either that or Goldspan wrote the authoritative post on the subject for the Daily Paul:



Hey Thanks man

I was wondering if anyone actually read that thread.

I would add to this conversation and the thing that so often gets lost in the discussion is ......central banks were and are established for one reason and one reason only.....to provide the governing body with an endless source of credit.....period. That is their main reason to exist.

Sea, you know this as well as anyone because you have said it to me before.....and I agree with you.....you and I prefer private currency as opposed to public currency, that is advocated by the green backer (aka the folk that spew out those Money Master videos). What we are opposed to is the cartel that the government provides in the current system, which started with Lincoln in this country. Free Banking is the answer,where if a bank does not honor it obligations it goes out of business, just like every other business does in this country,unless they are a car company. Well they used to go out of business.

Thanks again for the kind words.

Just read the entire series

I just read the entire series - very fascinating. The only thing is, I don't remember seeing anywhere in there who actually OWNS the shares in the Bank of England, Federal Reserve, etc. I'm curious to know who owns these shares and if they receive any kinds of dividends etc.

Any ideas?

Member banks own the shares.

Its not the narnia version where its owned by rothschilds, kun-lobe, Morgan, and the rockefellars.

It actually is the member banks and they receive dividends at a 6% rate. Its right on their website.

Can't speak for the BOE. Never really studied it in depth.


A "member bank" is not a person

There are people who are owners and controllers of "member banks".

The people who conceived of, planned, and executed the creation of the global central banking system certainly did not go through all of that trouble ... to simply give away the power.

They held on to it. That was the whole point.

We know who these families are.


I am in agreement with you - I think they have held onto their power. I think that a lot of the 'feuding' we see on the news between nations is really just a ruse. Or, powerful people at the top jockeying for position, of which the consequences are minor for them but major for everyone else.

What are the names of the families that have the largest holdings? Is there any way to document this/is there any official proof?

Do you believe they have hidden their ownership stakes through trusts, asset management companies, etc. like I have speculated?

But who has the greatest

But who has the greatest ownership percentages of the member banks?! I would guess it is a select few families. Has anyone ever determined it? I mean, I would guess that they own their shares via 'proxy' - through asset management companies, trusts, charities, etc. to hide exactly who they are. What are your thoughts on this?

Hoarding is a reality, but not an economic issue.

To take advantage of horded gold requires spending the horded gold.

Markets would adjust, it's only a perceived threat.

Free includes debt-free!

There is no cabal. It's just

There is no cabal.

It's just a mob of disorganized, self-interested people who dally with their housekeepers and get arrested for nose-candy.

Nowhere, ever, have I seen the kind of mass competence required to pull off such a multi-generational conspiracy.

It's all out in the open and it doesn't affect anyone enough for them to care or think they ought to change it.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


I thought they owned a large portions of the central banks?

I was under the impression that there were shares issued for ownership stakes in the central banks, and that banking families like the Rothschilds own a large percentage of them. If that's the case, then they have been preserving that ownership over several generations.

In terms of collusion, I somewhat agree with you. I think that the collusion (cabal) that forms is through mutual self-interest, and not necessarily something that they all voluntarily submit to. They all just want to extract as much wealth as they can through the issuance of debt-based money, and it benefits them all.

Thoughts? I'm interested about your ideas that there isn't some planning involved over several generations.

The Rothschilds are still

The Rothschilds are still rich and eminent, but they are following the same path of every other ultra-wealthy family from the Hiltons to the Vanderbilts: decadence and dissipation.


David Mayer de Rothschild, 35, adventuring, independently wealthy, worried about global warming.

The focus, drive and greed of the Rothschilds of old isn't so strong in the new generation.

Like every other great fortune, eventually it will be diluted, changed, and frittered away by heirs of unremarkable talent.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


I would normally agree but...

Normally I would agree with you - dynastic wealth is usually squandered by those who inherit it and didn't have to put in the effort to earn it. However, we are talking about banking families that CONTINUALLY receive payouts from the system of which they control. They can almost afford to be reckless and frivolous in their purchases because they're just going to be repaid through their control of the banking system.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I envision the system is that banking families like the Rothschilds receive 'dividends' from the Federal Reserve through their vast holdings of the FEDs banking members. So, they can squander money all they like, there really won't be an impact to their 'cashflow' until this power is removed.

Am I mistaken? I'm honestly looking for an answer here.

They'll be rich for a long

They'll be rich for a long time, but as the family grows their control and influence will be diluted.

Over time the scions of the Rothschild family will sell off stakes in the banks for quick cash, dimwitted heirs will lose control.

It's already happening. The Rothschilds today, even as a group, don't privately bankroll wars and entire countries like they used to. They're hangers-on and peripheral beneficiaries to the massive government banking machine. Compared to Northrop Grumman or General Dynamics, the actual amount of wealth funneled to Rothschilds is very small.

Everything stays the same until it changes, just like the French kings, the Roman Senate or the Pharaohs.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!