Are the Rothschils behind the Islamic revolts?

March 2, 2011 11:31 PM

Puppetworld Post says, "These Rothschild revolutions are done under the pretense of bringing democracy and deposing despots, but the real aim is to initially create chaos and a leadership vacuum, then quickly offer a solution: install a puppet that will do the economic bidding of the Rothschilds. The citizens gain freedom of speech and association, but become economic serfs."

Is "the MAN" feeling threatened by the emerging Islamic banking system? Or are the tinfoil hats a little too tight?
posted by 00dimitri00 (42 comments total)

I hope you are aware that fear-mongering about the Rothschilds is generally, though not always, indicative of virulent anti-Semitism.
posted by nasreddin at 11:36 PM on March 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Although the post does have a note that says "Caution: This site is anti-plutocratic, not antisemitic. Bigotted comments will not be tolerated." Probably just garden-variety Alex Jones cranks then.
posted by nasreddin at 11:39 PM on March 2, 2011

I thought the Trilateral Commission was behind everything? Or was it the Servants of Cthulhu? Actually, wait, no, it's all "Bob".
posted by kmz at 11:42 PM on March 2, 2011

What is stopping any Western bank, Rothschild or not, from operating in an Islamic banking milieu? Islamic banks make profits through sharing in business ventures and in that sense are basically in the merchant banking biz. The whole premise of the linked article is implausibly thin. Yeah, Islamic banks don't charge interest -- instead, they get a piece of the action if you succeed.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:42 PM on March 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

fnord
posted by chimaera at 11:43 PM on March 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

This site is anti-plutocratic, not antisemitic.

I'm sure some of their best friends are Jewish!
posted by grouse at 11:47 PM on March 2, 2011

Why did you bother posting a blank comment, chimaera?
posted by sysinfo at 11:48 PM on March 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Dunno.... feeling a little nervous, sysinfo?
fnord
posted by chimaera at 11:50 PM on March 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why did you bother posting a blank comment, chimaera?

On a clear day you can see the fnords.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:54 PM on March 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Are the Rothschilds still in charge? I thought those conspirators retired years ago.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:55 PM on March 2, 2011

This is nothing but a bigoted smokescreen to distract us from the real threat; Abstergo Corp.
posted by Justinian at 11:57 PM on March 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Rothschilds are really just a front for - just a sec., someone's at the door
posted by From Bklyn at 11:58 PM on March 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Dunno.... feeling a little nervous, sysinfo?
Even more than usual! I'd better go shopping, that always helps.

On a clear day you can see the .
See the what? The dot? That doesn't make any sense, but it scares me.
posted by sysinfo at 11:58 PM on March 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I would expect that anyone who had interests and influences would try to get involved if they thought they could profit.

So I would expect intelligence representatives from all the gulf states, Israel, the Northern Africa states, Europe, Russia, China and the US to all be present and some of them running operations to help their chosen faction.

I can imagine that running a conspiracy in that environment would be pretty frustrating.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:16 AM on March 3, 2011

I love these superhuman bank-shot conspiracies. It's like some kind of Rube Goldberg device except with human institutions as the pieces in play, each perfectly playing its part in tandem with all the others to carry the ball unfailingly across the globe from its hidden starting point at Rothschild Castle to its destination blocking open the door to a vault room in a bank in Tunisia. Anyone who had predictive & manipulative capabilities that precise & accurate in the face of all this chaos & uncertainty is wasting their time on petty moves like messing around with what type of banks are allowed to exist. They truly would be gods among men.

Or maybe this guy is just a common crank like all the rest, seeing patterns that aren't there, images in the static & voices in the white noise.
posted by scalefree at 12:25 AM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

What is stopping any Western bank, Rothschild or not, from operating in an Islamic banking milieu?

Nothing, which is why many large Western banks have Islamic banking divisions. HSBC is the world's largest underwriter of sukuk.
posted by atrazine at 12:26 AM on March 3, 2011

So here's a brief historian's primer on recognizing and critically analyzing conspiracy theories. (It's not that I'm any more enlightened about Majestic 12 or whatever than you are, it's that historians routinely have to confront conspiracy theories in all kinds of forms, both from fellow scholars and from our own subjects, and we end up evolving ways to deal with them.)

Your first questions should be, of course, "Is this plausible given what I know about the situation and the actors involved? Are the motives, opportunities, and alibis clear? Is there a simpler explanation that can account for the available facts?" Now, almost everyone knows how to ask this. The problem is that most people stop there, which either leaves them unnecessarily closed-minded (because they assume that the generally-accepted half of the story is the only truly reliable one) or makes them vulnerable to conspiracy theorists who drag in unfamiliar new facts.

Once you've constructed a model that fits with your best-guess opinion about the situation, it's time to analyze the conspiracy theory directly. What kind of actor does the conspiracy theorist ultimately appeal to? Is it an abstract category like "Jews"? Are there specific individuals named? Both of these are indications that you're dealing with an unreliable model. Abstract categories are obviously incapable of acting independently, and history gives us very few examples of identity-categories that can readily translate, by themselves, into effective and secret collective action on the part of their members. (Jews descend into infighting just as easily as any other group.) Individuals are a little trickier. Essentially, when individuals organize conspiracies strictly for personal gain, they do it on an individual scale. As soon as states and large-scale movements get involved, it becomes vastly more unlikely that you're dealing with an isolated megalomaniac working behind the scenes.

Suppose you have a conspiracy theory that appeals to neither type of actor. Instead, it attributes the events to some kind of powerful state, state-linked, or corporate agent. (To give you an example, there is the (largely true) conspiracy theory that Lenin's return to Russia to lead the 1917 revolution was deliberately and carefully organized by the German government in order to knock Russia out of the war.) At that point, things get harder. You have to figure out what the pattern of action is, according to your conspiracy theory--in other words, what kinds of assumptions does it require you to make about the way organizations and other kinds of structures actually work? Most of the typical Deus Ex-style conspiracy theories founder here, because they require you to assume a perfect vertical of power and no or minimal independence on the part of participants. (The Illuminati control Hasbro, therefore Hasbro is constantly engaged in carrying out the Illuminati's bidding rather than, say, suffering from bureaucratic organizational problems or employing people who are genuinely interested in toys or making bad decisions about marketing.)

Then, you have to ask: what assumptions does the theory expect you to make about power relations in general? Power isn't a permanent constant. People are constantly performing power rituals and negotiating about power, and a leader who fails to convince people that obedience is worthwhile will soon be confronted with challengers and erosion of support. (If the Illuminati control Hasbro, what do they have to give Hasbro in order to ensure its cooperation in the worldwide fluoride death-camp plot? How does this change the internal dynamics of the Illuminati-Hasbro relationship?) If a theory does not give you a satisfyingly flexible account of power, then even if it is true, it's almost certainly not developed in close contact with meaningful amounts of factual data about the conspiracy.

Finally--and really, there are a lot more questions to ask, but this one is especially important--you need to look for signs of overdetermination and contextualize the conspiracy properly. In other words, Lenin's 1917 return to Russia may have been funded by the Germans, but does that mean that without the Germans, there would never have been a revolution? Almost certainly there would have still been one, although its outcome may well have been different. Was a conspiracy responsible for Lyndon Johnson/Reagan/Clinton/George W. Bush? Perhaps, but long-term political trends are surprisingly stable and political modeling algorithms like the one used by FiveThirtyEight are quite accurate even without the conspiracy variable. A conspiracy theory, in short, can only be credible if it can fit comfortably in an analytical package alongside other phenomena like median new home prices or troop deployment patterns.

But figuring that stuff out sounds like boring work. Almost like a textbook. Hey, didja hear about the 10,000 body bags FEMA just ordered?
posted by nasreddin at 12:31 AM on March 3, 2011 [43 favorites]

I wish Crazy would learn how to use blockquotes.
posted by Rhomboid at 12:36 AM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Nasreddin,

I bet all sorts of conspiracy theories get in the way of your work. Im really sorry to hear that. But your categoric dismissal of everything that isn't reported by cnn would lead you to believe that Bush/Cheney really did care about America, and had nothing to do with Halliburton.

Try again.
posted by hal_c_on at 12:40 AM on March 3, 2011

what
posted by nasreddin at 12:41 AM on March 3, 2011 [7 favorites]

nasreddin: my internet friend Matthew Dentith is a philosopher whose work is devoted to conspiracy theory and the extent to which we may legitimately rely on explanations based on conspiracy. You may find his blog interesting.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:41 AM on March 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

It began on a "Friday afternoon tennis date -- with a girlfriend -- when the telephone rang." It was Bolshevik emigre V. I. Lenin wanting to negotiate with somebody. He did not take or return the call, and that very weekend Lenin was off on the legendary sealed train to St. Petersburg's Finland Station and a place in history."
posted by clavdivs at 1:06 AM on March 3, 2011

Is "the MAN" feeling threatened by the emerging Islamic banking system? Or are the tinfoil hats a little too tight?

false dichotomy?
posted by russm at 1:17 AM on March 3, 2011

Is "the MAN" feeling threatened by the emerging Islamic banking system?

No, "the MAN" sees it as an opportunity, not a threat. As noted upthread, there's a lot of interest from western banks in Islamic banking - not so much in the US, but certainly in Europe. And just as much interest from Asian banks too.

From the article "Islamic banks have been eating into Rothschild profits in the Middle East because: they don’t charge interest". That's correct, but there are plenty of ways to structure a loan or bond deal so that it is compliant with Sharia financial law, and still makes money for the bank/lender/issuer. If anything, the rise of Islamic finance gives banks the chance to sell their products to a whole new market.
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:28 AM on March 3, 2011

Shock Doctrine anyone?
posted by knapah at 1:58 AM on March 3, 2011

Meaning that I suspect 'the man' is less concerned with Islamic banking, than the opportunity to impose neoliberal dogma on emerging new markets.
posted by knapah at 1:59 AM on March 3, 2011

Is "the MAN" feeling threatened by the emerging Islamic banking system?

Is the man threatened by funding in return for equity participation and (optionally) dividends? No, I suspect that most VC companies would recognise the business model fairly easily.
posted by jaduncan at 2:00 AM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also, despite the fact that this article is undoubtedly the woowoo, it has to be said that they are (or were) currently economic serfs. The states were largely kleptocratic (somewhat less so for Egypt) and had high levels of unemployment. A nominal Rothschild conspiracy would actually probably have produced a higher quality of life for most ordinary citizens.
posted by jaduncan at 2:05 AM on March 3, 2011

Rothschils should be made into Rothschills - along with most people, i'd like to see a hipper, more laid back kinda one world government.
Should the nwo need any help carrying out some sort of user friendly rebranding, feel free to message me via the usual hidden messages in my curtains route, or through that black cat that lives down the street.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:43 AM on March 3, 2011

But your categoric dismissal of everything that isn't reported by cnn would lead you to believe that Bush/Cheney really did care about America, and had nothing to do with Halliburton.

If there's anything I've learned by reading nasreddin's comments on Metafilter over the years it's his support of the Bush administration.
posted by atrazine at 3:08 AM on March 3, 2011

If there's anything I've learned by reading nasreddin's comments on Metafilter over the years it's his support of the Bush administration.

Surely this will be the thing that brings down the Bush/nasreddin ideological alliance.
posted by jaduncan at 3:21 AM on March 3, 2011

As a rule, people who believe in elaborate conspiracy theories have never actually worked in large organisations. Like the people who believe that the CIA was responsible for 9/11. If the CIA had been behind that they would have ended up accidentally blowing up an empty field in Umbria 6 months later.
posted by atrazine at 3:36 AM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

The very reason for screeds of this nature is that no one is actually "in charge." We both underestimate the power of local bureaucracy and overestimate the reach of transnational entities. Globalism may permeate our lives, but major power shifts are barely controlled by anyone.
posted by clvrmnky at 3:48 AM on March 3, 2011

I actually read the post to the end, difficult as it was, and skimmed his other posts. It's not just "the Rothschilds" he doesn't like; he also blames George Soros and Facebook. If you read his earlier posts he also blames the banker Jacob Schiff (1847-1920), the socialite Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith, as he points out), and Senator Joe Lieberman. It isn't hard to connect the dots in his conspiracy theory: they're marked with yellow stars.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:10 AM on March 3, 2011

Are the Rothschilds still in charge? I thought those conspirators retired years ago.

Nah, that progressive Reform Jew George Soros had them removed during the Holocaust. He is now in charge. Watch Glen Beck, people! Everything will start to make sense! It will all come into focus! See how the extremist Islamists in Egypt are working with union thugs in Wisconsin to create a New World Order!
posted by NoMich at 4:17 AM on March 3, 2011

My stepfather and i have an ongoing argument about conspiracies.

My theory is this. Much of history has been determined by conspiracy. But now that we reflect upon it, it is history. Some other realm of thought. Caesar being killed. Watergate. The fact that Patriot missles never actually did anything in gulf war one, etc.

Pearl harbor was a conspiracy of one nation, but now it is historical fact.

So my argument goes that had things gone differently, we would lump all these little facts back into the realm of conspiracy, and some would pooh-pooh the naysayers.

"No really, my cousin worked in the Nixon Whitehouse and heard about these crazy tales of break-ins and wiretaps!"

"A friend of a friend of some guy i met at a bar said we were actually overthrowing governments in south america and the middle east throughout the 20th century. No shit, this drunk guy says he can prove it!"

But these are all now FACTS, not CONSPIRACIES.

It still makes me laugh when people somehow don't attribute human greed, and desire to the incredibly wealthy and powerful. Why do people not think someone 1000 times more wealthy and powerful than themselves would not be pulling strings, asking favors, and cajoling others to get what they might consider the masses to do their bidding, behind the scenes?
posted by efalk at 4:26 AM on March 3, 2011

as per the Rothchilds, I know very little aside from the tiny reference in So I Married An Axe Murderer
posted by efalk at 4:28 AM on March 3, 2011

Also, there are many conspiracies that I think are hilarious. Some are just plain obvious "Why in the hell wouldn't someone of means do that?" type.
posted by efalk at 4:31 AM on March 3, 2011

I have a couple of friends who are deeply into conspiracy nonsense. One attempted to explain to me at length why I shouldn't be offended by what she said, because only *some* Jews were really shapechanging reptilian aliens. In fact, she sincerely thought the rest of would be thrilled to smoke them out in order to clear our names.

And yes, of course there are real conspiracies. And yes, sometimes they even get sussed out by Joe Ordinary -- e.g. Hey! This corporation has been illegally dumping waste in the drinking water for years!

There are also real mountain lions that actual people see sometimes, but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe it when someone tells me about the unicorn in their garden.
posted by kyrademon at 4:48 AM on March 3, 2011

Ever held a surprise birthday party for a friend?

You have CONSPIRED against them! Dunh dunh dunh....
posted by efalk at 4:59 AM on March 3, 2011

Now do that for your friend, except they are in on it and you both stand to gain 2 billion dollars.
posted by efalk at 5:01 AM on March 3, 2011

It still makes me laugh when people somehow don't attribute human greed, and desire to the incredibly wealthy and powerful. Why do people not think someone 1000 times more wealthy and powerful than themselves would not be pulling strings, asking favors, and cajoling others to get what they might consider the masses to do their bidding, behind the scenes?

Anyone who thinks that the super-rich are organized enough to have a global conspiracy do their bidding needs to have a couple drinks with some CEO-level personal assistants.
posted by dubold at 5:03 AM on March 3, 2011 [3 favorites]