Foxy, I decided to look at your history to get a better understanding of your views and where you stand on things generally. I see you have a problem with Soros. I know of him and some of his antics, compared to the Builderberg group 'The King makers' so called, by comparison, small fry. I now have a better understanding on you and in a very simple conclusion you demonstrate over simplistic views on life with a good handfull of naivety. I wish to make a statement, not a comment; All of the worlds people are good and kind and so on. There is always the 'bad ones', in amongst the 'good ones'. The good ones know they are being taken but for the fact that they don't have the courage or the means to do anything about it. they can, at best, get on a forum and try to either understand what's going on by asking and hoping someone will reply. With the truth, that is. Oh and by the way, don't ever respond to my post with suggestions that a person is a good person because they donate to charity. A family man struggling to survive, yes, but a billionaire? Please once more you display your naivety. Now read the following carefully: They contribute to charities because,wait for it...................IT'S TAX DEDUCTIBLE!

Dear ALTRAV,

You must have read the wrong user index. I do not
have a problem with George Soros. On the contrary.
He is most known as a financial speculator, however,
in my opinion, he's a well-read and wise one who
believes in reason, the supremacy of science, and
the universal brotherhood of humans. All pillars
on which we can build a better future.

As for my views being simplistic and naive?

Why Thank You. I'll take that as a compliment.

fOXY, as I explained in my opening that The information or the 'fact/s' I was referring to, came from other sources, both print and electronic. I did not take notes because like many things I read, they are 'transient'. As opposed to reading for the sake of education. I treat this form of reading as a social endeavour, not a profession. For the record, I have over the years found that the information we seek, more often than not, has been 'tweaked'. Having left me with a very big mis-trust issue. Too often I have found that the truth is out there not in print and pictures. I would like to suggest you may want to follow up on a few of these issues yourself. I know very little about Soros, for example, but it seems you may have unwittingly chosen him to critique, and that's good. It just happens that I have questions about The Rothschids, which began because there were too many pieces missing. The more I looked the more deflections or dead ends I found.

ALTRAV It appears you need to read the book "How to win friends and influence people" it seems you have alienated yourself here.

Dear ALTRAV,

There are so many books on the Rothchild family.
I've just done a brief scroll through. I'm sure
if you were to go into your regional or even
your national library and tell them what you're
after the librarians there will be able to help
you fill in the gaps that are missing.

One good thing for me that's come out of this
discussion is that you've aroused my interest
in this family. Now I'm going to pursue
some of the books I've found about them on the
web. There's a particular one that's caught
my attention - "Plutocrats: A Rothschild Inheritance,"
by George Ireland. It's about four of the Rothschild
brothers and looks interesting. Hopefully my local
library will be able to get a hold of it for me.

Anyway Good Luck.

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

ALTRAV,
There are a lot of conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds. For example many people believe them to control all the world's central banks except those of countries the USA is (or might soon be) at war with. Of course in reality the USA is the only country in the world which doesn't have its central bank entirely in government ownership, but conspiracy nuts tend to ignore simple truths while treating outlandish claims as fact.

I notice you didn't say were you read that claim about the "original" Rothschild's will, but I'm guessing it was one of those conspiracy websites. It simply doesn't make sense. Even if a will ever had such a condition (which would itself be silly) governments have the power to frustrate it, and would not hesitate to do so. They certainly wouldn't exempt Rothschild banks from transparency standards while bailing then out!!

Likewise the claim that they own half the world's wealth is not credible.

BTW tax deductibility is not in itself a reason to give to charities. They don't get back all the money they give; they merely get back the tax they've paid on what they've given.