you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MagicMike 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

He lived in Tennessee in the early 19th century. AMERICA was an agrarian nation for the most part. If you lived in the South, land was everything. Having slaves had the effect of equalizing costs. So it was either use slaves or be poor white. That’s how people thought back then.

Quit applying the standards of today with those of yesteryear. He was a normal businessman and General.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

it's weird how he is attacking andrew jackson for being a slave holder, yeah everyone was back then. But the thing where he is trying to say he was a rothschild ally when he hated them is a new weird claim.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's weird when you know absolutely nothing about history and only read blogs that source infowars claiming Jackson "killed the bank" (he never said that, that quote was a forgery), when the reality is that he killed a certain banking house, that is, gentile British house Barring and Co. who were fiscal agents of US from its founding.

Jackson, the Freemason, never hated the Rothschilds, who were also Freemasons, and he never claimed he wanted to end the Rothschilds banking house.

If he did, ehy did he appoint the Rothschilds as fiscal agents of the US to Europe?

Why did Levi Woodbury, Jew, and Taney, who Jackson appointed, correspond with Rothschild in a letter that seemed almost worship like. Taney and Woodbury writing that they would do anything for Rothschild.

Also, interesting that Jackson would use a Baltimore bank, I.F. Phillips front company banking house, agents of Rothschild and Manhatten bank, also Rothschild owned, to keep his money safe.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

you're basing what you say on blogs actually

well known he fought the rothschilds

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're ignorant, period. I just gave you three scholarly sources showing you with proof that Jackson appointed the Rothschilds as fiscal agents to the US. And you're too engulfed in some dead myth propagated by blogs and infowars to admit that they and you are wrong.

Again, I gave you the sources and info. You're free to ignore them like an ignoramous or read them. I don't care. Something that is well known, doesn't make it true. That's an argumentum ad populum.

For the longest time, I too believed he fought the Rothschilds but he didn't, he fought one banking house: Barring and Co. Those he appointed were in good standing with Rothschild via personal corespondence and through Rothschild agents and banking houses.

I believe the anti-banking myth of Jackson was a lie, I know it was, as I proved, to bring down one banking house, Barring and Co., for another, the House of Rothschild.

It is clear your biases in favor of some racist, dead, freemasonic slaveholder, who appointed the inbred Rothschilds as fiscal agents to the US, stems from your lack of actually researching primary and scholarly sources.

Is it better we believe the alt. sources, heavily infiltrated and controlled by Mossad and Zionist Jews, who are most likely propagating this myth for their own benefit? No, of course not.

One such poster on here praised Jackson, and on his blog, oddly, he slipped up and praised August Belmont (pseudonym), a Rothschild agent, claiming how much smarter he was then all the gentiles living today. A man of exquisite taste and a hard worker who traveled before the age of 24 to meet Rothschild to work for them and always for them. Hence, the pro-Jackson stance is quite weird, at first, and only if you believe the lies that he hated the Rothschilds but I came to realize it is not weird at all when he appointed Rothschild as fiscal agents to the US.