From Coexist
http://coexistfoundation.net/coexistfoundation/index.htm
--------------------

It is interesting to note that there are one or two references to the conversion to Islam by Napoleon Bonaparte. This is not a subject which can be taken lightly when you consider the entire story of the time, the crippling debt currently placed on
many countries and the financial models of the West which have latterly brought us to our knees. We were taught that the Duke of Wellington won the Battle of Waterloo, however, in many ways it seems that the real winners were a banking family by the
name of Rothschild.

The official French newspaper of the time -1798- carried an account of Napoleon’s conversion to Islam and mentions his Muslim name ‘Aly Napoleon Bonaparte’. Napoleon is also quoted (in Christian Cherfils, Bonaparte et Islam) as saying that he would
like to establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Quran. A more recent reference is in the book Satanic Voices by David Pidcock:
http://www.facebook.com
/l/d73aeiu0Dq2eRSX5c8vQaWFl59w;media.isnet.org/off/Islam/New/napoleon.html

What is certain is that Napoleon was a very good tactician. He traveled widely and was well read. As the Emperor of France he was continually searching for ways in which he could strengthen his country, and had a deep knowledge of Shari’ah Law. His
relationship with Christianity was one of a practical statesman - religion was useful as long as it was comforting to society, but dangerous if it led to fanaticism. And his frank disbelief in the Trinity caused him to adopt monotheistic attitude - not a million miles from Islam. On the 9th of February 1807, Napoleon issued a rabbinical Fatwa prohibiting usury (the charging of interest). Napoleon clearly understood the root cause of Europe's
problem. For, upon being shown a table of interest charges, he reflected for a while and made the following comment:

"The deadly facts herein revealed, lead me to wonder that this monster, interest, has not devoured the whole human race. It would have done so long ago if bankruptcy and revolutions had not acted as counter poisons." (Lincoln: Money Martyred; Omni
Publications 1935).

It does not require much stretching of the imagination to understand why the banking organizations of the day were not too happy about a non-usurious system. Traditional western bankers saw their future prosperity at risk, and thus in the build up to the
Battle of Waterloo, were pitched against Napoleon. If he won, they would be out of business.

War is always about money.

The prosperity of the Rothschilds rested upon backing the right horse in the Napoleonic wars and developing close relations with one or more of the warring governments involved. For the Rothschilds, this meant the British government. The
Rothschilds became the paymaster of the British Army and the disburser of subsidies to the German, Austrian, Belgian and Russian allies. Before the French emperor’s defeat at Waterloo on June 18th 1918, the Rothschilds had already strategically placed themselves against him. In January 1814 they contracted to supply the Duke of
Wellington with the monthly hundred thousand pounds sterling in ready cash to continue paying his armies to wage war against Napoleon.
http://www.facebook.com/l/d73ael5Ws9KLopeIac5Fe8nSdfA;www.hbs.edu/bhr/archives/bookreviews/80/proberts-v80-3.pdf

The four Rothschild brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the European continent at this time, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold – and information. They became experts in crisscrossing the frontiers of Europe buying, selling and transporting millions of coins. The
private intelligence service so gathered enabled Nathan Rothschild to receive the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the British government's official messengers.

There were vast fortunes to be made -- and lost -- on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. If Britain lost, the value of English coinage would plummet. If Britain was victorious, the value of the currency would increase.

Late on the afternoon of June 15, 1815, a Rothschild representative took a fast boat from Belgium to the English coast with a report on the outcome of the Battle ofWaterloo.

At the London Stock Exchange, Rothschild dumped hundreds of thousands of British guineas on the market, and the value plummeted. Rothschild misled the markets into thinking that he had prior knowledge of a Wellington defeat at Waterloo and there
was a panic to sell. At its lowest price, and shortly before the ‘official’ news about Wellington’s victory arrived in London, Rothschild reversed his decision, bought the currency he
had just sold, and the value of the guinea skyrocketed. His fortune multiplied twenty times on that one day, and he gained a position of such financial power in the City of London that by 1825–6 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act created a consortium of privately held associated banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank were Rothschild’s of London holding 57% of the stock not available for public trading. There are some interesting ownership charts here:
http://www.facebook.com
/l/d73aeanYzJD6DqJ58EJfT2NT6gQ;www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/ownership_federal_reserve.htm

It is difficult to track the exact ownership of these banks, however, the Rothschilds are probably the most secretive and powerful banking family in the modern world with assets in the hundreds of trillions. What would have happened had Napoleon not converted to Islam, or at the very least, not prescribed Islamic and non-usurious banking practices for France? Would the
Rothschild family not have been so interested in the outcome and possibly not made so much money on the war enterprise? Would Lincoln, Garfield, Mc Faddon and JFk have lived?

And what might have happened if Napoleon had won? (an unlikely event considering the entire European aristocracy and most of the banking families were pitted against him) Would we now be living in a world whereby money could be borrowed without interest? It is entirely feasible that we would not be experiencing the constant
cycle of economic boom and bust; we would not be facing a national debt which allows the bankers their huge bonuses and the ordinary people the bill for it all. Call it Islamic, call it anything you like, life without interest would be more fair and more just.

Some aspects of Shariah Law currently exist in the French constitution based on the Code Napoleone. One well publicized case was that of the fatal car accident with Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al-Fayed. "The photographers were charged with an
old part of the French Jurisprudence, for ‘not helping at the scene of an accident’-
(David M. Pidcock, 1998 C.E.)
--------------------

Interesting.

Also shows the tricks still used in the markets

This is about central banking cartels, not markets. Free markets don't use "tricks". Rothschild was head of the Bank of England-the equivalent of our Federal Reserve.

OP-if this subject interests you, read "The Creature From Jeckyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin and "The Mystery Of Banking" by Murray Rothbard.

I was talking about this part of the article
At the London Stock Exchange, Rothschild dumped hundreds of thousands of British guineas on the market, and the value plummeted. Rothschild misled the markets into thinking that he had prior knowledge of a Wellington defeat at Waterloo and there
was a panic to sell. At its lowest price, and shortly before the ‘official’ news about Wellington’s victory arrived in London, Rothschild reversed his decision, bought the currency he
had just sold, and the value of the guinea skyrocketed. His fortune multiplied twenty times on that one day, and he gained a position of such financial power in the City of London that by 1825–6 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis.

Which does talk about the markets and tricks

This is not the "market and tricks". This is a corrupt banker who manipulated the market to his own benefit. Ben Bernanke did this too, only a few months ago. Again, I suggest you read about Central banking instead of speaking from ignorance. It is not a private industry. It is quasi-private/quasi-public (the public endures the risk, while the banking cartels pocket the profits, all approved by the Federal Reserve act of 1913).

Woodrow Wilson...after his part in passing the Federal Reserve Act

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.

Again, this was done before the Federal Reserve and it was a market manipulation (trick) that has been used today in the markets.

I am correct and not ignorant.

Thank you.

And it will never be changed.

So is there anyway to make it better in it's current form?

I don't think so. I think it was designed to fail and it will, the amazing part is it hasn't yet. Then maybe the next generation can come up with system that will work for the people and not a handful of pricks.

Great post "Ladylid2012".

The two works mentioned above by "heavenlyboy34" are both must reads.

Last night I watched Michael Moores' "Capitalism: A Love Story" and irregardless of your opinion of him or his works, the movie does have some great points. I especially like and have researched "worker cooperatives" and "employee ownership" of enterprise, which he talks about in the film. I hope to use a mix of these models in my newest business venture, which I am working hard to make successful and meaningful.

Again, good post. I would also suggest reading up on Islamic Banking systems which is gaining popularity in England. The basic premise being that the bank shares and becomes part owner of the business with no interest rates. If the business fails then the bank takes a hit, if the business succeeds, then the bank shares in the wealth in partnership with the owner.

the law about not helping at the scene of an accident, it's a law here too

and also being one who entices, instigates a crime...even if they don't indulge

i guess every religion has it's good and bad points...i'm not fond of islamic, but they have some good traditions, coming from thousands of years of use and practical knowledge.