>>1064266
inside trading and vast networks of connections and influence

blood rituals

>>1064266
Christians were not allowed to lend money

>>1064266
mostly they were war profiteers, they have funded both sides of every war since napoleon, obviously they directed more of the funds to the winning side, they did a lot of inside trading to make money to fund wars to make friends in high places to inside trade to make money to fund wars, now they just beat off in a mansion all day with unlimited wealth.

>>1064872
Trying to do something like that today lands people in prison, right?

>>1065401
Unless you're a country/bank, I suppose.
The Rothschilds had numerous banks though.

>>1064872
>war profiteers
No such thing.

>>1065494
>straight people
No such thing

to do something on such a grand scale you need people that you can absolutely trust and have the same mind set as you. unless you have something like this in a family (like they had) you can't do something like that. and people who'll benefit from this money won't be you but your future generations

>>1065401

Not as long as your country isnt the one fighting. There is no law saying a US citizen could not for example send money to Taiwan AND China. Or to say Russia AND the Kurdish rebels.

Technically, the only thing that would get you in trouble is if one group is listed as a terrorist organization by your own government.

>>1065494
So you're saying that if you're funding for trade routes, gold, oil or a giant cut of the winnings of a war and your side wins you won't make any monetary gains off of it by some way?
Makes absolute perfect sense as to how that would NOT be making a profit off of a war. Like you wouldn't be considered a war profiteer.

Thank you for changing my views with three words.