Was modern capitalism founded at the Rothschilds' request?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:24 AM
Was Adam Smith asked by the Rothschilds to write The Wealth of Nations?

According to Search, some members have previously asserted that he was, but there was no evidence of it. I don't have any proof, either, but I have read some evidence in a book, so I decided to put it up here. I'm not saying with certainty that he was asked by them; I'm merely presenting evidence (however weak
) that he may have been.

For those who have never studied economics, Adam Smith practically founded the discipline in The Wealth of Nations, in which he proposed ideas like division of labour and 'the invisible hand'. He objected to a planned economy and instead believed that the power of the market and the pursuit of self-interest can push society forward.

Supported by the alleged Freemason David Hume, Smith started working on his magnum opus in 1766, when he stopped teaching. Was it possible that, during this time, he was supported by those behind the scenes?

The bankers had the motivation. Since capitalism is all about free markets, the role of the government in the economy is weaker. While some amount of government intervention is needed to make sure things run smoothly, it is very easy for the government to collude with the corporations. Power corrupts, whether it came democratically or not.

Moreover, he was saying that self-interest has a positive impact on society. Although that may not be problematic for the economy, its impacts on human morality is much greater. People would do anything in the pursuit of the almighty dollar, and that creates a society where money is everything.

Our biggest clue is the invisible hand. It's generally believed that the invisible hand refers to the market, which performs the rationing and allocating functions naturally, without human intervention. However, Emma Georgina Rothschild, who is, not surprisingly, a Rothschild, has stated that the Hand is not at all an important concept in economics, but some ironic joke. That is quite weird considering the significance that this concept has had on our world today. Could it be that the Invisible Hand was hinting at some other force behind the publication of the book (the bankers)?

The phrase 'invisible hand' was hardly ever used until the sixteenth century, when it took on a wide range of meanings, including God and death. Strangely, George Washington also used it in his inaugural speech:


Washington has not once mentioned God or Jesus in his speech. Was he, perhaps, alluding to Freemasonry?

Also related is the Masonic gesture, the hidden hand. (I was told to get a life - and for a good reason - when I first posted this pic, but I'm too lazy to upload another picture.

Before his death, Smith made a confession to the Presbyterian Church and had all his manuscript, published and unpublished, burnt. Did he regret having written the book?

I know this isn't a very strong thread as far as evidence goes, hence the Skunk Works classification, but hopefully, other ATSers have much more to contribute to it.

统治世界 by He Xin (Main source)

P.S. This is one of the few OPs that I've been planning before I got an account (although I didn't get into the actual writing until now). Hope you liked it!　

posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:37 AM
Interesting theory.
But you know what? The theory you laid out doesn't really matter!
What I mean by that is we can be certain our current economy is completely manufactured to make certain people wealthy and in control. It doesn't really matter when they took it over. They did.
edit on 12-4-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:34 PM
i don't recall that i've ever read the inaugural speech of George Washington.
there is so much dead speak {corporate lingo} in it.
i'm kinda afraid to go read the whole thing.

posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia

The Wealth of Nations is not about capitalism. He did talk about free-markets, but free markets are not capitalism. Free markets existed long before capitalism, and capitalism is not necessary for free markets to exist.
How can it be free market when the means to produce for the market are monopolised by a minority class?



He realised the problem of private economic property before Marx did. He would have been a socialist if the term was in existence at that time.

The term capitalism was not even in use when Adam Smith was alive.

Capitalism started when in the 1750's the enclosure acts were enacted in England. The enclosure acts were put into place by the land owners. At the end of feudalism the 'commoners' were starting to organise and cooperate creating wealth for themselves. The land owners saw this as a threat to their wealth and power and so had the enclosure laws enacted. These laws allowed the land owners to fence off their land, and deny it's use to the commoners.

No longer free to use land the commoners were forced to take jobs supplied by the land owners in their mills and factories. The land owners became extremely wealthy from the surplus value created by mass labour, which financed the industrial revolution. The commoners became wage slaves, no longer free to live autonomously off the land that was their/our birth right.

The term capitalism wasn't coined until the 1840's by the French socialists Louis Blanc, "The appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others'. The right wing capitalist establishment has a history of appropriating left-wing terms, and changing the definitions to benefit their agenda's.

edit on 4/12/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

new topics

log in