Why hasn't anyone tried to assassinate Rothschild or other major central bankers? http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1030Actually, a good question and one that I have pondered myself from time to time.
I don't think there is any single answer, but a host of explanations to account for the seeming invulnerability of those at the pinnacle of the NWO pyramid:
1) These people are very well-insulated from the general public and not easy to make contact with. One can also assume that the most important players are surrounded by layers of internal security.
2) Also, the Illuminati act primarily through agents, as we just learned yet another time with the Yukos oil scandal in Russia. Attacking these agents accomplishes nothing. They are all expendable, and for that matter so may be Lord Rothschild himself. He is merely the highest player we have been able to identify, not necessarily the highest.
Eustace Mullins tells a story of how he was approached in an Illuminati scheme to discredit him by getting him to attempt the assasination of Henry Kissinger. Of course, he was targeted at a point in his life when he was very low and vulnerable, but he was still able to sniff out the rats and refused to participate. The interesting part to me is that the Illuminati may actually have been willing to sacrifice Kissinger -- or at least imperil him significantly -- in order to perpetrate a probable doublecross against Mullins. In the overall scheme of the conspiracy, the players most visible to us like Kissinger, the Bushes and even the Rockefellers may well be little more than mid level managers.
3) This would be a very difficult action to undertake or even plan since the Illuminati control the most comprehensive intelligence network in the world, encompassing all of the national intellignece and law enforcement agencies right down to their Freemasonic flunkies spying on their next door neighbors.
4)As Psholtz says, the dangers of undertaking such an action may be greater than any possible rewards. Such an action would give the elites a ready-made excuse to scapegoat the entire anti-NWO movement, much as 9/11 targeted the entire Arab World for persecution or Hitler burned the Reichstadt to justify the Holocaust and the Night of the Long Knives.
In short, it would make it much more difficult for us to depict ourselves as "the good guys", especially if credible evidence could be presented to tie such a killing in with those opposed to global tyranny. We would lose support within our own ranks, as an internal schism formed over the entire issue of justifying violent retaliation.
This I believe is what Jesus meant when he advised his followers to "resist not evil". The use of force of violence should be eschewed, IMO, except in the interest of self-defense.
Educating people as to the nature of this beast as well as encouraging them to abdicate the materialism and greed that the banksters use to control us are more effective in the long run. After all, if everyone decides as David Icke says, that "it's a piece a shit, walk away from it", the power dervied through monetary control of the global economy would rapidly diminish, since their ultimate weapon is still a total financial collapse that would cut off the NWO's own noses to spite their faces.
