Something fishy is going on with the Clintons and Rockefellers

[Dr.3D]

OK Nathan Hale, I was seriously talking out my ass.
Now you should be happy and this thread can continue unmolested.

I hope you are feeling great now... I've just given up any credibility I may have had on any thread I posted in. Should I now just log off and go about my personal business?
Perhaps that was your goal in the first place?

 

[Nathan Hale]

I like the sources they listed for that list.

Did you drill down on those sources?

Two books, both about conspiracy, and "The NameBase Directory", which is official-sounding but in practice is a conspiracy group. Here's their book review page:

http://www.namebase.org/reviews.html

And here's their page reviewing books on UFOs:

http://www.namebase.org/books67.html

In fact, did you read how their database of names is collected? Their system scans these paranoid conspiracy books and compiles the data along with the appropriate references. So if Johnny McCrazy says in "George Bush is An Alien" that George Bush is an alien, then in the name base, you'd see GEORGE BUSH - ALIEN.

 

[Nathan Hale]

OK Nathan Hale, I was seriously talking out my ass.
Now you should be happy and this thread can continue unmolested.

I hope you are feeling great now... I've just given up any credibility I may have had on any thread I posted in. Should I now just log off and go about my personal business?
Perhaps that was your goal in the first place?

You've missed the point - this isn't about me. This is about furthering your theory.

 

[Dr.3D]

You've missed the point - this isn't about me. This is about furthering your theory.

I no longer have a theory. You just killed it.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I have something for all the debunkers:

PROVE OTHERWISE.

Prove what? I have nothing to prove - I'm not the one here making claims.

OR better yet, tell me why the CFR picks, if not connected to elite plutocrats and globalists, are driving this country like they stole it.

Why is this happening? I have yet to even see this happening.

That goes for you, Nathan. If there are no connections to these rats, then why is the country being run like it was run by rats?

You're assuming that the CFR are "rats" (which I take to mean people with a malicious agenda), and that the fact that the country is run poorly is somehow evidence not just that the people in office have a malicious agenda but that they have the SAME malicious agenda as the CFR.

Coincidence?

Quite possibly. You're not drawing any real necessary connections.

Or are you here to cover for someone?

This is getting funny.

I know. We are all supposed to stay in the rich-poor, left-right, black-white paradynes and fail to see who the real enemy is.

Lest we stop fighting each other and the next war is an epic global hunt to bring these leaders to in for trial.

If you ever want to overcome this, you need to show their guilt in clearer terms than "well, the people in power are governing like rats therefore they're all CFR because the CFR are rats".

Go ahead and prove otherwise instead of making the same demands for proof over and over again?

It's the skeptic's curse - requiring proof.

You do a great job at diffusion and delphi. Great training you had.

But tell your handlers the cat is out of the bag and all the COINTELPRO in the world, even if they invaded the entire internet, is not going to change a thing. The criminals are all linked, and they will be taken down.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I no longer have a theory. You just killed it.

Sigh.

 

[Dr.3D]

Sigh.

Sigh?

Humm... just what does it take to make you happy?

I'm beginning to think if I agreed with you on something, you would disagree with with me and say we don't agree on that subject.

Reminds me of a politician I spoke with and when I told him I liked his plan, he said he didn't appreciate that.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Sigh?

Humm... just what does it take to make you happy?

I'm beginning to think if I agreed with you on something, you would disagree with with me and say we don't agree on that subject.

Reminds me of a politician I spoke with and when I told him I liked his plan, he said he didn't appreciate that.

I wrote "sigh" because I don't believe for a minute that you have sworn off your ideas about Rockefeller, the CFR, and the presidential candidates, and it is frustrating to think that if that's the case we're just going to have this tired debate again, perhaps in a slightly altered form, in another thread on these boards.

 

[revolutionary8]

Thank you for that information from the conspiracy archive.

You are welcome? Nathan, I can see that you're one of the more neurotic members around here, lol. I like the neurotics, and find "them" to be invaluable, so please take that as a compliment. I am less efficient than yourself, but might be a bit faster. There is a trade off you know. Jacks can be just as important as Masters.

I hope you didn't write off a site or information simply because it is titled "conspiracy archive". One might call that person close minded and thus limited in knowledge or perspective, if you did.
Conspiracy is not a dirty word.
Types of conspiracies

* Cabal, an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue
* Conspiracy (civil), agreement between persons to break the law in the future
* Conspiracy (crime), agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
* Conspiracy (political), a plot to overthrow a government or other power

(that was from the wickedpedia conspiracy)

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Prove what? I have nothing to prove - I'm not the one here making claims.



Why is this happening? I have yet to even see this happening.



You're assuming that the CFR are "rats" (which I take to mean people with a malicious agenda), and that the fact that the country is run poorly is somehow evidence not just that the people in office have a malicious agenda but that they have the SAME malicious agenda as the CFR.



Quite possibly. You're not drawing any real necessary connections.



This is getting funny.



If you ever want to overcome this, you need to show their guilt in clearer terms than "well, the people in power are governing like rats therefore they're all CFR because the CFR are rats".



It's the skeptic's curse - requiring proof.



Yeah. Good luck with that.

Look Nathan, I am not going to play the game.

Say you had a job where your boss falls out of a window and is killed.

In one case, the replacement just becomes the boss, and runs things close to the goals of the company, perhaps some changes here and there and the rest is left up management skills.
After a few years, someone says to you "Hey, I think someone pushed the old boss out of the window".

Of course in that case proof, and a motive perhaps, would be required. Nothing signifigant occured other than the organization getting a new boss.

But suppose the old (and dead) boss's replacement, on the day of hire, started to promote his chronies, fire enemies and detractors or threaten then with termination to shut them up, and proceed to line his pockets as well as those of his minions while running the company into the ground.

Now someone says "Hey, I think the old boss got pushed out the window".


You don't need proof, or a motive, in the latter case.

But I can see the value of requiring proof, no matter what, regardless of the evident results of the situation, and tricking all those who seek the truth into chasing their tails.

And many will want to still think the boss had an accident, because to face the possibility otherwise is too scarey and brings out the responsibility to take some action - something most people are afraid of , and would rather sit there and say "give me proof! No, that's not enough, I still want proof. Nope, still need proof." The mark of a coward: always safer to keep asking for proof instead of facing the reality of what is presently going on.

I wonder how many jews needed proof that the showers were really gas chambers? They sure got that proof, didn't they? Perhaps if they looked at the other pertinent facts (like the persecution, the mistreatment, the stated intent of the nazis, etc) they would not have willingly walked into the chambers?

But I suspect that to fully accept the possible truth, was too scarey and denial took over. So in they went.


So keep looking for the proof there, Nathan, while the rest of us get ready for the results. Just leave your guns out by the door so someone with a little more guts can use them.

 

[Nathan Hale]

You are welcome? Nathan, I can see that you're one of the more neurotic members around here, lol. I like the neurotics, and find "them" to be invaluable, so please take that as a compliment. I am less efficient than yourself, but might be a bit faster. There is a trade off you know. Jacks can be just as important as Masters.

Neurotic? I don't think that's the word you're looking for. Jerry Seinfeld is neurotic. Sherlock Holmes was thorough. My role here is to be thorough, so that any outside-the-box idea that comes to this board leaves this board as either a) a well-researched and conclusive argument for liberty, or b) destined for the recycle bin.

I hope you didn't write off a site or information simply because it is titled "conspiracy archive". One might call that person close minded and thus limited in knowledge or perspective, if you did.
Conspiracy is not a dirty word.
Types of conspiracies

(that was from the wickedpedia conspiracy)

I didn't write it simply because it's called a "conspiracy archive", I wrote it off because it's a site dedicated to promoting the usual suspects in the conspiracy theory lineup.

And conspiracy is not a dirty word. Any time more than one person is involved in a secret plot...it's a conspiracy. But the conspiracies in the "conspiracy archive" are pretty much limited to the tin foil hat conspiracies with which we are all familiar. I took a while to look around the site and found vast amounts of information that was either unattributed or sourced to conspiracy-promoting books, which is a problem with most of the "evidence" put forth on this subject - it's never grounded in provable fact, it's always speculation and conjecture.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Look Nathan, I am not going to play the game.

This is not a game.

Say you had a job where your boss falls out of a window and is killed.

In one case, the replacement just becomes the boss, and runs things close to the goals of the company, perhaps some changes here and there and the rest is left up management skills.
After a few years, someone says to you "Hey, I think someone pushed the old boss out of the window".

Of course in that case proof, and a motive perhaps, would be required. Nothing signifigant occured other than the organization getting a new boss.

The lack of anything significant occuring is NOT why you need a motive and evidence. More on this below.

But suppose the old (and dead) boss's replacement, on the day of hire, started to promote his chronies, fire enemies and detractors or threaten then with termination to shut them up, and proceed to line his pockets as well as those of his minions while running the company into the ground.

Now someone says "Hey, I think the old boss got pushed out the window".

You don't need proof, or a motive, in the latter case.

You don't need a motive, but you still need evidence. Means, motive, and opportunity are a great way to develop suspects, but acting on what you suspect rather than what you know will more likely than not lead to disaster - for you. Cui bono is a great starting point, but it's not the only question you need to ask.

But I can see the value of requiring proof, no matter what, regardless of the evident results of the situation, and tricking all those who seek the truth into chasing their tails.

Requiring evidence is not the same as tricking people into chasing their tails.

And many will want to still think the boss had an accident, because to face the possibility otherwise is too scarey and brings out the responsibility to take some action - something most people are afraid of , and would rather sit there and say "give me proof! No, that's not enough, I still want proof. Nope, still need proof." The mark of a coward: always safer to keep asking for proof instead of facing the reality of what is presently going on.

Perhaps that's how some cowards are motivated, but you're drawing a necessary relationship between intelligent prudence and cowardice, when there's far more often than not no relationship of the sort. Thinking strategically, gathering evidence, and coming at your enemy with a solid case and good tactics is a far better plan than rushing off half-cocked with heresay, coincidence, and bravado on your side.

I wonder how many jews needed proof that the showers were really gas chambers? They sure got that proof, didn't they? Perhaps if they looked at the other pertinent facts (like the persecution, the mistreatment, the stated intent of the nazis, etc) they would not have willingly walked into the chambers?
But I suspect that to fully accept the possible truth, was too scarey and denial took over. So in they went.

Denial? That wasn't it at all. The jews were subjected to numerous de-lousings and showers during their confinement. When they walked into a gas chamber, which looked just like the de-lousing and shower chambers, they weren't sure they were going to die. It was the hope that this chamber wasn't the gas chamber that gave them the will to walk inside.

So keep looking for the proof there, Nathan, while the rest of us get ready for the results. Just leave your guns out by the door so someone with a little more guts can use them.

Perhaps someone with a little more stupidity, but guts has nothing to do with it. You're not braver because you're more willing to act without having the proper justifications at your back. You're just dumber.

 

[Kade]

People, come on...

 

[lucius]

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller

Meeting of the Trilateral Commission, Essen, Germany, 8th June 1991. The source is 'Facts & Chronicles: Denied to the Public', written by Pierre de Villemarest, a former member of the Special Services for French National Defense. (ISBN: 1904997015)

Wow, your source is an obscure conspiracy theory tome?

Nathan, your response is a weak intellectual argument; you use a derogatory epithet designed to denigrate, not to refute, but it is rather indicative:

"The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

From John Taylor Gatto’s ‘The Underground History of American Education’ illustrates what a corruptive influence the Rockefellers, through their wealth & foundations, had upon American education/social engineering:

"Of Wirt’s earlier New York foray into the engineering of young people, New York City mayor Hylan was quoted vividly in The New York Times of March 27, 1922:

“The real menace to our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation.... It has seized in its tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection.... To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests.”

Like many of the rest of you, I was conditioned early in adult life to avoid conspiracy talk and conspiracy takers by the universal scorn heaped upon the introduction of such arguments into the discourse. All "responsible" journalistic media, and virtually all of the professoriate allowed public access through those media, respond reflexively, and negatively, it seems, to any hint of a dark underside to our national life. With that in mind, what are we to make of Mayor Hylan’s outburst or for that matter, the statements of three senators quoted later on this page?

Don’t expect me to answer that question for you. But do take a deep breath and make the effort to read Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, written back in the 17th century but easily located in every library of any size in the United States, for some enlightenment in your ruminations.

During the crucial years of the school changeover from academic institution to behavioral modification instrument, the radical nature of the metamorphosis caught the attention of a few national politicians who spoke out, but could never muster enough strength for effective opposition. In the Congressional Record of January 26, 1917, for instance, Senator Chamberlain of Oregon entered these words:

“They are moving with military precision all along the line to get control of the education of the children of the land.”

Senator Poindexter of Washington followed, saying:

“The cult of Rockefeller, the cult of Carnegie...as much to be guarded against in the educational system of this country as a particular religious sect.”

And in the same issue, Senator Kenyon of Iowa related:

“There are certain colleges that have sought endowments, and the agent of the Rockefeller Foundation or the General Education Board had gone out and examined the curriculum of these colleges and compelled certain changes....

It seems to me one of the most dangerous things that can go on in a republic is to have an institution of this power apparently trying to shape and mold the thought of the young people of this country.”

Senator Works of California added:

“These people...are attempting to get control of the whole educational work of the country.”

If it interests you, take a look. It’s all in the Congressional Record of January 26, 1917.”

Nathan, got 'Leviathan'?

Watch a 17 minute 1983 interview with Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald on the New World Order.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Nathan, your response is a weak intellectual argument; you use a derogatory epithet designed to denigrate, not to refute, but it is rather indicative:

I'm not refuting your point by calling the text a conspiracy theory text. I'm just pointing out that the text puts together coincidence, heresay, and other forms of specious evidence to form an attractive and sexy fiction. Call it a "weak intellectual argument" if you like, but you should be analyzing the content of the text with the same lenses.

"The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

People do overuse the term, in the same way that terrorism is over-used. But the term does, IMHO, have a legitimate use - actually, it's legitimate use is an incorrect use, because most of what is considered conspiracy "theory" is actually closer to "hypothesis", considering the scientific definition of the words. The way I use it is to describe a conspiracy that a small number of people embrace without proof, which a vast majority of the population dismisses.

From John Taylor Gatto’s ‘The Underground History of American Education’ illustrates what a corruptive influence the Rockefellers, through their wealth & foundations, had upon American education/social engineering:

Once again you're falling back on a biased source. If you want to show Rockefeller's influence, you need the core material. If these Senators said what they did, then find the actual documents which chronicle this (and in the process check the context in which these things were said). Go right to the source - because presenting evidence through the filter of biased ideologues like Gatto serves only to discredit them, because Gatto has an agenda, while a transcript does not.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Guys think about what it's like to mud-wrestle with a pig.

In the end you are both covered in mud but the pig will have enjoyed the experience.

Nathan and his ilk will comfortably sit in their comfortable chairs in their comfortable houses and their comfortable lives, and never address the grim possibilities before them.

They would rather keep asking for proof, like a scared moviegoer who starts talking out loud about special effects.

To do otherwise makes them... uncomfortable.

Let Nathan alone in their comfortable world, so that we may get on to more important tasks at hand as that world passes away.

Taking the Nathans with it.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Guys think about what it's like to mud-wrestle with a pig.

In the end you are both covered in mud but the pig will have enjoyed the experience.

Nathan and his ilk will comfortably sit in their comfortable chairs in their comfortable houses and their comfortable lives, and never address the grim possibilities before them.

You're assuming that deep down I believe this BS and choose to ignore it. That's a totally unfounded claim with no basis in reality.

They would rather keep asking for proof, like a scared moviegoer who starts talking out loud about special effects.

Once again you throw in the buzz word "scared" without any basis for including it. And it's interesting that you bring up special effects - the act of producing something that seems real to those willing to suspend disbelief. I guess the only way to make it analogous is that you would be one of the people in the theater saying "wow, that's real!".

To do otherwise makes them... uncomfortable.

Let Nathan alone in their comfortable world, so that we may get on to more important tasks at hand as that world passes away.

Taking the Nathans with it.

LOL. Here's your lance. There's your windmill.

 

[lucius]

...I'm just pointing out that the text puts together coincidence, heresay, and other forms of specious evidence to form an attractive and sexy fiction...

Source?

...Once again you're falling back on a biased source. If you want to show Rockefeller's influence, you need the core material. If these Senators said what they did, then find the actual documents which chronicle this (and in the process check the context in which these things were said). Go right to the source - because presenting evidence through the filter of biased ideologues like Gatto serves only to discredit them, because Gatto has an agenda, while a transcript does not.

From my research, John Taylor Gatto, is dead-on. But if you require 'core material'; here it is, first 1000 pages of the US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (including Rockefeller), headed by Norman Dodd, Director of Research: Reece Committee Pt1

First half of The Reece Committee Congressional Hearings related to the Investigation of the Tax Exempt Foundations, 1953-54 ( incredible sworn testimony regarding treason on all fronts) Copies of these records of the hearings were scooped up by the foundations in order to keep this information from the American people.

The committee's report found:

"In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisors to government, and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote 'internationalism' in a particular sense - a form directed toward 'world government' and a derogation of American 'nationalism.'

"Conspicuously absent from The Reece Committee report were the links between the Foundations to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In his book A THOUSAND DAYS (1965), CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, provides the link. Schlesinger writes 'the American Establishment,' whose 'household deities were Henry L. Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders [1965], Robert A. Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs....'"

Watch an interview with Norman Dodd, Director of Research, The Reece Committee, few months before his death conducted by G. Edward Griffin: The Hidden Agenda of Tax Exempt Foundations for World Government

Nathan, got 'Leviathan'?

 

[Mach]

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515

Introduction

Dear Reader:

The super rich in America enjoy power and prerogatives un-imaginable to most of us. Who can conceive of owning a private empire that includes 100 homes, 2,500 servants, untold thousands of luxuries, and untold millions of dollars? America has a royal family of finance that has known such riches for generations. It is, of course, the Rockefellers.

But if the Rockefellers were content with their wealth, if their riches had satisfied their desires, this book would not have been written. And I would not be urging you to read it. Money alone is not enough to quench the thirst and lusts of the super-rich. Instead, many of them use their vast wealth, and the influence such riches give them, to achieve even more power. Power of a magnitude never dreamed of by the tyrants and despots of earlier ages. Power on a world wide scale. Power over people, not just products.

The Rockefeller File is not fiction. It is a compact, powerful and frightening presentation of what may be the most important story of our lifetime, the drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.

For more than one hundred years, since the days when John D. Rockefeller Sr. used every devious strategy he could devise to create a gigantic oil monopoly, enough books have been written about the Rockefellers to fill a library. I have read many of them. And to my knowledge, not one has dared reveal the most vital part of the Rockefeller story: that the Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world.

Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do.

I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent. You will find the truth-often surprising, sometimes unpleasant, always vital-in the pages that follow. Gary Allen has done a masterful job of combining the hundreds of scattered facts and hidden clues of the Rockefeller puzzle until one unmistakable pattern emerges.

The picture that is revealed when The Rockefeller File is finally opened may shock you. In this book, you will learn why the Rockefellers follow the policies they do, what their goals are, where they intend to take America ... and why it is essential they be stopped.

I urge you to read The Rockefeller File and to encourage your friends to do the same.

November 1975
LAWRENCE P. Mc DONALD
Member of Congress


Rockefeller

 

[Nathan Hale]

Source?
From my research, John Taylor Gatto, is dead-on. But if you require 'core material'; here it is, first 1000 pages of the US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (including Rockefeller), headed by Norman Dodd, Director of Research: Reece Committee Pt1

First half of The Reece Committee Congressional Hearings related to the Investigation of the Tax Exempt Foundations, 1953-54 ( incredible sworn testimony regarding treason on all fronts) Copies of these records of the hearings were scooped up by the foundations in order to keep this information from the American people.

The committee's report found:

"In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisors to government, and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote 'internationalism' in a particular sense - a form directed toward 'world government' and a derogation of American 'nationalism.'

"Conspicuously absent from The Reece Committee report were the links between the Foundations to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In his book A THOUSAND DAYS (1965), CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, provides the link. Schlesinger writes 'the American Establishment,' whose 'household deities were Henry L. Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders [1965], Robert A. Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs....'"

Watch an interview with Norman Dodd, Director of Research, The Reece Committee, few months before his death conducted by G. Edward Griffin: The Hidden Agenda of Tax Exempt Foundations for World Government

Nathan, got 'Leviathan'?

Thank you for posting from Americandeception.com, a vast resource for, well, conspiracy theories. Do you have any link to this supposed sworn testimony that isn't posted on a site with a conflict of interest? I can't seem to find one. Can you?