Something fishy is going on with the Clintons and Rockefellers
- Thread starter chiplitfam
- Start date
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it."
"The only question is, whether or not World Government will be achieved by conquest...or consent."
Paul Warburg
Council on Foreign Relations
and architect of the Federal Reserve System
In an address to the U.S. senate
2/17/1950
"The only question is, whether or not World Government will be achieved by conquest...or consent."
Paul Warburg
Council on Foreign Relations
and architect of the Federal Reserve System
In an address to the U.S. senate
2/17/1950
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Woodrow Wilson The New Freedom. (1913)
Woodrow Wilson The New Freedom. (1913)
lucius
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
Nathan, your painting with that broad weak brush again. Still waiting for your source to this inital post:
First you replied with this:
Latter modified to:
So what is your source for this statement?
Let's recap the use of 'conspiracy theory'; read it slowly for comprehension:
"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
Look at this unseen Rockefeller hand from page 43 (actual pdf page 47) from the Full Report: US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings [download & read this pdf, before it's gone; it's the full 2086 page report], 2nd paragraph:
"The Rockefeller Foundation, whose funds have been used to finance individuals and organizations whose business it has been to get communism into the private and public schools of the country [USA], to talk down America and to play up Russia, must take its share of the blame for the swing of the professors and students in China to communism during the years preceding the successful Red revolution in China. For two generations, the Rockefeller Foundation played a guiding role in higher education in China. Over a period of 32 years $45 million of Rockefeller money was expended in China, most of it going to Chinese institutions of higher learning. If the Rockefeller fund spenders had had even an elementary conception of what was going on among the Chinese teachers and students, they would have taken steps to halt the stampede of the Chinese colleges to communism. When the crisis of the Chinese revolution came, it was the student and teacher element, educated largely with Rockefeller money, who were the backbone of the Red success. Our boys are now suffering and dying in Korea, in part, because Rockefeller money encouraged trends in the Chinese colleges and schools which swung China's intelligentsia to communism."
Fast forward 20 years with this Rockefeller quote, it's like icing on the cake for individuals who say, "What a colossal mistake they made!"
: After a trip to China, David Rockefeller praised Mao Tse-tung who had slaughtered over 40 million people [now revised to 60+ million]. His report, "From a China Traveler," highlights the goals presented in UN reports such as "The Commission on Global Governance" and UNESCO's "Our Creative Diversity." Both focus on lofty ideals such as peace, harmony and unity in the communitarian "global" village -- a vision that demands absolute control and universal participation in facilitated small groups (modeled by the hierarchy of "soviets" or councils in Communist lands):
"One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony.... Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution it has obviously succeeded .... in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive....The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly form the singleness of ideology and purpose.... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." New York Times, 8-10-1973.
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
You can download it from this site for $100.
or search google, its on many torrents.
Nathan, got 'Leviathan'?
Nathan Hale
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,155
That's opinion. It's a conspiracy theory tome, as per my original statement, as per the statement that followed. It's educated opinion of a text based on the credibility of the author the author's prior relationship to the subject matter.
I respect and disagree with Mr. Sanders' opinion on the term.
The great irony of your resistance to my opinion is that I don't deny any of this. I've acknowledged since the start of this debate that I considered Rockefeller an internationalist. I just don't contend, as you do, that he held sway over the American government via the CFR.
Fast forward 20 years with this Rockefeller quote, it's like icing on the cake for individuals who say, "What a colossal mistake they made!"
After a trip to China, David Rockefeller praised Mao Tse-tung who had slaughtered over 40 million people [now revised to 60+ million]. His report, "From a China Traveler," highlights the goals presented in UN reports such as "The Commission on Global Governance" and UNESCO's "Our Creative Diversity." Both focus on lofty ideals such as peace, harmony and unity in the communitarian "global" village -- a vision that demands absolute control and universal participation in facilitated small groups (modeled by the hierarchy of "soviets" or councils in Communist lands):
"One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony.... Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution it has obviously succeeded .... in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive....The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly form the singleness of ideology and purpose.... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." New York Times, 8-10-1973.
Hey, the New York Times. That's a viable source. Now you're getting the hang of it.
Thank you. That's all I wanted - some real evidence. But it happens to relate only to something of which the public is already aware. Where is the connection that puts Rockefeller's interests in Washington today?
Nathan, got 'Leviathan'?
Philosophy is not a relevant function during an investigation. Keep your eyes on the evidence.
Last edited:
Mini-Me
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 6,514
I'm reviving this thread (or attempting to) because I consider it crucially important for us to refine our arguments here...before any kind of change can be affected by any means, we absolutely must convince the general public. Sitting around agreeing with each other and shouting down dissenters is a luxury we cannot afford, because our numbers are not nearly high enough! In order to convince the general public, we need bulletproof arguments based on empirical evidence...as Doktor Jeep noted, most people will refuse to believe something inconvenient because truly believing would force them to action (then again, I think it's more likely that many just have enough "shadow of a doubt" that they are not confident enough that action is warranted, especially drastic action).
Unfortunately, it really is difficult to come up with such empirical evidence, because if there's no conspiracy (or the conspirators don't have very much power), the evidence doesn't exist, and if there IS a conspiracy, the empirical evidence would obviously have been covered up. Either way, such evidence will not be in mass circulation. One crucial reason why all evidence comes from "biased" sites is because this type of conspiracy is so earth-shattering that anyone hosting any relevant files will most likely be devoting a great deal of their time to exposing it. A major problem with obtaining evidence is that, if the global power elite (Rockefellers, etc.) truly have so much political, economic, and media power, the mainstream "trustworthy" sources are in fact not trustworthy at all (and really, we should already know this, but...). If this conspiracy really does exist and is as far-along as we think it is, mainstream sources like the New York Times will not host evidence! By definition, you cannot prove that mainstream sources omit damning evidence by using only evidence procured from those same mainstream sources. Unless we come across some kind of breakthrough (which this thread more than any other has a shot at, IMO), it currently comes down to a simple matter of, "Which sources do you choose to believe are more trustworthy than the others?"
Here's a lesson to everyone: No matter how much we "know" that the New York Times and mainstream sources are full of shit and omit extremely important information (IMO, they don't carry much more weight than any random conspiracy blog), they're still the only sources most care about. It sucks, and it's unfair, but we need to find a way around this brick wall.
Our problem is further demonstrated by the next quote:
What kind of people or organizations are going to host the US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings? As far as I can tell, there are only two potential sources for them:
While it's possible the latter exists, do we know of such a source? (I'm sure someone here actually does...Library of Congress maybe? Other libraries? etc.) If there are a very small number of such sources, it's also possible that particularly damning transcripts have been removed from circulation by people with a vested interest in containing such information. It's very easy to eliminate paper records with few copies in the wild...but unfortunately for us, many will attribute ZERO weight (rather than just limited weight) to a document obtained from any non-mainstream source. No matter how many such documents exist to paint a pattern, many will view an imperfect source as a worthless source...and while we may disagree with such a mentality, far too many people have such a mentality for us to afford writing them off. We must find a way to cater to them.
Ultimately, our problem is that we don't currently have enough evidence to prove every link in the chain. Instead, we're demonstrating certain claims (such as the Rockefellers' influence on Chinese intellectuals) and then filling in the blanks by recognizing the pattern that has emerged (a pattern which infamous quotes appear to flesh out). We need to understand that the great majority of people are not willing to stake their entire worldview on an incomplete (if blatant) pattern, and Nathan Hale is one of them. Unlike many, Nathan is at least willing to continue examining claims, no matter how much he tires of their incompleteness. Instead of throwing him out, we should be thankful for his presence. I say this because he's a somewhat sympathetic audience we can continue to practice on, and we cannot expect the same out of everyone - in fact, most people will refuse to consider further arguments after finding a single flaw in just one argument (because, when it comes down to it, most people just want an excuse to believe that everything is just fine). With most people, we're only going to have one shot at this...and this thread is very good practice.
Now that I'm almost done, I want to quickly address something else Nathan said:
Actually, this shows more than just that Rockefeller is an internationalist (I say "is" because David Rockefeller is still very much alive): It shows that he also views the "right major crisis" as desirable, with little apparent concern for the toll it might take on others. In other words, this quote provides evidence that David Rockefeller believes in the ruthless philosophy that "the end justifies the means." He wants a "New World Order" badly enough that he'll hope for (or perhaps create) presumably any excuse to convince nations to accept it. I just wanted to point out this additional implication.
Unfortunately, it really is difficult to come up with such empirical evidence, because if there's no conspiracy (or the conspirators don't have very much power), the evidence doesn't exist, and if there IS a conspiracy, the empirical evidence would obviously have been covered up. Either way, such evidence will not be in mass circulation. One crucial reason why all evidence comes from "biased" sites is because this type of conspiracy is so earth-shattering that anyone hosting any relevant files will most likely be devoting a great deal of their time to exposing it. A major problem with obtaining evidence is that, if the global power elite (Rockefellers, etc.) truly have so much political, economic, and media power, the mainstream "trustworthy" sources are in fact not trustworthy at all (and really, we should already know this, but...). If this conspiracy really does exist and is as far-along as we think it is, mainstream sources like the New York Times will not host evidence! By definition, you cannot prove that mainstream sources omit damning evidence by using only evidence procured from those same mainstream sources. Unless we come across some kind of breakthrough (which this thread more than any other has a shot at, IMO), it currently comes down to a simple matter of, "Which sources do you choose to believe are more trustworthy than the others?"
Here's a lesson to everyone: No matter how much we "know" that the New York Times and mainstream sources are full of shit and omit extremely important information (IMO, they don't carry much more weight than any random conspiracy blog), they're still the only sources most care about. It sucks, and it's unfair, but we need to find a way around this brick wall.
Our problem is further demonstrated by the next quote:
What kind of people or organizations are going to host the US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings? As far as I can tell, there are only two potential sources for them:
- People who have a specific interest in these hearings (e.g. conspiracy theorists)
- Some kind of library or archive containing all Congressional hearings, etc.
While it's possible the latter exists, do we know of such a source? (I'm sure someone here actually does...Library of Congress maybe? Other libraries? etc.) If there are a very small number of such sources, it's also possible that particularly damning transcripts have been removed from circulation by people with a vested interest in containing such information. It's very easy to eliminate paper records with few copies in the wild...but unfortunately for us, many will attribute ZERO weight (rather than just limited weight) to a document obtained from any non-mainstream source. No matter how many such documents exist to paint a pattern, many will view an imperfect source as a worthless source...and while we may disagree with such a mentality, far too many people have such a mentality for us to afford writing them off. We must find a way to cater to them.
Ultimately, our problem is that we don't currently have enough evidence to prove every link in the chain. Instead, we're demonstrating certain claims (such as the Rockefellers' influence on Chinese intellectuals) and then filling in the blanks by recognizing the pattern that has emerged (a pattern which infamous quotes appear to flesh out). We need to understand that the great majority of people are not willing to stake their entire worldview on an incomplete (if blatant) pattern, and Nathan Hale is one of them. Unlike many, Nathan is at least willing to continue examining claims, no matter how much he tires of their incompleteness. Instead of throwing him out, we should be thankful for his presence. I say this because he's a somewhat sympathetic audience we can continue to practice on, and we cannot expect the same out of everyone - in fact, most people will refuse to consider further arguments after finding a single flaw in just one argument (because, when it comes down to it, most people just want an excuse to believe that everything is just fine). With most people, we're only going to have one shot at this...and this thread is very good practice.
Now that I'm almost done, I want to quickly address something else Nathan said:
Actually, this shows more than just that Rockefeller is an internationalist (I say "is" because David Rockefeller is still very much alive): It shows that he also views the "right major crisis" as desirable, with little apparent concern for the toll it might take on others. In other words, this quote provides evidence that David Rockefeller believes in the ruthless philosophy that "the end justifies the means." He wants a "New World Order" badly enough that he'll hope for (or perhaps create) presumably any excuse to convince nations to accept it. I just wanted to point out this additional implication.
Last edited:
Nathan Hale
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,155
Hear, hear.
There's another reason - most of the time the conspiracy theory just isn't true. That's why there is so high a standard for evidence.
The "media conspiracy" is just as specious as the conspiracy theory itself. It's a lot of wild assumption, if you ask me, but then again, I'm the critical type. The lack of "evidence" is not the fault of the media because true evidence is not the kind of stuff that you get by googling. It's the kind of stuff that people have to go out and get, manually, real world. It requires true devotion to the cause. Too many conspiracy advocates are armchair activists - very few people are actually surveiling suspects, searching the library of congress for documents, and filing FOIA requests.
As you go on to say, trustworthiness is irrelevant - well, true trustworthiness, anyway. The truthworthiness that matters in your search is perceived trustworthiness - that which the electorate believes to be trustworthy.
There's no way around it. Either find the evidence, manually, or find it from a voice that the people will believe.
The best approach is scientific - search for the truth, not just the evidence for your theory.
Actually, most people ARE willing to stake their entire worldview on an incomplete pattern - it's called religion. And I don't consider these patterns blatant, something I say from an entirely neutral standpoint. They're possible, but they're not so obvious as to be intellectually inalienable.
THANK YOU.
I've said this very thing in this thread and others - proponents of theories CANNOT become stand-offish when their theory is threatened in conversation, especially on a board such as this where even critical ears are for the most part friendlier than what our hypothethical protagonists and likely to encounter in the general population.
I was under the impression that we were talking about the Rockefellers circa early CFR period, hence my use of the past tense.
The end justifying the means is not a ruthless philosophy. It quite often applies to ruthless situations, but it is by and large an important context in which to take action. Rockefeller's love for internationalism was much like PNAC and Rumsfeld's love for internationalism - both groups were willing to take advantage of tragedy in order to further their agenda. But unlike Rockefeller, PNAC and Rumsfeld actually had the helm.
Similar threads
