13 ms·

"Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me a

• TeMPOraL 10y ago
  After spending some time around people from various anti-science/government/vaccination circles I realized that if the New World Order is what they describe it is, then I'd love to join it. At least those NWO conspirators seem to have a clue.
  • mikeash 10y ago
    I've seen a lot of people argue that this is ultimately what makes conspiracy theories so attractive in the first place. It's much more comforting to believe that everything is under control and part of a deliberate plan, even if controlled by people you don't like as part of a plan that works against you, than it is to believe it's all just a bunch of random stuff happening.
    • MawNicker 10y ago
      It can't be both? Isn't that the least comforting? Not that it proves anything; People often believe what they fear is true. All you need to know is that MKUltra existed. The people responsible were never brought to justice. Maybe some of you have loose morals but I could never join this shit.
      • Florin_Andrei 10y ago
        > It can't be both? But that introduces complexity in your thought process. Most people are far too lazy for that.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
  • faceyspacey 10y ago
    It's about how they go about it, putting the Middle East into so much turmoil for example, hurting people over there in an ends justifies the means manner. It's the wrong way to go about it and therefore at its core its rotten and therefore the sought outcome will never be positive in terms of the biggest picture for all. It's a dangerous track they now have us on and the people aren't happy. I'm not sure we could suffer another false flag attack like 911 without a violent revolution following it. The true path towards global integration is a slower patient one--one where the powers that be might not live long enough to selfishly bare the fruits of it. So they rush it. There's no doubt what's gone on in he Middle East is about oil. We don't need to be directly stealing it through a pipeline for the conspiracy to be true. It's about oil price stabilization, which is crucial to the steadily ticking "integrated" world that is good for business. And since it is about that, and this guy was head of Chase for 33 years, guess who likely was one of the biggest cosigners of and conspirators in these plans. Just read the Wikipedia article on the Gulf War. It's clear GH Bush pursued it to keep the oil price stable. It's clear the US developed some enemies in despots that don't listen to us. It's clear America has a mandate to not allow harm to its image of ultimate strength on earth. It's clear that George W came to finish the job in his first year in office nearly 10 years later. The idea being it would secure oil prices once and for all while letting the world know America won't tolerate despots. It's way easier to control a democratic country than despots adamant on doing things their way. There are more ways to manipulate said country/government. It makes for a more "integrated" world for the ruling elite. I believe they have good intentions. With outdated thinking. Narrowly constrained by personal self-interest. And as a result their intentions are not in fact good for all. I don't believe in James Bond style villains. Everyone is doing what they think is best. It's just unfortunate that the cabal's big picture is severely small and doesn't include all.
    • unityByFreedom 10y ago
      Are you trying to say that people who encourage international trade caused the situation in the middle east? Or trying to pin that on one political party? I don't think that's accurate or fair.
      • faceyspacey 10y ago
  • rfrank 10y ago
    Yeah, lets take autonomy from people who don't think like us! They don't deserve it anyway!
  • kelvin0 10y ago
    This reminds me the vilains in the older (60s-70s) Bond movies. I always found them to be visionaries and were simply a step removed from great leaders (if not for their penchant for killing remorselessly). Not trying to compare David R. to such monsters, but I can see how some people can cast him as such, even with the best intentions on his part (I can only assume). Regularly most of us step on others peoples toes (knowingly and unknowingly in more mundane settings). It just happens that some people have very, very, very big shoes.
    • smileysteve 10y ago
      Not dissimilarly from Kingpin in Daredevil... The line between good and evil is not defined by intentions.
  • amyjess 10y ago
    I've come to this same conclusion as well. If the global elite is, as the populist crowd claims, trying to enforce LGBT rights, pro-science public policy, representation of minorities, etc., then I enthusiastically give my full support to the global elite. As time goes on, the anti-elite movement comes off more and more as a pack of vandals.
• mbateman 10y ago
  The still-timely passage continues: "The anti-Rockefeller focus of these otherwise incompatible political positions owes much to Populism. 'Populists' believe in conspiracies and one of the most enduring is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists, and their minions, control the world's economy. ... Populists and isolationists ignore the tangible benefits that have resulted in our active international role during the past half-century."
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • tinus_hn 10y ago
    The Bilderberg Group does exist, has economically powerful members and acts in private. So it's hardly a stretch to believe that not a secret group but a known group is exerting some level of control over the world economy. What else would they be doing?
    • prolly_a_moron 10y ago
      >The Bilderberg Group does exist, has economically powerful members and acts in private. A bunch of wealthy and influential people assemble to discuss policy and other strategy. I'm not sure why this is unexpected, bad, or why it should be frowned upon or disallowed.
      • oh_sigh 10y ago
        Well, considering the wealth and power concentrated in those rooms during the meeting, these people would have a good shot at foisting whatever system they want over the world. I'm not arguing it should be disallowed, but it is disconcerting when every billionaire in the world might agree on the same set of policies.
        • thr0waway1239 10y ago
          Not endorsing the guy in this video and don't know much about him personally. With that disclaimer, if you watch this video his lampooning of these meetings as an insider is quite hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbfBi-O8ijg#t=11m45s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbfBi-O8ijg#t=11m45s
• iliketosleep 10y ago
  What's frightening is that he was actually proud of it - he really believed in it. I wonder how many other powerful families are working towards the "more integrated global political and economic structure", consolidating the power of the global elite. Good luck to everybody else... Edit to clarify: in an ideal world what he stands for is right. but we're not in an idea world. where there's power there's often corruption. therefore, sooner or later the power ends up in the wrong hands. the problem is that if the world is too "integrated" and power does inevitably end up in the wrong hands at some point, there is absolutely no recourse.
  • unityByFreedom 10y ago
    Encouraging international cooperation isn't consolidating power. It's learning to live together on the same planet.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • aylmao 10y ago
      "a more integrated global political and economic structure" doesn't mean "international cooperation" though, it just means more free trade policies, and international political regulation instead of national. International cooperation can be achieved without an integrated political and economic structure. My country doesn't need to have the same economic policies and regulations as your country to live in harmony with you, or to take on international projects together like sending aid to some natural disaster, or doctors to communities that need them, or to agree in standards, or to foster academic research. "a more integrated global political and economic structure" means 1. bodies that have political power over national governments, which would make the implementation of standard regulations easier and 2. open borders for trade. Of course a billionaire involved in a number of translational companies wants this. As far as consolidating power goes, the US and China have some pretty big fish because their economies have been on steroids for a while. But other countries rely on national regulation to keep their national companies and local economies from being overrun by these big players. Least you know monopolies wouldn't exist only on the national level, but internationally, and then what do you do? National monopolies are a pain to get rid of, those would only be worse.
• amha 10y ago
  Rockefeller's MEMOIRS is surprisingly good. I picked it up figuring it would be typical celebrity schlock––but it's very thoughtful, comprehensive, and well-written. May we all lead such interesting lives, and write so well about them!
• teslabox 10y ago
  From the article: > Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. In 1940, he joined the board of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established in 1901 by his grandfather, and a decade later succeeded his father as board chairman, serving for 25 years. Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purposes. This "institute for medical research" - now Rockefeller University - was their way of guiding the development of medicine into a profitable industry for "investors". "The first director of laboratories was Simon Flexner" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University Simon Flexner's younger brother was Abraham Flexner, who helped the medical guild reduce the number of medical schools [2], thereby making sure that there's always been a shortage of doctors. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report The Osteopathic profession was the only group that was organized enough to survive the Medical Guild's purge of non-Rockefeller-approved approaches to medicine. Today D.O.s are more likely to take up Primary Care, where doctors take time to get to know their patients and figure out what's actually causing their complaints. See The Heroism of Incremental Care, [3] for example. [3] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-incremental-care http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-...
  • johansch 10y ago
    > Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-rockefellers-the-legacy-of-historys-richest-man/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-roc... "That young man was John Davison Rockefeller in 1855, who in 25 years would become the wealthiest man of his time, and arguably the wealthiest in history, reigning over a monopoly that refined as much as 90 percent of America’s oil. His flagship company, Standard Oil, was broken up in 1911 by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but Rockefeller’s greatest legacy – his family – lives on, spanning more than 200 surviving individuals and possessing a collective net worth of about $10 billion" $900M out of $10B is 9%. Myself, living in Europe, I'm quite convinced I have paid a much higher percentage of my income than this towards state-governed philantrophy. Where's my trophy?
• notsofastmister 10y ago
  He also praised the genocidal policies of Mao Ze Dong in 1973. In the NYTimes, no less: "The social experiment in China under. Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world interprets and reacts to the social innovations and life styles she has developed is certain to have a profound impact on the future of many nations." http://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-trav...
  • unityByFreedom 10y ago
    Fake news. Nowhere there does he advocate genocide. In 1973, most people probably weren't aware of the humanitarian crises that happened in China since the Communists took over. That's right when Nixon visited and was re-establishing friendly relations there. Most people were unaware of the happenings inside China. They were hoping to establish better ties in order to promote cultural exchange. Thus, praising Mao at that time is not out of the ordinary.
    • notsofastmister 10y ago
      Mao Ze Dong was working with the Yale-China association in the 1920s. So China wasn't as closed as it may seem. And a banker working with all the dictators in the world (and Kissinger!) isn't "most people". [0] Can you find any other example of someone praising China at the same time? Mass killings had already been a part of life in China since 1911. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale-China_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale-China_Association [1] https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.CHAP1.HTM https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.CHAP1.HTM
      • unityByFreedom 10y ago
        More fake news. China was closed from roughly 1950 - 1972. In 1920 they'd just overthrown the last dynasty and were trying to establish a democracy, so, it makes sense they'd be in contact with the US at that time. Unfortunately there were some assassinations and their multi-party system never got off the ground. There are probably tons of optimistic articles about US-Chinese relationships in the mid-1970s, as well as critical ones. As it turns out, trade helped boost the economies of both Taiwan and China, and people don't call them the third world anymore. Is it perfect? No. But we still talk to them and do trade. Rockefeller never advocated genocide. Doing business with or speaking positively of a certain leader doesn't mean you approve of everything they do, nor does speaking negatively mean you disagree with everything they do. What you said above is fake news.
• icelancer 10y ago
  Rich people like to hang out with other rich people. People enjoy shared backgrounds. That explains 95%+ of the "conspiracies," as David alludes to.
• coldtea 10y ago
  >and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- One World, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. As if this is some benevolent plan towards harmony and peace, and not merely a way to build an empire where corporatists and moguls have increased control on an even more defenseless populace without shared historical and cultural resistances (like the role the Constitution, for example plays in the US). In other words, the exact feudal states and empires that nation states were invented to rid us of.
  • battlebot 10y ago
    Very well said. I see no upside to globalism, only the exertion of control over our way of life by people whom we utterly despise. Why should, for example, some leader of a failed state such as Robert Mugabe, or even the head of a contemporary such as Angela Merkel, have any right to decide anything about our lives? They don't.
• skyhust 10y ago
  Here's a clip of Rockefeller laughing in response to an interviewer's introduction saying "and conspiring to enslave the nation to the machinations of the Trilateral Commission"- https://streamable.com/video/v0cdr https://streamable.com/video/v0cdr And this is a longer compilation which covers his background and has some interesting parts- https://vid.me/wde9#75s https://vid.me/wde9#75s
• TempOSfan 10y ago
  https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"