Something fishy is going on with the Clintons and Rockefellers

[chiplitfam]

"It Just Comes Down to Money," by Richard Lawrence Poe
PITY THE Rockefellers. Try though they might, they never manage to get a Rockefeller elected president. Governors, senators and even a vice president have borne the Rockefeller name. Yet the presidency eludes them. And so they busy themselves playing kingmaker behind the scenes. Their latest project is Hillary Clinton.


Last Thursday, the public interest group Judicial Watch published a memorandum which the Clinton Library was forced to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

The 24-page memo shines a spotlight on Hillary’s little-known relationship with America’s mightiest oil and banking dynasty. Dated May 26, 1993 and addressed to “Hillary Rodham Clinton”, the memo comes from Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia — better known as Jay Rockefeller — whose great-grandfather founded Standard Oil.

The memo lays out a detailed strategy for pushing the “Clinton reform plan” for universal health coverage. In it, Rockefeller snaps orders at Mrs. Clinton in the imperious tones of a man accustomed to obedience.

He instructs Hillary to get tough on critics of the health plan. “Impeach the credibility of opponents”, he writes. Portray them as “perpetrators”, “paid lobbyists” and purveyors of “ideological extremism”. Assign investigators to conduct “opposition research” on them and expose their “lifestyles”. Do not allow them “even one day without scrutiny”.

Regarding the need for a radio and TV advertising campaign, Rockefeller fumes, “Fundraising must begin immediately. I am frankly surprised that I have not been contacted or shown a plan for fundraising and media expenditures.”

Rockefeller plainly viewed Hillary as his subordinate, and the “Clinton reform plan” as his project. And no wonder. The plan we know as Hillarycare was originally Rockefeller’s idea.

“Health care was his major interest”, writes Joshua Green in The Atlantic. “The agony of watching his mother’s lengthy battle with Alzheimer’s had made him a crusader for universal health insurance, and in the years before Bill Clinton was elected he had organized labor and health interests toward that goal.”

Many Democrats urged Jay Rockefeller to run for president in 1992, but he declined and backed the Clintons instead.

On January 25, 1993 — only five days after his inauguration — Bill Clinton appointed Hillary chairman of his National Task Force on Health Care Reform. Prior to that, she had no history as a health care reformer. In order to carry out the assignment, she had to make a crash study, “bearing down and learning the mind-numbing intricacies of the health-care system”, The Atlantic reports.

More importantly, Hillary relied on the guiding hand of Jay Rockefeller, who watched closely over the Task Force. In their book The System, Haynes Johnson and David S. Broder note that Senator Rockefeller was “largely responsible for creating the coalition of pro-reform groups to campaign for passage of the Clinton plan and had opened his mansion in Rock Creek Park… to them for their first strategy meeting.”
Hillary might have been short on health care experience, but she had carried much water for the Rockefellers, especially David Rockefeller, Jr., son of the family patriarch David Rockefeller who led Chase Manhattan Bank for 21 years, as president, then chairman and CEO.

As late as 1989, Hillary was not yet known as a national policymaker. She worked for a crooked Arkansas law firm. Radical education reformer Marc Tucker hired Hillary that year as a lobbyist for his National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE).

Tucker dreamed of imposing a Soviet-style school-to-work system on Americans, whereby the government would manage every citizen’s life, steering young children into career tracks, then placing them in jobs after graduation, in corporations vetted by government overseers. Rockefeller money funded Tucker’s think tank and David Rockefeller, Jr. sat on Tucker’s Board.

Eight days after Bill Clinton’s election, Marc Tucker wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton which began: “I still cannot believe you won. But utter delight that you did pervades all the circles in which I move. I met last Wednesday in David Rockefeller’s office with him, [Apple Computer CEO] John Sculley, Dave Barram and David Haselkorn. It was a great celebration. Both John and David R. were more expansive than I have ever seen them — literally radiating happiness. My own view and theirs is that this country has seized its last chance.”

Why David Rockefeller would be “radiating happiness” at the Clintons’ ascension to the White House is not clear. However, it is worrisome.

Something fishy is going on with the Clintons and Rockefellers. This election season, Americans need to dig deep and learn their hidden agendas.
[It has also been recorded claimed that Ronald Reagan was told by David Rockefeller that you will have Daddy George Bush as your VP. Understand the concept of “money” and the Bush/Clinton cabal and the bankers behind it]

[Dr.3D]

If you look hard enough, you will find Obama , McCain, Romney and the rest of the "Front runners" all have some connection with Rockefeller.

[NoxTwilight]

PLEASE post links to articles. How can we spread these to the thousands of supporter who never come to this site if you don't!!

[chiplitfam]

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/8982160.html

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rockefeller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

http://www.ibiblio.org/nhs/NHS-T-o-C.html

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0



http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary/3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchette_Ferry_Rockefeller

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DC1739F932A25757C0A9649582 60


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0316111457/?tag=richardpoe


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/obama_campaign_sends_out_resea.php

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/apr94.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller,_Jr.


http://archive.rockefeller.edu/bio/david.php

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E2DB163AF935A15751C0A9629582 60

[NoxTwilight]

Thanks! I share with a great deal of people that never come to this forum. In fact all our meet up members (43) don't. So if I didn't send them this stuff they would never see it. I suspect this is true of a lot of us.

Thanks again!!

[InLoveWithRon]

Bill Clinton was dining with Rockefeller in Bilderberg meetings in 1991 before he was president..

It is also a fact that Hillary Clinton has attended CFR type Bilderberg secret meetings.. She has been spotted leaving one of these meetings.

[freedom-maniac]

Something fishy is going on with the Clintons and Rockefellers

They're the "Clintons" and "Rockefellers".

[Computer]

Most people don't know this, but Clinton has several questionable paternity spots in his family tree, and many people believe he is the illegitimate child or grandchild of a Rockefeller. Remember, Winthrop Rockefeller was the governor of Arkansas back in the day. They are prominent there.

Or, maybe he was just a lucky Hillbilly from Hope, AR? Riiiiiggghhhht.

[Computer]

http://www.barrymgoldwaterjr.com/barrygoldwaterjr/BarryGoldwaterJr-NelsonRock.gif

Nelson Rockefeller is on the left and you can see the family resemblance with Clinton.

[nebulous]

Nelson Rockefeller is on the left and you can see the family resemblance with Clinton.

They look about the same poor Bill... no wonder...

[PatriotOne]

The Clintons are subordinate to Rockefeller, as are the Bushes. The Rockefellers do not attempt to run for President as they prefer to be the men behind the curtains actually pulling the puppet strings. They do not like to have light shined on them as their crimes and treasonous actions are horrendous.

[specsaregood]

Most people don't know this, but Clinton has several questionable paternity spots in his family tree, and many people believe he is the illegitimate child or grandchild of a Rockefeller. Remember, Winthrop Rockefeller was the governor of Arkansas back in the day. They are prominent there.

Or, maybe he was just a lucky Hillbilly from Hope, AR? Riiiiiggghhhht.

Hrm, I had always heard the conspiracy that Bill Clinton was an illegitimate child of Joe Kennedy.

[nebulous]

The CFR Think Tank (http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/)


Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations’ David Rockefeller Studies Program. We are the Council’s “think tank.” We are an important part of the Council’s mission to produce and disseminate ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. We do that by thinking, writing, and speaking about a broad range of foreign policy issues...

This is an interesting welcome to the CFR by the VP!

[Nathan Hale]

If you look hard enough, you will find Obama , McCain, Romney and the rest of the "Front runners" all have some connection with Rockefeller.

I don't see the connection. Can you shed some light on this with some evidence?

[Nathan Hale]

Bill Clinton was dining with Rockefeller in Bilderberg meetings in 1991 before he was president..

It is also a fact that Hillary Clinton has attended CFR type Bilderberg secret meetings.. She has been spotted leaving one of these meetings.

Sources, please.

[Dr.3D]

I don't see the connection. Can you shed some light on this with some evidence?

CFR / NAU & 2008 Presidential Candidates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM


What Presidential Candidates are part of the CFR? What are they trying to accomplish?

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Who Opposes the CFR?
Ron Paul

Read this for yourself:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html

(From the You Tube video)


http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Most_presidential_candidate_for_2008_are_CFR_membe rs

http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=5498

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/21586

Here is the Rockefeller tie in.
http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=32123&mode=threaded

[Nathan Hale]

CFR / NAU & 2008 Presidential Candidates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Most_presidential_candidate_for_2008_are_CFR_membe rs


I think the first rule of evidence is that evidence must be credible. Partisan "evidence" is no better than any other propaganda. Neither of the two links above (which both link to the exact same video) shows that all of the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul are members of the CFR. The video actually cuts off about a minute in to the Lou Dobbs story, perhaps it was somewhere after that. But I hope that when it was presented, it was presented with a link or source that is undeniable.

http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=5498

Nothing here but a Ron Paul supporter's blog and a well-edited video that takes a lot of raw data and mashes it together without context.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/21586

Yet another post that links to the same information garnered from....well, we're not sure where this information is obtained (which is what hurts the credibility of the information).

http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=32123&mode=threaded[/QUOTE]

Okay, I went to the above link (your supposed Rockefeller tie-in) and I didn't see any link between the presidential candidates and Rockefeller.

Look, I know the point you're trying to make, but you're only going to make it with any credibility if you find a link to the CFR or a credible mainstream source that lists the presidential candidates as members of the CFR and then find a link directly to an internal CFR document that shows the CFR's agenda.

You can list posts on youtube and Ron Paul forums out the wazoo, but that's not evidence. Nobody goes to court with a youtube video as their proof.

[Dr.3D]

Fine, I stand corrected... there is no Rockefeller connection.
Just when you Google "Presidential Candidates" CFR
You get a heck of a lot of hits. Must be people are just guessing about it.
Rockefeller did found the Counsel on Foreign Relations, you know.
Going to the CFR web site and getting that information is like trying to get the Federal Reserve to tell the truth.
Or perhaps like getting a criminal to confess on national news.

[Nathan Hale]

Fine, I stand corrected... there is no Rockefeller connection.
Just when you Google "Presidential Candidates" CFR
You get a heck of a lot of hits. Must be people are just guessing about it.

You also get a lot of hits when you search for "aliens, Roswell". It's the sort of thing that proliferates in blogs and message boards. Why? Because it's sexy. It makes life more interesting than the banality of the daily grind.


Rockefeller did found the Counsel on Foreign Relations, you know.

No he didn't. The CFR was born in a group of connected Wilson-era academics called "The Inquiry". The Rockefellers were influential members of the CFR, but they didn't found the CFR. It seems to me that you're consuming some misinformation on the issue.


Going to the CFR web site and getting that information is like trying to get the Federal Reserve to tell the truth.
Or perhaps like getting a criminal to confess on national news.

I don't blame them. Not many organizations broadcast the identities of their members on their web site. But, if you don't have evidence that all the other presidential candidates are members, why are you going around saying they are?

[Dr.3D]

It seems obvious you are or you wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it.

[Chibioz]

The Clintons are subordinate to Rockefeller, as are the Bushes. The Rockefellers do not attempt to run for President as they prefer to be the men behind the curtains actually pulling the puppet strings. They do not like to have light shined on them as their crimes and treasonous actions are horrendous.

+1
The Rockefellers are puppet masters, the presidency has been under their and other elite families' control for decades.

[Nathan Hale]

It seems obvious you are or you wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it.

Huh? Was this a reply to me?

[Nathan Hale]

+1
The Rockefellers are puppet masters, the presidency has been under their and other elite families' control for decades.

And you know this....how?

[newyearsrevolution08]

I don't see the connection. Can you shed some light on this with some evidence?

Nathan cannot live without something, a poll, evidence a document or SOMETHING.. Get the man some damn evidence before he gets mad :mad: :eek:

[Truth Warrior]

Rockefellers are Rothschild sock puppets. As are the Clintons. :p

[amy31416]

Hrm, I had always heard the conspiracy that Bill Clinton was an illegitimate child of Joe Kennedy.

Well, if we want to run some tests, it shouldn't be too much trouble to get his DNA.

[Nathan Hale]

Nathan cannot live without something, a poll, evidence a document or SOMETHING.. Get the man some damn evidence before he gets mad :mad: :eek:

I'm getting tired of this insinuating in thread after thread that there's something wrong with wanting evidence for a conspiracy theory. What do you normally go on, new years, heresay and conjecture?

[devil21]

I'm getting tired of this insinuating in thread after thread that there's something wrong with wanting evidence for a conspiracy theory. What do you normally go on, new years, heresay and conjecture?

I generally like to use something called "common sense". Besides, I didn't know RPForums was a court of law that required bulletproof evidence of any and every assertion. Some things are just self-evident.

[Nathan Hale]

I generally like to use something called "common sense".

Common sense is usually a reserved sensibility. It encourages caution and scrutiny.


Besides, I didn't know RPForums was a court of law that required bulletproof evidence of any and every assertion.

It's not, you're under no legal obligation to do anything. I'm just asking questions because I have common sense, and I demand a little bit more than what is being offered.


Some things are just self-evident.

Some things are. This isn't. This you have to prove, or at least bring enough evidence to the table that an average observer will take you seriously. Unless you're just here to preach to the choir, in which case have blast, but don't expect anything meaningful to be accomplished by your action. because sooner or later you're going to be challenged by questions like the ones I have, and if you ever want your theory to amount to anything, you're going to have to answer them. If anything, I'm a sympathetic ear, because my standards as a neutral observer are a heck of a lot lower than a vocal critic who supports the very institutions you seek to tear down.

[Dr.3D]

Well, you know somethings gotta be wrong when you see the two words, conspiracy and theory in the same sentence. Obviously, the media has done it's job.

[Mini-Me]

Here are some things we know and actually have strong evidence for:

Rockefeller's connections to the CFR and Trilateral Commission are established.
The CFR's overall aims, including its plans for a "North American Community" are well-documented on their own site - it's clear that they support the "internationalization" of government policy, e.g. a move towards regional and one world consolidated government power.
Ron Paul's opposition to the CFR is well-known.


However, we've yet to sufficiently demonstrate the overwhelming role the CFR (and other groups, like the Trilateral Commission) seems to play in foreign policy and the selection of Presidential candidates. Yes, we can point to similarities in the CFR's agenda and the direction the country and world "seem" to be going in, but I'm with Nathan here: We do not yet have anywhere near a watertight case. It's almost like we're private investigators in a mafia movie, trying to pin something on a mob boss to take him down (the mob boss being either the CFR or David Rockefeller, depending on how you look at it). Lots of rumors go around, and everybody "knows" the truth, but are we able to prove it?

Although it appears self-evident to us that the CFR essentially picks candidates for the Presidency, we only have circumstantial evidence so far (sinister-sounding quotes from important figures, etc.). Granted, circumstantial evidence is probably the only evidence people like this are likely to leave...after all, even if we can prove that every President (and almost every nominee) since Kennedy have had strong connections to the CFR, that's still only circumstantial evidence (however damning). Still, right now, we don't even have that - we need to bridge that gap.

So...
Does anyone know where we can find empirical evidence that clearly establishes a connection between Presidential candidates and the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, etc.? No matter how self-evident the connection may seem on the intuitive level, we need to build a stronger case based on demonstrable facts to convince others.

[Nathan Hale]

Well, you know somethings gotta be wrong when you see the two words, conspiracy and theory in the same sentence. Obviously, the media has done it's job.

Howso?

[Nathan Hale]

Well, you know somethings gotta be wrong when you see the two words, conspiracy and theory in the same sentence. Obviously, the media has done it's job.

Any responses to post #19 yet?

[pinkmandy]

Thanks! I share with a great deal of people that never come to this forum. In fact all our meet up members (43) don't. So if I didn't send them this stuff they would never see it. I suspect this is true of a lot of us.

Thanks again!!

Ditto that. I take so much I find here and send it to everyone I know, post links on other boards, and put good youtubes in my siggie on other boards. With the help of you guys, I think I've opened a lot of eyes. I'm sure everyone here (or hoping everyone here) is doing the same. Many may not believe but if you keep exposing them to the same sort of shenanigans over and over and over that doubt creeps in and they start asking good questions. That's what we need. People asking questions that matter. :D

[Nathan Hale]

Double post

[lucius]

I'm getting tired of this insinuating in thread after thread that there's something wrong with wanting evidence for a conspiracy theory. What do you normally go on, new years, heresay and conjecture?

How about his own book?

Quote from David Rockefeller's Memoirs (Random House, New York, 2002) Chapter 27, pages 404 and 405. Cited by Dr. Dennis Cuddy: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' 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."

[Nathan Hale]

How about his own book?

Quote from David Rockefeller's Memoirs (Random House, New York, 2002) Chapter 27, pages 404 and 405. Cited by Dr. Dennis Cuddy: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' 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."

From this it sounds like he's admitting to believing in internationalism - not an admission that he's part of a "cabal" or that he has any true navigational abilities in national government or the international community.

[orafi]

Hrm, I had always heard the conspiracy that Bill Clinton was an illegitimate child of Joe Kennedy.

Yeah, you know that CONSPIRACY on how Joe cheated on his wife?

[lucius]

From this it sounds like he's admitting to believing in internationalism - not an admission that he's part of a "cabal" or that he has any true navigational abilities in national government or the international community.

Yet another:

"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

[Nathan Hale]

Yet another:

"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

Attribution please. Context is everything with quotes like this.

[lucius]

Attribution please. Context is everything with quotes like this.

"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)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GNJ6ANW5L._SS500_.jpg

[Dr.3D]

Any responses to post #19 yet?

What kind of response would you like?

[Nathan Hale]

"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)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GNJ6ANW5L._SS500_.jpg

Wow, your source is an obscure conspiracy theory tome?

[Nathan Hale]

What kind of response would you like?

I refuted just about everything you had to say. I figured that you would want to take the opportunity to defend your claims.

[revolutionary8]

I refuted just about everything you had to say. I figured that you would want to take the opportunity to defend your claims.
He said the Rockefellers founded the CFR. You have not refuted this, because it is true.


The British branch became known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, with leadership provided by members of the Round Table. Begun in the late 1800's by Cecil Rhodes, the Round Table aimed to federate the English speaking peoples of the world, and bring it under their rule.

The Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated as the American branch in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel House, and "...such potentates of international banking as J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff...the same clique which had engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System," according to Gary Allen in the October 1972 issue of "AMERICAN OPINION."

The founding president of the CFR was John W. Davis, J.P. Morgan's personal attorney, while the vice-president was Paul Cravath, also representing the Morgan interests. Professor Carroll Quigley characterized the CFR as "...a front group for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group." Over time Morgan influence was lost to the Rockefellers, who found that one world government fit their philosophy of business well. As John D. Rockefeller, Sr. had said: "Competition is a sin," and global monopoly fit their needs as they grew internationally.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

[revolutionary8]

You also get a lot of hits when you search for "aliens, Roswell". It's the sort of thing that proliferates in blogs and message boards. Why? Because it's sexy. It makes life more interesting than the banality of the daily grind.



No he didn't. The CFR was born in a group of connected Wilson-era academics called "The Inquiry". The Rockefellers were influential members of the CFR, but they didn't found the CFR. It seems to me that you're consuming some misinformation on the issue.



I don't blame them. Not many organizations broadcast the identities of their members on their web site. But, if you don't have evidence that all the other presidential candidates are members, why are you going around saying they are?
Saying that the Rockefeller's didn't "found" the CFR, only influenced them, is not only an irrelevant semantics battle, but it is also misinformation. The Rockefeller's most certainly did help (influence) found the CFR.

[Dr.3D]

I refuted just about everything you had to say. I figured that you would want to take the opportunity to defend your claims.

Why don't you just go and find your own evidence? It's the only truth you will accept anyway. Seems most of the time all you do is try to prove something to everybody else. I have nothing to prove and neither should you. If you question something that is said on these forums, then you should do your own research rather than asking the person who made the claim to do it for you.

If you find through your own research they were wrong, then make a post with your own information. It is almost like you find pleasure in provoking arguments.

When I read something I find questionable, I check it myself and see if I can find anything that contradicts what the person claimed. If I do find a problem with what was said, then I take what was said with a grain of salt. This is often what one does when reading things on the internet.

What is your own personal agenda on the Ron Paul forums? Is it to find problems with what people post and then make a big deal about it? If so, then I would suggest people ignore you and go on with what they are discussing. If you are here to see what is being said and do your own research on the subject, then you wouldn't be provoking others with arguments on the subject.

[lucius]

Wow, your source is an obscure conspiracy theory tome?

Weak...Yet another:

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

David Rockefeller in an address to the 28th Annual United Nations Ambassador Dinner, September 14, 1994, as quoted in the Business Council for the United Nations Briefing; Vol. 8, Issue 2, Winter 1995, page 1.

[Nathan Hale]

He said the Rockefellers founded the CFR. You have not refuted this, because it is true.


http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

Thank you for that information from the conspiracy archive.

[Dr.3D]

Here is a little tidbit I found to be quite interesting.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRA-Elist.html#A

I searched the list and found these names.
1211. FORD GERALD R US PRES,CFR '84, 1988 annual rpt ,,
602. CARTER JIMMY E US PRES,CFR '92,,,
696. CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON (BILL),CFR '92,,,
519. BUSH GEORGE H.W,CFR '85,

If you search through the list, you may be able to find more interesting people.
For example:
3206. RICE CONDOLEEZZA,CFR '92, 1988 annual rpt ,,TC '92

How many people in congress and the senate are on this list?

[Nathan Hale]

Saying that the Rockefeller's didn't "found" the CFR, only influenced them, is not only an irrelevant semantics battle, but it is also misinformation. The Rockefeller's most certainly did help (influence) found the CFR.

I don't deny that Rockefeller had influence in the early CFR, but the specific claim was that he "founded" the CFR (to which I extrapolated any involvement in the founding of the CFR), and that's just not true. The Rockefellers were not part of the Inquiry, Rockefeller himself entered the scene as one of the CFR's first 300 members - who were all "carefully chosen".

[Dr.3D]

I don't deny that Rockefeller had influence in the early CFR, but the specific claim was that he "founded" the CFR (to which I extrapolated any involvement in the founding of the CFR), and that's just not true. The Rockefellers were not part of the Inquiry, Rockefeller himself entered the scene as one of the CFR's first 300 members - who were all "carefully chosen".

Ok, I'll admit I misspoke when I said he actually founded the CFR.
That should put this to rest once and for all.

[Nathan Hale]

Why don't you just go and find your own evidence? It's the only truth you will accept anyway. Seems most of the time all you do is try to prove something to everybody else. I have nothing to prove and neither should you. If you question something that is said on these forums, then you should do your own research rather than asking the person who made the claim to do it for you.

You're here presenting an argument. I'm challenging your argument. It's up to you to refute my challenge. That's basic debate protocol. Sure, I could do my own research - and I have. The conclusion that I've arrived at is that this conspiracy is bollocks. So when you present it as truth, I have no resource left but to inquire as to exactly what makes you believe it to be true. Now, you could just BELIEVE, an act which requires faith and no concrete evidence. Or, you could KNOW. Knowledge requires evidence. As we're all intelligent, critical thinkers here, I would hope that you KNOW it rather than BELIEVE it, so I ask you present evidence.

I do so also because I am sympathetic to such ideas, and I know that sooner or later, if you ever want this idea to go public, that you're going to have to answer to somebody far more hostile than me who will serve as a gatekeeper to the hearts and minds of the wider public. It's a door through which this theory must pass, and unless you offer rock solid chains of logic it's a door through which you will not pass, and this whole theory will amount to nothing.


If you find through your own research they were wrong, then make a post with your own information.

I don't have the answers. I'm agnostic on your ideas about Rockefeller. But in order to ever embrace them I need to see the granite beneath your foundation, one that is not apparent through neutral analysis.


It is almost like you find pleasure in provoking arguments.

You're mistaken.


When I read something I find questionable, I check it myself and see if I can find anything that contradicts what the person claimed. If I do find a problem with what was said, then I take what was said with a grain of salt. This is often what one does when reading things on the internet.

This is a forum. You're making a claim. When I make a claim on a forum, I know that it's my duty to defend that claim. Perhaps you just expected to preach to the choir. If that was your expectation, then I see your hesitance to engage in a contentious exchange on the subject. If you you were here presenting the idea for the members to consider and weigh in on, then you should come in expecting to have to defend your ideas.


What is your own personal agenda on the Ron Paul forums?

To challenge people not used to criticism, inform campaigns about strategy, and further the movement in a meaningful, sustainable way.



Is it to find problems with what people post and then make a big deal about it?

Sometimes it entails that. It's more wrong to let a bad idea fester than to engage it, no matter how much the boat is rocked in doing so.


If so, then I would suggest people ignore you and go on with what they are discussing.

If somebody is incapable of handling an open conversation and all that it entails then I would agree that they should ignore me. But that wouldn't help the movement, because the movement only benefits when these ideas are discussed, challenged, and thus strengthened for the time when they become our policy.


If you are here to see what is being said and do your own research on the subject, then you wouldn't be provoking others with arguments on the subject.

I'm not provoking you. You made the claim. If you wanted the conversation limited to pats on the back that's fine and dandy, just let us know.

[Nathan Hale]

Ok, I'll admit I misspoke when I said he actually founded the CFR.
That should put this to rest once and for all.

Thank you. It's good that we corrected that now, because if this theory managed to claw its way into the public consciousness, repeating such misinformation would leave you open to getting shot down entirely. Here the only thing you suffer is the correction. It may seem contentious and mean-spirited, but it's important that this conversation happens here rather than on Hardball.

[Dr.3D]

I consider the posts as something to consider. I neither accept them nor reject them but rather if the post interests me, I do my own research to determine what I wish to believe about the post.

When I make a post, perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the end of each one so people know it is just something for them to consider. They can then do their own research on the subject of that post and determine whether they wish to believe there is any truth to it.

[Nathan Hale]

Here is a little tidbit I found to be quite interesting.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRA-Elist.html#A

I searched the list and found these names.
1211. FORD GERALD R US PRES,CFR '84, 1988 annual rpt ,,
602. CARTER JIMMY E US PRES,CFR '92,,,
696. CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON (BILL),CFR '92,,,
519. BUSH GEORGE H.W,CFR '85,

If you search through the list, you may be able to find more interesting people.
For example:
3206. RICE CONDOLEEZZA,CFR '92, 1988 annual rpt ,,TC '92

How many people in congress and the senate are on this list?

Did you take a moment to browse the site on which this page is found? What do you think of the site at large?

[Dr.3D]

Did you take a moment to browse the site on which this page is found? What do you think of the site at large?

I like the sources they listed for that list.

[Nathan Hale]

I consider the posts as something to consider. I neither accept them nor reject them but rather if the post interests me, I do my own research to determine what I wish to believe about the post.

When I make a post, perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the end of each one so people know it is just something for them to consider. They can then do their own research on the subject of that post and determine whether they wish to believe there is any truth to it.

As you can see, that's what I did. Referring to our initial confrontation in this thread, you first post was:

If you look hard enough, you will find Obama , McCain, Romney and the rest of the "Front runners" all have some connection with Rockefeller.

To which I replied:

I don't see the connection. Can you shed some light on this with some evidence?

At this point I had already done my homework, and produced no evidence, so I asked where you got yours, because whether or not you posted your first post merely as something to consider, you tone implied knowledge. So I asked your source....and I got a bunch of links to a variety of places (your post #16). At this point you had engaged my inquiry into your evidence, so I assumed (in error, apparently) that you were willing to explain how you arrived at the idea that all of the frontrunners were connected with Rockefeller. So I delved into your sources, and posted in #17 why I considered them wanting. We went back and forth on the subject with one last trade-off (#18 and #19) and you left the thread. When you returned in #30, your comment was this:

Well, you know somethings gotta be wrong when you see the two words, conspiracy and theory in the same sentence. Obviously, the media has done it's job.

But wait, we still had a conversation going. Now you're back in the thread, continuing to talk subversively about the media "do[ing] its job", but there were some serious, outstanding criticisms of your case that were as yet outstanding, hence my questioning of your claim (#32) and my challenge that you please respond to my earlier criticisms (#33) as you still showed an interest in discussing the topic by returning to the thread.

[Doktor_Jeep]

I have something for all the debunkers:

PROVE OTHERWISE.

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.


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?

Coincidence?

Or are you here to cover for someone?

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.

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

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.

[Nathan Hale]

Weak...Yet another:

Yes, your source is weak. Another is required.


"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

David Rockefeller in an address to the 28th Annual United Nations Ambassador Dinner, September 14, 1994, as quoted in the Business Council for the United Nations Briefing; Vol. 8, Issue 2, Winter 1995, page 1.

This shows only what we know - that Rockefeller was an internationalist. It has nothing to do with the motives of the CFR or the influence that the CFR has over the presidential candidates, which was my challenge in this thread.

[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) :D

[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) :D

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...

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8uxvXqrttdCDjM:http://lolcats.com/images/u/07/24/lolcatsdotcomiy0hwr7nqv87ch3g.jpg

[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’ (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/9l.htm) 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'? :D

Watch a 17 minute 1983 interview with Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald on the New World Order. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3100752722910819372&ei=SXJRSIeVBIO8rwLntdW5DA&hl=en)

[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 (http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Tax_Exempt_Foundations_Hearings-Reece_Committee-1953_4-1000pgs-PART1-GOV.sml.pdf&id=35)

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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8605813744843314322&q=norman+dodd&ei=mi5USJvwK5GErgLHmLTkDg&hl=en)

Nathan, got 'Leviathan'? :D

[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 (http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gary_allen_rocker/)

[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 (http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Tax_Exempt_Foundations_Hearings-Reece_Committee-1953_4-1000pgs-PART1-GOV.sml.pdf&id=35)

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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8605813744843314322&q=norman+dodd&ei=mi5USJvwK5GErgLHmLTkDg&hl=en)

Nathan, got 'Leviathan'? :D

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?

[MAGICKAL]

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity"


- Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)

[MAGICKAL]

"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

[MAGICKAL]

"Military men...are just dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

Henry Kissinger, CFR
Council on Foreign Relations,

[MAGICKAL]

"In the next century, nations as we know it, will be obsolete." "All states will recognize a single global authority."

Strobe Talbott
President Clinton's Deputy Sec. of State

Time Magazine
July 20, 1992

[MAGICKAL]

“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)

[lucius]

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?

Nathan, your painting with that broad weak brush again. Still waiting for your source to this inital post:


"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)

First you replied with this:


Wow, your source is an obscure conspiracy theory tome?

Latter modified to:


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...

So what is your source for this statement? :rolleyes:

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 (http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Tax_Exempt_Foundations_Hearings-Reece_Committee-1953_4-2086pgs-GOV.sml.pdf&id=34&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498) [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!":rolleyes::

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" (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm) and UNESCO's "Our Creative Diversity." (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/global/unesco-creative-diversity.htm) Both focus on lofty ideals such as peace, harmony and unity in the communitarian (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communitarian/third_way.htm) "global" village -- a vision that demands absolute control and universal participation in facilitated small groups (modeled by the hierarchy of "soviets" (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/soviets.htm) 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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8605813744843314322&q=norman+dodd&ei=mi5USJvwK5GErgLHmLTkDg&hl=en)


...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?

You can download it from this site for $100. (http://www.garynorth.com/products/item9.cfm)
or search google, its on many torrents.

Nathan, got 'Leviathan'? :D

[Nathan Hale]

Nathan, your painting with that broad weak brush again. Still waiting for your source to this inital post:

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.


Let's recap the use of 'conspiracy theory'; read it slowly for comprehension:

[COLOR="Blue"]"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

I respect and disagree with Mr. Sanders' opinion on the term.


Look at this unseen Rockefeller hand from page 43 (actual pdf page 47) from the Full Report: US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings (http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Tax_Exempt_Foundations_Hearings-Reece_Committee-1953_4-2086pgs-GOV.sml.pdf&id=34&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498) [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."

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!":rolleyes::

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" (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm) and UNESCO's "Our Creative Diversity." (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/global/unesco-creative-diversity.htm) Both focus on lofty ideals such as peace, harmony and unity in the communitarian (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communitarian/third_way.htm) "global" village -- a vision that demands absolute control and universal participation in facilitated small groups (modeled by the hierarchy of "soviets" (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/soviets.htm) 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.


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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8605813744843314322&q=norman+dodd&ei=mi5USJvwK5GErgLHmLTkDg&hl=en)



[SIZE="2"]You can download it from this site for $100. (http://www.garynorth.com/products/item9.cfm)
or search google, its on many torrents.

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'? :D

Philosophy is not a relevant function during an investigation. Keep your eyes on the evidence.

[Mini-Me]

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?"



Hey, the New York Times. That's a viable source. Now you're getting the hang of it.


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:

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?

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:


(In response to:

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

David Rockefeller in an address to the 28th Annual United Nations Ambassador Dinner, September 14, 1994, as quoted in the Business Council for the United Nations Briefing; Vol. 8, Issue 2, Winter 1995, page 1.
)

This shows only what we know - that Rockefeller was an internationalist. It has nothing to do with the motives of the CFR or the influence that the CFR has over the presidential candidates, which was my challenge in this thread.

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.

[Nathan Hale]

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).

Hear, hear.


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.

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.


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!

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.


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?"

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.


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.

There's no way around it. Either find the evidence, manually, or find it from a voice that the people will believe.


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.

The best approach is scientific - search for the truth, not just the evidence for your theory.


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.

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.


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.

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.


Actually, this shows more than just that Rockefeller is an internationalist (I say "is" because David Rockefeller is still very much alive):

I was under the impression that we were talking about the Rockefellers circa early CFR period, hence my use of the past tense.


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.

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.

[Roxi]

and wasn't there a memo from Rockefeller to her bitching her out over not doing something? i mean like really bitching her out, it was bizzare

ill try to find it