The second quote reads like a fabrication on its face and is obviously someone's fantasy script. According to Wikiquote:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Davi ... Bilderberg
According to the article “Behind The Bias” (W. N. Grigg, The New American, February 10, 2003, p. 4), “Excerpts from Rockefeller’s opening address were leaked to two independent French publications. They then came to the attention of Hilaire du Berrier, an international correspondent living in Monaco, who published them in his newsletter, HduB Reports.”
According to various internet sources, the French publications were Minute, 19 June 1991, and Lectures Françaises, July/August 1991 and it was the HduB Reports of September, 1991 which republished the quote.
I haven't been able to verify any of this myself. Here are links to the periodicals, in case anybody in France wants to go to the bibliothèque. I'm not absolute sure that this Minute is the correct one.
Lectures Françaises, ISSN 0024-0133
Minute, ISSN 1243-7751
H du B Reports, OCLC 14202455 or 9031105
The quote as it appears in English must have been a translation from the French sources, since "auto-determination" would be an extremely rare word for a native English speaker. Of course, there may have been an English original translated into French, but it sounds like a satire, especially this sentence: “The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
What does it say when, confronted with this real-life character, what he actually shows you is not enough to condemn? Aren't the known facts enough for you? Of course such a person should be investigated, and there will always be worse hidden somewhere than what we see at first, but there is no need therefore to make shit up. And for those who do fabricate, why do you have to make up the Alex Jones version? And why would you ever post any quote, let alone one so suspect, without researching it first and finding a context?
The first quote is more or less from his memoirs and requires some serious and willful misreading to go from his meaning (we believe in global cooperation and if some people call that against U.S. interests, whatever, we don't care) to the implication that his sarcasm is meant to tip off the Alex Jones and John Birch types that he's plotting the demise of the United States to the favor of a one-world blah blah blah.
WTO, NAFTA, NATO, EU, IMF, World Bank, the attempts at TTIP and TPP, the U.S. military as global police force, dollar predominance, petro backing, the archipelago of tax havens, the world arms trade, the global banking system and the sanctions and wars against those countries that do not conform to its management, the freedom of capital to circulate anywhere and own anything including the seeds and the water, the surveillance states and the international alliances thereof, the cross-border accumulation of wealth in an ever smaller circle of multi-multi-billionaires... all these are codified and for decades were celebrated openly as globalization or globalism. Systems of bidding for control of politicians and regulators were legalized decades ago. The owners and the power elite do their business mostly in the open, although all also leave awesome space for parapolitical milieux to develop. I will never understand the laziness of mind and paranoia of those who feel compelled to re-invent this planetary shit-show, which despite the daunting complexity anyone can figure out using open source records, as an easily rebuttable and caricatured fantasy of the "secret" illuminati. Why the hell would people like Rockefeller need to conspire
for "one world government" as a general goal? It is what they have been openly administrating since World War II.
Wait, I found one in the Times obituary:
He was notably harsh about President Carter. In 1980 he told The Washington Post that Mr. Carter had not done “what most other countries do themselves, and expect us to do — namely, to make U.S. national interests our prime international objective.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/busi ... anker.html
Aha, see? Context, schmontext, attribution, who cares? Proof! David Rockefeller, committed American nationalist!