Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Fri May 03, 2013 9:19 am

This thread is being started in an effort to avoid thread drift and to provide links and support for a comment made in the 'good ideas' thread.

That being; [Think; Green Revolution, yet another Rockefeller initiative whose true design was to increase petrochemical inputs for agriculture.]


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engda ... n_SOD.html

.........The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.

The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.

In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’

Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later.

John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.” He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then--- a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer.......



Any and all are invited to add to this hoped for study, with an eye to understanding the historical development of the Rockefeller consensus and its influence and impact on the development of the modern psyche.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri May 03, 2013 9:51 am

I'll answer you here instead of the other thread...

Sounder wrote:
Sounder wrote: [Think; Green Revolution, yet another Rockefeller initiative whose true design was to increase petrochemical inputs for agriculture.]

Joe wrote...
Some people might say it had the side effect of reducing famine immensely as well.


Yes, yes, you bet,we should be perfectly willing to see the good side also. One would hope that with the amount of money involved there is bound to be some 'good' produced.

But the 'good' seems to be subsidizing the 'bad' at this point.

If we could look at these issues sans rancor we might even be able to provide a positive social service.

Not that you are in any way rancorous.

I'm simply trying to deflect that impulse as I start a new project.


i'm pretty sus on Enghdahl generally, but I'm not necessarily that sure about the green revolution either.

There's some legit criticism, of it from a few different viewpoints as well. Massive monoculture - the standard model for most agribusiness is a pretty stupid way to farm. It may yield high levels of grain or whatever, but the overall food yield, especially considering the input, is lower than most traditional family farms, especially third world family farms, which were highly productive in terms of calories and nutrients, but not necessarily in terms of individual marketable commodities.

for example.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9593
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Fri May 03, 2013 11:13 am

Joe wrote...
i'm pretty sus on Enghdahl generally


With he being a non-consensus intellectual, its not surprising that he is well discredited. That discreditation may even be legitimate. However his identification of players, the context of their activities and general historical data can be used to build better context, without including the discredited elements of Mr. Enghdahls putative indiscretions.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Sat May 04, 2013 6:50 am

Joe wrote...
There's some legit criticism, of it from a few different viewpoints as well. Massive monoculture - the standard model for most agribusiness is a pretty stupid way to farm. It may yield high levels of grain or whatever, but the overall food yield, especially considering the input, is lower than most traditional family farms, especially third world family farms, which were highly productive in terms of calories and nutrients, but not necessarily in terms of individual marketable commodities.

for example.


But why has it come to this? Why do we accept this divorcing of farmers from any possibilities of an integrative relationship to nature?

Joel Salatin - Vilifying the Small Farms




Enghdahl quote..
p50
economist J.W.Smith
Highly mechanized farms on large acreages can produce units of food cheaper than even the poorest paid farmers of the Third World. When this cheap food is sold, or given, to the Third World, the local farm economy is destroyed. If the poor and unemployed of the Third World were given access to land, access to industrial tools, and protection from cheap imports, they could plant high-protein/high calorie crops and become self-sufficient in food. Reclaiming their land and utilizing the unemployed would cost these societies almost nothing, feed them well, and save far more money than they now pay for the so-called "cheap" imported foods.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:42 am

I find people like Fredric T Gates to be as or more interesting than his benefactor, Rockefeller. Fredric’s aim was to manufacture consensus and conformity. An excellent toadie, breeding more toadies for Rockefeller.

Please note that I am not suggesting that these folk are reptiles, Illuminati or sourced through any other diabolical or secret means. They are simply people who feel that their best chance for realizing their self interest is achieved by keeping the common man in a docile condition.

Again, just because Rockefeller might be trying to turn us into reptiles does not mean that I am accusing him or his type of being reptiles.

Just so that is clear.


http://www.thrivemovement.com/follow-money-education
The Origin of Compulsory Schooling


“In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."
- Rev. Frederick T. Gates, Business Advisor to John D. Rockefeller Sr., 1913 [1]

The current American school system took root around the turn of the century. In 1903, John D. Rockefeller founded the General Education Board, which provided major funding for schools across the country and was especially active in promoting the State-controlled public school movement.

Rockefeller Education Board, 1915
The General Education Board was not interested in encouraging critical thinking. Rather, its focus was on organizing children and creating reliable, predictable, obedient citizens. As award-winning former teacher John Gatto puts it, “school was looked upon from the first part of the 20th Century as a branch of industry and a tool of governance.” The Rockefellers, along with other financial elite and their philanthropic organizations (such as the Gates, Carnegies, and Vanderbilts) have been able to mold society by funding and pushing compulsory state schooling for the masses.
Here’s a timeline to show the radical shift in education and the influence of the financial elite.

Pre 1840: Literacy Rates High, Schools Predominantly Private and Locally Controlled
Up until the 1840’s, the American school system was mainly private, decentralized, and home schooling was common. Americans were well educated and literacy rates were high.

1852: Massachusetts Passes First Mandatory Attendance Law

1902: John D. Rockefeller Creates the General Education Board
At the ultimate cost of $129 million, the General Education Board provided major funding for schools across the nation and was very influential in shaping the current school system.

1905: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is Founded

1906: NEA Becomes a Federally Chartered Association

1913: Frederick T. Gates, Director of Charity for the Rockefeller Foundation, Writes “In our dream…the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand”
Frederick T. Gates wrote in The Country School of Tomorrow, Occasional Papers Number 1:
“In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."

1914: National Education Association (NEA) Alarmed by the Activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations
At an annual meeting in St. Paul Minnesota, a resolution was passed by the Normal School Section of the NEA. An excerpt stated:
“We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.”

1917: NEA Reorganizes and Moves to Washington DC
The NEA is the largest labor union in the U.S., representing public school teachers and other school faculty and staff. It generally opposes merit pay, school vouchers, accountability reforms, and more.

1918: Every State Requires Students to Complete Elementary School

1932: “Eight Year Study” – Largely funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York and the General Education Board
This laid the groundwork for education reform and the schooling system we have today.

1946: Rockefeller Foundation grants the General Education Board $7.5 billion

1953: Reece Committee of the US House of Representatives Reveals Agenda of Carnegie Endowment and Rockefeller Foundation on Education
“It seems incredible that the trustees of typically American fortune-created foundations should have permitted them to be used to finance ideas and practices incompatible with the fundamental concepts of our Constitution. Yet there seems evidence that this may have occurred.”
-Norman Dodd, Director of Research, Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations, 1954 [2]

1968: Edith Roosevelt’s Article “The Foundation Machine” Indicts Carnegie Funded Textbooks
Carnegie funded “Programmed Textbooks” were distributed to “culturally deprived areas.” Edith Roosevelt stated that “these young children are being indoctrinated with a pattern of anti-social ideas that will completely and violently alienate them from the mainstream of American middle-class values.”

1979: US Department of Education Created

1986: Carnegie Teaching Panel Charts New Teacher Framework & Provides $900,000 in Grants for Reforms

2003: 14% of American Adults are Illiterate
The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) administered tests which revealed 14% of US residents would have extreme difficulty with reading and written comprehension. In 2003, some 30 million American adults had Below Basic prose literacy, 27 million had Below Basic document literacy, and 46 million had Below Basic quantitative literacy.

Related Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ted_States

http://www.wealthbuildingcourse.com/dev ... ealth.html

http://www.schoolandstate.org/Case/case1.htm

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/


________________________________________
[1] Frederick T. Gates, "The Country School of Tomorrow," Occasional Papers, no.1 (New York: General Education Board, 1913), p. 6.
[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd- ... tions-1954




As to the following. Why is that we cannot easily verify Bill Gates lineage?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Frederick_ ... Bill_Gates

Is Frederick T Gates related to Bill Gates?


Answer:

I think that it may be significant if Bill Gates is descended from Frederick Gates, and it seems possible, if not likely.

John D Rockefeller, around the turn of the twentieth century, was believed to be the richest man on Earth, like Bill Gates some hundred years later.
John D Rockefeller also was embroiled in the most significant fight with the U.S. Government who tried to curb Standard Oil's apparent monopoly and what it saw as unfair practices coming out of that monopoly, in a very similar way that Gates and Microsoft were involved in similar battles.

How does this relate to Frederick Gates?

John D Rockefeller used Frederick Gates as his number one adviser, and often said Frederick Gates was the smartest businessman he knew. Frederick Gates became rich is his own right, most likely through his association with Rockefeller.

In a biography about Frederick Gates I read some years ago, Gates was quoted in telling this story on how he met Rockefeller:

Apparently, Gates met Rockefeller on a train journey, possibly finding a way (both had strong links to the Baptist Church) to be invited into Rockefeller's private rail car. Rockefeller complained to Gates that he was loosing money he invested in silver mines in Colorado, apparently through silver miners spiriting the silver out undetected. He said he would reward anyone who could find out how this was being done, so they could catch the culprits.

Frederick Gates then travelled on trains passing through the area of the silver mines, on the cheapest coach fares, so as to be seated with miners travelling to and from the mines. He soon befriended the miners, and listened closely to their stories about the silver mines. He quickly uncovered the means by which the silver was being smuggled out, and passed this on to Rockefeller. Gates was rewarded with his role as adviser to Rockefeller. Apparently, although he could easily afford to travel first class, Frederick Gates always bought the cheapest tickets when travelling, to maintain contact with the common man, and what was happening in that world.

It is interesting to note that Bill gates also always travels coach class and gives a similar reason.

Although Rockefeller had an apparently very public persona, he also was known for keeping his family life very private. My own grandfather, who came to the US when Rockefeller was amassing his wealth, was a keen follower of Rockefeller. He often told me Rockefeller anecdotes.

One was that John D Rockefeller had a small house on the outreaches of his estate where he raised his children, as if he were a lowly employee on the estate. His children shared a bicycle and were kept in the dark about the family's wealth, until they were sent off to school.

Frederick Gates himself was a very private person and kept his family and own dealings away from the public gaze, except for his work setting up Rockefeller's charitable foundations, which was where the public were directed when enquiring about the Rockefellers. This could be seen as echoed in Bill Gates present public persona.

What might mitigate against this connection is that the Frederick Gates and his family seemed very well settled on the East Coast, rarely moving much further west than Chicago. However, it could also be possible, after Frederick passed on, to help maintain the family's privacy, they could well have moved on to Seattle.


In my own quick check, it seems that one Gates grampa came from Pennsylvania.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Searcher08 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:18 pm

It has been years since reading it, so I'm a bit sketchy on the details, butI believe that there was a very direct connection between then 'dumbing down' education movement and the Skull and Bones society.
I believe it was Charlotte Isserbyt who provided Antony Sutton with the S+B membership book (belonging to her father, who was a member) , which set Sutton off on his meticulous investigations. There was definitely a connection with Dewey of the Dewey decimal system...

Bill Gates was given his break by his mother, who knew John Akers, CEO of IBM - via their membership of United Way.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:48 am

Thanks searcher08, methinks there must be a connection between big foundation money and Dewey's disdain for the value of the individual, oh and the Prussian education system that now serves as our model.

Yeah, these are social benefactors, you bet.




http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/find ... OODSPEEDTW

Seeing the importance of fundraising, Goodspeed resigned his post at Second Baptist Church in order to raise funds for the Seminary. He became the secretary of the Seminary and moved to Morgan Park, in the suburbs, in order to become the foundering pastor of the Morgan Park Baptist Church (1876-1879). Over the course of eight years Goodspeed managed to raise more than $250,000 for the Seminary. Many of those contributions were given one dollar at a time by individuals; however Goodspeed also developed connections with the major businessmen which included Marshall Field and the future benefactor of the University of Chicago, John D. Rockefeller. Their relationship began with Rockefeller's gift of $30,000 for the Seminary.

Before Goodspeed conceived the new University of Chicago he attempted to save the old one. In April 1886 Yale University attempted to woo William Rainey Harper, the professor of Hebrew, away from the Seminary. Goodspeed suggested that Rockefeller should fund the University's move to Morgan Park near the Seminary and Harper could be retained in Chicago to be the president. Harper expressed interest in this plan but went to Yale to teach while the details were worked on. The old University of Chicago closed its doors that same year.

From the ashes of Goodspeed's efforts rose the Pheonix that adorns the University of Chicago's logo to this day. Goodspeed promoted the idea of a major Midwestern college or university that would be a place of intellect and light. Working with Reverend Frederick T. Gates (of Minneapolis) on the founding of the American Baptist Education Society, Goodspeed became more strongly convinced of the urgent need for higher education in the Midwest; he argued that it was "an immediate and imperative denominational necessity."
After years on negotiations it was on 17 may 1889 that Rockefeller committed to donating $600,000 toward the endowment of the new University of Chicago if Goodspeed and his associates could raise $400,000 in other contributions to provide for land, building and equipment. A seasoned fundraiser Goodspeed vacated his Seminary position in Morgan Park within a month in order to allocate more time to the collection effort. He turned first to local Baptist groups and then to other religious groups and the Chicago business community. Again the majority of the contributions were small or moderate gifts given by churches, businesses, and clubs in Chicago and other cities. One year later, 23 May 1890, the driven fundraiser reported to Rockefeller that the Education Society had raised $549,000 to match Rockefeller's donation. Additionally Goodspeed convinced Marshall Field to donate the real estate for the university, just south of the city in Hyde Park.

The University of Chicago incorporated on 9 September 1890. Goodspeed was elected to the board and served first as the secretary and he also worked as the unofficial business manager and then the registrar, public relations officer, fundraiser and eventually he became the historian of the University.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:48 pm

Searcher08 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:18 am wrote:It has been years since reading it, so I'm a bit sketchy on the details, butI believe that there was a very direct connection between then 'dumbing down' education movement and the Skull and Bones society.


I have only seen that laid out explicitly in Jim Keith's Mind Control, World Control, although most of his research threads have since shown up in less dramatic tones in the work of John Taylor Gatto, whose Weapons of Mass Instruction was the most concise & erudite statement of his Big Thesis to date.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:29 pm

Cross-posted from the FourthBase effective dissent thread.

FourthBase wrote...
Okay, I'm really interested in knowing exactly what this public relations thing is supposed to be, do.


The core objective of PR is to assure the position of an entity to stand in the prime spots within the rivers of money. The Mr. big types define the ‘basin’ from which the ‘water’ is collected and the subsequent direction of flow.

That is what PR is supposed to be, it does this by maintaining a vertical authority distribution system as the most effective means for insuring the money interests.

http://ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=orthodoxmed
But what doses OIL have to do with Medicine?

Absolutely the biggest spin-off industries from oil are petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. By 1900, the Rockefeller Family had already expended heavily in both industries. William "Old Bill" Rockefeller, the father of John D, proclaimed himself a physician and began selling bottled raw petroleum on the yokels as a miracle cure for everything under the sun. In selling raw petroleum in a pretty bottle "Old Bill" did nothing new. He merely took a page out of the book of other patent medicine fakers who were then pedaling their wares from the backs of wagons - covered and uncovered.

"Old Bill" called his bottled petroleum "Nujo" (meaning new oil) and was eventually sold as a cure for constipation. (Rx List, The Internet Drug Index.) Today Nujol is an important material used in infrared spectroscopy. It is heavy paraffin oil so it is chemically inert and has a relatively uncomplicated IR spectrum. (Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia)

1,000 six-ounce bottles of finished Nujol could be made from just one $2.00 barrel of raw material. These breath-taking profits make it inevitable that America's largest and most ruthless industrial combine (the Rockefeller Empire) should soon add drug trafficking to its already vast production and sales domain. It wasn't until 1929, however, when the Rockefeller Drug Trust was formed, that the upward curve in their drug profits began to assume the present gigantic proportions of today.

A New face for John D. Rockefeller
After the Court ordered breakup of Standard Oil, the American population saw John D. Rockefeller as the worst type of “Robber Baron” that ever lived. The Rockefeller Family, decided to hire the most talented press agent in the country, Ivy Lee, who got the tough assignment of whitewashing the tycoon's bloodied image.
Lee used the newly organized Rockefeller Foundation for promotional purposes by donating large sums of money - none less than a million - to well-known colleges, hospitals, churches and benevolent organizations. The Rockefeller Foundation made headlines all over the world, for in the days of the gold standard and the five-cent cigar, a million dollars was always news. The public soon forgot, or forgave, for the dazzling display of Rockefellerian generosity and philanthropy.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Am ... ssociation
The Rockefeller Foundation was originally set up in 1904 as the General Education Fund. The RF was later formed in 1910 and issued a charter on May 14, 1913 with the help of Rockefeller millions. Subsequently, the foundation placed it's own "nominees" in federal health agencies and set the stage for the "reeducation" of the public. A compilation of magazine advertising reveals that as far back as 1948, larger American drug companies spent a total sum of $1,104,224,374 for advertising. Of this sum, Rockefeller-Morgan interests (which went entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's death) controlled about 80%. [4]


See also pharmaceutical industry.
Eliminating competitors to drug based paradigm
In his 1994 book, The Assault on Medical Freedom, author P. Joseph Lisa gained access to secret files in the AMA's Chicago Department of investigation under the guise of collecting information to expose "mental health quackery." In the process, he uncovered hundreds of AMA photocopies of memos, minutes and other documents. In a subsequent ten year investigation, he found little evidence of "quackery" and much evidence of an organized propaganda campaign to discredit alternative medicine and foreign drugs. The birth of the AMA in 1847 launched an organized push for a "totalitarian medical pharmaceutical police state". Funded by the drug industry, a single, medical monopoly was established using the insurance industry, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRC), the U.S. Postal Service and other state and federal agencies. From the onset, the AMA is characterized as a greed motivated trade union, eliminating competitors to its own financial and political interests. Funded by the Carnegie Foundation, Abraham Flexner was ostensibly empowered to investigate the quality of medical education in all 161 medical schools that existed in 1910. In league with Rockefeller billions, Flexner helped destroy the credibility and funding sources for nearly all schools using non-drug based medicine. 161 medical schools dwindled down to 81 by 1919 and medical graduates declined from 5,747 to 2,658. "Overcrowding" of the profession became the public AMA theme for the "opportunities of those already in the profession to acquire a livelihood."[5]


http://www.think-aboutit.com/conspiracy ... EMPIRE.htm
"The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation", reported Bealle, "itemizes the gifts it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years, and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars. These colleges, of course, teach their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught. Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd colleges in the United States that don' t use therapies based on drugs.



FB wrote...
What does the Rockefeller consensus want to do to us?


It wants to insure that the largest number of people possible remain as clients of that system.
FB wrote...
What does it want us to do, think, feel?


It wants us to do nothing, to think that they are the ‘good’ guys and to feel great anxiety about the whole world falling apart if were to be left without their ‘assistance’.

FB wrote...
What does it want to prevent us from doing, thinking, feeling?


It wants to inhibit people from developing their own inherent potentials that could displace our vertical authority distribution system with a horizontal authority distribution system. It wants to prevent any thinking that cannot be monetized through a corporate structure. It wants to mitigate active emotions and accentuate passive emotions.

FB wrote...
Be thorough, thank you. Provide links. I mean, if we're gonna talk about it in this thread, then let's have it completely talked about, not just ominously alluded to. Truly. Please. Thank you.



Thank you FourthBase
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby FourthBase » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:47 pm

Great bump!

I'm conflicted. I can conceive of a universe where Rockefeller was just, maybe, half as evil as he was, and in a world like that, he and his scions could have been a huge, qualitative and quantitative net positive for the world. Hell, the sons might've still been, anyway, if measured apart from the father's deeds? If you tabulated a ledger, like an accountant, and attributed a fair moral weight to each of the systemic and individual goods and evils Rockefeller & Sons are responsible for, how far below the morally-neutral midpoint would they sink? Have they just done enough good to use as co-opting fodder, for surface consumption by the public? (And hence, on a moral axis, are barely elevated from the floor of Evil.) Or was the original R-O-C actually, almost-pathologically obsessed with making as much money as possible in order to give as much of it as possible away, a bizarre ethic born from religious zeal, metastasized into the cancerous Octopus? How much would the Rockefellers have to do to break even, morally? Or should I put my tinfoil cynical thinking cap on because seeing the Rockefellers for even one minute as wayward do-gooders and tragic moral failures is establishment-funded PBS hagiographic ballwashing, because they're just simply straight-up malevolent? How complex/simple is it?
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:01 am

Great bump!


Apparently not FB. It seems that with enough money, one can indeed buy a cultural blind spot. Let’s think, for a minute about magnitude of influence and impact. I dare say William Pelly had and has a minute impact on culture compared to foundations or even the Rockefeller Foundation on its own. Naturally the element that has more impact will be more complicated and difficult to deal with. That impactful element is the one shaping our psyches, and it’s shaping them in its image.

William Pelly never had any influence on our medical model, Rockefeller did. Thanks Allopathic model. William Pelly never had any influence on our educational model, Rockefeller did. Thanks Prussian model. Willian Pelly never had any influence on our agricultural model. Rockefeller did. Thanks Green Revolution.

William Pelly never fattened his bank account while bankrolling a system of symptomology, rote training, and chemical management of agriculture.

The dominant narrative has bought itself a blind spot by pumping the dichotomy to keep people addicted to the simple explanations of an either/or world.

The resistance is understandable. Who after all wants to really examine the level of conditioning involved in what any individual personality takes to be ‘a proper approach to reality’?

What folk refuse to talk about is usually the stuff that really matters.

Catch-22 I guess.

How complex/simple is it?


I personally do not think in terms of people being good or bad. They do bad things, they do good things, possibly to do good but more probably as a way to run cover for the bad they do.

More relevant to my interests is how the influence of Edward Bernays and his ilk can be countered and broken.

It’s a work in progress and unfortunately the emotional investments of many folk provide a legion of rationales to focus on the (relatively) trivial in preference to directing attention toward the substantial drivers of this situation.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby FourthBase » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:40 am

Sounder » 27 Jan 2014 07:01 wrote:
Great bump!


Apparently not FB. It seems that with enough money, one can indeed buy a cultural blind spot. Let’s think, for a minute about magnitude of influence and impact. I dare say William Pelly had and has a minute impact on culture compared to foundations or even the Rockefeller Foundation on its own. Naturally the element that has more impact will be more complicated and difficult to deal with. That impactful element is the one shaping our psyches, and it’s shaping them in its image.

William Pelly never had any influence on our medical model, Rockefeller did. Thanks Allopathic model. William Pelly never had any influence on our educational model, Rockefeller did. Thanks Prussian model. Willian Pelly never had any influence on our agricultural model. Rockefeller did. Thanks Green Revolution.

William Pelly never fattened his bank account while bankrolling a system of symptomology, rote training, and chemical management of agriculture.

The dominant narrative has bought itself a blind spot by pumping the dichotomy to keep people addicted to the simple explanations of an either/or world.

The resistance is understandable. Who after all wants to really examine the level of conditioning involved in what any individual personality takes to be ‘a proper approach to reality’?

What folk refuse to talk about is usually the stuff that really matters.

Catch-22 I guess.

How complex/simple is it?


I personally do not think in terms of people being good or bad. They do bad things, they do good things, possibly to do good but more probably as a way to run cover for the bad they do.

More relevant to my interests is how the influence of Edward Bernays and his ilk can be countered and broken.

It’s a work in progress and unfortunately the emotional investments of many folk provide a legion of rationales to focus on the (relatively) trivial in preference to directing attention toward the substantial drivers of this situation.


I realized the other night, listening to Sochi residents praise Stalin for doing a lot of good things, too, that when a world-domination-seeking entity controls everything about an economy or a country, it will almost necessarily -- unless it is run by fools or maniacs -- be responsible for whatever amount of happy/good shit it decides to let happen or manufacture, only for the sake of achieving and maintaining a maximum of control and co-dependency. You name the entity, the autocrat, the oligarch, the puppet, the tycoon, the corporation...that's probably going to be the case. Stalin, Mussolini, Bush, Obama, Rockefeller, Walmart, Mao, et. al. Kind of like the hostage-taker who spoils you with gestures of kindness: Don't get grateful, you're still a hostage.

But, I do still wonder how much of old man Rockefeller's initial drive was based in a pathological but genuine misinterpretation of a Protestant charity and work ethic. I think: A lot. And then he became a monster. That's my take, so far.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:23 pm

FB wrote....
I realized the other night, listening to Sochi residents praise Stalin for doing a lot of good things, too, that when a world-domination-seeking entity controls everything about an economy or a country, it will almost necessarily -- unless it is run by fools or maniacs -- be responsible for whatever amount of happy/good shit it decides to let happen or manufacture, only for the sake of achieving and maintaining a maximum of control and co-dependency. You name the entity, the autocrat, the oligarch, the puppet, the tycoon, the corporation...that's probably going to be the case. Stalin, Mussolini, Bush, Obama, Rockefeller, Walmart, Mao, et. al. Kind of like the hostage-taker who spoils you with gestures of kindness: Don't get grateful, you're still a hostage.


Yes that's what I'm talking about, these entities have their 'good' side as well as the 'bad'.

My follow on suggestion then is that the wider world has a role and responsibility to 'effect' the entity so as to bring out more of its good side.

The polarity is within the category, rather than between the categories, as is generally taken to be the case.


But, I do still wonder how much of old man Rockefeller's initial drive was based in a pathological but genuine misinterpretation of a Protestant charity and work ethic. I think: A lot. And then he became a monster. That's my take, so far.


This brings to mind a recent exchange with my wife. Given her role and personality, she was wondering what another work mate meant when she wrote;' that means a lot coming from you'. I suggested that its always good to think the best, -right up until the time reality informs you otherwise. We laughed because (we agreed) that's her basic strategy toward life anyway.

I try to follow her lead but given that she is a totally normative thinker, reality doesn't inform her in the same way it informs me.

Fact is Davids daddy sold oil as an health elixir, producing an incredible return on investment. I think this was David's conditioning and he got hooked on dreams of a high return generated by hitting the sweet spot of societies gullibility.

Think of the force multiplier potentials here. (Fuck, now I sound like Rumsfeld again)
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:37 pm

There is another aspect here, which is the research into the psych effects of that amount of money and power.

Isolation and cocooning seem to go with the territory, along with behaviour that can seem very callous from the outside, but from the inside is just a habit. A friend who hung around with movie industry people said a $500 lunch with a star friend could be greeted with a 'Oh I'll get the next one' -leaving the non-star eating ramen noodles for several weeks :)
Somehow I feel much less judgement of a person born into that milleau versus someone like the CEO of Fortress Investments who is a billionaire... on the back of contract animal testing.

Sounder, have you ever seen the absolutely bizarre Benjamin Fulford interview with David Rockefeller? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opX5s4Zp3qk
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:59 pm

Sounder » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:01 am wrote:
Great bump!


Apparently not FB. It seems that with enough money, one can indeed buy a cultural blind spot. Let’s think, for a minute about magnitude of influence and impact. I dare say William Pelly had and has a minute impact on culture compared to foundations or even the Rockefeller Foundation on its own. Naturally the element that has more impact will be more complicated and difficult to deal with. That impactful element is the one shaping our psyches, and it’s shaping them in its image.

William Pelly never had any influence on our medical model, Rockefeller did. Thanks Allopathic model. William Pelly never had any influence on our educational model, Rockefeller did. Thanks Prussian model. Willian Pelly never had any influence on our agricultural model. Rockefeller did. Thanks Green Revolution.

William Pelly never fattened his bank account while bankrolling a system of symptomology, rote training, and chemical management of agriculture.

The dominant narrative has bought itself a blind spot by pumping the dichotomy to keep people addicted to the simple explanations of an either/or world.

The resistance is understandable. Who after all wants to really examine the level of conditioning involved in what any individual personality takes to be ‘a proper approach to reality’?

What folk refuse to talk about is usually the stuff that really matters.

Catch-22 I guess.

How complex/simple is it?


I personally do not think in terms of people being good or bad. They do bad things, they do good things, possibly to do good but more probably as a way to run cover for the bad they do.

More relevant to my interests is how the influence of Edward Bernays and his ilk can be countered and broken.

It’s a work in progress and unfortunately the emotional investments of many folk provide a legion of rationales to focus on the (relatively) trivial in preference to directing attention toward the substantial drivers of this situation.

Sounder, you've introduced William Pelly into the conversation without explaining whom he is or was. Googling him turned up nothing seeming relevant. William Pelley, perhaps? This guy?
Image

I can't place the name... A little help for the ignorant, if you please.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests