Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

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

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:42 pm

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.


An excellent book on the evolution and failure of charity (and social welfare programs) nominated for a Pulitzer is "The Tyranny of Kindness" by Theresa Funicello.

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.


Perhaps David's father did, but at that time before regulation, nearly everything was being sold as being beneficial. Perhaps as a liniment. But that seems illogical. It was John D. Sr.s father who was the real swindler and the rural patent medicine salesman, David's Great Grandfather.

And while John D. Sr. worked his ass off, he was scrupulously ruthless and shrewd as a businessman. Perhaps along with his earlier mercantile acquisitions in his pre-oil days he sold patent medicines, too, but selling patent medicines was certainly not his mainstay business.

Bad Billy, John D's father, the quack medicine salesman, won the deed to the richest silver mine, according to a book I read long ago that had been given to me by its author. I'm not sure of its name, as I loaned it out and never saw its return, but it had "Rockefeller, Number One Communist."

Upon seeing this and being then naive, I told him "That just doesn't seem right, calling Rockefeller a Communist." Today I kinda see his point. Welfare for the rich.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby Sounder » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:32 pm

Jesus H. Christ Searcher08, do we really need to bring Ben into our coffee klatch? You do know that he is (like) the poster child for not-rigorous, right? Well if we could at least leave those ‘other two’ popular commentators out of this thread, that will be good enough for me.

Truth be told Searcher08, I have never paid attention to Ben because he is seen as a nut and sometimes perception washes out reality. Upon looking I see a person that may be a bit nutty but at least he seems carry some charming qualities and to essentially be an optimist.

Hopefully we can share some sensibilities without sharing (what are potentially) delusions.

Iamwhomiam, William Pelly is a Nazi organizer and devotee that is the subject of a near current American Dream thread. Hope that helps.


Yes Iamwhomiam, I left the sloppy mistake in there cause I didn't feel moved to correct it after I posted. Maybe it's an unconscious effort to encourage comment. Who knows.
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 Iamwhomiam » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:00 pm

I meant no offense, Sounder.

Thanks for the clue as to where I might find more on Pelly. Seems to me he could be the same fellow as Pelley, whose wanted poster I pasted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dudley_Pelley

I guess I'll need to leave this thread to learn more about it. Thanks for being all-inclusive.

One of ADs threads is 40 pages and another is 6. Another is 115 pages. A little help beyond the thread initiator's name would be nice, and maybe better, but not much, would be the thread title.

Kindest of all would be a link to where this man's name appears.
It wouldn't kill you, you know. Being kind. And helpful.

But if that's your way of telling me to get lost, (your preamble), just say it, rather than beat about the bush.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby Sounder » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

But if that's your way of telling me to get lost, (your preamble), just say it, rather than beat about the bush.


It is not my style to beat around the bush, or to hold a grudge.

Here is the link; viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37669
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 Iamwhomiam » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:02 pm

I heartily thank you, Sounder, for your kindness. It was indeed the William Dudley Pelley I referenced in the wanted poster. "Pelly" wasn't bringing me anything useful.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:50 am

I dont know if this link is in the right place here, yet I thought I'd drop a link to the video in here because it heartily involves the "Global warming" issue as does the Rockerfeller foundation, not to mention the oft repeated name of another RI favourite by way of Maurice Strong, who was also in on all of this from the begginning apparently.

"The great global warming debate" from Mark Windows and TPV. I should inform anyone taking the time to watch this that the body language of the man talking about trees can be somewhat dsruptive to what was to me at least some extremely useful information, so you have been warned !

This is a link to the video, you have to look for it from there. It is still on the front page at the time of posting the link ( scroll to the "windows on the world" section, where the said "great global warming debate" is amidst those available)

http://www.youtube.com/theTPVchannel

Im leaning ever increasingly towards the idea that the multibillion dollar industry that climate change has become, is quite patently something of a collossal fraud feisted upon each and every last one of us.

Furthermore whilst the following idea is maybe in some peoples eyes a bit of a long shot, it appears perfectly feasible to me. Namely the idea that if you already know based upon data throughout previous recorded history where the temperature patterns are likely to be heading over the next quarter of a century, you can tell people without the benefit of this data that we're entering "new territory". Back that up with a body that repeatedly tells us any number of interpretational half truths, ( IPCC), who insist that all of their studies are peer reviewed, when about one third of it apparently is nothing of the sort, and youre in business. Especially if youre designated experts have been told how to present the info.......or else go find another job.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

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

Postby Searcher08 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:25 am

Sounder » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:32 pm wrote:Jesus H. Christ Searcher08, do we really need to bring Ben into our coffee klatch? You do know that he is (like) the poster child for not-rigorous, right? Well if we could at least leave those ‘other two’ popular commentators out of this thread, that will be good enough for me.

Truth be told Searcher08, I have never paid attention to Ben because he is seen as a nut and sometimes perception washes out reality. Upon looking I see a person that may be a bit nutty but at least he seems carry some charming qualities and to essentially be an optimist.

Hopefully we can share some sensibilities without sharing (what are potentially) delusions.


Jesus (H. Christ) says yes, we do!
The reason why I think he is important to consider, is the simple fact of one of the world's most powerful men (as judged by his connections, networks and influence) , who has little time left given his very advanced age, sits down for an interview with a person whose reality tunnel is probably only shared by the likes of Kerry Cassidy. I found it truly off the scale Fortean / R.I. stuff - and my instinct is something really interesting (not quite sure what) lies inside how that happened.
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 semper occultus » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:41 am

Iamwhomiam » 24 Feb 2014 20:42 wrote:Bad Billy, John D's father, the quack medicine salesman, won the deed to the richest silver mine, according to a book I read long ago that had been given to me by its author. I'm not sure of its name, as I loaned it out and never saw its return, but it had "Rockefeller, Number One Communist."


...sounds abit like this one....

Image
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby Rory » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:53 am

slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:50 am wrote:I dont know if this link is in the right place here, yet I thought I'd drop a link to the video in here because it heartily involves the "Global warming" issue as does the Rockerfeller foundation, not to mention the oft repeated name of another RI favourite by way of Maurice Strong, who was also in on all of this from the begginning apparently.

"The great global warming debate" from Mark Windows and TPV. I should inform anyone taking the time to watch this that the body language of the man talking about trees can be somewhat dsruptive to what was to me at least some extremely useful information, so you have been warned !

This is a link to the video, you have to look for it from there. It is still on the front page at the time of posting the link ( scroll to the "windows on the world" section, where the said "great global warming debate" is amidst those available)

http://www.youtube.com/theTPVchannel

Im leaning ever increasingly towards the idea that the multibillion dollar industry that climate change has become, is quite patently something of a collossal fraud feisted upon each and every last one of us. Based on what?

Furthermore whilst the following idea is maybe in some peoples eyes a bit of a long shot, it appears perfectly feasible to me. Namely the idea that if you already know based upon data throughout previous recorded history where the temperature patterns are likely to be heading over the next quarter of a century, you can tell people without the benefit of this data that we're entering "new territory". Back that up with a body that repeatedly tells us any number of interpretational half truths, ( IPCC), who insist that all of their studies are peer reviewed, when about one third of it apparently is nothing of the sort, and youre in business. Especially if youre designated experts have been told how to present the info.......or else go find another job.


multibillion dollar industry that climate change has become Got any figures to back that up?

is quite patently something of a collossal fraud feisted upon each and every last one of us. Based on what?

( IPCC), who insist that all of their studies are peer reviewed, when about one third of it apparently is nothing of the sort,
Again, Based on what?
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:40 am

Rory » 26 Feb 2014 13:53 wrote:
slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:50 am wrote:I dont know if this link is in the right place here, yet I thought I'd drop a link to the video in here because it heartily involves the "Global warming" issue as does the Rockerfeller foundation, not to mention the oft repeated name of another RI favourite by way of Maurice Strong, who was also in on all of this from the begginning apparently.

"The great global warming debate" from Mark Windows and TPV. I should inform anyone taking the time to watch this that the body language of the man talking about trees can be somewhat dsruptive to what was to me at least some extremely useful information, so you have been warned !

This is a link to the video, you have to look for it from there. It is still on the front page at the time of posting the link ( scroll to the "windows on the world" section, where the said "great global warming debate" is amidst those available)

http://www.youtube.com/theTPVchannel

Im leaning ever increasingly towards the idea that the multibillion dollar industry that climate change has become, is quite patently something of a collossal fraud feisted upon each and every last one of us. Based on what?

Furthermore whilst the following idea is maybe in some peoples eyes a bit of a long shot, it appears perfectly feasible to me. Namely the idea that if you already know based upon data throughout previous recorded history where the temperature patterns are likely to be heading over the next quarter of a century, you can tell people without the benefit of this data that we're entering "new territory". Back that up with a body that repeatedly tells us any number of interpretational half truths, ( IPCC), who insist that all of their studies are peer reviewed, when about one third of it apparently is nothing of the sort, and youre in business. Especially if youre designated experts have been told how to present the info.......or else go find another job.


multibillion dollar industry that climate change has become Got any figures to back that up?

is quite patently something of a collossal fraud feisted upon each and every last one of us. Based on what?

( IPCC), who insist that all of their studies are peer reviewed, when about one third of it apparently is nothing of the sort,
Again, Based on what?


All based on the video. You need to watch that. I mean the amount of CO2 in the air has gone up by how much over the past 200 years as a percentage of the overall air ?

And how much have temperatures risen in the last 17 years and 5 months? And how if at all is this consistent with increased carbon emissions chart forecasts?

What in the IPPCs opinion has the latest cycle of weather got to do with carbon emission?

And finally just to reiterate, so you know were on the same page irrespective of what we feel the facts or otherwise are about climate change. Plundering and raping the earth is still a gross crime which needs to be stopped sooner rather than later.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

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

Postby Rory » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:10 am

All based on the video. You need to watch that. I mean the amount of CO2 in the air has gone up by how much over the past 200 years as a percentage of the overall air ?

And how much have temperatures risen in the last 17 years and 5 months? And how if at all is this consistent with increased carbon emissions chart forecasts?

What in the IPPCs opinion has the latest cycle of weather got to do with carbon emission?

And finally just to reiterate, so you know were on the same page irrespective of what we feel the facts or otherwise are about climate change. Plundering and raping the earth is still a gross crime which needs to be stopped sooner rather than later.



What are the video's sources for these statements of fact? Where are they getting their info from - did they just say things and you stated them, or did they quote a primary source?
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby FourthBase » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:10 pm

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


That's a deceptively radical concept, for this milieu. You're basically saying, correct me if I'm wrong: "When a tumorous mega-entity has captured your society, the answer is not destroying the entity, as that will kill the host -- the answer is to...collaborate." Yes? Is that not your suggestion, in a nutshell? How else does one bring out the good side? By mercilessly identifying the entity's sins, yes, of course, and demanding remedies. But what more? How is one supposed to kill off the Rockefellerness of an economy which is inextricably Rockefeller-based, without killing the whole damn economy, or at the very least destroying millions of lives "temporarily" in whatever Just Transition is envisioned by revolutionaries. All that would be wasted energy, anyway. No need to decommission entire institutions, complexes. Just repurpose them. Shit, you might be persuasive enough to alter some robber baron's weltanschauung, and remove the meed for agitation altogether. If not the baron, then an heir. No subterfuge, just earnest public discourse, argument. Imagine that. Imagine having the ear of a Rockefeller. Sounder, if you were sought out by the Rockefellers to consult them on what to do next, how to continue surviving as an entity (because if you advise suicide, people usually don't listen) while being as ethical as possible. You'll probably have to pretend you're talking to an unknown Rockefeller heir of recent birth, none of the ones already firmly suspected of being remorseless fiends or frauds. A college-aged Rockefeller n00b, full of ideals and enthusiasm, in line for the family throne, asks you, Sounder, for counsel. And you tell him, or her...
“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 slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:48 pm

Rory » 26 Feb 2014 15:10 wrote:
All based on the video. You need to watch that. I mean the amount of CO2 in the air has gone up by how much over the past 200 years as a percentage of the overall air ?

And how much have temperatures risen in the last 17 years and 5 months? And how if at all is this consistent with increased carbon emissions chart forecasts?

What in the IPPCs opinion has the latest cycle of weather got to do with carbon emission?

And finally just to reiterate, so you know were on the same page irrespective of what we feel the facts or otherwise are about climate change. Plundering and raping the earth is still a gross crime which needs to be stopped sooner rather than later.



What are the video's sources for these statements of fact? Where are they getting their info from - did they just say things and you stated them, or did they quote a primary source?


You really need to watch the video and make your own mind up where I got my facts from.
Although there are actually more questions than facts.
Which I hoped you might be able to help me with.

As I stated earlier, I also posted this link because of the mention of a certain Maurice Strong, who is an old time fave around these parts.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

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

Postby Rory » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:09 pm

You really need to watch the video and make your own mind up where I got my facts from.
Although there are actually more questions than facts.
Which I hoped you might be able to help me with.


I won't get the chance to see the video for a while. Do they quote anyone regarding the source of their data, or do they mention any studies, research or findings that collate or analyze this?

If they have proof CAGW is a hoax then I'd love to read about it if you have a text link - otherwise Iyou'll have to wait for me to see the vid.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:35 pm

I dont think they have actually proved anything other than perhaps the fact that a coterie of very rich people have managed to create a multiblillion dollar industry through their various "governmental advisors" ,paid-for politicians, along with taxpayer funded quangos, committees and unelected officials who's "scientific commitee" are doing their best to perpetuate what increasingly seems to me to be a big fucking myth, to put it politely.

I wonder where the share portfolios of this extremely small coterrie of incredibly rich people are weighted?

Go figure.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests