Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

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

Postby Rory » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:04 pm

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.

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.


Holy fucking shit - I can't believe I actually watched that piece of shit. I'm tempted to use further, more depraved scatological descriptive language - that was one of the most biased and one sided horror shows of disinformation (and outright lies) I have ever experienced. Lord Monckton is one of their key guests!

You talked this shite up like it was informative and challenged the scientific status quo - it does nothing of the sort.

By the way, if you think the Climate Change Hoaxers are from the establishment, then who the fuck do you think Lord Monckton belongs to? Jesus, i feel dirty - I gave you the benefit of the doubt, slimmouse. You keep posting steaming piles of excrement, claiming that the are legit sources of truth and information, and then claiming you didn't realize that they were steaming piles of shite all along? 'Opps! My bad - I didn't know that Lord Monckton (3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) was from a hereditary family of Tory establishment insiders, who had been the Sunday Torygraph editor. Oh, and he's a spastic, retarded, birther, just for good measure. The man is a paid shill - one of the most persistent and mendacious. That they put him on the show at all means that they weren't interested in disseminating facts or truth.

What the fuck, dude? That was even more a horrific contribution than the Lyndon LaRouche sourced fuckwit you posted in the other thread. I'm starting to think that you are just deliberately posting the most biased and easy to discredit bullshit you can find.

This is not cool - do some basic fucking research before you post further execrable garbage
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 DrEvil » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:38 pm

slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:54 pm wrote:I dont know how much people are actually currently paying daily by way of some kind of carbon tax or other, but judging by energy price hikes across the board of late, Im thinking its all getting very expensive for the poorer sections of soceity, despite the fact that they are unquestionably the lowest consumers.

So heres the deal.

Governments are raising billions in taxation. What are they spending it on, (on top of our bill for bailing out the big guys.)


Suppressing free energy devices. Duh. :)

But seriously (warning - lizard website): http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

It's really really really really easy to look this stuff up. It took me five seconds to find that link by googling "US budget".

Sorry for intruding with facts and numbers and stuff. Carry on.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby slimmouse » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:00 am

@ Rory. You dont like their argument? fair enough. How about my questions then?

Heres a quick reminder. In your own time.

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?


Im pretty sure you know the answers. I'd just like you to state them for the rrecord.

And heres a bonus question. When did the somerset levels last flood as bad as this?


@ Doc Evil. I know where the Govnt is spending our money. Dont even need much of a breakdown. I wonder where the share portfolios of the Rockerfellers and the Strongs of this world are weighted?
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 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:46 am

I don't like the argument? Like this is a question of taste? How fucking deluded do you need to be to miss the basic article of good faith, that you don't systematically post lies and disinfo bullshit. Despite being called out on this, time and time again, you continue to do it as if it aint no thing.

How about you do some rudimentary research before you post more excrement from well known shills and liars? Your questions come from the video and were postulated by the shills and liars they hired - how about you question the very basic facts of who they are and whose interests they represent.
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 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:59 am

Rory » 03 Mar 2014 13:46 wrote:I don't like the argument? Like this is a question of taste? How fucking deluded do you need to be to miss the basic article of good faith, that you don't systematically post lies and disinfo bullshit. Despite being called out on this, time and time again, you continue to do it as if it aint no thing.

How about you do some rudimentary research before you post more excrement from well known shills and liars? Your questions come from the video and were postulated by the shills and liars they hired - how about you question the very basic facts of who they are and whose interests they represent.


Im just after a few simple answers. Do you not know them? If so, why all the indignance?

The answers are?

You speak very loudly and condescendinly about my lack of good faith and "BS this and that", and yet no answers. You also mention Lord Monckton. No mention of anyone else? What did the former Aussie climate scientist who was dealing in carbon credits have to say? How about the other dude? 15 years of research not good enough for you?

I would readily agree that the debate was a bit one sided, but thats the trouble in trying to get people to make a balanced argument on TPV.

Most of the "official narrative" people dont appear willing to defend their position. Why might that be do you think?

Finally I hope the questions arent too difficult, because if they are, I find it interesting how youre reccommending that its others who need to do some research. I dont believe you have any intention of answering, but I live in hope.

In your own time.
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 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:15 am

The whole thing was horrifically slanted - there was no one at all taking up a position in favor of, y'know, the 97% of scientists that have researched climate science and found it to be, y'know, not a myth. Liars, shills and credulous fools - the thing was a joke. A very badly delivered one.

I don't think you are acting in good faith - I've asked you questions, multiple times on this board and you ran away until pinned down. The questions you are asking now are verbatim copied from Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Bumfuck the Poor Till They Bleed - and you want them answered in good faith by me?

How about you acknowledge that the whole show was a hamfisted exercise in disinfo and mendacity.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a shred of honesty there and you will do some basic research into the poison pills you keep posting here, telling folk, all wide eyed and innocent, that they are seeds of truth and understanding.

This act of yours is wearing thin
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 Iamwhomiam » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:32 pm

By God man, it is!

The author himself gave me the copy I had in the summer of 1973 and he signed it too, but I can no longer recall if he wrote any more than his name. Maybe he used the term 'Communist' after I questioned him about what I thought contrarily, "Public Enemy Number One." At 24 I was very naive. Now that I'm not as naive, I'd sure like to read it again.

Thank you so much for ending my longtime puzzlement.

I was selling tires in one of 13 chain department stores automotive departments just at a time we merged with Goodyear. Josephson, a striking character, came into the store and asked me to assist him with his purchase. He was a short, rather rotund man in his 70s, wearing a white shirt and a black string tie under his white linen suit jacket and he wore a white stetson covering his white hair. He had a long white goatee, just like Col. Sanders. He was a Danny DeVito-sized copy of the Colonel.

We went outside to his car so I could check his tires and his wife was sitting in the passenger seat. He was driving a 1959 Thunderbird convertible with the top down. Guess what color. White with a red interior. And his wife was well dressed wearing a flowing chiffon head scarf. Together they made a handsome couple. And a fond memory even if faded.

semper occultus » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
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
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6250
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Stealing the jewels

Postby Sounder » Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:25 am

This short clip, in my mind, is tied together with ‘front running’ and how the elite plays the common man for fools as a kind of sport. (minime is right, it’s not done for the money)

Note the end of the clip for an example of how front running is used when Nick calls Aaron an idiot for his opinions on women’s lib. Also Aarons prior observation of Nick’s coldness toward the common man, as when Nick advised Aaron to look out for himself and his family rather than to concern himself with the common man.

All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:51 pm

Happy 100th birthday, David Rockefeller! I'll bet you sleep like a baby - wailing at 3am with your diapers full of shit!

Rockefeller Road: Paved With Good Intentions
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

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

Postby Sounder » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:51 pm

Well done stillrobertpaulsen, you covered the bases well and it's quite readable.

Thanks
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:57 pm

stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:51 pm wrote:Happy 100th birthday, David Rockefeller! I'll bet you sleep like a baby - wailing at 3am with your diapers full of shit!

Rockefeller Road: Paved With Good Intentions


Cheers, stillrobertpaulsen - I had no idea of the connection between them and the growth of the South American 'cattle industry' - I had always thought that was just greedy locals. D'oh!
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 stillrobertpaulsen » Sat Jun 13, 2015 7:54 pm

Sounder » Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:51 pm wrote:Well done stillrobertpaulsen, you covered the bases well and it's quite readable.

Thanks

Searcher08 » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:57 pm wrote:
stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:51 pm wrote:Happy 100th birthday, David Rockefeller! I'll bet you sleep like a baby - wailing at 3am with your diapers full of shit!

Rockefeller Road: Paved With Good Intentions


Cheers, stillrobertpaulsen - I had no idea of the connection between them and the growth of the South American 'cattle industry' - I had always thought that was just greedy locals. D'oh!


Thanks guys, I appreciate the support! There's only one base I can think of that I didn't cover in the post: eugenics. Thy Will Be Done goes into some detail on how that particular subject dovetailed with their focus on Latin America. But I left it out as that was something primarily focused on by John Jr. and John III and that kind of got away from my focus on David and Nelson.

From page 475 of Thy Will Be Done:

It was left to Nelson's and David's older brother, the staid and serious John 3rd, to work out the Alliance's new strategy for the peasants of the Andes and Brazil's Northeast. In February 1965, John, as head of the Agricultural Development Council and the Population Council, gave the opening address to the Conference on Subsistence and Peasant Economies in Honolulu. He made no bones about what was at stake: the political status quo.

"If we cannot control population growth," he told the audience, "life as we know it, or - more important - life as we want it to be, shall surely, slowly waste away." John had taken up the mantle of his father.

Junior had been influenced by eugenicists like Frederick Osborn, Henry Fairchild, and Warren Thompson, who, despite their conscious disdain for racism, still subscribed to Malthusian arguments about population growth causing poverty, with a curious focus on populations who were poor or in the Third World. That such arguments did not seem to apply to men like Junior, who had six children, never bothered John 3rd (who had four children), or Nelson (who had seven) or Laurance (who had four) or David (who had six).

What bothered the Rockefellers were the dangers created by social unrest and the fact that the world's majority seemed to be turning to native communists or nationalist leaders in their impatience with starvation. In the 1950s, as Nelson's IBEC expanded its investments in Teodoro Moscoso's Operation Bootstrap industrialization program in Puerto Rico, John's Population Council was actively encouraging sterilization as a means of birth control. By 1965, about 35% of Puerto Rico's women of childbearing age had been sterilized.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

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

Postby Sounder » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:06 pm

"Thy Will Be Done", The Conquest of the Amazon:
by Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett
Harper Collins, 1995. 960 pages
reviewed by Carmelo Ruiz

Carmelo Ruiz is a Puerto Rican journalist and research associate at the institute for Social Ecology, email ise@ igc.apc.org at Goddard College, Vermont. Connect: ernail: carrneloruiz@hotmailcom

Upon a superficial examination, one would tend to think that the book will appeal to the Bible-thumping, right-wing populists of the John Birch fringe who despise the Rockefellers. This band of the American political spectrum, which has been known to publicize bizarre allegations of a Rockefeller--orchestrated plot to create a socialist world government, will be baffled and perplexed by one of Thy Will be Done's chief conclusions: that they've been had. According to Colby and Dennett, far from being a threat to the Machiavellian power of the Rockefellers, the Christian fundamentalists were extremely useful in furthering the global designs of the heirs of the Standard Oil fortune.

On the other hand, left-leaning liberals will find the book's conclusions even harder to swallow, since the Rockefeller philanthropies (which include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund) are among the main funding sources of liberal political activism in the US, including civil liberties, feminism and the environmental movement. Beneficiaries of Rockefeller charitable giving in recent years have included groups like Essential Information, the ACLU, the Ms. Foundation, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Environmental Action, the Student Environmental Action Coalition, the Center for Responsive Politics, the NAACP who are much more likely to say, "Wait, you're being a little unbalanced. Sure, they've done terrible things in the past, but they're funding some really terrific stuff nowadays." As much as one may try to rationalize the embarrassing predicament of taking money from the ultra-rich to finance social change, the question remains: What are the prospects for an American progressive agenda when it is heavily dependent on funding from a philanthropic system that owes its fortune to commercial activities that destroy ecosystems worldwide, erode biological diversity and create a holocaust for indigenous peoples?


I know, like stoopid question, right?

There are possible parallels to be seen between, Anti-fas / globalism and JBL / globalism. In the JBL case the xenophobia of a section of society was cultivated, and was then encouraged and heavily funded to ‘go south’ as missionaries to ‘convert’ the natives. The end result was the mapping and consequent exploitation of native folk, worth billions to the SIL sponsors, and sending large numbers of folk north to try to escape the carnage of their brand spanking new rationalization schemes.

In that case ‘conservatives’ got punked by their favorite nemesis, and the parallel might be seen in how the pretenses of folk are used as the levers by which they are deceived.

Yep, Jack guessed it, I was raised in a country school, that’s why I’m so stupid.

1913
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."
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby backtoiam » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:24 pm

There are possible parallels to be seen between, Anti-fas / globalism and JBL / globalism. In the JBL case the xenophobia of a section of society was cultivated, and was then encouraged and heavily funded to ‘go south’ as missionaries to ‘convert’ the natives. The end result was the mapping and consequent exploitation of native folk, worth billions to the SIL sponsors, and sending large numbers of folk north to try to escape the carnage of their brand spanking new rationalization schemes.


Just wait until I post a list of the "military contractors" involved in this "migrant crisis." Benevolent aid orgainizations waiting, with open arms, waiting to accept the "migrants" to work for less than anybody could survive on and have a real life. I am holding off of that for now. But at the appropriate time, I will unleashe it. Behold and be and be amazed.....
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby Grizzly » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:22 am

I never knew or it never occurred to me, how Rockefeller got his wealth.

If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], SonicG and 10 guests