rigorousintuition.ca

David Rockefeller is dead at 101. Break open the champagne!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-2 ... n-dies-101

Only the good die young.

RocketMan » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:01 am wrote:Only the good die young.

The steady supply of virgins blood, and harvested organs that kept him going, might conflict with some folks idea of right and wrong

he went through 8 hearts.

Now if only Kissinger could grace us with his absence.

Peachtree Pam » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:32 am wrote:David Rockefeller is dead at 101. Break open the champagne!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-2 ... n-dies-101

Why does it make you happy?

@ Freitag
Here are two quotes that show his dedication to destroying national sovereignty and his lack of allegiance to the interests of the United States or any other country. His goal was always to consolidate power in the hands of a few - " the Club" as George Carlin called it.

"Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] 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 "
| David Rockefeller |



" 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 subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much 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 to Trilateral Commission in 1991 |

Peachtree Pam wrote:" 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 subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much 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 to Trilateral Commission in 1991 |

I could never find a real source for that second quote; do you know of one?

It seems a little too "on the nose" to be genuine; that, and the fact that it can't be sourced (as far as I know), makes it suspicious to me..

The second quote reads like a fabrication on its face and is obviously someone's fantasy script. According to Wikiquote:

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.”

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Davi ... Bilderberg

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!

.

Given Chuck Berry's death on Saturday and Jimmy Breslin's on Sunday, I thought the demise of notables might now occur alphabetically and George H.W. could be next. But..........


George H.W. Bush “Deeply Saddened” By Billionaire David Rockefeller’s Death

March 20, 2017 2:12 PM

"Former President George H.W. Bush says Rockefeller’s connections and “keen aptitude for issues” made him a valuable adviser to presidents of both parties.

Bush says in a statement that he and his wife, Barbara, are “deeply saddened” by the death of their “wonderful friend.” He calls Rockefeller one of the “brightest Points of Light.”'

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/03/20/geor ... ers-death/

He calls Rockefeller one of the “brightest Points of Light.”'

That crafty fucker.

OH NO HE DIDN'T!



Now if we could only know whether he was gently stroking his All-Seeing Eye mantelpiece decoration as he said that...

I don't take pleasure in the deaths of others, wealthy globalists or otherwise. I ask not for whom the bell tolls. Maybe he was a bad guy, I dunno. But we lost a piece of history and it makes me sad. Prior to reading about this I had no idea there were people from the Robber Baron age still living. What a fascinating life he must have led. I recently read a biography of John D. Rockefeller and am endlessly intrigued by that historical era.

And as a contrarian, I don't hate rich people because I feel like it's what I'm "supposed" to do.

Elvis » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:17 am wrote:It seems a little too "on the nose" to be genuine; that, and the fact that it can't be sourced (as far as I know), makes it suspicious to me..

Indeed.

Freitag » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:08 am wrote:I don't take pleasure in the deaths of others, wealthy globalists or otherwise. I ask not for whom the bell tolls. Maybe he was a bad guy, I dunno. But we lost a piece of history and it makes me sad. Prior to reading about this I had no idea there were people from the Robber Baron age still living. What a fascinating life he must have led. I recently read a biography of John D. Rockefeller and am endlessly intrigued by that historical era.

And as a contrarian, I don't hate rich people because I feel like it's what I'm "supposed" to do.

Elvis » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:17 am wrote:It seems a little too "on the nose" to be genuine; that, and the fact that it can't be sourced (as far as I know), makes it suspicious to me..

Indeed.

If that is what a "contrarian" is, it's stupid. "Being against things" is not a philosophy or an ethos.

Also, I'm sure that many rich people agree with your position on what you're supposed to do or not.

Still, it was easier to keep track of David, even being as private as he was. Now we have numerous of "The Cousins" to contend with.

Freitag, you should not be sad, you should rejoice.

RocketMan » Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:11 pm wrote: "Being against things" is not a philosophy or an ethos.

Not sure that's technically correct. There are the positive and negative concepts of Liberty. The freedom to do things, vs the freedom from things. Negative Liberty isn't for anything, only against things.

And Groucho sings, "whatever it is, I'm against it." So there's a Marxist precedent.

The Fremen Fedaykin have a battle-cry, "Ya Hya Chouhada," usually translated as “Long live the fighters!” But "Chouhada" (fighters) is difficult, it means not just fighters, but fighters against injustice. There is a distinction in this word that specifies the fighters are not struggling for anything, but are consecrated against a specific thing — that alone.

"Long live" is not quite accurate, either. The "ya" (now) is augmented by the "hya" form (the ever-extended now). So really, "now in the timeless forever, the fighters against."

Maybe just splitting hairs. I have no opinion on Rockefeller's death. Just another reminder for me, that I find obituaries to be a very strange tradition of the hairless apes. When I see the obituaries in the paper, I always think that, and this is no different. John Smith the carpenter, Judy Jones the nurse, David Rockefeller the banker. Enjoyed a hobby, left behind some kids, maybe a spouse. Loved by all that knew them.

All the same now. The obituary page is the great equalizer. I don't want one. Although it won't be up to me, will it.