Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Farganne

    Farganne New Member

    From 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 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
    David Rockefeller

    “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we 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

    Emphasis mine.

    Have fun.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The first one is of dubious origin, supposedly something he said in 1991, but not written down, showing up only in conspiracy literature in 1993. I suspect it is at best a slanted paraphrasing, and at worst an outright fabrication.

    The second is real, from his 2002 memoirs, I think here his meaning is that he is trying to "build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will", and he freely admits to that. But he's also gently mocking that some people characterize that as "a secret cabal" and "a conspiracy", which it is only in the loosest sense.

    Rockefeller is an internationalist, he makes no secret of it. Many people have similar political views.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Farganne

    Farganne New Member

    My, you are very good at what you do.

    Tell us, what is a conspiracy "'in the loosest sense"?

    And what is your proof that he is "gently mocking"? -- since you are all about proof.
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's a conspiracy in that he meets with people and discusses what to do. That type of conspiracy happens millions of times a day in business meetings. That's what I meant by a loose sense. He's an internationalist, and he does thing he thinks will promote the internationalist cause. Most of the the things he does will involve other people. In a very loose sense you can say that's a conspiracy.

    I was just saying what his meaning seems like to me. But logically the "proof" might be that if he's in a secret cabal, then revealing that fact would make it no longer a secret, so that's inconsistent. If he was simply joking, playing with words, then the sentence makes perfect sense.

    Debunking really is not about finding proof that things are not a particular way. It's more about point out flaws in arguments, and noting the absence of evidence. It is obviously impossible to prove that there is not a secret cabal.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm happy to discuss things with you. But I have a politeness policy here. Please try to be polite and stick to facts without personal attacks (some of which I have deleted). Otherwise I may impose a 24 hour ban.
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  7. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    But what does that really mean? What is a "more integrated global political and economic structure"? What does this mean in the context of "one world", as he put it? Does he mean a one world government? This seems to be the most likely case, since he referred to this entity as a "structure". What other kind of structure combines political and economic policy arms, other than a government?

    Trying to subordinate the U.S. Constitution and integrate the supposedly sovereign U.S. government into a "one world" government "structure" sounds pretty conspiratorial to me, so how has this Rockefeller quote really been "debunked"?
     
  8. TruthmyCamus

    TruthmyCamus New Member

    It hasn't been. It has been discussed, though, albeit yet briefly.
     
  9. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Trade and political agreements, NAFTA, G8, G20, the EU, ASEAN, WTO..and probably others....

    The quote doesn't' need debunking - your statements that it means subordinating the US constitution into a "one world" government needs it - there is not actually anything there that requires that be the case, and also i is clearly not any kind of secret a all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's debunked in that it's been explained that he's a globalist. There's no secret about his position. He IS "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will"

    It does not, however, necessarily follow that there's a secret conspiracy. He's mocking "we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States". Since obviously he can't be part of a secret cabal and admit its existence - as then it would no longer be secret.
     
  11. TruthmyCamus

    TruthmyCamus New Member

    "For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum
    have seized upon well-publicized incidents…to attack the Rockefeller family for the
    inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic
    institutions. Some even believe we 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's "confession," given late in his life, is clearly
    momentous but it also warrants further scrutiny, for his account in
    Memoirs omits
    much important detail.

    Only by examining Rockefeller's statements, articles and
    speeches over the past 40 years can the true extent of his vision of "a more integrated
    global political and economic structure" be understood.

    And such examination also
    reveals that David Rockefeller has not been an idle dreamer, but has used his position
    as arguably the most powerful and influential Rockefeller of the latter half of the 20th
    century to advocate a revamped version of the Wilson-Fosdick world order model.
    Let's examine three aspects of David Rockefeller's
    contribution to the New World Order: (1) the basis for his authority and reputation as
    a behind-the-scenes power player; (2) the objectives of his globalist ideology; and (3)
    the creation and purpose of the Trilateral Commission.

    Through reference to a wide range of publicly available sources, we can cast some
    light, not so much on his manipulations, but on his
    vision. In short, it will try to make
    plain why David Rockefeller calls himself a "proud internationalist."

    Anyone interested?
     
  12. CBSwartz

    CBSwartz Guest

    Admitting something does not make it any less a secret in the past.
     
  13. ChemtrailsBelgium

    ChemtrailsBelgium New Member

    Some people just don't want to see it as it is..
     
  14. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    I know,it's terrible.People really do just confirm what they want to be true.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. haarp

    haarp New Member

    D. Rockefeller is a funny guy, watch some of his interviews, he's really frank. Totally believes what he's doing is the right thing, no matter how many people die. He's got a lot of blood on his hands in Chile.

    The Rockefeller file goes into great depth on the dynasty.
     
  16. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    This is the definition, in political terms, of a conspiracy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(political)


    Just to mention a few examples, instances may include:

    1932 to 1972 - Tuskegee syphilis experiment, to study natural progression of untreated syphilis in black men who thought they were receiving free health care
    1933 - Business Plot, attempted fascist coup d'état in USA
    1939 - Operation Himmler and its Gleiwitz incident, "False Flag" terrorism by Nazi Germany as pretext for invasion of PolandShelling of Mainila, "False Flag" terrorism by USSR as pretext for Winter War
    1945 - Operation Paperclip, extraction of top Nazi scientists (incl. SS Nazi Party members)
    1972 - Watergate scandal, burglary and cover-up scandals
    1987 - Iran-Contra Affair— Various CIA involvements in overseas coups d'état
    2002 September Dossier to justify Iraq invasion — Yellowcake forgery
    2003 - Iraq and weapons of mass destruction pretext for War in Iraq


    I think logically what he says is more of a stated political aim- 'a One World Government' - through a cabal, i.e. 'overthrowing' established political power from within. Whether the fact that it has been 'kept secret' for many years makes it a 'conspiracy' or not is up to the judiciary and legal experts to define and in the absence of a legal ruling we can only postulate it as a 'conspiracy theory' which is neither debunked or confirmed.

    (if he's in a secret cabal, then revealing that fact would make it no longer a secret, so that's inconsistent), is not inconsistent when combined with:

    "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government", which in turn appears to give much more credence to the unauthenticated, (admitted) statement in that each underpins the other and are entirely consistent with his stated aims.

    Logically, it merely says 'he thinks the world is able to handle it now', i.e 'the sky will not come crashing down on him/them for articulating it'.

    As further 'proof' we only have to look at the direction the world is going, globalisation, multinational companies, political union, shared currencies etc etc ad infinitum. The 'proof' must surely be 'in the pudding'.

    'If' is a pretty big word and is also pure conjecture on your part and appears to be arrived at in the face of all the factual evidence i.e. has he since made a public retraction and said 'I was only joking'?

    Further, the evidence is that he was not joking. You acknowledge "He's an internationalist"; He states " ...If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”, not as an ad lib comment but as a measured and considered statement in his book.

    The key questions are, what exactly does he mean by "...a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will" and 'what is he prepared to do to bring it about'?

    Well, you are the expert 'debunker' and obviously 'its your site your rules', but I would differ to that statement. I see debunking very much as 'finding (as much) proof (as possible) that things are not a particular way. Only when you have removed 'reasonable doubt', have you truly debunked something IMO.
     
  17. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    That's not what debunking means at all - no wonder you are confused.

    Debunking is rmoving "bunk" - which is ANY unreliable or false information at all - regardless of whether it proves or disproves something - sometimes there is "bunk" presented as "debunking" a conspiracy - and that deserves to be "debunked" just as much as anything else.

    after all the bunk has been removed what is left is what is actually known.

    In hte case of the quotes you have presented teh first one is debunked because it is not what he is known to have said. The 2nd one was certainly said by him - any bunk then comes from showing that attempts to use it as proof that he has taken over the world Govt. or something similar are flimsy, at best.
     
  18. John Allman

    John Allman New Member

    How can one debunk a quote, then? Say a quote appears all over the place, yet there is no evidence that it is being correctly attributed. The quote is obviously real. The attribution might not be. What is there to "debunk", in the sense of "removing the bunk"?

    All that anybody can do, is to authenticate the attribution, the opposite of debunking it.
     
  19. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    See the quotes debunked forum.

    there is nothing wrong with confirming that a quote is authentic either.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  21. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    That is an extremely good example IMO. If all the 'debunking' was to that standard I would have no problem with the views expressed here at all.

    However, when quotes or arguments are simply 'reinterpreted' or 'directly contradict' what has been stated simply to debunk them, as appears to be the case with this quote in question, I am personally unimpressed and start to doubt the motive behind the 'debunk'.

    Lets be honest here, conspiracies DO contain some elements of manipulation, falsification, exaggeration, misrepresentation etc etc but the way to debunk those aspects is not to resort to similar tactics.

    'If' the hydrogen atom did not exist, i.e. was missing its single electron, then the universe would not exist so we must be very careful when we delve into 'if' this and 'if' that because it presupposes that something 'is not' and any resultant conclusion can therefore only merit a 'theory' rating.

    Ergo, you have a theory that David Rockefeller didn't mean what he said. I do not agree with that theory because of the 'much wider context' in which he said it.

    As stated, the bigger question, (as yet unanswered), is 'what did he mean by it' and 'what is he prepared to do to bring it about'.

    It may be innocuous and simply mean he believes 'the world needs to work together for the enhancement and benefit of mankind and that he will do everything he legally and morally can to bring that about'

    Or it may mean, 'I believe in the destruction of individual governments and National Sovereignty and wish to see a World Government run by the illumined people who know best and I am prepared to do anything at any price or bloodshed to see it so'.

    All I can say is, I do not know what is in the man's mind and all I can do is make a guesstimate of what his true aims are based on available information.

    What can I do about it if I don't like it... not a lot
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think that people who already think there's some kind of evil elite will naturally gravitate more towards the second answer.

    But look at your two answers. The first is quite innocuous, and quite plausible (unless you are already convinced otherwise). The second is rather extreme, and implausible. Nobody is going to do that "at any price or bloodshed" - I'm 99.99% sure that Rockefeller would prefer not to initiate global thermonuclear war followed by decades of nuclear winter, just to get rid of national sovereignty.

    However the underlying goals of your second answer may well be things that he wants. He IS an internationalist, and the is in favor of some form of world government. And saying that things should be run by people who know best is something of a truism - but obviously here your implication would be that they would not know best for you and yours. So the choice is not benign vs. evil. It's not an A/B choice here.Maybe he wants a one world government, but accepts that it's going to take a while.

    I think Rockefeller is just a rich guy with a particular set of political beliefs. There are lots of rich guys. They seem to me to have a wide range of political beliefs, beliefs about how the world should be run. I don't see any evidence that Bill Gates, The Kochs, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and Eric Schmidt (or any of the 150 people with a higher net worth than David Rockefeller) all have the same ideas about how the world should be run.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  23. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Personally, I tend to agree with much of your post. In particular with "I'm 99.99% sure that Rockefeller would prefer not to initiate global thermonuclear..." and "It's not an A/B choice here.Maybe he wants a one world government, but accepts that it's going to take a while." which fits in more with the first scenario.

    But

    The second scenario cannot be totally discounted, (no matter how implausible it may sound) as history shows us repeatedly that man's inhumanity to man is unbounded when it gets in the way of religio-political hegemony.

    Massive atrocities include Nazism, described by Hitler as a religion, the reign of terror by the Catholic Church, which many people assert to be a cover for ancient Babylonian religion of Isis and Osiris and also assert that it is the root of the Illuminati of which many of the elite internationalists are said to be.

    Millions have been sacrificed in the furtherance of ideals in the past and there is no reason to suppose it could not happen in the future if the ideal cannot be achieved by other more peaceful means.

    I would argue that the massive 'killing spree' currently occurring in Gaza which is fundamentally, IMO, a question of putting down rebellion in a vast 'open prison camp' although I do not discount any wider implications.
     
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  25. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Innocent until proven guilty only works for the masses. When you are in a position of almost absolute power, you should be scrutinized to the highest level, and prove that you are not doing something evil.

    With great power comes great responsibility. If you don't want to be questioned, then you shouldn't have your hands and your money in every single country's business. Take your money and live a life of luxury on the beach somewhere.
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    How would someone prove they are not doing evil? No matter what they say, there will always be some people who suspect they are hiding something.

    Unless you want all billionaires to be under video and surveillance 24 hours a day, then I don't think you'll satisfy all the suspicious people. Even then they would just claim fakery.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    From "New America", 27th december 2012:
    Source:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ompuy-calls-for-global-governance-with-russia
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    So basically Hilaire du Berrier is the only known origin of this quote, and it's authenticity is simply his say-so? Anyone know what the "two French publications" were? And what the quote was in them?
     
  29. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    So, we've got a quote of a guy with the power and the influence to do so directly stating he's worked against the best interests of the United States, and the general response is "Oh, he's just joshin'!"
    If the quote is verified as authentic, then there's nothing to debunk. The guy said it, and there's no reason to think he didn't believe it. To say he was just 'poking fun at conspiracy theorists' is a rather silly supposition. We all know the Rockefellers are obscenely wealthy globalists. You're right to say there's nothing surprising about finding out David Rockefeller has conspired with other obscenely wealthy globalists to expand his own wealth, most probably at the expense of the United States, and that he admits it doesn't preclude it happening.
    I don't get why anyone would try to argue that this -shouldn't- irritate them, but just the same I don't see much of anything to 'debunk' in the second quote, at least.

    Isn't there also a specific section of the forum for quotes?
     
  30. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    There seems to be substantive evidence that the Popery have waged war on Nations, Governments and their Heads of State to restore temporal control to the Vatican

    The Jesuits being originally the military arm of the Catholic Church but actually usurping the authority of the White Pope, (including imprisoning and killing any Pope who was against them) resulting in actual secret governance by the Black Pope.

    http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/blackpope.htm

    http://wesdancin.wordpress.com/2011...he-jesuit-illuminati-knights-of-columbus-and/

     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And what does any of that have to do with the authenticity of the Rockefeller quote?
     
  32. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I would say it lends credence to the quote i.e. a tree is best known by its fruit.

    In that regard, the fact that the Rockefellers and specifically David are Knights of Malta and given the Blood Oath they must have sworn in order to be Knights of Malta... I think it says a lot.

    http://hillnholler.net/2012/03/04/rick-santorum-and-the-knights-of-malta-is-criticism-really-due/

    Add to that:

    http://www.voxfux.com/archives/00000057.htm

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All of this activity foreshadowed, in 1928, the Rockefeller financing
    of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity
    in pre-Nazi Germany. Ernst Rudin, Hitler's chief racial hygienist, was
    given authority over this institute principally funded by the Rockefellers.
    Eugenic psychiatrist Dr. Franz J. Kallmann, and blood geneticist Otmar
    Verschuer assisted Dr. Rudin. Their institute was named for Germany's
    Kaiser Wilhelm II who was a solid supporter of early eugenics experiments
    and occult science to further his royal bloodline. According to Wilhelm
    II, World War I resulted from a conspiracy between his enemies, the blood
    kin Czar Nicholas II and King George V, and their affiliated secret societies.
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to historic
    records, Hitler was also an avid student of the occult and a member of
    the largely secret Thule Society that contained members of the British
    royal family and European banking industry. Though evidence in this area
    of research is understandably circumstantial, Thule Society members, with
    connections to other politically influential leaders in the United States,
    including members of the Skull and Bones Fraternity at Yale University,
    are believed to have founded the National Socialist Party in Germany,
    primarily to initiate World War II.
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Occult, Freemasonry
    and Rockefeller Blood Banking
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In my 1999 book, Healing
    Codes for the Biological Apocalypse
    , I shed more light on these
    shadowy figures of eugenics history. Shortly before the war, in 1936,
    according to investigative journalist Anton Chaitkin, Nazi eugenicist
    and Rockefeller grantee, Dr. Franz Kalmann published his schizophrenia
    experiments after immigrating to New York because he was half-Jewish.
    The secret society known as the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry published
    his account of more than 1,000 cases. His book was used in 1939 to rationalize
    the "murder of mental patients and various 'defective' people," according
    to Chaitkin and others. At the same time, the infamous Nazi doctor Josef
    Mengele and Otmar Verschuer were collecting blood samples, particularly
    from twins, to conduct genetic experiments to further advance the eugenics
    field. I wrote that more horrific experiments followed:
    [/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Needles were stabbed
    into people's eyes for eye color experiments. Others were injected with
    foreign blood and infectious agents. Limbs and organs were commonly
    removed, occasionally without anesthetics. Women were sterilized, men
    were castrated, and sexes were surgically altered. Thousands were butchered
    and their heads, eyeballs, limbs, and organs were delivered to Mengele,
    Verschuer, and the other Rockefeller-linked contingent at the Kaiser
    Wilhelm Institute.
    [/FONT]




    And

    http://www.vaticanassassins.org/jesuit-ruled-cfr/

     
  33. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    It appears what we have currently is a realisation of George Orwell's novel 1984 where the Ministry of Truth is one of the four ministries that govern Oceania. However, as with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves the opposite of its purported namesake.

    Just saying that people do lie, i.e. they did not tell people they were going to the gas chamber, only that they were going to the showers.
     
  34. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Found this on wikiquote:


    I don't recall that I have said — and I don't think that I really feel — that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood — or even that it would be desirable — to have a single government elected by the people of the world.
    In an interview with Benjamin Fulford (13 November 2007)
     
  35. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    He's saying he doesn't want an "elected" government of the world. Could be interpreted as he wants an unelected one, ie financial/intellectual elite.
     
  36. Sadistt

    Sadistt New Member

    If the quote mentioned in OP is up to dispute, why not investigate this?

    "In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present eduction conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people, or any of their children, into philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen – of whom we have an ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way."

    It essentially reveals the motives of their family, and if the quote mentioned above is true, most likely, the quote David is proclaimed to have said is likely true, and even if it's not, the motives true.
    And IF the quote I stated is an actual fact in its context, then it is quite obvious which is more likely.

    Let's ask some questions and examine some other points and track-records to see which is more likely.

    So the question ultimately comes down to this: Are these obscenely rich people in finance, government, and business working for the best interest of the people?

    Before we can answer that, we need to agree that these entities and the people in it are intertwined in global power, you'd have be a fool to say otherwise. Also, we need to say that with the amount of global power they have, it is part of their responsibility as leaders and members of the human species to do good for the people. Finally, let's define what's in the best interest of the people.

    1. I think we can all agree that most of us want more 'wealth', so lets look at the big picture when it comes to wealth as a whole. Well, if you've done enough research on what money and wealth actually is in this country (and others involved), you can see that the whole system is essentially a glorified, gigantic Ponzi scheme of epic proportions. The government has, in fact, ADMITTED they're running a Ponzi scheme (of course it's politically said along the lines of 'if we can't borrow more money, we're gonna default').

    If you know what a Ponzi scheme is, you know that there are people on top of the pyramid who pretty much steals from the people (us) further down the pyramid. Who sits on top of this pyramid? The obscenely rich people in finance, government, and business. How surprising.

    So are they working to put an end to their Ponzi scheme and stop stealing from the people? No, they're not. We are being stolen from, and this is a irrefutable, mathematical fact.

    2. I think we can all agree that all of us want more personal freedom.

    Well, if you followed any government actions, covert or not, domestic or foreign, you can see that our personal freedom has been gradually destroyed at the cost of our security against a threat that was fabricated by the government (of course with finance and business interests at hand). Think everything done under the PATRIOT act and etc.

    3. Speaking of threats, I think most of us agree this War on Terror is a petty and silly, and be done with fighting imaginary threats.

    The terrorist threat is fabricated, and there are countless documents and evidence to support this claim as credible, if not true. But let's just say that we're unsure. We're not sure whether or not the government told us the truth to get us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan. Since we're unsure, let's look at the track-records of government claims before sending the people (us) into war. Well? We know for a fact that the whole incident surrounding Gulf of Tonkin is proven to be a lie made by the government. Well, we have strong evidence and reasons to believe that the U.S government knew about Pearl Harbor in WW2, and even if they didn't, they intentionally provoked it, and didn't do anything about it. Well, we also have evidence that it was massive government propaganda that got us into WW1 also. 3 major wars we entered through deception, lies, and propaganda. Also, this is excluding the government's excuse on occupying and invading smaller countries - look them up too.

    So, what's more likely? Is War on Terror legitimate? or a lie? I think I can safely bet that it is the latter. What's more important is, who benefitted most from these wars? The people? Or them? Excluding WW1 and WW2 (still they're debatable), I think most of us can safely say that the rest of the wars were not beneficial to us, and even if it was, more beneficial for them than us.

    I can go on and on, but the fact of the matter is, these people has done nothing to solve problems that matter and their track-records and current actions show that they're not working in our favor.

    So, if they are not working in our interest, what are they working for? Obviously, if it's not for our interest, it is theirs.

    What are their interests you ask? Well, we know for sure it's not money, they can literally make money out of thin air or borrow away until it blows in OUR faces, not theirs.

    Well, we know what all of their actions are influenced by, which is power, and they are on the biggest power-trip unprecedented in human history.

    So what's the end goal of power? What's the purpose of expanding power? Control.

    It's all about control. It's about controlling everything, including, you.

    So let's put aside specific questions asking whether or not this obscure quote is legit, or speculating whether or not that these "elites" are doing good or evil, but into simple questions along the lines of:


    Are they in our best interest as individuals? Who benefits the most from their actions? To whose interest are they working towards?

    I think you all know the answer to that question, deep inside.

     
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks Sadistt. That's an interesting quote, I've created a separate thread for it, with the full context.

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/12...rfect-docility-to-our-molding-hand-quot-Gates

    To your broader point, I think the War on Terror is as legitimate as the War on Drugs. There is obviously some problem, but the way it is being addressed is not really helping, and is probably just making it worse, while creating a lot of misery. There are people who benefit from both "wars" - the Military Industrial Complex, and the Prison Industrial Complex.

    But I don't think "The Elite" have planned it this way - it's something that has emerged from a complex system of thousands competing interests. Some corruption to be sure, but not a grand plan, and no real evidence of a centralized authority.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  38. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Before going to any war a government will always try to sell it to its population. There will always be a selective presentation of the facts. I think there is a difference in this to just completely manufacturing a reason that has nothing to do with the real reason they are going to war for.

    I think there are always 'opportunities' a war gives certain parties, and they will take advantage, but I doubt the extent to which they will create a war just to take that advantage.
    Also in war seemingly callous decisions have to made in the name of strategy. War is diametrically opposed to all the notions of 'humanity' we are supposed to revere and always will be.

    I was interested to learn more about the details of the sinking of the Lusitania recently, as I was watching the series 'Upstairs, Downstairs' and the reaction of the public was portrayed, and how they were not told of the munitions the ship was carrying.
    The details of the orders given to the ship and what it was carrying are still not fully known, and it appears the Navy tried to destroy evidence by bombing the wreck. There is speculation the ship was deliberately placed as bait to goad an attack and bring America into the war. It didn't at the time.

    "It was in the interests of the British to keep US passions inflamed, and a fabricated story was circulated that in some regions of Germany, schoolchildren were given a holiday to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania.
    ...
    A week before the sinking of the Lusitania, Winston Churchill wrote to Walter Runciman, the President of the Board of Trade, stating that it is “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”[60][61] Although no specific plan has ever been proved, at the post-sinking inquiry the captain refused to answer certain questions on the grounds of war-time secrecy imperatives. The British government continues to keep secret certain documents relating to the final days of the voyage, including certain of the signals passed between the Admiralty and the Lusitania. The records which are available are often missing critical pages, and the very authenticity of some of the official documents is questioned."
     
  39. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    How would you know what my best interests are, when even I am not clear about them? We are all against sin.

    Best stick to your own best interests. You apparently know what they are.
     
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The quotes were explained in the second post in this thread.

    If you'd like to continue participating here, please register.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.