Anyone care to debunk these two Rockefeller quotes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would anyone like to debunk this quote:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”—Henry Kissinger
Content from External Source
 
Would anyone like to debunk this quote:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”—Henry Kissinger
Content from External Source

What's the source and the context?
 
Would anyone like to debunk this quote:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”—Henry Kissinger
Content from External Source

This is listed as misattributed.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Misattributed
 
What's the source and the context?

It's widely attributed on many websites but Wiki has it listed among a number of quotes titled Mis attributed; does that mean it is debunked though? There seem to be a number of 'misattributed' quotes from a number of sources, none of them seem to reflect well on him. Is it simply a question of people making up things he has said or did he say them but there is no 'evidence', other than people relaying what they heard him say?

As it allegedly came from The Bilderburg conference, (which obviously does not exist as it comes up as a spelling mistake) :), it would be difficult to prove.

It is said that the statement was made in connection with the riots following the Rodney King incident.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger


  • The reason that university politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.
    • This remark was first attributed to Kissinger, among others, in the 1970s. The Quote Verifier (2006) attributes it to political scientist Paul Sayre, but notes earlier similar remarks by Woodrow Wilson. Clyde J. Wingfield referred to it as a familiar joke in The American University (1970)
    • Unattributed variants:
    • Somebody once said that one of the reasons academic infighting is so vicious is that the stakes are so small. There's so little at stake and they are so nasty about it.
      • The Craft of Crime : Conversations with Crime Writers (1983) by John C. Carr
    • The reason that academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.
      • Mentioned as an "old saw" in Teachers for Our Nation's Schools (1990) by John I. Goodlad

  • Accept everything about yourself — I mean everything, You are you and that is the beginning and the end — no apologies, no regrets.
    • Clark Moustakas, as quoted in Sacred Simplicities: Meeting the Miracles in Our Lives (2004) by Lori Knutson, p. 141

  • Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?
    • According to the late Peter Rodman, who knew him well, the saying is apocryphal [1]

  • Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.
    • This is widely reported on many sites as coming from the Bilderberg Conference (1991) Evians, France, purportedly recorded by a Swiss diplomat, but no such recording has ever been provided.
  • I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.
    • Regarding Salvador Allende's election in Chile, cited as apocryphal in Richard R. Fagen, "The United States and Chile: Roots and Branches", Foreign Affairs, January 1975.[2]
Content from External Source
 
It has been debunked because there is NO documentation that he said it. Just A report from an unnamed Swiss diplomat. No recording, no transcript, NOTHING.

Say that it gets circulated that you said that William Shanter is the BEST actor that ever lived. But no one has you saying that, or a recording of it. It just came from someone that was at a party with you 10 years ago. Now DID you say it? Doesn't the simple fact that there is no record IMPLY that?

Kissinger was very prominent and known, if he said that, there would be evidence of it. There is NONE, thus debunked
 
It's widely attributed on many websites but Wiki has it listed among a number of quotes titled Mis attributed; does that mean it is debunked though? There seem to be a number of 'misattributed' quotes from a number of sources, none of them seem to reflect well on him. Is it simply a question of people making up things he has said or did he say them but there is no 'evidence', other than people relaying what they heard him say?

As it allegedly came from The Bilderburg conference, (which obviously does not exist as it comes up as a spelling mistake) :), it would be difficult to prove.

It is said that the statement was made in connection with the riots following the Rodney King incident.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger


  • Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.
    • This is widely reported on many sites as coming from the Bilderberg Conference (1991) Evians, France, purportedly recorded by a Swiss diplomat, but no such recording has ever been provided.
Content from External Source

It would actually have to have been from the 1992 Bilderberg Conference, which was held in Evians, France. The 1991 conference was held in Baden-Baden, Germany. The difficulty with debunking or substantiating this quote is that the Bilderberg Conference is not open to the public so substantiating or debunking the quote is quite difficult.
The quote is most frequently claimed to have been transcribed by a Swiss delegate who secretly recorded the speech. The following are the only Swiss delegates that I could verify attended the 1992 conference; Alex Krauer* Chairman and Managing Director, Ciba-Geigy Limited, Helmut O. Maucher Chairman and C.E.O., Nestle S.A. and David de Pury Chairman of the Board of BBC Brown Boveri Ltd. and Co-Chairman of ABB Asea Brown Boveri Group. These individuals seem an unlikely source for the Swiss delegate that secretly recorded the speech but it could have been an assistant of one of theirs I suppose.

http://www.bilderberg.org/1992.htm
 
It would actually have to have been from the 1992 Bilderberg Conference, which was held in Evians, France. The 1991 conference was held in Baden-Baden, Germany. The difficulty with debunking or substantiating this quote is that the Bilderberg Conference is not open to the public so substantiating or debunking the quote is quite difficult.
The quote is most frequently claimed to have been transcribed by a Swiss delegate who secretly recorded the speech. The following are the only Swiss delegates that I could verify attended the 1992 conference;Alex Krauer* Chairman and Managing Director, Ciba-Geigy Limited, Helmut O. Maucher Chairman and C.E.O., Nestle S.A. and David de Pury Chairman of the Board of BBC Brown Boveri Ltd. and Co-Chairman of ABB Asea Brown Boveri Group. These individuals seem an unlikely source for the Swiss delegate that secretly recorded the speech but it could have been an assistant of one of theirs I suppose.

http://www.bilderberg.org/1992.htm

Yes, good link and logic.

I note Kissinger was also at the Baden Baden conference in 91 and that the 92 meeting was initially wrongly titled as Baden Baden as well.

It seems it must be 'debunked' because there is no confirmation but is it appropriate to attempt to rationalise as to 'any level of credibility'?

Most of what comes out of Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove is anecdotal at best. They are virtually never mentioned on the 'news' :), so yes the sources are not normally going to be good. I have only known of their existence for the last 4 years.

Kissinger could never deny or confirm such a quote as he, (as well as everyone else), is oath bound not to speak of it.
 
H
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.
Have you heard of cognitive dissonance Mick? The idea of holding two conflicting thoughts or beliefs is so uncomfortable for people that they will naturally try make them fit together. This is exactly what you are doing.
 
Yes, good link and logic.

I note Kissinger was also at the Baden Baden conference in 91 and that the 92 meeting was initially wrongly titled as Baden Baden as well.

It seems it must be 'debunked' because there is no confirmation but is it appropriate to attempt to rationalise as to 'any level of credibility'?

Most of what comes out of Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove is anecdotal at best. They are virtually never mentioned on the 'news' :), so yes the sources are not normally going to be good. I have only known of their existence for the last 4 years.

Kissinger could never deny or confirm such a quote as he, (as well as everyone else), is oath bound not to speak of it.
people from the media have attended this conference in the past so surely that says a lot.
 
Trade and political agreements, NAFTA, G8, G20, the EU, ASEAN, WTO..and probably others....

......okey dokey just a little fascistic neo-feudalism then. I'm just relieved that it's not a super secret conspiracy or something.

Edit: I'll lay my cards on the table here - I am fully in favor of a new world order involving some form of constitutional world federation with the power to enforce human rights, labor rights, and high environmental standards. I think nationalism is a disease and world government is not only desirable but inevitable, but Rockefeller's brand of new world order is rapacious and abhorrent.

Alter-globalization (also known as alternative globalization, alter-mundialization—from the French "alter-mondialisation"—or the global justice movement) is the name of a social movement whose proponents support global cooperation and interaction, but oppose what they describe as the negative effects of economic globalization, feeling that it often works to the detriment of, or does not adequately promote, human values such as environmental and climate protection, economic justice, labor protection, protection of indigenous cultures, peace and civil liberties.

"The alter-globalization movement is a cooperative movement designed to protest the direction and perceived negative economic, political, social, cultural and ecological consequences of neoliberal globalization".[2] Many alter-globalists seek to avoid the "disestablishment of local economies and disastrous humanitarian consequences". Most members of this movement shun the label "anti-globalization" as pejorative and incorrect since they actively support human activity on a global scale and do not oppose economic globalization per se.

Instead they see their movement as an alternative to what they term neo-liberal globalization in which international institutions (World Trade Organisation, World Bank, International Monetary Fund etc.) and major corporations devote themselves to enriching the developed world while giving little or no attention to the detrimental effects of their actions on the people and environments of less developed countries, countries whose governments are often too weak or too corrupt to resist or regulate them. This is not to be confused with proletarian internationalism as put forth by communists in that alter-globalists do not necessarily oppose the free market, but a subset of free-market practices characterized by certain business attitudes and political policies that often lead to violations of human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter-globalization
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
......okey dokey just a little fascistic neo-feudalism then. I'm just relieved that it's not a super secret conspiracy or something.

no, and indeed.

Edit: I'll lay my cards on the table here - I am fully in favor of a new world order involving some form of constitutional world federation with the power to enforce human rights, labor rights, and high environmental standards. I think nationalism is a disease and world government is not only desirable but inevitable, but Rockefeller's brand of new world order is rapacious and abhorrent.

Alter-globalization (also known as alternative globalization, alter-mundialization—from the French "alter-mondialisation"—or the global justice movement) is the name of a social movement whose proponents support global cooperation and interaction, but oppose what they describe as the negative effects of economic globalization, feeling that it often works to the detriment of, or does not adequately promote, human values such as environmental and climate protection, economic justice, labor protection, protection of indigenous cultures, peace and civil liberties.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me - except of course I am sure there is considerable devil in eth detail.

Eg "indigenous rights" often translates these days into "special privilege" - not always to be sure, but it can be (IMO) a fine line between respecting such rights and imposing them on others.

(just an example - the devil is always in the detail)
 
Eg "indigenous rights" often translates these days into "special privilege" - not always to be sure, but it can be (IMO) a fine line between respecting such rights and imposing them on others.

(just an example - the devil is always in the detail)

Then it's imperative that we get the details right. It's ironic that the hard right libertarian conspiracy theorists see themselves as defenders of the U.S. constitution against the wiles of the globalists as the U.S. Constitution is the legal instrument by which a gang of elitists instituted their atrocious oligarchical system of disenfranchisement, patronage, and cronyism. An instrument designed to protect the "minority of the opulent" against "agrarian reform" i.e., social justice.

Here's James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", to explain it:

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
 
Last edited:
The first quote is, in my opinion, completely made up by author Jordan Maxwell... which wouldn't be surprising to anyone who's ever heard or read Jordan Maxwell.

I had to look up this quote some years ago for a Univeristy paper and came up completely empty handed trying to validate it beyond Maxswell himself.
 
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.
So you admit he is a 'Globalist' and a conspirator. Therefore the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' were correct all along, whist in fact not being 'theorists', as labelled.
 
So you admit he is a 'Globalist' and a conspirator. Therefore the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' were correct all along, whist in fact not being 'theorists', as labelled.

Semantically you could argue that about anyone. What's the real issue here?
 
I daresay a person could be considered an advocate for "globalism" without being labelled a "conspirator".

After all, it is an irrefutable fact that this planet is a 'globe', and that there are complex interactions in place and ongoing between multiple interests (i.e., 'sovereign' nations and multi-national corporations).

If one wished to be pedantic, one could make "connections" to find a "conspiracy theory" in just about any situation.
 
Semantically you could argue that about anyone. What's the real issue here?
The real issue is that when people point out real, living, ongoing conspiracies, they are labelled 'conspiracy theorists', as a derogatory slander, thus obliterating the opportunity for intelligent discussion.
 
There is absolutely nothing to debunk in the second quote.
It's clearly attributed to him and he declares himself guilty of being part of a conspiracy with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure. What a more integrated global political and economic structure is, that's left to interpretation.
The choice of the word conspiring is quite bad as most definitions incorporate an evil, unlawful or wrongful plan or act.
Unless it is in jest (which is hard to discern in writing), it's pretty idiotic to declare yourself part of a conspiracy.
 
I am amazed to see so many people insist that an obvious joke
(one simply can not be openly talking about a supposed "secret")
is somehow a slip…catastrophic to Rockefellar's public facade.

I can only guess that those people similarly believe that when Obama said:
"I was born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the Planet Earth"
and have acted accordingly, giving the president his due.
 
I am amazed to see so many people insist that an obvious joke
(one simply can not be openly talking about a supposed "secret")
is somehow a slip…catastrophic to Rockefellar's public facade.

I can only guess that those people similarly believe that when Obama said:
"I was born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the Planet Earth"
and have acted accordingly, giving the president his due.
They didn't take it seriously or they would be using it to argue he can't be president not only because he wasn't born in the country but he is and illegal alien.
 
I can only guess that those people similarly believe that when Obama said:
"I was born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the Planet Earth"
and have acted accordingly, giving the president his due.

Referring to a fiction is much easier to identify as humor than alluding to a secret in a memoir. I agree it's probably a poorly formulated joke but the formulation and choice of words is dubious. Given that he founded or is an honorary member of the following organisations, he sure puts fuel on the conspiracy theorists bonfire with that remark. I don't think him being part of a group around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure was a joke at all.

Council on Foreign Relations
- Honorary Chairman
Americas Society - Founder and Honorary Chairman
Council of the Americas - Founder and Honorary Chairman
Trilateral Commission - Founder and Honorary North American Chairman
Bilderberg Meetings - Only member of the Member Advisory Group
 
Last edited:
Referring to a fiction is much easier to identify as humor than alluding to a secret in a memoir. I agree it's probably a poorly formulated joke but the formulation and choice of words is dubious. Given that he founded or is an honorary member of the following organisations, he sure puts fire on the conspiracy theorists bonfire with that remark. I don't think him being part of a group around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure was a joke at all.

Council on Foreign Relations
- Honorary Chairman
Americas Society - Founder and Honorary Chairman
Council of the Americas - Founder and Honorary Chairman
Trilateral Commission - Founder and Honorary North American Chairman
Bilderberg Meetings - Only member of the Member Advisory Group
Perhaps I'm missing the point: If it's obviously a joke, and the man is obviously proud
of his well-known activities, where exactly are conspiracy fans trying to plant their flag?
 
Perhaps I'm missing the point: If it's obviously a joke, and the man is obviously proud
of his well-known activities, where exactly are conspiracy fans trying to plant their flag?

Manipulation of elected governments officials by non-elected elitists groups is probably the base of their conspiracies.
 
Manipulation of elected governments officials by non-elected elitists groups is probably the base of their conspiracies.
Did they miss where the Supreme Court openly gave their thumbs up (Citizens United, 2010)
to unlimited manipulation of elected governments officials by non-elected elitists?
They've never heard of the Koch Brothers? Are conspiracy theorists mad that we don't
have nearly as much pointing to actual influence on Rockefeller as the Koch brothers?
 
Did they miss where the Supreme Court openly gave their thumbs up (Citizens United, 2010)
to unlimited manipulation of elected governments officials by non-elected elitists?
They've never heard of the Koch Brothers? Are conspiracy theorists mad that we don't
have nearly as much pointing to actual influence on Rockefeller as the Koch brothers?

I only know they are mad. :) The supreme court judges might also be afflicted by madness.
 
The supreme court judges might also be afflicted by madness.

Hard to tell...since at least one of them seems to be severely lacking in any "quotable" material (since the thread is about "quotes").

Clarence Thomas is 'infamous' for his silence...as if he's concerned about his "image". (But, this is just an opinion).
 
The topic of this thread is the two quotes in the OP, if they were said or not, and the direct context. It's not a thread for general theories about the Rockefellers.
 
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.

I agree that the first one could be a "slanted paraphrasing" or even an "outright fabrication," but it could also be an exact quote. There is no way to know, unless we were to have a time machine to examine the event in question. Downplaying its authenticity has no basis except the lack of a reputable paper trail. I would posit that a lack of paper could never make an event disappear.

The meaning of the first putative quote is compatible with that of the second. The first speaks directly of a secret "cabal" whose aims were too easily misunderstood in earlier times, so in the second quote Rockefeller could be "coming out of the closet," now that the world is "more sophisticated" (first quote).

The first quote's talk of "a world government," a "[supranational] sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers" and "preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries" are compatible with the second quote's statement, "a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world." They both have similar meanings. (The first misquotes the putative quote by misspelling "supranational.")

Is it a bald assertion that "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"? I don't see him gently mocking. Instead of mocking, he seems to be admitting the validity of those earlier claims.

Rockefeller makes a statement about the views of others. Then he says, "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." How is this mocking? It seems to me that he is saying, "You accuse me of this; yes, I did it and I'm proud of it."

Could something be a secret and later not a secret? This would seem to be one of those cases. As the first (questionable) quote indicates, there was a time when keeping such things a secret would prove essential. If Rockefeller said this (first quote), he was being consistent in that the timing was not right to admit his earlier secrecy. Later, when he wrote his memoirs, it was the proper time to admit to his earlier conspiracies.

Why say, "'a conspiracy', which it is only in the loosest sense?" Why loose? A conspiracy means simply the act of two or more people talking about doing something unethical or illegal. Whether or not they carry out those actions, it's still a conspiracy (com + spirare—to breathe together). There is nothing loose about it; it is either a conspiracy or it isn't.

Clearly, Rockefeller has talked to others about his plans. He admits to "conspiring" and he is proud of it. But were those talks really conspiracies? We have only two direct clues in what he said—"working against the best interests of the United States." Also, he said "one world." Taken in the context of "a more integrated global political and economic structure," this can mean that he wants to eliminate the United States. Without such action, there is little meaning to his phrase "one world." As such, this constitutes treason—a very specific crime. So, "conspiracy" seems to fit. Not only did he admit to it and stated that he was proud of it, but the details of his memoir statement confirm this fact.
 
I agree that the first one could be a "slanted paraphrasing" or even an "outright fabrication," but it could also be an exact quote. There is no way to know...

Is it a bald assertion that "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"? I don't see him gently mocking. Instead of mocking, he seems to be admitting the validity of those earlier claims...

Why say, "'a conspiracy', which it is only in the loosest sense?" Why loose? A conspiracy means simply the act of two or more people talking about doing something unethical or illegal. Whether or not they carry out those actions, it's still a conspiracy (com + spirare—to breathe together). There is nothing loose about it; it is either a conspiracy or it isn't.

There is no solid evidence that the first was ever said...virtually anything "could" be true...doesn't mean much.
Trying to build a castle in that air ("if...if...if") is pointless.

Which is more likely, that DR was gently mocking, or that he made a gigantic, spontaneous,
uncharacteristic confession, a blunder sure to redefine/damage his public image?
Having a coy laugh at one's detractors seem much more likely.

I don't understand the emphasis on as few as two people discussing "something unethical or illegal."
How is introducing that definition of "conspiracy" useful or relevant to people's concerns about Rockefeller's influence on world affairs? Seems an unproductive distraction, to me.
(Unless it's just fun to have a scary word like "conspiracy" on the table) :rolleyes:
 
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.
.
I found a source from 1992. PDF attached.


Random Ponderings
other misc possible info (which all may just be more bunk, but may help someone with a good library track these down):

unconfirmed scuttlebutt, that seems to be repeated a bunch is
The French publication, Minutes, June 19, 1991, Lectures Francaises, July/August, 1991, Hilaire du Berrier Report, September 1991
Content from External Source
are the two french publications that first published the quote and Berrier got it from them.

**note quote (if real) would have come from French (if true). So translation can always be a bit wonky.


but:
My Berrier source link has the publication as December 1991. Not September.

The "Minutes" was actually "La France" in 1991. (if anyone has copies in a local library to check...none near me)
In 1990, Serge Martinez, a National Front deputy at the time who later became second-in-command and financier of Bruno Mégret, bought Minute. He transformed the paper into a more news-focussed format and the title became La France, with Minute only appearing as a subtitle or surtitle depending on the issue. He sold the paper three years later as the new formula did not succeed in increasing sales.
Content from External Source
Minute is a weekly broadcast in France since 1962, positioning the satirical and politically classified at the far right
Content from External Source
Lectures Francaise also seems to be a far right publication, although understanding politics isnt my strong suit.

French readings is a monthly French of extreme right founded by Henry Coston in 1957. 1977 jean auguy.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectures_françaises
Content from External Source
I wonder if the far right French originally put a bit of spin on it.

dr1.PNG





The earliest version of the first quote i found is a paper (attached) March 1992, with yes a slight conspiracy bent taken form "Committee to Restore the Constitution"


March 1992 (PDF)

CONSPIRACY ADMITTED. Various newsletters, including The
witness, have often mentioned the Bilderbergers as an internationaLgroup
conspiring to establish world government. The media has denied thai such
a conspiracy orists, but David Rockefeller admitted it at their meeting held
in Sands, Germany, June 6-8, 1991. In Mr. Rockefeller's opening speech,
he said, "We are grateful to The Washington hst, The New yoik Timu,
Time magaang 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 dwelop our plan for the
world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these
years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march
towards a world government. . ." (Hilaire Du Berrier rn Bulletin, committee
to Restore the Constitution, 12/91, P. O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522)
Content from External Source


An interesting link from August 1993, might add a bit more info to help track down.

August 1993

How many heard about or read what David Rockefeller said to Katherine Graham during the June 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany?

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other 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 subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years.”

Following Rockefeller’s welcoming address, the report stated, the Bilderbergers reviewed their agenda for the unity of Europe, including their plans for a common European currency and a central European bank to be modelled after the USA’s Federal Reserve Bank.
http://friendsnews.com/family-2/holmes-family-newsletter/vol-5-no-5/
Content from External Source
edit: text removed due to further fact checking
 

Attachments

  • 9203rockefeller1992.pdf
    467.7 KB · Views: 970
Last edited:
Dierdre's attached file refers to the December 1991 edition of "Bulletin, Committee to Restore the Constitution" as the origin of the second quote. The Bulletin is archived in the University of Oregon Libraries with the following citation:

Box 23, Folder 13, Research Collection for Conservative and Libertarian Studies, Coll 254, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon

http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv10150


Could someone in Oregon obtain a copy of Du Berrier's article in the Bulletin from the archive and post here for context?
 
From David Rockefeller:

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

Have fun.

Ok folks lets get right to exposing this entire thing. What I have included here is a sentence from the quote. What you'll notice about it is there are no periods in between it or anything making it a sentence.

So in this sentence we have the words secret cabal towards the beginning. (Fact)

Towards the end of the sentence he admits he is guilty and uses the word proud of it. Being proud of it certainly doesn't imply a joke....

So from this sentence, you somehow gathered that he was kidding. Your a context man I noticed your infatuation with that. What within the context of this sentence led you to believe he was saying it in jest. And if you say there is no context within the sentence what context from other parts of the quote can lend credence to this kidding explanation you have so quickly provided

A few times within this post, a post where we are focusing on the quote, you have made references to the predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories by certain people. BUT here we have an example of a man simply saying within the same sentence that he is proud to be a member of this international cabal and in mere minutes you came to the conclusion that the comment is not to be taken seriously. Given the mans incredible track record of international affairs and massive wealth and power.

Is it at all possible that you are inclined to NOT believe in the conspiracy? Given the presented evidence and lack thereof on your part
 
So from this sentence, you somehow gathered that he was kidding. Your a context man I noticed your infatuation with that. What within the context of this sentence led you to believe he was saying it in jest. And if you say there is no context within the sentence what context from other parts of the quote can lend credence to this kidding explanation you have so quickly provided

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier. Please don't paraphrase people if you want to criticize what they are saying. Quote what they actually said. And then address that, not what you think they meant.

The second [quote] 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.
 
I refer you to the answer I gave earlier. Please don't paraphrase people if you want to criticize what they are saying. Quote what they actually said. And then address that, not what you think they meant.
Ah yes I apologize the exact words you used were "gently mocking" so you surmised that he was gently mocking the idea of being in a cabal by admitting to it and saying he was proud to be in it in one sentence. He described the secret cabal the nature of his intentions and then says guilty and proud and you have gathered that he was gently mocking it.....
 
Ah yes I apologize the exact words you used were "gently mocking" so you surmised that he was gently mocking the idea of being in a cabal by admitting to it and saying he was proud to be in it in one sentence. He described the secret cabal the nature of his intentions and then says guilty and proud and you have gathered that he was gently mocking it.....

He was just gently mocking the use of words. He's a globalist, so obviously he's part of a group of globalists. He's mocking the idea that it's a "secret cabal".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top