Anyone care to debunk these two Rockefeller quotes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mick West said:
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".
Click to expand...
What I'm asking is, how in that one sentence did you gather he was mocking it by confessing to being in it?
 
Brandon Sims said:
What I'm asking is, how in that one sentence did you gather he was mocking it by confessing to being in it?
Click to expand...
Some even believe (he isn't saying they are a secret cabal, only that some others think the Rockefellers are)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."

He freely states that he works towards a more open economic structure. "I stand guilty" is a sarcastic reference to it.
 
jaydeehess said:
Some even believe (he isn't saying they are a secret cabal, only that some others think the Rockefellers are)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."

He freely states that he works towards a more open economic structure. "I stand guilty" is a sarcastic reference to it.
Click to expand...
Ok i understand this. But there is quite literally no evidence to suggest he was "joshing" "being sarcastic" or anything less than serious. You have chosen to conclude that he was "being sarcastic" how in that sentence can he be confirming something seriously and mocking something of that exact same nature. This is some subtext that you have entered. There is a strict "no paraphrasing" rule on these forums, however to take David's quote and say he was kidding is just that. You can't possibly lend any shred of proof to this, except your own personal inclination to not believe in a new world order style cabal. That's not to mention every aspect of his life being at least similar to what's being accused of him
 
Brandon Sims said:
Ok i understand this. But there is quite literally no evidence to suggest he was "joshing" "being sarcastic" or anything less than serious. You have chosen to conclude that he was "being sarcastic" how in that sentence can he be confirming something seriously and mocking something of that exact same nature. This is some subtext that you have entered. There is a strict "no paraphrasing" rule on these forums, however to take David's quote and say he was kidding is just that. You can't possibly lend any shred of proof to this, except your own personal inclination to not believe in a new world order style cabal. That's not to mention every aspect of his life being at least similar to what's being accused of him
Click to expand...

What else is he being accused of?
 
He is being accused of participating in a cabal. The cabal aspect, Mick clearly stated, was being gently mocked. However there is nothing to suggest he was in anything but serious. This is not proper debunking. Especially when it's the first response to a rather dubious quote.
 
Brandon Sims said:
He is being accused of participating in a cabal. The cabal aspect, Mick clearly stated, was being gently mocked. However there is nothing to suggest he was in anything but serious. This is not proper debunking. Especially when it's the first response to a rather dubious quote.
Click to expand...

So then what you are saying is you don't believe this particular claim has been debunked.
 
Brandon Sims said:
Ok i understand this. But there is quite literally no evidence to suggest he was "joshing" "being sarcastic" or anything less than serious. You have chosen to conclude that he was "being sarcastic" how in that sentence can he be confirming something seriously and mocking something of that exact same nature. This is some subtext that you have entered. There is a strict "no paraphrasing" rule on these forums, however to take David's quote and say he was kidding is just that. You can't possibly lend any shred of proof to this, except your own personal inclination to not believe in a new world order style cabal. That's not to mention every aspect of his life being at least similar to what's being accused of him
Click to expand...
would the full quote help you a bit?


[QUOTE="TruthmyCamus, post: 10174, member: 627[/QUOTE]
"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."
[/QUOTE]
 
Essentially you have someone we can all agree is immensely wealthy and powerful and is very open about his globalist endeavors as well as his friends in high places. And the general consensus from the website for debunking, was that the man was just kidding on that part. But was serious about the rest. There is nothing to support this yet several people collectively reached this conclusion.... How can this come about? It's almost a theory in itself that he was kidding haha a theory with no evidence that I have just debunked with a quote of him admitting to being in a secret cabal
 
You are putting pieces of it in bold and if anything that's taking away from the context of the entire passage, however, when he says "they claim" and "some even believe" he ends these statements with the fact the he is guilty of those claims and the beliefs are true. And as any powerful man is, he's proud of his accomplishments
 
So again. How does the words "they claim" and "some say" mean he is kidding. He is finally addressing the claims made against his family as far as the cabal.


With the text you have highlighted, am I to believe that anyone who addresses claims made against them are in fact kidding once they address them?

All he did was bring up the popular accusation, and to you this is proof he is mocking the accusation by bringing it up
 
Brandon Sims said:
You are putting pieces of it in bold and if anything that's taking away from the context of the entire passage, however, when he says "they claim" and "some even believe" he ends these statements with the fact the he is guilty of those claims and the beliefs are true. And as any powerful man is, he's proud of his accomplishments
Click to expand...
and just for the record, he says "if that's the charge". not "if those are the charges".
So it reads as he is referring to the last charge he waas speaking of. no?
 
JRBids said:
Sounds pretty sarcastic to me.
Click to expand...
If you are righting a memoir and not being interviewed. Then there is no way for someone else to bring up these claims made against him. Therefore to address them he would have to bring them up himself. You are trying to say that by addressing the rumors against him, he is also discrediting them. This has no logical basis. If that's the case anytime someone addresses claims made about them, they are doing so in jest
 
Uh no. I don't think you really comprehend sarcasm or nuance. If he was making a claim he would not use phrases such as "SOME SAY", or "THEY CLAIM" or "SOME EVEN BELIEVE".
 
JRBids said:
Uh no. I don't think you really comprehend sarcasm or nuance. If he was making a claim he would not use phrases such as "SOME SAY", or "THEY CLAIM" or "SOME EVEN BELIEVE".
Click to expand...

Comprehending saracasm in a paragraph from a memoir isn't easy, but I am fascinated how "some say" "they claim" imply sarcasm..... How would you address those claims I'm trying to think of another way to put it. Some say or they claim sounds pretty accurate. Maybe "It is often said" that's the only thing more mild I could think of
 
Brandon Sims said:
Actually I'm not. I'm still on the exact same point from my original post. What tiny little inclination can you give me that this man was kidding?
Click to expand...
Nine months ago, I asked in Post #74:

"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?"

Followed by "Having a coy laugh at one's detractors seem much more likely."

So, if you think he made a massive confession, surely the prominent newspapers
of the day would've mentioned it, yes? How many have you found, so far?
 
Brandon Sims said:
But you have yet to answer how saying that some people say something is sarcasm
Click to expand...
its not just some people. it is specifically "ideological extremists" who have been "attack"ing his family. which is why i bolded those parts.

"ideological extremist" is, as far as i know, never used in a non-derogatory way. He is stating they are using the term "internationalist" as if it is a dirty word. To him it is not a dirty word. (Like how Democrats, dont think being called a Democrat is an insult :) or how Democrats use the term "capitalist" as if it is a dirty word, But capitalists are proud to be capitalists because it is not a dirty word.

A Capitalist would say "some ideological extremists call me a "capitalist", and say i am conspiring with other business men to create wealth. If that is the charge, I stand guilty and am proud of it." Because to a capitalist, wealth = jobs and a stronger economy. So he would be saying those sentences sarcastically, mockingly. He's saying the "ideological extremists" who think capitalism is bad are idiots. see?
 
deirdre said:
would the full quote help you a bit?


[QUOTE="TruthmyCamus, post: 10174, member: 627
Click to expand...
"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."
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I think the whole quote helps quite a bit with context. It seems to me that Rockefeller was setting up a straw man by referring to "ideological extremists" in the passage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

He is refuting a problem --the secret cabal-- that is not there, while admitting his interest in global cooperation. Take a look at his life. You'll see him pursuing it for decades. He was a philanthropist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller

Brandon Sims, I am not sure why you are maintaining what amounts to a contrary viewpoint.
 
When I told people they couldn't grasp basic concepts and ideals. And comprehend things. I was reported by a mod for impoliteness but hey I know how this goes all one sided and what not. The point is you took someone's confession in a memoir and applied you own spin on it based on the subtext you read. Based on the conclusions you have drawn not based on any fact or logic that's an assumption to say he was kidding when all evidence points otherwise including his own words. But again. I know what your gonna say
 
Brandon Sims said:
Ok i understand this. But there is quite literally no evidence to suggest he was "joshing" "being sarcastic" or anything less than serious. You have chosen to conclude that he was "being sarcastic" how in that sentence can he be confirming something seriously and mocking something of that exact same nature. This is some subtext that you have entered. There is a strict "no paraphrasing" rule on these forums, however to take David's quote and say he was kidding is just that. You can't possibly lend any shred of proof to this, except your own personal inclination to not believe in a new world order style cabal. That's not to mention every aspect of his life being at least similar to what's being accused of him
Click to expand...
Your name suggests Anglo origins. Have to not found that the phrase "I stand guilty of it" to be a sarcastic use of the word "guilty"? He obviously feels no guilt. The phrase obviously refers to his wish for a global free economic trade system. Very obviously he is not referring to being in a SECRET cabal. The secret to secret cabals is not announcing it to the world.
 
Sorry if this has already been brought up, I scanned through the thread and didn't see it.

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States
Click to expand...

The use of 'even' as an adverb indicates a statement that is surprising, extreme, or ridiculous.

The idea that the author could consider the belief that he was "part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" simultaneously surprising and true, doesn't scan.

"Deviation from the English language" as they'd call it on Just A Minute.

Ray Von
 
Last edited:
Brandon Sims said:
When I told people they couldn't grasp basic concepts and ideals. And comprehend things. I was reported by a mod for impoliteness but hey I know how this goes all one sided and what not.
Click to expand...
You were reported because you were insinuating that I was dull, which is a clear violation of the Politeness Policy. If any of us members were rude about or to you, we'd be edited as well.
 
Brandon Sims said:
Well mostly because it's not. And there's absolutely no factual or logical basis behind this conclusion
Click to expand...
Here (and attached) is a 48-page document in proper American Psychological Association (APA) format detailing one man's attempt to detect sarcasm in written English by creating a sarcasm-detecting computer program. In doing so, he must first define ways we can detect sarcasm in written English. Section 2.2.4, Detecting English, describes a variety of ways we can do this.
From page 7:
External Quote:

As previously described,
people speaking face to face can rely upon other cues than language ones;
speakers can roll their eyes, place heavy stress upon certain words, slow their speaking rate etc. This is
obviously not available when reading from text. This leads to the problem of only having lexical factors as
clues to work with, both for the reader to pick up on and for a NLP system to detect. As noted previously,
ironic sarcasm is non-literal, which not only gives problems to designing a system to detect it, but also for
readers to pick up on it. Assuming the author does not explicitly state that the phrase is meant sarcastically,
readers have few clues to pick up on the sarcasm, such as the context of the situation, known as common
ground (Clark, 1996), and the words being used to pick up on the sarcasm. An example of some of the clues
that readers and systems can pick up on are extreme adjectives and adverbs, such as 'absolutely fantastic',
which Utsumi (2000) suggests as being a way of implicitly displaying a negative attitude. As you can tell
from the example I used, this is commonly used to express ironic sarcasm.
On page 9, we read this:
External Quote:

Kreuz and Link (2002) state that this pragmatic factor of common ground can be projected by
readers to characters that know each other in written text; the participants from the paper reading the excerpts
are capable of reading sarcastic statements more quickly, and with a greater degree of certainty, than when
the characters do not know each other. These results can be explained in terms of a principle of inferability:
people will only employ sarcasm if they are reasonably certain that the people they are communicating to
will interpret it correctly (Kreuz, 1996).
So, when you say:
Brandon Sims said:
If you are righting a memoir and not being interviewed. Then there is no way for someone else to bring up these claims made against him. Therefore to address them he would have to bring them up himself. You are trying to say that by addressing the rumors against him, he is also discrediting them. This has no logical basis. If that's the case anytime someone addresses claims made about them, they are doing so in jest
Click to expand...

There IS a logical basis to this belief; mentioning it in a study dedicated to programming a computer to detect it is about as logical as it gets. If he was indeed involved in a 'SECRET' cabal, why would he admit it? What benefit would it have for him? Isn't it a lot more logical to assume that he was simply acknowledging the rumors, poking fun at them, and moving on?
 

Attachments

That made me think about reading the quote out loud. I've done a lot of theatre and if I had to read that excerpt in an audition I would certainly take it as sarcasm. But we're just beating a dead horse here. Unless we have a follow up quote that says "just kidding folks!" Brandon will think he was admitting his guilt in a plot to take over the world.
 
Brandon Sims said:
When I told people they couldn't grasp basic concepts and ideals. And comprehend things. I was reported by a mod for impoliteness but hey I know how this goes all one sided and what not. The point is you took someone's confession in a memoir and applied you own spin on it based on the subtext you read. Based on the conclusions you have drawn not based on any fact or logic that's an assumption to say he was kidding when all evidence points otherwise including his own words. But again. I know what your gonna say
Click to expand...

Okay, let me try a different approach.

Let's say for the sake of argument that what Rockefeller said should be taken at absolute face value. He did confess to being a member of a secret cabal.

You are appealing to logic in this discussion. Good. Let's apply logic to this known fact.

A confession is clearly evidence, but it is stronger evidence if corroborated. Corroboration is important to supporting or reinforcing a claim.

Also, a confession is a good indicator of causation, but again, logic dictates that a multi-causal approach is far better than basing a claim on a single piece of evidence.

So here are two questions for you, Brandon Sims, what is the most compelling piece of evidence that you have found that corroborates Rockefeller's confession? Does this same piece of evidence satisfy multi-causation?

I am asking because I would like to see you advocate an idea in this discussion rather than contest other ideas as invalid.

I welcome your response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

curtispenner
Naomi Wolf testimony at European Parliament accusing EU Commission president Ursla Von de Leyen of covering up Pfizer crimes
Replies
9
Views
1K
curtispenner
curtispenner
NorCal Dave
UAP Disclosure Fund Presentation with House Oversight Committee, May 2025
2
Replies
61
Views
9K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Jack Mallory
Above Top Secret: How MIL/INTEL classification ACTUALLY works—according to Daniel Ellsberg
Replies
8
Views
2K
Rum
R
Edward Current
Do UFOs have to be human-scale in size?
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
34
Views
8K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top