David Rockefeller memoirs-Bankers own world!

[banunpatriotact]

Here is an interesting quote from big time banker David Rockefeller. Here is the source.

"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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - From Rockefeller's "Memoirs", (p.405).

What do you think of this? Do you agree that a one world government controlled by rich banking cartels is the answer?

[questionmark]

I doubt it, but nevertheless there is a "old boys/girls"network all throughout business/finance/politics that could be a kind of world government if they all would not be so busy slashing each other's throats and/or trying to take advantage of each other fueled by greed.

There is a small group of people though, which I call "the ones who always had money" that does not include Rockefeller, because, compared to the likes of Thurn & Taxis who were already rich in the 14th century, we can considered them as a parvenus. They have a very tight grip on politics/power/money. But if they would not have had they would have hardly kept their cash together for 6 centuries.

No, money turns a big wheel, but not as big as those with money would like. And that Castro humors himself with receiving some guy 'cause he has money does not equate to having influence. Castro also receives his buffoons.

[banunpatriotact]

I can see your points, but the American dollar is not backed by anything at this point. The only thing that gives it any value is oil. It is in the best interests of the big bankers, the federal reserve (which is a private bank), and their puppet politicians to secure this oil. That's why Bush is waging "preventive" war against other countries. These international banking cartels include all of the wealthiest elite in the world. It's not just about America.

[Mars]

I've heard of the ROckefellers. I knew a woman online who was related to them (very nasty and vile person too). She claimed the rumors were true about them controlling the banks. I tend to believe it, along with the Rothchilds (dunno if I spelt that right).

Crush ZOG

Edited September 1, 2007 by Mars

[banunpatriotact]

I've heard of the ROckefellers. I knew a woman online who was related to them (very nasty and vile person too). She claimed the rumors were true about them controlling the banks. I tend to believe it, along with the Rothchilds (dunno if I spelt that right).

Crush ZOG

Yes, they go way back to the implementation of the fraudulent Federal Reserve. Here is an excellent clip from ZEITGEIST the movie, that explains it.

Zeitgeist, clip 9 of 13

[el midgetron]

I've heard of the ROckefellers. I knew a woman online who was related to them (very nasty and vile person too). She claimed the rumors were true about them controlling the banks. I tend to believe it, along with the Rothchilds (dunno if I spelt that right).

The Rothschilds are well above the Rockefellers. A great documentary on this subject is "the money masters". I can't remember exactly how long it is but its long, something like three 2.5 hour parts. Honestly, its slightly boaring, at least production wise. However, the information it contains makes up for that.

When you look at all the ways and methods the elite have utilized to control us, money is a no brainer. It doens't matter what religion, political party, race or nationality you are, everyone uses, everyone needs money.

Edited September 1, 2007 by el midgetron

[ships-cat]

I doubt it, but nevertheless there is a "old boys/girls"network all throughout business/finance/politics that could be a kind of world government if they all would not be so busy slashing each other's throats and/or trying to take advantage of each other fueled by greed.

There is a small group of people though, which I call "the ones who always had money" that does not include Rockefeller, because, compared to the likes of Thurn & Taxis who were already rich in the 14th century, we can considered them as a parvenus. They have a very tight grip on politics/power/money. But if they would not have had they would have hardly kept their cash together for 6 centuries.

No, money turns a big wheel, but not as big as those with money would like. And that Castro humors himself with receiving some guy 'cause he has money does not equate to having influence. Castro also receives his buffoons.

I think the ultra-rich DO have influence over - for example - politicians. (or rather, more influence than average people). But I'm not so sure about the idea of them controlling the world. At the end of the day, a small-medium-size country gets FAR more money per year (through it's tax revenue) than even the Rothschilds of the world would earn in a lifetime.

The UK government "earns" around £450 billion per year (around $900 billion dollars), and yet you wouldn't accuse Gordon Brown of 'ruling the world' would you ?

Meow Purr.

[questionmark]

In any case. money alone does not cut it.

In some places we can go into casuistic to analyze this, like France, for example. Did you notice that almost all high ranking politicians all went to the same elite schools?

Lets take Britain, ever noticed that in the back rooms of politics there is the same old Eton/Cambridge/Oxford brotherhood?

It has in common that you can't into most of theses schools because you are good, but you have to be good plus money and/or a recommendation.

The network of the Rotschilds and of the Thurn & Taxis are way broader and therefore more influential than those of the Rockefellers because the former had money for many centuries, to the contrary of the latter.

Money alone ist not enough... no matter how much.

Edited September 1, 2007 by questionmark

[Lt_Ripley]

Here is an interesting quote from big time banker David Rockefeller. Here is the source.

"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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - From Rockefeller's "Memoirs", (p.405).

What do you think of this? Do you agree that a one world government controlled by rich banking cartels is the answer?

lol oh those rich folk. Always good for a laugh. absolute power corrupts absolutley.

[Atheist God]

I doubt it, but nevertheless there is a "old boys/girls"network all throughout business/finance/politics that could be a kind of world government if they all would not be so busy slashing each other's throats and/or trying to take advantage of each other fueled by greed.

They don't hate each other that much I mean they all get together once a year at Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg Group etc.

I recently talked to a historian buddy of mine at the university about this very topic... He put it simply like this...

The Federal Reserve along with mostly every other world national bank are all connected to the world bank/IMF This Bank is owned by private investors. Every major corporation, rich person and so on all keep their money in major banks. It's not so much that they have the control over people as it is they issue currency and control wealth.

The ability to manipulate economies gives you more power then any politician.

I think the ultra-rich DO have influence over - for example - politicians. (or rather, more influence than average people). But I'm not so sure about the idea of them controlling the world. At the end of the day, a small-medium-size country gets FAR more money per year (through it's tax revenue) than even the Rothschilds of the world would earn in a lifetime.

This is true money alone is not enough but thats why people just don't get it. It's not about making money it's about controlling it and this is where power comes from. A country may make a lot of money, but that money ends up being tied into financial institutions and these are privately owned.

Having the ability to manipulate economies gives you the ability to manipulate governments. Now it is clear that not every nation is controlled by the global financial network I mean look at South America or the Middle East.

[questionmark]

They don't hate each other that much I mean they all get together once a year at Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg Group etc.

Oh, you mean these grouos are not competing with each other?

[Atheist God]

Oh, you mean these grouos are not competing with each other?

Actually it depends but it appears to me anyway that most multinational companies like major oil for example seek solidarity by merging. But seeing as how most major investors have big bank ties and sit on the boards of several companies you have to wonder if there really is competition or if what appears to be competition is nothing more then a veil. I can't say this is how it is but it is possible. Would you merge with your company with the enemy? or... Would you try to best them and put them out of business?

The way I see it is it really doesn't matter if your the head of a major corporation because it is the investors who sit on the board who really have control and who are most of these investors.

[questionmark]

Actually it depends but it appears to me anyway that most multinational companies like major oil for example seek solidarity by merging. But seeing as how most major investors have big bank ties and sit on the boards of several companies you have to wonder if there really is competition or if what appears to be competition is nothing more then a veil. I can't say this is how it is but it is possible. Would you merge with your company with the enemy? or... Would you try to best them and put them out of business?

The way I see it is it really doesn't matter if your the head of a major corporation because it is the investors who sit on the board who really have control and who are most of these investors.

Well, there are two type of mergers, one to eliminate a competitor, which is shown by the buyer starting to close plants and fire employees afterwards, and the other to take over the business of the competitor.