I suspect the problem is rooted in the personal epistemology of individual Freepers – which is to say: what they know to be true, how they know it and how certain they are that they actually know it.
For instance, I trust the words of God above all other sources of knowledge including my own sensory perception and reasoning and the counsel of men. Indeed, I hold the words of men – whether authority, journalist, scientist, religious authority, prophet, friend, family, etc. – to four tests:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. – Matthew 22:29
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. - Romans 8:1
I do not think Freepers trust the mainstream media. If they did, they would not be here.
In doing the Downside Legacy during the Clinton Administration, it became clear that the burden in presenting research to this wide range of epistemology fell squarely on my own shoulders. I had to vet my sources carefully, find the most credible sources available and present material with caveats where appropriate.
There were many conspiracy theories back in those days. And I researched them as best I could.
The Waco incident was a classic and there was enough credible information there to present it all with timelines and sources. The “red flags” were the presence of bioweapon military command in the planning of the assault, the SAS, special forces and the use of tanks.
Another classic was the fortuitous (to the administration) demise of a number of people - Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Jerry Parks to name a few. So it behooved me to keep a list of them all so that the Freepers could arrive at their own conclusions – I never told them what I believed the information to mean, i.e. whether it was just weird coincidence, malicious behavior of men or spirits.
And there was China-gate, globalism, the death of al-Dura, TWA800 and many others that I researched.
But in all of that I could never find credible sources – original sources that would stand up to scrutiny - for the alleged secret societies and conspiracies, e.g. Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission. So I downplayed everything related to such claims – most especially the alleged quote from Rockefeller. I couldn't source it and didn't want to present a Trojan horse. Bottom line, what better way to discredit the credible conspiracies (reducing the U.S. through globalism, international courts, etc.) than to throw in conspiracies that have no basis in fact?
The New Madrid Fault theory is an example. Scientists and government emergency authorities have long been aware of the great danger of another major earthquake in the New Madrid Fault. Memphis and St. Louis would be devastated The deaths would be in the thousands and property damage unimaginable. It would dwarf not only Katrina but also the fall of the WTC on 911.
But as far as I can tell, none of the credible scientific studies predict that the tragic consequences would include the Gulf of Mexico reaching up to Great Lakes.
If I were presenting information about New Madrid to the forum, I would very, very, very carefully research, vet and categorize the remarks. If it is a major research organization, I would cite it. If it came from a fringe scientist or group of scientists, I would point that out. If it were a vision, dream or prophecy, I would say so – right up front. And let the correspondent arrive at his own conclusions about it all.
This is all necessary to maintain my own credibility in the debate. Some Freepers are inclined to accept modern day dreams, visions and prophecies while others reject them out-of-hand on principle.
Some Freepers are fed up with mainstream scientists and are more inclined to give an ear to the fringe scientists whereas others are more confident in peer-reviewed studies.
Some Freepers read current events and see Biblical prophecies unfolding whereas others either do not believe those prophecies, understand them differently or believe they've already been fulfilled.
And of course some Freepers love God, believe Him and trust Him - and others, not so much - or not yet.
RUSHING OFF TO CHURCH. More later.
Thanks for the substantive treatment I was desperately hopeing for.
You are, of course, as usual, right again. LOL.
LUB
I don't think it's easy, if possible to convey to you how much it meant to me to get your substantive reply.
THANKS ENORMOUSLY.
Here's my bit more amplified reply . . .
=============================================
A-G:
I suspect the problem is rooted in the personal epistemology of individual Freepers – which is to say: what they know to be true, how they know it and how certain they are that they actually know it.
ABSOLUTELY, INDEED. NO DOUBT.
For instance, I trust the words of God above all other sources of knowledge including my own sensory perception and reasoning and the counsel of men. Indeed, I hold the words of men – whether authority, journalist, scientist, religious authority, prophet, friend, family, etc. – to four tests:
Actually, that’s very close, if not the same, criteria and filter I use fairly routinely. I suspect you are a more rigorous screener, or filter-er than I am—at least on some issues in some contexts. Perhaps I am in others. Certainly those Scriptures and that set of criteria is a priceless way to deal with reality. It doesn’t prevent bumps in the road nor eve necessarily all crash & burn incidents. It sure minimizes them and yields them to be more redemptive, quicker, imho.
A lot of your correspondents here put their trust in the counsel of men – some to religious authorities and others to scientists or experts. And a lot of your correspondents put their trust in themselves, i.e. sensory perception and reasoning.
I THINK YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AGAIN.
I do not think Freepers trust the mainstream media. If they did, they would not be here.
I used to think that. I no longer think that.
I think there are quite a number of topics and spheres where that’s quite true. However, in these forbidden topic areas, repeatedly, relentlessly for most of 12 years now, I’ve been castigated, ridiculed, thrashed, laughed at, demeaned, and more TO THE DEGREE THAT AND BECAUSE I have not taken the MSM stance on the forbidden topics.
And the FREEPER CORRESPONDENTS have relentlessly in such exchanges spouted the MSM positions on such issues, topics, incidents, events—right down the line—virtually to the letter—carbon copy. And, the harrasssments, castigations etc. have ALSO been right down the line, straight out of the MSM playbook and script on such scores. . . . almost every day of those 11-12 years. I can no longer deny or minimize all that evidence.
In doing the Downside Legacy during the Clinton Administration, it became clear that the burden in presenting research to this wide range of epistemology fell squarely on my own shoulders. I had to vet my sources carefully, find the most credible sources available and present material with caveats where appropriate.
Certainly this is a critical area where we have differed markedly and clearly to my own hurt and significantly to the hurt of my message.
However, given the topic areas I’ve routinely dealt with—I don’t think I had as much leeway or choice as you had even in your tricky subject area.
There was a LOT more material of a LOT better quality provable sources for even the Klintoon horrific stuff than is routinely the case in the forbidden topic areas I’ve dealt with. The conservatives and even GOP to some degree were digging stuff up relentlessly—somewhat by design. Regardless—it afforded you better sources easier to vet and more of such sources.
That’s the NATURE OF the particular topics involved. Logically, it would not be otherwise—could not be otherwise—for extended, long periods of time in decades. I think this issue is greatly minimized. Folks seem to just not comprehend well their overwhelming addiction to avoiding TYPE I ERRORS. Perhaps worse, they do not seem to comprehend well the resulting virtual certainty that they will suffer the pains of potentially very hazardous TYPE II ERRORS.
THAT is still very mystifying to me. What is WITH the absolute brain fade about that issue!? No one ever gives a good response to that question. One would think that the “scientists” types—the obsessive hyper Super Rationalists—would have better and more congruent understanding on such scores—to the degree that they could give a congruent, reasonable set of responses on that issue. Alas, their biases seem to reign and to neutralize reasonable discussion on those points.
And, no one has come up with any viable alternative for finding out and determining truth in such a well hidden, full of disinformation; super complex and super convoluted subject area. OF COURSE the sources are going to be questionable. OF COURSE the sources are going to be difficult, if not impossible to vet—the vast majority of the time.
Nevertheless, as difficult as such things are, many murderers have been rightly convicted on far less quality less vetted information and sources than is now available on these forbidden topics.
Yes, most sources and most documents etc. are STILL questionable enough that the super rationalists will always be able to justify flushing whatever data they find sufficiently uncomfortable. That does NOT EQUAL saying that therefore the data is untrue.
But that’s NOT EQUAL to there being no reasonably verifiable data available.
Actually, at this point, WHEN one looks at the BREADTH AND DEPTH AS WELL AS THE WIDE DIVERSITY of only the better quality sources asserting some of the main points in each of these forbidden subject areas, most sensible people would—IF THE SUBJECTS WERE NOT SO HIGHLY CHARGED AND FIERCELY RIDICULED so successfully in the MSM—most reasonable people would make pretty reasonable conclusions based on the piles of reasonably good quality diverse sourced info—EVEN THOUGH they did not rise to the standard you used with the Clinton Waco and other such stuff.
However, the subject areas are uncomfortable enough for a list of reasons—most people are happy to sing the MSM’s tune and go on whistling by the graveyard. It probably helps millions of people sleep better to sleep in blissful denial. I don’t know what percentage that is true for on FR. Sometimes, it SEEMS like a majority of the mods--sometimes, not.
And, of course, looking at the UFO ping list and the END TIMES ping list—there’s a wide breadth of personality; degree of scientific sophistication etc. who believe very firmly in the realities involved with the UFO stuff as well as the END TIMES RELATED global government stuff. Yet, by some mods and the super hyper rationalists all such individuals are made out to be super stupid, low IQ, clueless, hay-seed, troll idiots—which is simply far from THE TRUTH—as though THE TRUTH were really what was desired vs comfort zones; appearing “normal,” whatever that is; being in step with the ‘conventional wisdom,’ whatever that is—and—honestly—not straying too far from the MSM’s constructions on realities involved with those topics.
I could probably often point to equally high quality sources but the provable vetting was not likely to be near as good—except in rare cases. For example, we have a FREEPER—Dr, Colonel Jesse Marcel Jr MD retired Vet Army Surgeon. I’m pinging him to this msg.
Given his qualifications; given his military service; given his very Conservative Christian (Roman Catholic) values—I can’t think of a MORE qualified source—for FR—unless, perhaps it was Ronald Reagan. However, Ronald Reagan did not handle the pieces of the crashed UFO at Roswell—Dr Colonel, Jesse Marcel Jr did.
Yet, even on FR—his testimony on such scores is just as ridiculed, trashed etc. as anyone else’s. NOT because he’s a poor quality source—MERELY BECAUSE OF BIAS—normalcy bias; MSM propagandized bias—whatever.
There were many conspiracy theories back in those days. And I researched them as best I could.
And, no doubt, you did a much higher quality, high class job of it than I have in these forbidden areas. I’ve been much more of a hay-seed sort of bloke collecting piles of things in the dusty barn of my mental archives. I end up with a gestalt of what’s more likely true vs less likely true. It’s a very coarse sorting criteria that has distilled over the decades consciously and unconsciously.
The Waco incident was a classic and there was enough credible information there to present it all with timelines and sources. The “red flags” were the presence of bioweapon military command in the planning of the assault, the SAS, special forces and the use of tanks.
I believe there are PLENTY of “red flags” available in the forbidden topics I’ve posted on over the years—and even high quality sourced “red flags.” However, typically, the dogpile descends on such sources or examples and is dismissive, derisive—REGARDLESS of the degree of quality of the source—and it gets trashed or shouted down—NOT because it’s a lower quality source—but because of the biases involved and evidently the horrific degree of discomfort on the part of some—with even considering that such things MIGHT be true.
And, this or that example or source can certainly be less than pristine or perfect in 100% of the factors involved. Life’s like that. I doubt even your “red flags” in the Waco case were 100% all 100% pristine and perfect in all respects.
HOWEVER, what was different about that with the FR audience is that IT FIT WITHIN THE FREEPER VALUES to construe Clintons accurately with respect to Waco. For significant chunks of at least the mods and at least significant chunks of the FR membership—that’s simply NOT true—more the opposite is true.
For THOSE folks to even BEGIN to fair-mindedly CONSIDER that there’s truth (as such sources on such forbidden topics indicate)—is just—clearly—ABSOLUTELY INTOLERABLE AT AN INTENSELY EMOTIONAL LEVEL—as well as at an intellectual level—given their pretend tidy little intellectual boxes and a visceral aversion to thinking outside such boxes.
I don’t have a specific set of examples off the top of my head and am not interested in taking time to dig one up. I just know from my extensive experience with the evidence that there’s a significant number of DIFFERENT cases in both the UFO and global government spheres wherein “red flags” of equal alarm, quality and import to the tanks, bioweapon command, SAS involvements in the Waco case are documentable and accepted as proven by knowledgeable professional, even scholarly researchers in the fields..
Yet, the same quality of evidence will NOT ever—certainly not on FR but also not even on ATS (Above Top Secret.com) garner even a respectable fraction of the respect your Waco example garnered.
Is that all 100% attributable to my cavalier, hit and run, very coarse sorting and treatment of the evidence into only 2 basic categories of PROBABLY/likely TRUE, PROBABLY NOT TRUE? I don’t think so. I think the biases involved and particularly the EMOTIONAL and pseudo-intellectual biases involved determine the vast majority of dismissiveness, derisiveness and clinging to the MSM constructions on reality about such matters.
Another classic was the fortuitous (to the administration) demise of a number of people - Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Jerry Parks to name a few. So it behooved me to keep a list of them all so that the Freepers could arrive at their own conclusions – I never told them what I believed the information to mean, i.e. whether it was just weird coincidence, malicious behavior of men or spirits.
THIS ONE IS A REALLLLL TRIP TO ME. That list of facts and terminated individuals is ACTUALLY AND TRULY a relatively ‘minor’ subset of a GREAT NUMBER of similar terminations at the pleasure of the globalist powers that be. The documentation, proofs, types, etc. of deaths are at least as MANY, IF NOT THE MAJORITY--at least as good as those you uncovered in the Clinton cases. And, such have been documented ad nauseum by quality scholarly researchers—some going back decades. We’re talking hundreds of cases. IIRC, I think there’s over 135 bioengineering biological warfare specialists PhD’s/MD’s ALONE who have been terminated mysteriously, internationally.
Now certainly, it’s easy to accurately say that A-G’s reputation is a thousand times well earned better than Quix’s in terms of such research and the presentation of such research. Yet, that’s more than a little hyperbole. The sources and evidence I’ve at least SOMETIMES presented, is NOT totally anything near as off the wall as many make it out to be. Again, I think it’s the emotional and tidy boxed intellectual aversion to such possibilities that send even many FREEPERS running screaming for the MSM’s construction on such realities.
Yet, there’s NO DISCERNABLE DIFFERENCE TO THE RESPONSES I trigger between the quality sources and evidence vs the lower quality. That’s very telling, to me. The blackwashing is as though it’s all horsefeathers—grossly lacking in quality to the max. And that’s just NOT true by a long shot.
And there was China-gate, globalism, the death of al-Dura, TWA800 and many others that I researched.
But in all of that I could never find credible sources – original sources that would stand up to scrutiny - for the alleged secret societies and conspiracies, e.g. Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission. So I downplayed everything related to such claims – most especially the alleged quote from Rockefeller. I couldn't source it and didn't want to present a Trojan horse. Bottom line, what better way to discredit the credible conspiracies (reducing the U.S. through globalism, international courts, etc.) than to throw in conspiracies that have no basis in fact?
Would you agree or not agree that THERE’S A POTENTIALLY HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “conspiracies that have no basis in fact” and “conspiracies that have no basis in CLEARLY IRON-CLAD PROVABLE facts???
We are talking about a subject area where THE VERY NATURE OF THE TOPIC PRECLUDES MUCH EASY opportunity to be dealing with “CLEARLY IRON-CLAD PROVABLE FACES!”
When the very subjects being investigated have relatively unlimited resources to spread widely about half-truths; well-crafted disinformation etc. to muddy the waters; shred credibility on very true and real events etc.—WHAT ELSE WOULD ONE EXPECT?
So, I have a question for you. Let’s say there were 10 of such other conspiracies which you, in the end, decided to leave out because the level of proof was just not available. How many out of that 10 WERE YOU PERSONALLY convinced were highly likely to be true or mostly true?
The New Madrid Fault theory is an example. Scientists and government emergency authorities have long been aware of the great danger of another major earthquake in the New Madrid Fault. Memphis and St. Louis would be devastated The deaths would be in the thousands and property damage unimaginable. It would dwarf not only Katrina but also the fall of the WTC on 911.
But as far as I can tell, none of the credible scientific studies predict that the tragic consequences would include the Gulf of Mexico reaching up to Great Lakes.
That should not be surprising in the least—any more than it should be surprising that the global/shadow government has access to exotic technologies which afford it options and opportunities that almost make science fiction tame by comparison.
At some point, when one is examining such a huge pile of puzzle pieces . . . one has to deal with BOTH the GREEK/pseudo-scientific method to discover truth vs the HEBREW phenomenological method to discover truth. The super hyper rationalist naysayers virtually 100% cling obsessively to the GREEK method and PRETEND valiantly and derisively that there IS NO OTHER way to reliably discover any kind of truth on any topic in any context, ever, priod.
THAT’S NONSENSE. They lose the weight of a HUGE amount of subtle information that may be priceless. If our intelligence folks had tossed out all the subtle puzzle pieces in WWII as not worth considering fairly, we might well have lost the war.
If I were presenting information about New Madrid to the forum, I would very, very, very carefully research, vet and categorize the remarks. If it is a major research organization, I would cite it. If it came from a fringe scientist or group of scientists, I would point that out. If it were a vision, dream or prophecy, I would say so – right up front. And let the correspondent arrive at his own conclusions about it all.
I THINK THAT’S A VERY GOOD EXHORTATION. And, I’ll likely follow it at least much of the time, on my blog.
I think my poor ASSUMPTION has been that most readers are ABLE*AND* WILLING to process fair-mindedly subtle data, nuance, AND a wide range of qualities of data . . . as productively as some of the rest of us can. And, clearly, that’s a dumb assumption.
This is all necessary to maintain my own credibility in the debate. Some Freepers are inclined to accept modern day dreams, visions and prophecies while others reject them out-of-hand on principle.
I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER VERY GOOD POINT. My reputation and credibility have been shredded so many ways to Sunday so many times over the decades that I’ve come to treat it as inconsequential.
AND, to be honest, frankly, THOSE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH HAVE DEMONSTRATED a capacity, WILLINGNESS and interest in ferreting out the truth regardless of the credibility issues AND REGARDLESS OF THE MIXTURE OF LOW TO HIGH QUALITY sources and evidence.
CLEARLY, there are major portions of FR for whom that is *NOT* true.
Some Freepers are fed up with mainstream scientists and are more inclined to give an ear to the fringe scientists whereas others are more confident in peer-reviewed studies.
QUITE SO. Though I still fail to see why one group has SUCH AN OBVIOUS compulsion to cling sooooo tenaciously—regardless of the quality of evidence, sources etc--TO THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA’S CONSTRUCTION ON SUCH REALITIES . . . VIRTUALLY REGARDLESS OF THE CONTEXT, SEQUENCES, TIMELINES, VETTED SOURCES ETC.
Some Freepers read current events and see Biblical prophecies unfolding whereas others either do not believe those prophecies, understand them differently or believe they've already been fulfilled.
INDEED. More stuff I just shake my head over! LOL.
And of course some Freepers love God, believe Him and trust Him - and others, not so much - or not yet.
INDEED. And, LOL, SOMETIMES, that one factor seems to decide a lot.
THANKS SO ENORMOUSLY FOR ALLOWING ME YOUR HELP IN SORTING MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS THROUGH regarding such things—and in helping me to put some realistic perspective on so much that’s been hugely mystifying and exasperating about such things on FR. I would, of course, greatly appreciate any thoughtful responses you have to the above.
I realize it’s all a moot issue on FR. Nevertheless, your kind sounding board service to me about such things is a GREAT help in me letting it go more fully and cleanly vis a vis FR.
It’s really not the priority for me to be right per se—certainly not in a psycho-dynamic sense.
THE PRIORITY IS TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY SUFFERING on the part of FREEPERS I LOVE AND CARE ABOUT A GREAT DEAL.
The grieving over that inevitability is abidingly with me. Many people who know me face to face have likened me to Jeremiah in such regards. I certainly can identify with him a lot.
The NATURE of the topics is such and the RUSH of history toward Armageddon is such—it is inevitable that great percentages of FR will not wake up and realize the truths involved until it is far too late for them to prepare even their hearts and minds to deal with such realities. THAT GRIEVES ME, a LOT.
I laughed at the naysayer who said that if he was abducted by a UFO, he’d ask them to let him out at Quix’s house to apologize. I don’t need any apologies—certainly not per se. I just need folks to avoid as much unnecessary suffering as possible.
Yet, I realize I cannot save, nor fix, nor ‘mother,’ nor ‘father,’ nor even successfully BEFRIEND the whole world—even merely the whole FR world. And I can accept that—eventually—at the end of each day. LOL.
THANKS TONS, TOO, for helping me sort out my own thoughts and feelings more clearly and more productively about all the above.
I seriously doubt I’m going to turn into even half the quality researcher and presenter that A-G naturally is.
I can only be me.
Thankfully, God has those who He insures benefit from HIS amplifying the me that HE has created, trained, coached, led to this point in my life. I trust that HE WILL REVEAL IN ETERNITY that there’s been much more fruit from that—WHICH HE HAS WROUGHT than I’d dared hope for.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD. THANKS, DEAR SISTER IN CHRIST FOR YOUR HELPING ME GROW SO MANY TIMES IN SO MANY QUALITY WAYS. Thanks immeasurably for your caring and prayers.
"I do not think Freepers trust the mainstream media. If they did, they would not be here."
True,assuming everything that hits the ears is vetted.I've long thought that "faith cometh by hearing" applies to everybody,as though it's part of being human.ie:What is heard the most,is trusted the most.Not just by believers,but by everybody.
Are any of us totally immune to what we hear?
As I've said before,I read the Bible as an atheist and came to believe through looking at the world through the lens of the Word.At least as much as my mind could comprehend.I've come to very much agree with bro' Quix on many things,not least of all his couched desperation concerning those around him.I suppose that could simply mean that we're both nuts.I don't think I am,but the thought does cross my mind now and then.8-)
Grace and peace to you both.
----------------
[Main Index] 11/04/2002 Entry: "Rockefeller New World Order Quote"
New World Order Terrorist "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David Rockefeller "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991
So forget about hard evidence - you won’t find any. Their biggest effort is in assuring that there is no evidence or that there is false or misleading evidence. They’re game is about maintaining plausible denyability, pure and simple. And if by some miracle, some hard evidence were to surface regarding the operations of these Illuminati assassination groups, they would simply cover it up. That is what they do - That is all they do. History shows that the hardest evidence in the world can be discredited in all of a second by the dark lying media and their cronies in the intelligence underground. A well placed comment such as, “What a Kook!” instantly resonates with the default position of ignorance in so many humans. Or they can simply cover it up with an emergency, “Terror Alert,” distraction to divert our gaze from that evidence. The fact is, is that they control the actual wreckage, seal it in a cordoned off and well guarded lab and simply alter the evidence, change it at will or destroy it if necessary. Its that simple - Its easy. And there is no one at a state or federal level who can challenge them. What this site is all about, is challenging people to question everything they are sure is true and everything they are sure is false. Then and only then can people escape the stultifying thinking which is plaguing the humankind. If you don’t challenge your prejudices and ignorances you are more likely to be believing a complete lie and/or attacking the last remaining vestige of truth, than vice versa. Sometimes details are important - Sometimes not. Go and try to get tape recorded evidence of the many covert illegal dealings that take place during these industrialist feeding frenzies - It’s not going to happen. Their principle effort is in guaranteeing no possibility of evidence. There will always be insular layers of intermediaries between their issuance of assassination orders and the lowly ex or current special forces unit who will carry out the hit. And even if the actual assassins were to ever get caught, deniability would of course still be maintained by any member of the conspiracy who is just two cells of distance from the other. This tertiary cellular nature of their organization structure is identical to the way terrorist cells are organized. I am careful to make the truths of these matters explicit whether or not there was a tape recorder there to catch the evidence. The truths in these articles are fundamental, and are beyond any laughable notions of some fraudulent journalistic integrity. Journalism is dead. There is no integrity. It is a fascist society and the pigs who own the media are in on the scam. So in America it is ludicrous to excoriate someone claiming they may not have verified all their facts. In America there cannot be any expectations of a journalistic standard which simply does not exist. My work is beyond their definitions of “journalistic standards” and empirical scrutiny because there are but few journalists who have the breadth of education, travel, and experience as I do. And, because I deal in the realm of the, “Paradigm Shift,” where anything is possible. Case in point my life. - Weather or not there was a tape recorder to pick up Heir Rockefeller’s kind offerings to the world (sarcasm) I challenge anyone to prove that Rockefeller DIDN’T make the comment. Because all the evidence is screaming out that the is such a private globalist conspiracy, and it is right up in our face every day. You need only examine 40 years of our world to know that these Bilderbergers said those things. Whether it was said in one sentence or across a broad range of handshakes. Whether it was conveyed with a blink of the eye, an understanding or a pat on the back, or explicit verbal instructions, make no mistake about it, when this “Old Boy” network gathers in their secret chambers their objectives are as they always were, as they always will be - To conspire to tighten their grip onto power at any price. voxfux Viewer Commentary: 35 comments I've seen this quotation before. It's on the Money Masters site on this page. http://www.themoneymasters.com/article.htm The authors of this site also produced a video concerning how money is created and the motives of the International Bankers. Personally, I've not seen it but do know one Monetary Reform advocate who has and have been told it is outstanding. Some commentary posted here adds credibility to that claim. "I endorse the video because people should know what is happening. Dr. Malachi Martin, former Professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute and a close associate of Augustin Cardinal Bea and Pope John XXIII; author of: The Windswept House; Vatican; The Keys of the Blood, and numerous other books As you know, I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of your Monetary Reform Act....You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception, which is I think somewhat different than mine...I am impressed by your persistence and attention to detail in your successive revisions... Best wishes. Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics; Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. " http://www.themoneymasters.com/viewcim.html As well, the site as a whole is also very informative and excellently produced. They discuss many things that appear to be happening right now. One is the introduction of diseases and depletion of basic necessities to areas where resources are rich and the population is simply "in the way". One region mentioned is South Africa. Two years ago I was given an article which gave the statistics concerning the spread of Aids throughout that country. At that time some sixty odd percent of (native) women under the age of thirty were testing positive for the HIV virus. What that implies is that offspring from the majority of natives in that nation are likely to develop the Aids virus within the next decade, or (assuming any of these children live long enough) at very least pass the disease on to subsequent generations. Not long ago I was given information about the unnatural qualities of the disease itself, specifically, that it had mutated so as to alter it's genetic structure three times within the last fifteen odd years. Apparently it is the first disease on record to be doing that which raises the possibility that it may be artificially created. Given the statistics concerning South Africa and the resources there is it so far fetched to suspect the disease may have been introduced to specific groups within the region for the purpose of having them "remove themselves" to serve the goal of greedy men? Before answering that it should be pointed out that the tactic has been used before, and in North America to be exact. Once the ruling classes of the European nations determined that the native population of North America had little or no resistance to diseases well known on their own continent people who were already close to being disenfranchised in their homeland (tenant farmers working lands which had gone bad, unemployed factory workers, criminals–anybody who was now "useless" to the ruling elite of nations such as England, France etc.) was shipped over here with promises of "free land" to work. Here in Canada that "free land" turned out to be the Great Canadian Shield" (near to Kingston, Ont.), basically a bed of rock not capable of sustaining any crop of real worth. Their transport here was paid for by the same elite who placed them on vessels formerly used as slave carriers amid conditions so horrendous that about thirty percent of the "immigrants to be" died in transit. Did these people really care that diseases carried by these people would infect and weaken an entire population? Moreover, did they care that once they realized the scope of the effect this migration was having on both their lands and their overall health that a long and bloody war which decimated the population of the different tribes and whic has sullied relations between the races to this day would begin? No, they didn't. That, was in fact, the long term goal. The fact that families with names like "Bush" and "Rockerfeller" controlling so much of our real wealth today proves that goal was met. History repeats itself. It does so because people have never changed; only the technology has advanced. http://www.themoneymasters.com/ Brian
by David Rockefeller
VOX COMMENT ANNOTATION: Once in a while I’ll throw an article like this into the mix to test our critical processes, to challenge our fraudulent notions of the necessity of evidentiary findings vs the extrapolated and reconstructed “real” history. Since the rise of information and communication technology we have witnessed the death of real evidence. And the birth of a new meta evidence. The sham state of journalism proves this. In a world where the same people who attack the towers, bomb the nightclubs and murder the Senators are the same people who sweep down moments after the blasts and crashes to “Secure” the crime scenes, extrapolation is really all we have left.
========================
There's an assertion at 0:53 into this youtube that David Rockefeller's book "Memoirs" includes an admission that "he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States and create a NWO. [Turn the volume off of the horrid music backtround!]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXTP_q8iaQ
It's from Chapter 21 titled "PROUD INTERNATIONALIST" on page 405--photo'd on the youtube.
Here's the quote retyped from that video's book page:
"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."
Another quote on the video has the citation: "David Rockefeller speaking at the United Nations Ambassadors' dinner. [Sept. 23, 1994]:
"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long...We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order."
There's a video here of George Bernard Shaw stating on a FOX NEWS VIDEO the below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_lsX4GBXE0&NR=1
"I don't want to punish anybody--but there are an extraordinary number of people whom I WANT TO KILL. I think it would be a good thing [The Marsha Stewart Depopulation philosophy???] to uhh make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the incom tax commissioners. And say every 5 years or every 7 years... and say, Sir, or Madam, Will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you're not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more, THEN, clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose OF KEEPING YOU ALIVE BECAUSE YOUR LIFE DOES NOT BENEFIT US and it can't be of very much use to yourself."
The fox news person continues with the narration and 2nd quote:
And this was actually somewhat subtle for Shaw. He'd also foreshadow some of the worst atrocities in our planet's history [IMAGE shows Shaw doing what looks like a Hitler salute.] He wrote:
"I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly: in short, a gentlemanly gas--deadly by all means, but humane not cruel."
The Fox video continues speaking of Shaw talking about playing beautiful classical music as people were marched into the gas chambers. Also, that Hitler did not invent such ideas--he merely perfected them, in a sense.
From
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/david_rockefeller_quote_b593
This quote and ref:
"Everything is in place - after 500 years - to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere... And what happens if we don't pass NAFTA? I truly don't think that 'criminal' would be too strong a word for rejecting NAFTA." --Wall Street Journal October 1 1993
And on this video, David Rockefeller speaks on C-SPAN about population control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8&feature=related
He speaks of increased public health resulting in geometric population increases--resulting in increased energy use, pollution of air and water, cross border challenges, . . . How does he propose the UN handle such problems? . . . threatening the prospects of a decent life on our planet . . . The UN should work . . . toward 'stabalizing' the population.
.
----
I realize you have been much better at ferreting out quality sources, vetting them and presenting them.
For most of the last 45 years, I've studied such things more for my own understanding and 2nd for waking people up. I've read so many leaders of the Western world for so long, I no longer have the least shred of a doubt what their values and goals are. So when a plausible quote passes before my eyes, I can be confident it's at least in the ball park of accurate if not very accurate. And, even if it proves later to be a hoax in terms of a specific person or event, speech or document--I can still be confident that there's a valid world leader truly saying the same thing; essentially the same thing or very close to the same thing somewhere at some time.
It is good to see so many other better quality researchers documenting such things in a quality way after your fashion.
Will any FREEPERS who were derisive, dismissive, hostile about the whole idea that Rockefeller or Shaw could say such a thing now learn anything from the quality documentation above? I doubt it. I can't recall a single case of that level and type of retraction or setting the record straight and certainly no apology about such things--in all my years on FR.
Yes, I understand about having one's cake and eating it too. I understand that it's been a bit cheeky of me to not provide top quality sources with top quality verifiable documentation. And, that it's then logical for at least some people to avoid believing my assertions.
However, on the other side . . . there has been avaialbe--easily available for quite some time a growing body of just such quality source quite verifiable.
I think for years, folks did not believe I was acting Director of any university Special Collections Dept involving the Allderdice collection. Finally, when I was able to track down where it had been moved to and find an inventory online, I posted it. Did it enlighten anyone--wake anyone up? I doubt it. Such minds are typically not open to enlightenment nor to being awakened from their willful blindness and slumber.