Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > New World Order / Global Government

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-01-2010, 05:38 PM   #201
hadabusa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 22,683
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I did already say I'm not an economist. And unless the unlikely event arises I feel compelled to get into it, I won't have a great deal to say about it, or banking which isn't something I've spent any time studying.
But I don't think it's fair someone can get paid a dollar for making something that is sold for a hundred dollars in another country. Loads of things aren't fair. I don't think things not being fair says a single thing about the supposed existence of any New World Order.
well, thats politics rather then economy imo.

not2come asa smartass, but check "the money masters" to see the influence/power money can have.
hadabusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 05:40 PM   #202
romas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Memelburg
Posts: 5,347
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Money ultimately rules everything, there is no conspiracy behind it, it's plain fact.
__________________
Above the planet on a wing and a prayer, My grubby halo, a vapour trail in the empty air. Across the clouds I see my shadow fly. Out of the corner of my watering eye. A dream unthreatened by the morning light
Could blow this soul right through the roof of the night.
There's no sensation to compare with this. Suspended animation, a state of bliss.
romas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 06:06 PM   #203
dogsmilk
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Surreality
Posts: 7,497
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kblood View Post
During war companies usually stops trade with the opposing countries, say your company originates from the UK. This is one of the reasons why Rothschild's wants a central bank in every country. The war with Napoleon helped the Rothschild family to gain majority in the Bank of England. Now they are even seated in one of the most powerful places in England and even today acts as the queens advisor, if I am not mistaken. Now why is this? Guess they are just such smart people they are nice to have as allies. The money and knowing how to use it probably helps as well.

Other countries traded with both sides, but Rothschild has a habit of giving the loans the countries needs to buy weapons, then after they have wreaked havoc on each other, more money is loaned to rebuild. The victor might even have money to pay off some of this debt, but I expect the Rothschild family and other banking families would like them not to do so.
Companies may still operate within warring countries. A famous example would be Coca-Cola making Fanta in Germany.
Otherwise, I'm not familiar with the history of the Rothchilds and have no idea where you've got this 'loans to both sides' from or how you've decided it's a Rothschild thing. Britain borrowed loads off the US for world war II. The lend lease scheme helped arm Britain (and others). Like I said, not my bag, but I'm rather sceptical of this notion of the Rothchilds running round funding all the wars.
I was under the impression the queen has a bunch of advisors - who they all I don't know, but you'd expect them to be high powered.


Quote:
Iraq is a country who knows what it means to own money to the world bank. They were forced to do this through trade embargo's and obviously the war on Iraq which was the final blow that forced them to loan money after being forced to sell money to get food, at less than half its price in "food currency".

Still they managed to pay back these loans within a decade, because they know what they are up against and what the world bank really wants from them.
Loads of criticism has been directed at the world bank from numerous directions. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Quote:
Here in Denmark, satire and poetry has often been used to have hidden messages. To freedom fighters for example or to oppose the Nazi control at the time. They made a popular song about lost love which was really about lost freedom, or something like that. It is the same with satire. "Report from Iron Mountain" is the same. Released then later said to be a hoax and a satire by the self claimed author. Others have tried claiming to be the author later but could not.
I'm sure you can hide messages in anything if you want, but most satire I'd say is, well, satire. There's only any point in hidden messages if the recipient knows they are there and there is a reliable means of understanding them. So for most satire this would be entirely futile.

Quote:
I believe this satire was the same and thanks for linking it The protocols still seems to have refined it a bit more, with more clear goals in it. I have researched many of the news agencies during the first and second world war, one of them being Reuters, which the Rothschild family is claimed to have purchased. Have not found any documented proof of it anywhere though.
I think that Rothchild/Reuters thing is one of those regular myths. I have a vague memory of looking at it in a Jew theory argument ages ago. But I could be misremembering.

Quote:
And again:

These are footnotes from the translator:
The only actual foretelling I'm seeing there is them thinking it anticipates what Guy Debord went on to say. I'm not familiar with Debord, but if it's footnoting that other passage I have an idea my cultural theorist mate might not agree with it based on things I've heard him going on about. But meh.
But otherwise I don't know what page they're from so I don't know what they're footnoting.



And to go into what the 6th footnote was about:

Quote:
I do not know if this was how Journalism was back in the 19th century, but it certainly is more than ever, how it turned out in the 20th century.
I'm not sure he's really talking about journalism in that passage.

Quote:
Exactly, the "race" of Jews are hardly Jews anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Ethnic_divisions

These Ashkenazim, or "Germanics" (Ashkenaz meaning "Germany") are the same "sub race" of Jews as the Rothschild family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

Other notable ones are Einstein and Freud.
I'm not sure why any of this matters.

Quote:
But unless it is just rumors, the Rothschild family is said to have been part of a country that was caught in between a Muslim and Christian conflict. To avoid being part of it, they became Jews and therefore neutral.

These who choose to be Jews seem to actually be the ones that might be outnumbering the ones I would call real Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahim These seem more likely to be part of the actual Jewish lineage.

Its just food for thought. I believe all of them can be good people, but the part of the Jews that might truly be that is likely the minority today.
Again, I'm not sure it matters. I don't think it has ever been meaningful to call Jews a 'race' as I don't think they ever were.
dogsmilk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 07:42 PM   #204
dogsmilk
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Surreality
Posts: 7,497
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadabusa View Post
well, thats politics rather then economy imo.

not2come asa smartass, but check "the money masters" to see the influence/power money can have.
I don't see how it's politics. Labour is a variable overhead you want to keep as low as possible and if the labour cost per unit is a fraction of the retail price you're making lots of money. Where's the politics?

I have never got round to watching the money masters. If I did I'd have to start researching banking and stuff - I've never understood why people think these internet videos are inherently any more reliable than tabloid newspapers.

Last edited by dogsmilk; 12-01-2010 at 07:42 PM.
dogsmilk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 07:53 PM   #205
hadabusa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 22,683
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I don't see how it's politics. Labour is a variable overhead you want to keep as low as possible and if the labour cost per unit is a fraction of the retail price you're making lots of money. Where's the politics?

I have never got round to watching the money masters. If I did I'd have to start researching banking and stuff - I've never understood why people think these internet videos are inherently any more reliable than tabloid newspapers.
seriously, its a good documentation,its basic and,imo,unbiased.
doesnt require previous knowledge nor afterward studies.
its one of few docus where i felt the time was well spent.


the monster from yekil s island goes deeper into the the matter, but tmm is pretty enjoyable.
hadabusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 08:04 PM   #206
romas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Memelburg
Posts: 5,347
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I have never got round to watching the money masters. If I did I'd have to start researching banking and stuff - I've never understood why people think these internet videos are inherently any more reliable than tabloid newspapers.


Cause tabloid never really explains anything, they usually make statements and escape the mechanics/logic part and why not a documentary?(Fact that it's available on internet is pretty irrelevant) If a serious journalist wants to reach current generation a documentary is perfect.

I knew next to nothing about the finance game, it was perfect intro.


Quote:
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." -
-- Albert Einstein
__________________
Above the planet on a wing and a prayer, My grubby halo, a vapour trail in the empty air. Across the clouds I see my shadow fly. Out of the corner of my watering eye. A dream unthreatened by the morning light
Could blow this soul right through the roof of the night.
There's no sensation to compare with this. Suspended animation, a state of bliss.

Last edited by romas; 12-01-2010 at 08:27 PM.
romas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 08:14 PM   #207
kblood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern Europe... Denmark
Posts: 4,630
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
Companies may still operate within warring countries. A famous example would be Coca-Cola making Fanta in Germany.
Otherwise, I'm not familiar with the history of the Rothchilds and have no idea where you've got this 'loans to both sides' from or how you've decided it's a Rothschild thing. Britain borrowed loads off the US for world war II. The lend lease scheme helped arm Britain (and others). Like I said, not my bag, but I'm rather sceptical of this notion of the Rothchilds running round funding all the wars.
I was under the impression the queen has a bunch of advisors - who they all I don't know, but you'd expect them to be high powered.

Loads of criticism has been directed at the world bank from numerous directions. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
True, Coca Cola is one of the companies on both sides. I believe this company is American though, no? And they joined the war much later. After that Coca Cola had good excuses as for why they could not stop their company due to the war and being cut off from the US... but of course any company that could get away with it did so. Germans were not evil people just because they were at war with others, although their leaders did not seem to have intentions you could be covered in under the "Christmas spirit"

But getting back to these Rothschild's. They do not make their war fundings official... oh wait actually some of them they do:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/compa...y-History.html

Quote:
Key Dates:

1765: Meyer Aemschel Rothschild establishes his business in Frankfurt, Germany.
1798: Son Nathan M. Rothschild opens business in Manchester.
1808: N M Rothschild opens a London office.
1814: Rothschilds provides funding for Wellington's army.
1815: Company backs the English, Dutch, and Prussian allies at Waterloo
1825: Rothschilds provides backing to prevent collapse of Bank of England.
1871: Rothschilds organizes French repayment of war indemnity.
1875: The loan for the British acquisition of Suez Canal is provided by Rothschilds.
1931: Company helps save the troubled Austrian Creditanstalt.
1941: Rothschilds Continuation is formed as a holding company to ensure continuity of family involvement in banking.
1967: Establishes N M Rothschild & Sons (Australia).
1970: Rothschilds incorporates as private limited company.
1973: Offices in Hong Kong and Singapore are opened.
1979: An office in Chile is opened.
1982: Company creates Rothschild Incorporated in the United States.
1986: Rothschilds backs British Gas privatization.
1989: Offices in Germany and Italy are opened; Rothschilds Canada Inc. subsidiary is established.
1995: An office in Shanghai, China, debuts.
1998: 200th anniversary of Nathan Mayer Rothschild's arrival in England.
And this is just the official stuff. How often have they saved countries from collapses? And backed up some of the most historically important business deals?

1875: The loan for the British acquisition of Suez Canal is provided by Rothschilds.

Certainly was a very important deal, especially since this was to become a major trade route, and still is. Hmmm... I just noticed:

1814: Rothschilds provides funding for Wellington's army.
1815: Company backs the English, Dutch, and Prussian allies at Waterloo
1825: Rothschilds provides backing to prevent collapse of Bank of England.
1871: Rothschilds organizes French repayment of war indemnity.

This does directly state they supported all sides did it not? There is a whole not more of official Rothschild history on this page. Since it says allies I guess it does not really say so though. They sure were not friends of Napoleon, so they did have an interest in seeing the British win.

And if you do not think its a credible site then look at its front page:
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/

They are doing a good job at putting up a hoax site if that was the case. But seeing as they are supporting the Rothschild family's own official history, I guess it is official. They even claim they lost power when the US got into power, although (if the conspiracy rumors are correct) they controlled the Federal Reserve by then through their US relations with the Rockefeller family. If I remember correctly. Not sure if it was Rockefeller who got control over the Reserve.

Ohhh, found what I was looking for:

http://www.rothschildarchive.org/tex...0_401_filelist

Their own records.

stating:

Quote:
000/401A/3 1822 Neapolitan Government Loan 5% £2,000,000 / 16,000,000 Ducats. Copy contract present, original wanting. 1822

000/401A/4 Agreement between NMR and the Bank of England for NMR to borrow 3,000,000 Spanish Dollars. Copy; original wanting. 1823
So shortly after Waterloo in 1815, they help the French economy back up again. One war got them 4-5 countries in their pockets. And because of having these countries in their pockets, they got in on some of the most attractive business deals after that.

As this might show, I am not new to researching this family The real proof is not that hard to find. That is except the real proof of Rothschild's buying the press. They do own more than one company though, and one of the father of all Rothschild's most important advice was to never let anyone know exactly how wealthy they really were. Which became rather difficult after many more taxes were introduced on properties and such, which is why the Dutch banking systems became important to them, and outsourcing a bit to other families.

Still cannot prove Rothschild control of Reuters, only that Reuters became a British subject in 1857, which is after Rothschild had gotten its foot in and very firmly as well. I guess it is not supposed to have an influence on Reuters though.

Quote:
In 1865, Reuter's private firm was restructured, and it became a limited company (a corporation) called the Reuter's Telegram Company. Reuter had been naturalised as a British subject in 1857.

Reuter's agency built a reputation in Europe for being the first to report news scoops from abroad, like the news of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. After many decades of progress, almost every major news outlet in the world subscribes to the Reuters company's services. It operates in at least 200 cities in 94 countries, supplying news text in about 20 languages.
Some more up to date news about the Rothschild family and the respect it gets. These are given by Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH0N020091218

I guess that might make the news a bit colored since the Rothschild family might actually own them. I cannot find anything about who the major stockholders really are when it comes to Reuters, but they did make some arrangements that made it impossible for any one company to have majority... although how to you do exactly that? And I guess it will then just be about trying to see what the relations of these companies are with the Rothschild family.

They were also to have bought Hamas and Wolf. Two companies that my research tells worked in close relation with each other and Reuters.

And I found a nice article about it from 1989, linking Reuters with the Rothschild family:

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/78...ns/reuter.html

Sir Roderick Jones took over Reuters and as this article shed some light on, Reuters was Jewish... It probably should not surprise me but it did:


If Wiki even says so, it is probably true. Seems much of these protocols actually came to pass even before they were public, but then they were inspired by even earlier works were they not?

Seems the close relationship with Havas and Wolf is not really a secret either when looking at Reuters wiki bio. Well at least it states Reuter worked for Havas before he started his own news agency which could explain why they worked together during World War I and II even though they officially did not. Before and after they officially did so again though. They did print battle report that was in fact from the enemy side sometimes. News agencies are impartial anyway, so what would it matter? I have to do some digging to find the proof of that again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I'm sure you can hide messages in anything if you want, but most satire I'd say is, well, satire. There's only any point in hidden messages if the recipient knows they are there and there is a reliable means of understanding them. So for most satire this would be entirely futile.
Not that hard to create a reliable means to understand them as in satire they actually do not have to hide any of it. They can just spell out almost exactly their ideas, because if they are brilliant and extreme ideas they pass as satire all by themselves. Make it about two historical people discussing something, then they already have something they both stand for (these two people) and it makes it more fitting for a play.

After having a few people in power watch the theatric plays based on this satire, how hard is it for them to discuss taking it from satire and putting it to actual practice?

So is it really that futile? Seems it takes the intelligently written play into new heights, that might have had a lot to say in how the world turned out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I think that Rothchild/Reuters thing is one of those regular myths. I have a vague memory of looking at it in a Jew theory argument ages ago. But I could be misremembering.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
The only actual foretelling I'm seeing there is them thinking it anticipates what Guy Debord went on to say. I'm not familiar with Debord, but if it's footnoting that other passage I have an idea my cultural theorist mate might not agree with it based on things I've heard him going on about. But meh.
But otherwise I don't know what page they're from so I don't know what they're footnoting.
Which is why I linked what they were footnoting. At least the 6th one

"And to go into what the 6th footnote was about:"

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I'm not sure he's really talking about journalism in that passage.
Yes, the quote is a bit unclear, but all of dialogue 12 is about the press:

http://www.notbored.org/dialogue-in-hell-XII.html

It is of course not only about journalism, but what they are discussing is using the press to control people. That seems to be the whole topic between these two in the satire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I'm not sure why any of this matters.



Again, I'm not sure it matters. I don't think it has ever been meaningful to call Jews a 'race' as I don't think they ever were.
Nah, all the Jewish racial background stuff does not matter, but you were asking about what I meant about real Jews. I would hardly say there are any real Jews left, but I guess it does not really matter. There is a country for Jews now, so they can make a Jewish race if they feel like it. If it was not true before I guess it is now. Although I guess you and I might just call them Israelites?
__________________
“George had simple rules for us: ‘Stay small, be the best, and don’t lose any money.’”

Quote:
“One person can make a difference and every person should try.” John F. Kennedy
Quote:
"Imagination governs the world."
"He who fears being conquered is certain of defeat." Napoleon
Quote:
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." Albert Einstein
Quote:
"The key to immortality is first to live a life worth remembering." Bruce Lee
kblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 08:25 PM   #208
kblood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern Europe... Denmark
Posts: 4,630
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by romas View Post
Cause tabloid never really explains anything, they usually make statements and escape the mechanics/logic part and why not a documentary?(Fact that it's available on internet is pretty irrelevant) If a serious journalist wants to reach current generation a documentary is perfect.

If knew next to nothing about the finance game, it was perfect intro.
All true I guess, both this and what Dogsmilk wrote. And although it is really hard to make good research on the Internet, then it sure helps when there are corporation web pages that actually back it up. It took more than an hour to piece together my last post, but it should link together the Rothschild's financing wars and probably in league the the german Jew Baron Reuter who created Reuters and the next in charge of Reuters got knighted. Rather fishy after Rothschild got so high influence on Britain.

With the help of some fast news carriers I might add I wonder if it was Reuters himself who brought those news of the outcome of Waterloo?

Since the Rothschild family had the news of the victory a full day before the rest of England, the rest of England still believed they might be about to loose the war. So the Rothschild family bought up papers from the Bank of England very cheap from everyone they could these 24 hours before the news reached the rest of the population. After this they could sell them again and make a huge profit. Of course this is what later caused the Bank of England to almost go bankrupt, but the ever generous Rothschild family helped it through its crisis. What would the world have become without these generous people always being there ready to loan money to those in need?
__________________
“George had simple rules for us: ‘Stay small, be the best, and don’t lose any money.’”

Quote:
“One person can make a difference and every person should try.” John F. Kennedy
Quote:
"Imagination governs the world."
"He who fears being conquered is certain of defeat." Napoleon
Quote:
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." Albert Einstein
Quote:
"The key to immortality is first to live a life worth remembering." Bruce Lee
kblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 08:40 PM   #209
romas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Memelburg
Posts: 5,347
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kblood View Post
it sure helps when there are corporation web pages that actually back it up. It took more than an hour to piece together my last post, but it should link together the Rothschild's financing wars and probably in league the the german Jew Baron Reuter who created Reuters and the next in charge of Reuters got knighted. Rather fishy after Rothschild got so high influence on Britain.


Good point, I have a copy of MODERN MONEY MECHANICS - A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion

This complete booklet is was originally produced and distributed free by: Public Information Center Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago P. O. Box 834 Chicago, IL 60690-0834 telephone: 312 322 5111 But it is now out of print. Photo copies can be made available by [email protected].


Quote:
Who Creates Money?
Changes in the quantity of money may originate with actions of the Federal Reserve System (the central bank), depository institutions (principally commercial banks), or the public. The major control, however, rests with the central bank.
The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.(1) As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.
In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered many centuries ago.
It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.
__________________
Above the planet on a wing and a prayer, My grubby halo, a vapour trail in the empty air. Across the clouds I see my shadow fly. Out of the corner of my watering eye. A dream unthreatened by the morning light
Could blow this soul right through the roof of the night.
There's no sensation to compare with this. Suspended animation, a state of bliss.
romas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 09:12 PM   #210
dogsmilk
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Surreality
Posts: 7,497
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kblood View Post
True, Coca Cola is one of the companies on both sides. I believe this company is American though, no? And they joined the war much later. After that Coca Cola had good excuses as for why they could not stop their company due to the war and being cut off from the US... but of course any company that could get away with it did so. Germans were not evil people just because they were at war with others, although their leaders did not seem to have intentions you could be covered in under the "Christmas spirit"
It's just one example I know. And I don't think it has anything to do with the Germans. Business is business.

Quote:
But getting back to these Rothschild's. They do not make their war fundings official... oh wait actually some of them they do:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/compa...y-History.html



And this is just the official stuff. How often have they saved countries from collapses? And backed up some of the most historically important business deals?

1875: The loan for the British acquisition of Suez Canal is provided by Rothschilds.

Certainly was a very important deal, especially since this was to become a major trade route, and still is.
Well actually, in terms of the world and the timespan it covers, that list is microscopic and stuff like opening offices in Hong Kong isn't exactly dynamite.
I don't see why lending money for the Suez Canal is significant either.

Quote:
Hmmm... I just noticed:

1814: Rothschilds provides funding for Wellington's army.
1815: Company backs the English, Dutch, and Prussian allies at Waterloo
1825: Rothschilds provides backing to prevent collapse of Bank of England.
1871: Rothschilds organizes French repayment of war indemnity.

This does directly state they supported all sides did it not? There is a whole not more of official Rothschild history on this page. Since it says allies I guess it does not really say so though. They sure were not friends of Napoleon, so they did have an interest in seeing the British win.
It doesn't say supported all sides, no, it says supported one side.

Quote:
Ohhh, found what I was looking for:

http://www.rothschildarchive.org/tex...0_401_filelist

Their own records.

stating:


So shortly after Waterloo in 1815, they help the French economy back up again. One war got them 4-5 countries in their pockets. And because of having these countries in their pockets, they got in on some of the most attractive business deals after that.
Based on what you've posted, I think you're overstating things somewhat; them issuing a loan is not necessarily helping them get the French ecomony back up again, it's a bank making a loan. What was the overall financial situation in France at that time? How large was this loan relatively speaking (it does look like an awful lot)? What were the negotiations? Who else did they borrow from? I don't think you can draw any conclusions about any of this without having a full understanding of the situation. And in what way were Britain etc "In their pockets"?

Quote:
As this might show, I am not new to researching this family The real proof is not that hard to find. That is except the real proof of Rothschild's buying the press. They do own more than one company though, and one of the father of all Rothschild's most important advice was to never let anyone know exactly how wealthy they really were. Which became rather difficult after many more taxes were introduced on properties and such, which is why the Dutch banking systems became important to them, and outsourcing a bit to other families.
I'm not sure what is supposed to have been proved. The long list you posted of their major issues doesn't exactly suggest world financial domination and is light years away from demonstrating anything about funding loads of wars and stuff.

Quote:
Still cannot prove Rothschild control of Reuters, only that Reuters became a British subject in 1857, which is after Rothschild had gotten its foot in and very firmly as well. I guess it is not supposed to have an influence on Reuters though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters


Some more up to date news about the Rothschild family and the respect it gets. These are given by Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH0N020091218

I guess that might make the news a bit colored since the Rothschild family might actually own them. I cannot find anything about who the major stockholders really are when it comes to Reuters, but they did make some arrangements that made it impossible for any one company to have majority... although how to you do exactly that? And I guess it will then just be about trying to see what the relations of these companies are with the Rothschild family.

They were also to have bought Hamas and Wolf. Two companies that my research tells worked in close relation with each other and Reuters.

And I found a nice article about it from 1989, linking Reuters with the Rothschild family:

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/78...ns/reuter.html

Sir Roderick Jones took over Reuters and as this article shed some light on, Reuters was Jewish... It probably should not surprise me but it did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Julius_Reuter

If Wiki even says so, it is probably true. Seems much of these protocols actually came to pass even before they were public, but then they were inspired by even earlier works were they not?

Seems the close relationship with Havas and Wolf is not really a secret either when looking at Reuters wiki bio. Well at least it states Reuter worked for Havas before he started his own news agency which could explain why they worked together during World War I and II even though they officially did not. Before and after they officially did so again though. They did print battle report that was in fact from the enemy side sometimes. News agencies are impartial anyway, so what would it matter? I have to do some digging to find the proof of that again.
You kinda lost me a bit here. But Eustace Mullins is a full on Jew theorist and skimming the article, it seems his big connection is someone having lunch with a Rothschild.
And I don't think a Jew starting Reuters means the Protocols are true.

Quote:
Not that hard to create a reliable means to understand them as in satire they actually do not have to hide any of it. They can just spell out almost exactly their ideas, because if they are brilliant and extreme ideas they pass as satire all by themselves. Make it about two historical people discussing something, then they already have something they both stand for (these two people) and it makes it more fitting for a play.
But there is no point in publishing a satire for the public (whose purpose is well known) with secret hidden messages (when Joly had no reason to do so) - why not just have a meeting or something?
I assume Bilderberg don't circulate their minutes via cryptic messages hidden in private eye.

Quote:
After having a few people in power watch the theatric plays based on this satire, how hard is it for them to discuss taking it from satire and putting it to actual practice?

So is it really that futile? Seems it takes the intelligently written play into new heights, that might have had a lot to say in how the world turned out.
I didn't know it had been turned into a play. And to be honest I kinda doubt people would need or want to do this - it seems a very strange way of plotting world domination, watching a play and then thinking "Yeah! We'll do that!"

Quote:

Which is why I linked what they were footnoting. At least the 6th one

"And to go into what the 6th footnote was about:"



Yes, the quote is a bit unclear, but all of dialogue 12 is about the press:

http://www.notbored.org/dialogue-in-hell-XII.html

It is of course not only about journalism, but what they are discussing is using the press to control people. That seems to be the whole topic between these two in the satire.
I interpret it as containing some sniping at 'liberal' governments.
It doesn't matter what the 12th dialogue is about - it may have ripped it off, but it did change it as well.

Last edited by dogsmilk; 12-01-2010 at 09:14 PM.
dogsmilk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 10:56 PM   #211
kblood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern Europe... Denmark
Posts: 4,630
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
It's just one example I know. And I don't think it has anything to do with the Germans. Business is business.



Well actually, in terms of the world and the timespan it covers, that list is microscopic and stuff like opening offices in Hong Kong isn't exactly dynamite.
I don't see why lending money for the Suez Canal is significant either.



It doesn't say supported all sides, no, it says supported one side.



Based on what you've posted, I think you're overstating things somewhat; them issuing a loan is not necessarily helping them get the French ecomony back up again, it's a bank making a loan. What was the overall financial situation in France at that time? How large was this loan relatively speaking (it does look like an awful lot)? What were the negotiations? Who else did they borrow from? I don't think you can draw any conclusions about any of this without having a full understanding of the situation. And in what way were Britain etc "In their pockets"?



I'm not sure what is supposed to have been proved. The long list you posted of their major issues doesn't exactly suggest world financial domination and is light years away from demonstrating anything about funding loads of wars and stuff.



You kinda lost me a bit here. But Eustace Mullins is a full on Jew theorist and skimming the article, it seems his big connection is someone having lunch with a Rothschild.
And I don't think a Jew starting Reuters means the Protocols are true.



But there is no point in publishing a satire for the public (whose purpose is well known) with secret hidden messages (when Joly had no reason to do so) - why not just have a meeting or something?
I assume Bilderberg don't circulate their minutes via cryptic messages hidden in private eye.



I didn't know it had been turned into a play. And to be honest I kinda doubt people would need or want to do this - it seems a very strange way of plotting world domination, watching a play and then thinking "Yeah! We'll do that!"



I interpret it as containing some sniping at 'liberal' governments.
It doesn't matter what the 12th dialogue is about - it may have ripped it off, but it did change it as well.
Why would they make it into a play instead of making just meeting? Because this was before they made thinking tanks like the Bilderberg group. The Bilderberg group was inspired by a satire like this. But since in the time of the satire and the protocols of Zion they did not own most countries, in fact none I think, they still had to be covert. Even from the press and country leaders.

And I guess you do not realize the power it gives to be the owner of a countries loan. One thing is 3-5% of a million dollar loan actually pays off rather well, but another thing is that the loan makes can choose to be nice and less nice about getting their money back. Which is why the Rothschild are famously quoted for not caring who was the kings leaders of a country as long as they controlled the debt and therefore the money.

If you cannot see the significance of this:
1825: Rothschilds provides backing to prevent collapse of Bank of England

I am not sure it is possible for me to prove anything to you. You can just state it does not seem significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Ca..._Canal_Company

Quote:
The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on world trade. Combined with the American transcontinental railroad completed six months earlier, it allowed the entire world to be circled in record time. It played an important role in increasing European colonisation of Africa. External debts forced Said Pasha's successor, Isma'il Pasha, to sell his country's share in the canal for £4,000,000 to the United Kingdom in 1875, but French shareholders still held the majority. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was accused by William Gladstone of undermining Britain's constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.[45]
And if you read up on the link, this canal is of major strategic importance when it comes to war in the Middle East, and much importance to world trade as well. That is why it is significant, and because it was a 4 billion pound loan the Rothschild gave to make it possible which they are no doubt probably still cashing in on.

Quote:
000/401D/1 1875 Suez Canal Share purchase by the British Government. 1875
I am curious why this is on the Rothschild finances as if it was their own purchase?

http://www.rothschildarchive.org/tex...0_401_filelist

If you look up on this canal, it actually started out being Napoleon who controlled the area the canal was made in. He even started making it, but had to put the project on hold.

Some nice quotes from this Napoleon guy btw:
Quote:
[Medicine is] a collection of uncertain prescriptions the results of which, taken collectively, are more fatal than useful to mankind.

Napoleon Bonaparte
So true and probably even more so today. Many funny quotes as well. Most being both clever and funny. Although that is a bit off topic. I was looking for his quotes on the Jesuits and maybe his relations to the Rothschild.

But it seems you truly fail to see why they needed to put countries in debt. The reason being that after doing so, they could get another central bank gaining control of this country. And the World Bank.

It is quite simple really. Just prove to me a war any country, Europe or the US has declared, where the target country was indebted to the central banks or the world bank. Should be quite impossible according to Ian Crane and other researchers. I think David Icke might be onto some of this as well. But the thing is these wars are mainly about control of resources and countries. Because they want them all to accept the World Bank as the bank for controlling the debt of all countries.

Recent example that just recently got into fruition... and you do remember there was a war against Iraq?
`
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/I...r2009Final.pdf

This is how long it took the UN, EU, US and the World Bank to convince Iraq to let them take control. It has been a long battle, but Iraq had much independence due to its oil reserves, so that it took about 20 years of trade embargoes and a few wars to crack this country fully. Hmm, I think it has even been 25 years probably.

What is the history of this World Bank?

Quote:
1945–1968

From its conception until 1967 the bank undertook a relatively low level of lending. Fiscal conservatism and careful screening of loan applications was common. Bank staff attempted to balance the priorities of providing loans for reconstruction and development with the need to instill confidence in the bank.[5]

Bank president John McCloy selected France to be the first recipient of World Bank aid; two other applications from Poland and Chile were rejected. The loan was for $987 million, half the amount requested and came with strict conditions. Staff from the World Bank monitored the use of the funds, ensuring that the French government would present a balanced budget and give priority of debt repayment to the World Bank over other governments. The United States State Department told the French Government that Communist elements within the Cabinet needed to be removed. The French Government complied with this diktat and removed the Communists coalition government. Within hours the loan to France was approved.[6]

The Marshall Plan of 1947 caused lending by the bank to change as many European countries received aid that competed with World Bank loans. Emphasis was shifted to non-European countries and until 1968, loans were earmarked for projects that would enable a borrower country to repay loans (such projects as ports, highway systems, and power plants).
So it was made just after WW2. You were saying that this list only covered a short period of time?
http://www.rothschildarchive.org/tex...0_401_filelist

That is because After 1937 (okay I am making a theory), they had some shady loans made to fund both sides of WW2. When the war was over, they had the World Bank. After this for some reasons these archives stop? Maybe because they had stopped making their loans as N M Rothschild. After this they just became "advisors" and stopped loaning money out. Officially it seems it is. I am guessing that it is because it actually takes quite a lot of time to control the assets of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which is part of it, while also controlling their own bank.

Simply put, they were busy outsourcing and covering their tracks. Although officially, for the first time in history, the Rothschild family supposedly came out at a financial loss after a war... I really doubt that though.

Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...access_to_food

Quote:
We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was President. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.

– Former US President Bill Clinton, Speech at United Nations World Food Day, October 16, 2008 [35]
A presidents regrets for his partaking of the crimes of the IMF and the World Bank. This is how much power it has gotten today. Mostly they do not even need a war to get countries in their pocket these days, because they have much more powerful political tools these days. Like buying oil for food after not allowing a country to get food from other countries, as it is a "product". Also the IMF buys this oil for food only half the actual value of the oil. So they sell food which there is an abundance off really, and profits of it. They even sell it at twice its price.

And I cant be bothered finding the proof of this just now. It is on the IMF website.

But to get back to the question on actually disproving this NWO. Any wars made against countries already owning money to the World Bank, the Central Banks or the IMF? (The IMF being part of the world bank, but just to making it easier to find out).
__________________
“George had simple rules for us: ‘Stay small, be the best, and don’t lose any money.’”

Quote:
“One person can make a difference and every person should try.” John F. Kennedy
Quote:
"Imagination governs the world."
"He who fears being conquered is certain of defeat." Napoleon
Quote:
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." Albert Einstein
Quote:
"The key to immortality is first to live a life worth remembering." Bruce Lee
kblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 10:58 PM   #212
fratoue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Pluto
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 24 (11 Posts)
Default

The OP is just trolling. A crap thread designed to stir the shit; what proof is there the NWO exists? a absurd question
fratoue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 11:03 PM   #213
kblood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern Europe... Denmark
Posts: 4,630
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsmilk View Post
I interpret it as containing some sniping at 'liberal' governments.
It doesn't matter what the 12th dialogue is about - it may have ripped it off, but it did change it as well.
Not sure if you are on about the Protocols of Zion now or the satire it was inspired by. But please, do disprove the Protocols of Zion. I have not seen any actual good attempts at doing that at all.

All the so called accepted "debunks" of the Protocols of Zion are all about them being based on a satire or other worthless comments on it. None of that changes the fact that you cannot really find anything that proved to be untrue in these Protocols. Find something in them that proved to be a wrong "prediction" about the future. Something they miserably failed at, if there were people actually fulfilling these Protocols to the letter?

I have spent most my hours away from work proving it. You havent done much to disprove my claims, only come up with what I wrote not being complete proof. Well then it should not be that hard to answer my questions, should it? The other question being asked in my last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fratoue View Post
The OP is just trolling. A crap thread designed to stir the shit; what proof is there the NWO exists? a absurd question
Yea, but I do find it entertaining and was looking for a thread to put my research together about all this stuff anyway. Also I guess maybe he might come up with some good counter arguments. I hope so anyway, but until then he is still making my own research come along nicely. Filling a few more holes in my research so far.

Okay the counter arguments are not even all that bad really, I am just getting tired from a day of reading through many web pages. If they were bad, my research would not have come any further than last time I dug into it.
__________________
“George had simple rules for us: ‘Stay small, be the best, and don’t lose any money.’”

Quote:
“One person can make a difference and every person should try.” John F. Kennedy
Quote:
"Imagination governs the world."
"He who fears being conquered is certain of defeat." Napoleon
Quote:
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." Albert Einstein
Quote:
"The key to immortality is first to live a life worth remembering." Bruce Lee

Last edited by kblood; 12-01-2010 at 11:07 PM.
kblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-01-2010, 04:43 PM   #214
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fratoue View Post
The OP is just trolling. A crap thread designed to stir the shit; what proof is there the NWO exists? a absurd question
Yeh.

Joe still hasn't presented his radio interviews. And just last year he was something like, only 16 years old. So I'm not sure if he's telling the truth or I misread something. Not that it's odd for a kid to host a radio show - I just don't think he did, based on him making this absurd thread.

If Joe911 actually had the time to research - (Which apparently he doesn't, but he loves to pop in and out again) - would quote David Rockefeller in the interview with Benjamin Fulford. That's if Joe911 thinks it was a legit interview or whatnot.


Paraphrase:
'We don't need a Global Government'- Rockefeller ('because the secret government is all they want' - Fullford)
__________________
Anything goes - Cole Porter

I'm no pro.

Last edited by noewhan; 13-01-2010 at 04:53 PM.
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2010, 12:38 AM   #215
joe911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noewhan View Post
Yeh.

Joe still hasn't presented his radio interviews. And just last year he was something like, only 16 years old. So I'm not sure if he's telling the truth or I misread something. Not that it's odd for a kid to host a radio show - I just don't think he did, based on him making this absurd thread
Pm the regular listeners,Tracker,diamonddogz,cafetimes1991,fairye lfdog. To name a few. I had recordings of some of the good interviews,i cant find them,but i do remember cutting down this segment from a call with tracker on the show a few days after MJ died.
Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by noewhan View Post
If Joe911 actually had the time to research - (Which apparently he doesn't, but he loves to pop in and out again) - would quote David Rockefeller in the interview with Benjamin Fulford. That's if Joe911 thinks it was a legit interview or whatnot.
I had time then,i dont anymore. Last year of school is a busy time you know. In the shows i often had the folder next to me with archived documents,news articles ect.. im sure someone who watched on the camera can vouch for that too.
As for the interview you speak of,is there an audio link for it? Or video? I googled Benjamin Fulford and it came up with various conspiracy theorist websites,so im sure you understand what Bias means,and from the bit you quoted,thats what it sounds like. People have twisted peoples words before,and often quote mine things,so you can see why i dont jump on the bandwagon of beleiving because someone on the internet says it so it must be true.

As for the guy calling me a troll. I diddnt start this thread to troll,I started it to see wether someone could prove,with real proof [not quote mined,or from a source like infowhores] that such a group existed. Something i was very interested in at the time,now i really couldnt give a shit to be honest,people can beleive what they want,ive got more important things going on.

Edit to add:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69935
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69883
__________________
Jordan Ryan
Facebook|Email|

Last edited by joe911; 14-01-2010 at 01:58 AM.
joe911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2010, 06:24 AM   #216
kblood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern Europe... Denmark
Posts: 4,630
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Well, if you read through the thread, there should be some evidence now. Or you could look into Ian Crane, because he does not call this Conspiracy theory anymore he says it conspiracy fact. He does so because he has done a good job of gathering the actual facts, and people like him and David Icke is what has inspired me to look deeper into these things myself.

Take the posts of those calling you a troll as constructive critisism

Kudos on making a radio program while still in school. No reason to wait and sounds like a good way of spreading stuff. There are certainly some people who got success that way.
__________________
“George had simple rules for us: ‘Stay small, be the best, and don’t lose any money.’”

Quote:
“One person can make a difference and every person should try.” John F. Kennedy
Quote:
"Imagination governs the world."
"He who fears being conquered is certain of defeat." Napoleon
Quote:
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." Albert Einstein
Quote:
"The key to immortality is first to live a life worth remembering." Bruce Lee
kblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2010, 07:16 AM   #217
aussiegirl
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe911 View Post
Right,this thread has been started to debate the claims about the new world order. First of all is to prove thier existence.

Id like to ask you,what evidence you have that they exist,and how you came to the conclusions you have about them.
it is quoted by politicians that they want a world government
aussiegirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2010, 08:36 AM   #218
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

I'm not sure why the Icke forum just removes links... Odd. Sometimes they show, sometimes they don't.

Here...

http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=iaCKBLpU16I

Remove spaces.

Joe, where do you draw the line between an innocent death and a murder? It's been proven that MJ was being fed prescription drugs - for money.
Some people will do anything for money. You have to think about the corrupt mindset. The love of money, rules some peoples lives. With money you can pay people off. Pretty basic.
__________________
Anything goes - Cole Porter

I'm no pro.
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2010, 09:44 AM   #219
aussiegirl
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

honestly you guys think to much about the rockefellers and rothschild..they are not everything..
aussiegirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2010, 01:15 PM   #220
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiegirl View Post
honestly you guys think to much about the rockefellers and rothschild..they are not everything..
True indeed, and there are a lot more families & groups involved.

But he's very influential:


Quote:
Chairman/Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (Chairman: (1970-1985);

Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank (1969-1981);

Founder and North American Chairman (1977-1991), Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission;

A U.S. founding member, life member, and member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group (1954-);

Founding Chairman of the Partnership for New York City (PFNYC) (1979-1988);

Board Director, B. F. Goodrich & Co. (1956-64), Punta Alegre Sugar Corp., The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (1960-65);

Chairman/Chairman Emeritus of the Museum of Modern Art (1948-, Chairman: 1962-1972, 1987-1993);

Founder and Chairman/Honorary Chairman of the Council of the Americas (1963-);

Honorary Chairman and Life Trustee of The Rockefeller University (Chairman: 1950-1975);

Trustee/Life Trustee of the University of Chicago (1947-1962, 1966-);

Director of the Peterson Institute (Formerly: The Institute for International Economics);

President and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Harvard College Board of Overseers (1954-1960, 1962-1968);

President of the Board of Overseas Study at Harvard University;

Member, American Friends of the London School of Economics;

Co-founder and Chairman of the Chase International Advisory Committee';

Chairman, Chase International Investment Corporation (1961-1975);

Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York;

Leading member of the Russian-American Bankers Forum (1992);

Chairman of the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry;

Director of the New York Clearing House (1971-1978);

Founder and Chairman of the Center for Inter-American Relations (CIAR) (Cultural adjunct of the Council of the Americas, 1965);

Founder and Chairman/Honorary Chairman of the Americas Society;

Co-founder of the Chairman's Latin American Advisory Council;

Founder of the Forum of the Americas;

Honorary Chairman of the Japan Society;

Chairman of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association;

Director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation;

Co-founder of The Business Committee for the Arts (BAC) (1967);

Chairman of Morningside Heights, Inc.;

Board member of the Westchester County Planning Commission;

Board member of the Commerce Committee for the Alliance for Progress (1961);

Founder of the Emergency Committee for American Trade;

Director of the Overseas Development Council;

Director of American Overseas Finance Corporation;

Member of Reagan's President's Commission on Executive Exchange (1981);

Director of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council;

Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Council for U.S.-China Trade;

Founder of the Emergency Committee on American Trade (ECAT);

Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Council on Japan-United States Economic Relations;

Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Reform of the International Monetary System;

Founding member/Honorary member of the Commission on White House Fellows (1964-1965);

A Trustee of the John F. Kennedy Library;

An Honorary Trustee and Chairman of the Executive Committee of International House of New York;

A Trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1947-1960);

Primary Founder/U.S. Executive Committee, Dartmouth Conference;

Founder and Chairman of the International Executive Service Corps (IESC) (Chairman: 1964-1968);

Co-founder of the Synergos affiliated Global Philanthropists Circle;

Honorary Advisor/International Advisor of Praemium Imperiale;

Member of the Peace Parks Foundation;

Trustee of Historic Hudson Valley (1981-);

Chairman of the Stone Barns Restoration Corporation;

Chairman of Rockefeller Financial Services;

Chairman, The Rockefeller Group Inc. (1983-1995);

Chairman, Rockefeller Center Properties Inc. (1985-1992);

Co-founder and Advisory Trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) (1940) (Chairman: 1981-1987);

Co-founder and Honorary Trustee of the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) (1967);

President of his father's Sealantic Fund;

Founder of the David Rockefeller Fund (1989);

Founded and funded the David Rockefeller Global Development Fund (RBF) (2006);

Founded the David Rockefeller Graduate Program at Rockefeller University;

Co-founded, funded and on the Advisory Committee of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) at Harvard (1994-).
Gordon Brown song
http:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2B5JHSTOrdU
__________________
Anything goes - Cole Porter

I'm no pro.

Last edited by noewhan; 14-01-2010 at 02:07 PM.
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
elite, new world order

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:48 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.