Talk:David Rockefeller

David Rockefeller is a trillionaire, making him "officially" the richest person in the world

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/Rockefellers-visiting-Delhi/articleshow/7580364.cms

"It seems that India has caught the fancy of American trillionaire David Rockefeller." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.158.43 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NWO, Socialism, etc.

Is the following serious?

David Rockefeller is probably the most ardent supporter of the New World Order. He was Vice Director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1949-1985), Vice President (1950-1970), and Chariman from (1970-1985), founder and Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission as well as attending some of the secrative Bilderberg Group meetings.

I would suspect not (judging by our article at New World Order and New World Order (conspiracy), and so I have removed it. Meelar (talk) 00:52, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously someone does not know the meaning of World Federalism...

Try a real encyclopaedia instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.61.125.28 (talk) 11:47, April 7, 2005 (UTC)

I actually came here specifically to see if the David Rockefeller article mentioned his active support of Mao in the 70s, and other socialist and NWO groups and people. --Mrcolj 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (Colin Jensen, not a loon, but a mellow San Franciscan apologist, nevertheless I don't know that a biography on David Rockefeller that doesn't mention extreme left-wing progressivist socialism is NPOV any more than a similar article on George Soros would be. In 2006, one hardly hears the name Rockefeller outside of references to fears of billionaire boys' club style conspiracies posited by everyone throughout the 1950s.)

Perhaps the charge of being part of an organisation called: 'New World Order' is untrue, but the rest of the groups mentioned he is a part of, and is well documented. He also agrees to the charge of wanting to "..build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will." Which comes from his book Memoirs and is quoted on this page. Kytok 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"I actually came here specifically to see if the David Rockefeller article mentioned his active support of Mao in the 70s,"

This statement is preposterous. At a time when Mao had been firmly ensconced in power for more than 2 decades the White House under Nixon began probing for opportunities to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and convert China into a Cold War ally against the USSR. Translating this as "active support of Mao" is simply ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"This statement is preposterous." No it is not. That is just some geopolitics mumbo jumbo to get around the moral issue. We supported the Taliban as a cold war ally and look where that got us. What's wrong is wrong. The world is not some "grand chessboard" for people like Z Big and Kissinger to play out their fantasies with people's lives like its some kind of game to be won. The threat from the Soviets was always overstated, we didn't need an ally that bad and rationalizing seems a bit of a stretch. Further, Rockefeller is not a politician but a businessman and would not have been engaging in "opportunities to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split" but rather opportunities to pad his own wallet. Maybe Nelson, but not David. Sino-Soviet split? Go read some more Tom Clancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.237.139 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Names of Rockefeller children incorrect

The names of some of David Rockefeller's children are incorrect: "Margaret Rockefeller" now refers to herself as "Peggy Dulany," "Neva Rockefeller Goodwin" refers to herself as "Neva Goodwin" and "Eileen Rockefeller" refers to herself as "Eileen Growald." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.151.17 (talk) 14:08, November 19, 2005 (UTC)

Correct birth date

David Rockefeller was born on June 12, 1915. not June 15, 1915. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.198.171.137 (talk) 04:36, May 28, 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Are you telling me that David Rockefeller's Wikipedia entry doesn't have a controversy section? WFT? 204.112.156.246 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The anon comment above is correct and I see that it has not been rectified. This article reads as if it were written by the Rockefeller organization, and in that regard I note heavy editing by SPAs. I have asked for comment and would like to see more eyes trained on this article.--Mantanmoreland 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about SPA. We are all equal here, whether we mostly read or we mostly write. Are the SPA causing a problem? The top part of the article looks fine. The bottom part looks very much like a list. Some article have sub-articles and a summary and a link. Consider this. I see no debate about whether the bottom part of the article is good or bad.Plumbing 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller definitely seems to be a controversial figure. The lack of inclusion of a controversy section does seem to reflect poorly on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.219.173 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Rockefeller has ADMITTED to being part of "a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" in a quote on this very page, and in another quote (not on Wikipedia) he talks of the "supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers" who should be controlling the world.. I have no IDEA why there's no "controversy" section, to say the least..

A proven (former) friend of another member of the Rockefeller family said he was told before 9/11 that "an event would occur" which would lead to "going into Iraq, Iran, Brazil", and he was laughing at the idea of soldiers "looking in caves for something that doesn't exist". Again, I am dumbfounded by a lack of a "controversy" section.. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh shut up! I agree there should be a controversy section, but telling us some unverifiable information "a friend" heard is just the height or irresponsibility. Please keep your "facts" to yourself unless you can document them. JettaMann (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

'Considering that Rockefeller has ADMITTED to being part of "a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" in a quote on this very page'

Rockefeller did not admit to any such thing. He acknowledged seeking a more integrated world, and made fun of his Right-wing critics by recalling their common description of a secret cabal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The "former friend" is the very famous producer/filmaker/political candidate and now dead Aaron Russo. His statements regarding exactly that can be found easily, it was in a videotaped interview. Keep in mind this was not David who allegedly said this to him, but another Rockefeller. Also, why is Benajmin Fulford mentioned, but there is no link to the interview he did with David Rockefeller? Also, the wiki on Fulford is terribly lacking, as well as Dr. Nick Begich, brother of current Alaska (d) Gov of Anchorage and now running for Senate who has studied HAARP extensively. There is also a CBC investigative report on HAARP that is pretty revealing (desired 100 billion watts of power in an unrealesed but public document was dug up). I'm not really a wiki-literate person, maybe someone could put all this together. All easy to find, search for Haarp CBC on youtube or google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.201.106 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Im shocked that there is no controversy. Btw what is SPA? Is it an American thing? Why dont we just add a controversy section? Honans (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The controversies are already mentioned at Rockefeller family. a SPA is a single-purpose account. Graham87 12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

The "Bilderberg Group" has been described as "a secret world government".

"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 light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." (David Rockefeller, at a June 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.196.106 (talk) 02:07, February 12, 2007 (UTC)

does anyone have any reliable source at all for the quote above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.245.195.34 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is a bogus quote, although I have seen it thrown around a lot on the internet. Sometimes you just see the first part of the quote, the latter part about bankers and whatnot sounds even more far fetched. I tried to track it down to the primary source and was unable to. The websites that referenced the quotes were, shall we say, dubious. I would believe the quote more if something on the level of John Birch Society or above mentioned it, but they are pretty small time websites.JettaMann (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another statement, in his 2002 autobiography, Memoirs, also expounds on his political means and strategies in the efforts to achieve a one-world, "New World Order" government:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. (Page 405 of the 2002 hardcover edition)

I came across this in Michael Tsarion's 2006 lecture to the Granada Forum: Template:Google video. __meco 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And I now realize that this quote was part of the article long before I "discovered" it. __meco 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jetta man do some damn research. the "friend" is Aaron Russo, and he went on to make a documentary "America:Freedom to Fascism" after he learned these things, and ended his friendship with Rockefeller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.226.176 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

9/11 inside job allegations

• http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Benjamin_Fulford_070507.mp3
• http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Benjamin_Fulford_072307.mp3
• Template:Google video

What about the allegations that it was David Rockefeller who ordered the 9/11 attacks? Timharwoodx 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Hard to conceive how something like that could fit into this article under WP:BLP.--Mantanmoreland 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just thought I'd add it to the talk page. Its a developing story. Timharwoodx 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Mr. david rockefellerwas a member of al Qaeda, but if a WP:RS source says so, let's include it. Fifteenth hijacker?--Mantanmoreland 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Means, opportunity, motive, it certainly points to David Rockefeller as the likely candidate to have ordered and funded the 9/11 attacks. Rockefeller wealth is founded in oil, and 9/11 offered the chance not only to spike up the price of oil, but to secure control of major oilfields in Iraq, and around the Caspian Sea Oil basin. Huge profits potentially were on offer for years to come. Even Jay Rockefeller and the Rothschilds clan are reported on the internet as thinking David is too darn evil. Look it up in Google. A split in the Illumninati ranks. They formed a breakaway global warming faction, reportedly. As I said to someone recently, when you get to the point that your evil plans for world domination and control are being discussed openly in the pub, then probably you went wrong somewhere..... David went too far on 9/11, and the whole Illuminati will now pay the price. Timharwoodx 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.--Mantanmoreland 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

http://educate-yourself.org/ga/RFcontents.shtml The irony is even back in the 1970s members of congress were openly warning that the Rockefellers had a secret plan for one world government, and the destruction of America, to be implemented through the CFR and other structures. I guess until 9/11, we never took it seriously. Too bad for David his 'secret' plans leaked out on the internet, and the Chinese confirmed them through their own internal sources. What good is a secret government, when it is no longer a secret? The Rothschilds must be furious having worked so long, so hard, on this one world government project, to have it blown out the water, by this ridiculous 9/11 plan David allegedly came up with, implemented by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Presumably David thought with the 9/11 oil money from Iraq, he could finally surpass the Rothschilds wealth (12 trillion v. 100 trillion c. 1998), and that may have been *HIS* motive. I guess Bush would say as President he was only following CFR orders, and that as mere President, he was not high enough up in the government, to ever be a real decision maker. Cheney was the main CFR agent of influence on the Bush administration, and there is video of him on youtube admitting his long CFR association.

• Template:Google video (Cheney is CFR agent of influence)

Mike Ruppert publically fingered Cheney as the main suspect for 9/11 operationally on the day: Crossing the Rubicon, Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney, by Michael Kane

• Template:Google video
• Template:Google video
• Template:Google video

CFR runs America regardless of who wins the 'election.' Timharwoodx 23:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in posting these kinds of links. Only reliable sources can be used in this article. --Mantanmoreland 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be right in that these links (or at least some of them) cannot be included in the article, however, they can provide useful pointers to pertinent issues, perspectives, relations and/or incidents that merit inclusion. Once having discovered such claims or information it is possible to do further research in order to obtain reliable sourcing for that which is asserted in, basically, non-mainstream sources.

For instance, it was watching the lecture by Michael Tsarion, Template:Google video which mentions David Rockefeller's abhorrent (if it can indeed be pinned to him) statement to the Bilderberger meeting in 1991 (which an anonymous editor pointed out above) that incited me to visit this article today and do the work that I have. __meco 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If a link is obviously not appropriate for the article, there is no point in putting it in the talk page. Remember that this is not a forum for discussion of David Rockefeller. There is a caveat to that effect at the top of this page.--Mantanmoreland 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you do not appear to share my position that a talk page is like a newsroom where ideas, sources and information of unassessed quality may be shared with other editors, which then in turn may form the basis for meritable inclusions into the article text itself. I think the cautioning banner at the top of the page (which I added today, mind you) is more directed towards people simply voicing their opinions on a subject and not on sharing information which may be used in investigating different angles to the subject. __meco 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

check the date around line 115 as the user that changed the date from 1978 to 1982 has been doing alot of vandalism from that ip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biorgani (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Baden-Baden 1991

It has been quoted on the actual page and on this discussion page:

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 autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

It is has been attributed to David Rockefeller at the Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany, June 6-9 1991. A google search of "David Rockefeller world 1991" gives numerous links. Many of them do not source the quote, and others allege that Rockefeller said those words to a Trilateral Commission meeting. Even the Wiki article attributes it to a Trilateral meeting, but offers no source. However, both the Bilderberg Group article and Bilderberg.org list a meeting as happening in Baden-Baden, Germany, 1991, with the latter source claiming Rockefeller to be in attendance. This quote has been used a lot in articles claiming to have found a "confession" concerning the New World Order and all that.

However, its authenticity is suspect. The Proud Internationalist, by Will Banyan and found easily on Google, offers some clarity on page 67:

The actual source of the quote appears to be a French publication, Lectures Francaises (July-August 1991), which reportedly obtained a copy of Rockefeller's address to the Bilderbergers. The key to its wider dissemination, though, was its partial reproduction in the Monaco-produced Hilaire Du Berrier Reports (September 1991).

He has more to say, but the important footnotes of his study are 408 and 409, found on the last page of the PDF. There are three sources that Banyan points to; first, he says that Des Griffin's Fourth Reich of the Rich identifies Lectures Francaises as the initial source on page 130; second, he points to William Jasper's article in The New American, European Nightmare, which also points to Lectures Francaises; and third, he asserts that Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary has nothing to say about Rockefeller's quote, even though there is a chapter on the Baden-Baden meeting. With all this in mind, I googled Lectures Francaises, and it turns out there is a French Wikipedia article [1]. I can't read French, but some of the words look familiar, such as "nostalgique du régime de Vichy," "nationaliste," and "tendance conspirationniste (antimaçonnisme, antisémitisme, etc.)" Nostalgic for the Vichy regime, nationalist, and a conspiratorial tendency, I think? Doesn't sound like a solid primary source for this quote.

I don't have Tucker's book or Griffin's book, so I can't source these things myself, but I figured it'd be worth mentioning here. This is actually my first attempt at actually participating on Wiki, so I didn't bother going straight to the main page. I figured someone with more experience could edit it, perhaps, or just put some note after the quote requiring a citation or even providing a bit of information about the disputed nature of this quote.

Skeptic2537 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Skeptic2537 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the main page so people won't go assuming that this quote is 'proof' of anything. Skeptic2537 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We should perhaps bold the section or mention it is an unverified quote. A lot of people might read it without reading the "small print" afterwards and think it is a verified quote. I'm going to preface this one quote with (unverified quote) right before it for now. It seems like someone in the mainstream media would be interested in verifying this quote since it seems like such a key admission of Rockefellers agenda, but then again the media doesn't seem interested in talking about Trilateral that much.JettaMann (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this New York Times article available for free?

Is this New York Times article, cited in the David Rockefeller article, available for free? It was almost certainly published after 1986, and any NYT articles after this date are available for free. I couldn't find any article under the title "Joseph V. Reed appointed to UN", so what is the correct title? I don't have a paid NYT account. Graham87 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken an educated guess and assumed it was Next U.N. Official From U.S.: Political Flair. That article is the only one that mentions Joseph V. Reed's appointment. Graham87 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I got the right article; I checked by manipulating the URL. Graham87 06:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone should start an article on his autobiography

His autobiography, Memoirs, is referenced several places, not only in this article, and I think it would be appropriate to have an article on the book. __meco (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone confirm this

Is this a good edit? __meco (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that as well. I think that is a good edit based on the title of the cited ref: "Ongoing financial support of the Council on Foreign Relations...". Did the Council on Foreign Relations have a name change at some point? Graham87 08:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why on Earth was the direct quote from Memoirs removed?

Seems like an attempt to totally diffuse the impact, and also the reference was removed. What could be more important and relevant than a printed, documented direct quote?

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." — From Rockefeller's "Memoirs", (p.405).

Patriotick (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You could have simply read above. Not to mention that it has a lack of notability as it's only relevant to silly conspiracy theories and was clearly somewhat self-deprecating. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Statesman? Globalist?

These are listed as Mr. Rockafeller's occupations. Globalist is certainly totally out of place. What to say about statesman? Is there are job description for statesman that would fit his biography. This is starting to look like a vanity Wikipedia entry. Any votes for keeping Banker and nothing else in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.82.247 (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has too many quotations already. I suggest adding it to Wikiquote instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"See also" section

The "See also" section appears to contain every article that mentions the name "Rockefeller", including tenants of the Rockefeller Center. Unless the target articles mention the subject they probably shouldn't be in the list. I'm going to start paring it down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

any relationship to Nicholas Rockefeller?

<Removed copyvio of http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/newsletter/0052/materials/pp1.pdf> and duplicate post.

Removed quotation

I have removed a quotation from the article. As it is, the article works well without it, the quotation is neither necessary nor does it add anything relevant to the article. This is partially due to the way it was integrated: no argument is derived from it. Apparently it is supposed to speak for itself, which in this case does not quite work, especially since there is no context provided and no discussion of what it actually says. Thus, the use of the quotation for the improvement at the moment is unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.215.33 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why all the italics?

Many words in the article which are not titles of books or art are italicized. Is there a reason?