|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Here's a mainstream article describing direct and ongoing Rockefeller involvement in eugenics both in the US and in Nazi Germany:
| Quote: |
Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims. [...]
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. [...]
More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany's eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst R�din, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.
Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler's medical henchman Ernst R�din. R�din's organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.
[continues...]
By Edwin Black
Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.
This article was first published in the San Francisco Chronicle and is reprinted with permission of the author. |
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
The Rockefeller Foundation continues to finance groups descended from and/or associated with the eugenics movement, including Planned Parenthood, UNESCO, and the WWF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
No, my friend the onus is on the one making the claim. You've claimed they don't donate to charity so prove it. The dubious links you have posted are not the type of links that anyone would use as a scholarly paper or even as sources.
Anyone with access to Google can see that you were completely wrong (as in the Dokdo thread).
But here's some light reading for you http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/p_gates.html
Every year the foundation gives 170 million dollars to hundreds of causes.
I suppose all these organizations who receive the money are lying about it as well?  |
Lazy and dishonest, that's what you are. Your link is worthless.
| Quote: |
| The Rockefeller Foundation has given away about $170 million every year to hundreds of causes, ranging from the arts to health, education, housing and food for the disadvantaged. |
This is so vague as to be meaningless. I posted a link showing that they keep most of their money in Exxon-Mobil. You posted a PBS blurb with nothing in it. What are the names of the charities they donate to? You haven't a clue have you?
The Rockefellers control assets in excess of $5 trillion dollars, including all the supermajor oil companies. Even if they did donate a piddly $170 million to charities (which you are unable to show), it doesn't change the fact that they are simply robber barons controlling an empire of finance and energy monopolies, and the largest funders of eugenics and world government think tanks in history. They are a cancer on the world.
Anyway, reality obviously means nothing to you - all you can do is appeal to 'authority' because you're a brainwashed fool. Willful ignorance cannot be countered in a debate. |
That's a handy little trick, isn't it? When proved wrong, you simply claim the links are wrong.
And why not do everyone here a favor and follow the TOS? Abusive language is only going to get this thread locked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
No, my friend the onus is on the one making the claim. You've claimed they don't donate to charity so prove it. The dubious links you have posted are not the type of links that anyone would use as a scholarly paper or even as sources.
Anyone with access to Google can see that you were completely wrong (as in the Dokdo thread).
But here's some light reading for you http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/p_gates.html
Every year the foundation gives 170 million dollars to hundreds of causes.
I suppose all these organizations who receive the money are lying about it as well? |
Lazy and dishonest, that's what you are. Your link is worthless.
| Quote: |
| The Rockefeller Foundation has given away about $170 million every year to hundreds of causes, ranging from the arts to health, education, housing and food for the disadvantaged. |
This is so vague as to be meaningless. I posted a link showing that they keep most of their money in Exxon-Mobil. You posted a PBS blurb with nothing in it. What are the names of the charities they donate to? You haven't a clue have you?
The Rockefellers control assets in excess of $5 trillion dollars, including all the supermajor oil companies. Even if they did donate a piddly $170 million to charities (which you are unable to show), it doesn't change the fact that they are simply robber barons controlling an empire of finance and energy monopolies, and the largest funders of eugenics and world government think tanks in history. They are a cancer on the world.
Anyway, reality obviously means nothing to you - all you can do is appeal to 'authority' because you're a brainwashed fool. Willful ignorance cannot be countered in a debate. |
That's a handy little trick, isn't it? When proved wrong, you simply claim the links are wrong.
And why not do everyone here a favor and follow the TOS? Abusive language is only going to get this thread locked. |
Whatever you say, troll. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back, the only "trickster" here is you, ignoring all the evidence, not acknowledging the substance of the links I posted (while posting links of zero substance yourself).
As I said, willful, boneheaded ignorance cannot be countered in a debate - but feel free to 'pretend' you're the "winner" if it makes you feel better (since you do it every time anyway)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
It is much less sexy and nefarious than you think. The banks are partaking in rent seeking behaviour. They're getting away with what they're allowed to get away with.
...There is no conspiracy. Just good ol corruption. |
This is what I've always said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
No, my friend the onus is on the one making the claim. You've claimed they don't donate to charity so prove it. The dubious links you have posted are not the type of links that anyone would use as a scholarly paper or even as sources.
Anyone with access to Google can see that you were completely wrong (as in the Dokdo thread).
But here's some light reading for you http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/p_gates.html
Every year the foundation gives 170 million dollars to hundreds of causes.
I suppose all these organizations who receive the money are lying about it as well? |
Lazy and dishonest, that's what you are. Your link is worthless.
| Quote: |
| The Rockefeller Foundation has given away about $170 million every year to hundreds of causes, ranging from the arts to health, education, housing and food for the disadvantaged. |
This is so vague as to be meaningless. I posted a link showing that they keep most of their money in Exxon-Mobil. You posted a PBS blurb with nothing in it. What are the names of the charities they donate to? You haven't a clue have you?
The Rockefellers control assets in excess of $5 trillion dollars, including all the supermajor oil companies. Even if they did donate a piddly $170 million to charities (which you are unable to show), it doesn't change the fact that they are simply robber barons controlling an empire of finance and energy monopolies, and the largest funders of eugenics and world government think tanks in history. They are a cancer on the world.
Anyway, reality obviously means nothing to you - all you can do is appeal to 'authority' because you're a brainwashed fool. Willful ignorance cannot be countered in a debate. |
That's a handy little trick, isn't it? When proved wrong, you simply claim the links are wrong.
And why not do everyone here a favor and follow the TOS? Abusive language is only going to get this thread locked. |
Whatever you say, troll. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back, the only "trickster" here is you, ignoring all the evidence, not acknowledging the substance of the links I posted (while posting links of zero substance yourself).
)... |
Sorry but your wikipedia links are not "evidence" nor do they have any substance. Anyone can edit wiki and make it say what they want.
I posted a link to a major newspaper, which I asked you to do and which you have not done yet. Whenever you have something of like substance, feel free to post it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sorry but your wikipedia links are not "evidence" nor do they have any substance. Anyone can edit wiki and make it say what they want. |
Anyone can submit changes to wiki pages, but that doesn't mean what they post will stay up there.
People being so down on wikipedia is ridiculous; it's error rate is very similar to that of a normal encyclopedia, and very often wikipedia articles will include a large list of citations. The wikipedia entry he posted on the Rockerfeller Foundation has a bibliography, numerous citations, and quite a few outside links as well. By comparison, your PBS link contains vague assertions with no listed citations that I saw.
The idea that someone who spends their own time researching and posting an article on wikipedia -- listing and citing their sources so you can go ahead and see exactly where they got their information from and check it for yourself if you disbelieve it -- is inherently less trustworthy than a nameless PBS worker who doesn't publically cite his sources baffles me.
This bigotry against wikipedia really needs to end. It's a valuable collection of data that is, the vast majority of the time, correct. When you attack a wikipedia article as "lacking in substance" you are also saying that all it's sources are just as lacking (or that it's falsely citing those sources; if you're claiming his links do that, feel free to list which sources it has cited in error and why). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sorry but your wikipedia links are not "evidence" nor do they have any substance. Anyone can edit wiki and make it say what they want. |
Anyone can submit changes to wiki pages, but that doesn't mean what they post will stay up there.
People being so down on wikipedia is ridiculous; it's error rate is very similar to that of a normal encyclopedia, and very often wikipedia articles will include a large list of citations. The wikipedia entry he posted on the Rockerfeller Foundation has a bibliography, numerous citations, and quite a few outside links as well. By comparison, your PBS link contains vague assertions with no listed citations that I saw.
The idea that someone who spends their own time researching and posting an article on wikipedia -- listing and citing their sources so you can go ahead and see exactly where they got their information from and check it for yourself if you disbelieve it -- is inherently less trustworthy than a nameless PBS worker who doesn't publically cite his sources baffles me.
This bigotry against wikipedia really needs to end. It's a valuable collection of data that is, the vast majority of the time, correct. When you attack a wikipedia article as "lacking in substance" you are also saying that all it's sources are just as lacking (or that it's falsely citing those sources; if you're claiming his links do that, feel free to list which sources it has cited in error and why). |
Exactly. I never quote from wikipedia unless it is cited, which the part I quoted was (I even made a point of mentioning it).
TheUrbanMyth is just a troll hypocrite who likes to pick arguments on here, puts words into peoples' mouths, lies, and basically contributes nothing (he/she does it on many other threads too). This person is annoying, period.
I cited a very credible article by Edwin Black (author of best-selling books like IBM and the Holocaust) that describes in detail how the Rockefellers have heavily funded Eugenics programs (ie. very compelling evidence that they don't give a damn about helping starving children), as well as a cited paragraph stating that most of their money is kept as shares in Oil companies.
TUM merely posted a pitiful, superficial PBS page stating that the Rockefellers donate money to "charity", not naming a single one specifically. Turns our most of this "charity" is actually the Rockefeller Foundation, which keeps most of its funds as shares in Exxon-Mobil!
Oh, and the Rockefellers actually have their fingers in PBS and most of the other mainstream media:
| Quote: |
That the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting expresses its appreciation to
Sharon Percy Rockefeller
Member of the Board, 1990-1992
for the contribution of her valuable time to the Corporation and to public broadcasting; for her genuine commitment, inexhaustible energy and great effectiveness in advocating that public broadcasting maintain its role in producing high-quality, excellent, and diverse programming for the American people; for the value of her long experience and wise counsel about public broadcasting; for representing the Corporation on the PBS National Program Policy Committee; and for her membership on the Policy and Planning Committee and Chairmanship of the Finance Committee. |
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/leadership/board/resolutions/resolution.php?prn=755
WETA is a main branch of PBS.
| Quote: |
| Sharon Rockefeller, WETA President and CEO. |
http://www.cpb.org/pressroom/release.php?prn=206 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sorry but your wikipedia links are not "evidence" nor do they have any substance. Anyone can edit wiki and make it say what they want. |
Anyone can submit changes to wiki pages, but that doesn't mean what they post will stay up there.
People being so down on wikipedia is ridiculous; it's error rate is very similar to that of a normal encyclopedia, and very often wikipedia articles will include a large list of citations. The wikipedia entry he posted on the Rockerfeller Foundation has a bibliography, numerous citations, and quite a few outside links as well. By comparison, your PBS link contains vague assertions with no listed citations that I saw.
The idea that someone who spends their own time researching and posting an article on wikipedia -- listing and citing their sources so you can go ahead and see exactly where they got their information from and check it for yourself if you disbelieve it -- is inherently less trustworthy than a nameless PBS worker who doesn't publically cite his sources baffles me.
This bigotry against wikipedia really needs to end. It's a valuable collection of data that is, the vast majority of the time, correct. When you attack a wikipedia article as "lacking in substance" you are also saying that all it's sources are just as lacking (or that it's falsely citing those sources; if you're claiming his links do that, feel free to list which sources it has cited in error and why). |
Well if you like Wikipedia so much google the entry for David Rockerfeller. Under section 8 (last paragraph) his charitable giving is estimated at 900 million dollars over his lifetime. See the cites for that.
By contrast I see no proof that conclusively proves otherwise and THAT is what we were talking about. Once again his wikipedia links do not prove that Rockerfeller does not donate to charity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sorry but your wikipedia links are not "evidence" nor do they have any substance. Anyone can edit wiki and make it say what they want. |
Anyone can submit changes to wiki pages, but that doesn't mean what they post will stay up there.
People being so down on wikipedia is ridiculous; it's error rate is very similar to that of a normal encyclopedia, and very often wikipedia articles will include a large list of citations. The wikipedia entry he posted on the Rockerfeller Foundation has a bibliography, numerous citations, and quite a few outside links as well. By comparison, your PBS link contains vague assertions with no listed citations that I saw.
The idea that someone who spends their own time researching and posting an article on wikipedia -- listing and citing their sources so you can go ahead and see exactly where they got their information from and check it for yourself if you disbelieve it -- is inherently less trustworthy than a nameless PBS worker who doesn't publically cite his sources baffles me.
This bigotry against wikipedia really needs to end. It's a valuable collection of data that is, the vast majority of the time, correct. When you attack a wikipedia article as "lacking in substance" you are also saying that all it's sources are just as lacking (or that it's falsely citing those sources; if you're claiming his links do that, feel free to list which sources it has cited in error and why). |
Well if you like Wikipedia so much google the entry for David Rockerfeller. Under section 8 (last paragraph) his charitable giving is estimated at 900 million dollars over his lifetime. See the cites for that. |
That's fine. I'm not coming in on either side of this discussion beyond disagreeing with Wikipedia being attacked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Well if you like Wikipedia so much google the entry for David Rockerfeller. Under section 8 (last paragraph) his charitable giving is estimated at 900 million dollars over his lifetime. See the cites for that.
By contrast I see no proof that conclusively proves otherwise and THAT is what we were talking about. Once again his wikipedia links do not prove that Rockerfeller does not donate to charity. |
From that paragraph (which you conveniently left out):
| Quote: |
| Rockefeller has always limited his giving to institutions directly or indirectly related to the family; for example, in 2005, at age ninety, he gave $100 million to the Museum of Modern Art and $100 million to Rockefeller University, two of the most prominent family institutions; as well as $10 million to Harvard and $5 million to Colonial Williamsburg. In 2006, he pledged $225 million to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund upon his death, the largest gift in the Fund's history. The money will be used to create the David Rockefeller Global Development Fund, to support projects that improve access to health care, conduct research on international finance and trade, fight poverty, and support sustainable development, as well as to a program that fosters dialogue between Muslim and Western nations.[46] The New York Times estimated in November, 2006 that his total charitable donations amount to $900 million over his lifetime, a figure that was substantiated by a monograph on the family's overall benefactions, entitled The Chronicle of Philanthropy. |
All they do is shift the money around to their various philanthropies to avoid paying tax. There is no indication that any money actually gets spent on children etc. Because it's a big sham. Any money that does get spent, gets spent on globalization (ie. bad for everyone except the banks, which the Rockefellers control) and eugenics research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| [. The money will be used to create the David Rockefeller Global Development Fund, to support projects that improve access to health care, conduct research on international finance and trade, fight poverty, and support sustainable development, as well as to a program that fosters dialogue between Muslim and Western nations.[46] . |
[bolding mine). Those sound like charities to me.
But answer me this. U.S law is fairly strict when it comes to defining what is a charity and what is not for tax purposes.
If you as a private citizen have access to info (which I have not yet seen) which proves that Rockefeller is merely shifting money around within his company, then the IRS (which has far more resources) should be able to prove that as well.
Why have they not gone after him? They've gone after other rich (and poor) people too. They tend to be quite aggressive when they suspect that someone is 'gaming' the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| [. The money will be used to create the David Rockefeller Global Development Fund, to support projects that improve access to health care, conduct research on international finance and trade, fight poverty, and support sustainable development, as well as to a program that fosters dialogue between Muslim and Western nations.[46] . |
[bolding mine). Those sound like charities to me.
But answer me this. U.S law is fairly strict when it comes to defining what is a charity and what is not for tax purposes.
If you as a private citizen have access to info (which I have not yet seen) which proves that Rockefeller is merely shifting money around within his company, then the IRS (which has far more resources) should be able to prove that as well.
Why have they not gone after him? They've gone after other rich (and poor) people too. They tend to be quite aggressive when they suspect that someone is 'gaming' the system. |
Well this is the point where you'll probably have to label it a "conspiracy". Basically the Rockefeller family has clout like no other - they pretty much control the Western world's oil production and two of the world's preeminent banks, JP Morgan-Chase and Citibank (this is documented in some of the links, however the exact shares they hold are undisclosed). This also means they probably control the Federal Reserve itself (again impossible to prove since it's never allowed itself to be audited, a fight which is going on even now in congress).
At any rate, if you think the elite play by the rules, then you are extremely naive. They do whatever the hell they want, the government is only "strict" to the non-elites and the average people. Income tax is arguably not even allowed under the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments) - the IRA was created to enforce this basically illegal taxation just a few months after the Federal Reserve was signed into existence (the legality of this is also disputed since only 3 members were present when the Federal Reserve Act was passed during a summer recess in 1913). Income tax in the US was literally just created in order to pay off the debt the US gov't incurs from borrowing money from the privately owned Federal Reserve at interest. Today this amounts to around $450 billion dollars a year, stolen from the public to pay off the interest on the loans our gov't takes from the bankers, even though it could just as easily print this same money itself interest-free if the Fed were abolished.
Of course this is also around the time the Rockefellers and fellow robber barons started up all their "charitable" foundations, supposedly giving away half their fortunes for the good of mankind. A complete load of crap. John D. Rockefeller Sr. was one of the most ruthless businessmen in history, treating workers like dirt (see the "Ludlow Massacre" for example), famous for crushing anyone who got in his way and sharing nothing, so the thought of him suddenly 'giving away' his fortune is absurd.
Anyway, if you want me to appeal to authority, I simply cannot. Neither I nor anyone in the public has access to Rockefeller accounting books, or to the documents showing their shareholdings in their companies. You just have to use common sense and connect the dots, it's fairly obvious what they're up to if you read into it. Mainly, from what I've read (see links) they create thousands of quasi-legal trusts which form a giant web of shareholdings, giving them control over their companies while severely limiting their personal shareholdings (and taxes). They have 3 whole floors in the GE Building in NY full of minions who balance the books for them. Yet they claim to be worth a mere ~$3 billion. This is just silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
