The Real Story of David Rockefeller That the Media Isn’t Telling

By Whitney Webb 

While celebrated for his philanthropy in media reports, the last surviving grandson of America’s first billionaire died yesterday, leaving behind a dark legacy indicative of how American nobility often shape policy from behind the scenes.

(MPN) No one person encapsulates the enduring legacy of the “robber barons” of the Industrial Age quite like David Rockefeller. Rockefeller, who died yesterday at the age of 101, was the last surviving grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the oil tycoon who became America’s first billionaire and the patriarch of what would become one of the most powerful and wealthiest families in American history. David Rockefeller, an undeniable product of American nobility, lived his entire life in the echelons of U.S. society, becoming symbolic of the elite who often direct public policy to a much greater extent than many realize, albeit often from the shadows.

Rockefeller made it clear that he preferred to operate out of public view despite his great influence in American – and international – politics. Due to his birthright, Rockefeller served as an advisor to every president since Eisenhower, but when offered powerful positions such as Federal Reserve chairman and Secretary of the Treasury – he declined, preferring “a private role.”

As evidenced by the numerous obituaries bemoaning the loss of the last of the Rockefeller’s grandsons, he was largely successful in hiding his most significant wrongdoings from public view, as evidenced by his characterization as a generous philanthropist and influential banker.

But as is often the case, Rockefeller’s true legacy is much more mired in controversy than major media outlets seem willing to admit. In addition to having the ear of every U.S. president for the better part of the last 70 or so years, Rockefeller – once again operating “behind the scenes” – was instrumental in shaping the more cringe-worthy aspects of U.S. policy during that time, as well as being a major force in establishing banking policies that led to debt crises in the developing world.

Rockefeller – as the head of Chase Manhattan Bank from 1969 to 1981 – worked with government and multinational corporations throughout the world to create a “global order” unequivocally dominated by the 1 percent, of which his family was a part. As the New York Times noted back in the 1970s, Rockefeller became embroiled in controversy when his constant trips overseas caused the bank to become less profitable, as he prioritized the bank’s influence on foreign politics over its actual business dealings.

During his time as Chase CEO, Rockefeller helped laid the foundation for repressive, racist and fascist regimes around the world, as well as architecture for global inequality. In addition, Rockefeller helped to bring the debt crisis of the 1980s into existence, in part by direct action through Chase Bank and also indirectly through his former employee-turned-Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. Two years before the debt crisis erupted, Rockefeller, Volcker and other top bankers met at the International Monetary Conference in 1980s to argue for the establishment of a “safety net” for major banks – like Chase – that were embroiled in bad loans given largely to countries in the developing world.

After the crisis brought financial ruin to Latin America and other developing areas throughout the world, Rockefeller – along with other bankers – created austerity programs to “solve” the debt crisis during subsequent IMC meetings, provoking inequality that still persists to this day. However, thanks to the “safety net” conveniently established years prior, Chase avoided the economic consequences for its criminal actions.

In addition, Rockefeller supported the bloody and ruthless dictatorships of the Shah of Iran and Augusto Pinochet of Chile while also supporting Israeli apartheid. Rockefeller then went on to found the influential Trilateral Commission while also serving as a major force on the Council on Foreign Relations that he, along with his close friend Henry Kissinger, would come to dominate.

Both of these organizations have come under fire for using their powerful influence to bring about a “one-world government” ruled by a powerful, ultra-wealthy elite – an accusation to which David Rockefeller confirmed as true in his autobiography. Far from the generous philanthropist he is made to be, David Rockefeller deserves to be remembered for his true legacy – one of elitism, fascism and economic enslavement.

Putin: The Russian President Says Something About The New World Order That Western Media Won’t Air

George Orwell once said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Since he offered those words decades ago, we have seen deceit become a pervasive and global problem, where the general public really has no clue what is happening around the world. The truth is, we live in a world of secrecy, and many prominent figures throughout history have been trying to tell us this for years. Even President Theodore Roosevelt warned us of the secret government, revealing that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”  (source)

(And he’s not the only one. You can see similar quotes in a previous article we published here.)

More people became aware of the world of secrecy when Edward Snowden, a former intelligence contractor, leaked the very first documentation that proved the existence of clandestine black budget operations. These programs go far beyond surveillance and have no oversight from Congress. (You can read more about that topic here.)

To become aware of these hidden truths, one must be curious about our world and capable of thinking critically. It’s hard to know who to trust, especially when it comes to international politics. Personally, I examine information and go with what resonates with me; after that, I can look at what different politicians are saying, determine how it fits in with everything I’ve looked at, and connect the dots accordingly.

When it comes to geopolitics, things have become quite clear within the past few years for many, and there is a general consensus among many political leaders and academics that, for a long time, there has been a deliberate manipulation of the opinions of the masses, and that those who manipulate this “unseen mechanism, constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power” of global geopolitics. Our minds are “molded, our tastes formed” and our ideas are “suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” (Edward Bernays)

This was the sentiment expressed by multiple speakers, most notably Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the 13th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, whose theme this year was “The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow.”

He began his speech by arguing that the oligarchic ‘1 percent’ that dominate our world “abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organisations, norms and rules. They chose the road of globalisation and security for their own beloved selves, for the select few, and not for all.”

He is referring to the fact that the global elite continue to push their desire for a new world order. This, in my view, is most evident by what’s taken place in the Middle East, especially in the past decade. The United States has completely infiltrated and destroyed countries, all while manufacturing false events to justify these invasions. This is known as false flag terrorism. The Middle East is now full of U.S. military bases. But more on this later.

According to Putin, “If the powers that be today find some standard or norm to their advantage, they force everyone else to comply. But if tomorrow these same standards get in their way, they are swift to throw them in the bin, declare them obsolete, and set or try to set new rules.”  (source)

Later on, he mentions that the “the powers that be” continue to “churn out threats, imaginary and mythical threats such as the ‘Russian military threat,’ ” explaining how it’s a “profitable business that can be used to pump new money into defence budgets at home, get allies to bend to a single superpower’s interests, expand NATO and bring its infrastructure, military units and arms closer to our borders.”

He then goes on to describe the anti-Russian propaganda the U.S. has spread in recent years:

“Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police.”

For years we’ve relied on mainstream media, but more people are starting to realize that it cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to covering major events like 9/11, the so called ‘war on terror,’ and other critical topics. Global corporate media has become a tool of deception and misinformation, and many of us still have yet to wake from our slumber and realize that this source of ‘information’ is simply an elite owned tool meant to push an agenda that has little to do with public interest.

More on These Mythical Threats, Going Beyond One Politician

“In our mind, real leadership lies in seeing real problems rather than attempting to invent mythical threats and use them to steamroll others. This is exactly how Russia understands its role in global affairs today.”

The fact that Putin, along with many others, continues to point out that many of the threats used by the Western military alliance are completely fabricated, resonates with the research out there. Even those who have contributed to the Western propaganda machine have outed their own countries. One example would be former Four Star General Wesley Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000. Clark told the world that ISIS was created by the Western military alliance. You can hear it straight from his mouth here.

Putin offered similar revelations, stating that “they created and armed terrorist groups, whose cruel actions have sent millions of civilians into flight, made millions of displaced persons and immigrants, and plunged entire regions into chaos.”

We saw the same thing with Al-Qaeda.

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” (source)

FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds told us that ISIS was created to be the next threat from Al-Qaeda, specifically for the purpose of reviving the terror war industry.

Canadian economist Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, who is the University of Ottawa’s Emeritus Professor of Economics, also gave a great speech at the International Conference on the New World Order. You can check that out and read more about it here.

The point is, these “mythical and imaginary threats” that Putin alludes to have been known about for a long time. Even the Pentagon was outed for paying a PR firm half a billion dollars to create fake terrorists videos. 

As you can see, we have to move beyond simple claims by politicians and do our own research. This makes it much easier to discern the truth from the lies.

In his speech, Putin also pointed to the fact that we don’t really live in a democracy anymore, explaining how “modern countries have all the attributes of democracy: Elections, freedom of speech, access to information, freedom of expression. But even in the most advanced democracies the majority of citizens have no real influence on the political process and no direct and real influence on power.” 

Putin Calls Out the Mass Propaganda Machine

In his speech, Putin also referred to the mass propaganda machine that is mainstream media. He pointed to the huge gap that is growing between the interests of the people and those of the elite, but also to the fact that the interests of the elite will continue to be catered to over those of the public. He called out Western propaganda, referring to mainstream media, again emphasizing that he would like to have “such a propaganda machine” there in Russia, and that they “have not even global mass media outlets of the likes of CNN, BBC and others.” Russia “simply do[es] not have this kind of capability.”

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, a top German journalist and editor for more than two decades, went on television to confirm this fact, stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name. He also added that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job. Another great example would be former CBC News reporter Sharyl Attkisson, or Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award winning journalist who outed CNN, explaining that they are routinely paid by the U.S. government and foreign governments to selectively report and even distort information on certain events. She has also indicated that the government has editorial control over content.

It’s a long list, and there is more than enough evidence and opportunity for people to discern fact from fiction and determine who is trustworthy and who is not.

You can view the full speech below. You can read the full English translation from the Kremlin HERE.

Sources Used:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53151#sel=56:40,56:44

UK Set to Approve Most Extreme Spy Bill in ‘History of Western Democracy’

The bill codifies the statutes revealed in 2013 by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden. (Photo: Blogtrepreneur/flickr/cc)

“Snooper’s charter” poised to become law by end of 2016 after passing both houses of Parliament this week.

The U.K. surveillance bill known as the “Snooper’s charter” is poised to become law after passing both houses of Parliament this week. It only needs to be approved by Royal Assent, which is expected to happen by the end of the year.

The Investigatory Powers (IP) Bill is, as transparency advocates describe it, the most extreme surveillance law ever passed by a democracy. Approved amid the chaos of the post-Brexit vote and President-elect Donald Trump‘s historic upset, the bill has implications that reach far beyond its borders.

Jamie Killock, executive director of the civil liberties organization Open Rights Group, said Thursday, “The passing of the IP Bill will have an impact that goes beyond the U.K.’s shores. It is likely that other countries, including authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance powers.”

Open Rights Group summarized the bill’s most pertinent provisions:

  • Internet Service Providers could be obliged to store their customers’ web browsing history for a year. The police and government departments will have unprecedented powers to access this data through a search engine that could be used for profiling.
  • The security services will continue to have powers to collect communications data in bulk.
  • The police and security services will have new hacking powers.
  • The security services can access and analyze public and private databases, even though the majority of data will be held about people who are not suspected of any crimes.

The bill codifies the statutes revealed in 2013 by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, “as well as increasing surveillance by the police and other government departments,” Killock continued. “There will continue to be a lack of privacy protections for international data sharing arrangements with the U.S. Parliament has also failed to address the implications of the technical integration of GCHQ [the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters] and the NSA.”

The United Nations privacy chief Joseph Cannataci previously called the bill “worse than scary,” saying at an Internet Governance Forum panel in Brazil last week, “It is the golden age of surveillance, [governments have] never had so much data. I am just talking about metadata, I haven’t got down to content.”

“Mass surveillance is alive and well but governments are finding ways of making that the law of the land,” Cannataci said. He also criticized the U.K. media and pro-surveillance members of parliament for what he called “an offensive” to distort the debate and push new powers into law.

“[D]o a media analysis of the way the British establishment is trotting out news about the law and the need for the law and ask yourselves the question ‘If this is not orchestrated then what is?’” he said.

Matt Burgess, a Wired UK reporter who has done extensive coverage on the bill, wrote on Twitter that the snooper’s charter has “been described as being worse than China’s, yet is passed incredibly easily. 2016.”

Snowden also wrote, “The U.K. has just legalized the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes farther than many autocracies.”

Killock noted in an op-ed for Newsweek last week that “[a]ll of these practices appear to have existed for many years, in secret and without a Parliamentary vote. Hidden creative interpretations of our existing laws allowed so-called ‘bulk powers’ to gather information about millions of people, secretly tap internal cables belonging to Google or Yahoo! and to hack foreign companies, such as Belgium’s national telecoms provider, turning them into [GCHQ] surveillance conduits. The only reason we know, of course, is because of Edward Snowden’s actions, revealing what the U.S.’s NSA and Britain’s GCHQ were up to.”

The bill was passed just a day before Trump selected the hawkish Tea Party Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo to head the CIA. Pompeo is a proponent of mass surveillance who has previously called for Snowden to receive the death penalty.

“You’d think the sheer revocation of democracy and failure of accountability would be enough to outrage British MPs,” Killock wrote in Newsweek. “You’d think this shift from targeted phone taps focused on specific known criminals to one of blanket surveillance to start fishing for new suspects would deserve a principled national debate.”

“Apparently not.”