| Welcome to Bill Still's Monetary Reforum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Von MIses and Rockefeller Foundation | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 20 2011, 09:03 PM (481 Views) | |
| cowboy | Aug 20 2011, 09:03 PM Post #1 |
Advanced Member
  ![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
I heard that Von Mises was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Is this true? Why then isn't Alex Jones and Ron Paul bringing this up? Are Jones and Paul just useful idiots, as Lenin said? I mean people so in the "know" and they don't know that Von Mises was sponsored by the Rockefellers? I am still looking into this, but it certainly makes me think this "Goldbug mania" is a set-up. It is a classic "win/win" keep the Fed "we win" go on gold standard "we win". Control the opposition. |
 |
 
|
| KillTheEmpire | Aug 21 2011, 11:14 AM Post #2 |
Advanced Member
|
I'll suggest everyone research the Mont Pelerin Society. Here's some material to get you started. |
| killtheempire.blogspot.com | |
|
|
|
| cowboy | Aug 25 2011, 04:28 PM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
|
"Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. Even after he finally landed the position at NYU, where he remained only a visiting professor until his retirement in 1969, his salary was paid for not by NYU, but from funds contributed by generous private supporters." http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=692 |
|
|
|
| cowboy | Aug 25 2011, 04:43 PM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
|
David Rockefeller then goes on to describe his decision to attend the London School of Economics, and how the way was paved for him through his family's generous grants to the institution from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial and from the Rockefeller Foundation. He also mentions his father's friendship with Sir William Beveridge, who was the director of the LSE, and who provided accommodations for David only a short walk away from the university. While enrolled at the LSE the young David Rockefeller was personally tutored in economics by none other than Professor Friedrich A. Hayek. Rockefeller explains, The economists at LSE were much more conservative than the rest of the faculty. In fact, its economists comprised the major center of opposition in England to Keynes and his Cambridge School of interventionist economics. My tutor that year was Friedrich von Hayek, the noted Austrian economist who in 1974 would receive the Nobel Prize for the work he had done in the 1920s and 1930s on money, the business cycle, and capital theory. Like Schumpeter, Hayek placed his trust in the market, believing that over time, even with its many imperfections, it provided the most reliable means to distribute resources efficiently and to ensure sound economic growth. Hayek also believed that government should play a critical role as the rule maker and umpire and guarantor of a just and equitable social order, rather than the owner of economic resources or the arbiter of markets. Hayek was in his late thirties when I first met him. Indisputably brilliant, he lacked Schumpeter's spark and charisma... Nevertheless, I found myself largely in agreement with his basic economic philosophy. After spending a year under the care of Hayek at the LSE, David Rockefeller had to make a choice as to where he would finish his college education. It was not a hard choice to make, After a year in London I was eager to return to the United States to complete my graduate work at the University of Chicago, which boasted one of the premier economics faculties in the world, including such luminaries as Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, George Stigler, Henry Schultz, and Paul Douglas. I had heard Knight lecture at the LSE and found his more philosophical approach to economics quite compelling. Lionel Robbins knew Knight well and urged me to study with him. The fact that Grandfather had helped found the university played a distinctly secondary role in my choice. |
|
|
|
| cowboy | Aug 25 2011, 04:48 PM Post #5 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Guilt but association isn't a good way to judge things but it does make one question why would the Rockefeller foundation sponsor Von Mises and be David tutored by an Austrian school tutor? While it seems like Hayek seemed to think higher of government than Ron Paul he still promoted that currency should be controlled by the private sector. |
|
|
|
| cowboy | Aug 25 2011, 05:08 PM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Ok sorry I guess you guys already covered some of this stuff before. Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid |
|
|
|
| Comnenus | Aug 26 2011, 06:08 AM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
Historian Eustace Mullins also talked a bit about this in his book 'The World Order':
|
|
|
|
| telday | Aug 27 2011, 10:22 AM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Don't apologize for posting interesting and important topics cowboy. Even though it may have been covered here before, there are always newcomers who may not have seen the previous posts. Your posts also demonstrate that you have done your own research on the subject, and that is to be applauded. |
|
I will never again refer to the perpertrators of continuous henious crimes, as "banksters", it's too good a word for them. From now on I will only refer to them as psychopathic scum. (P. S.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu4xPvyLn5Y | |
|
|
|
| HomeworkDone;Gov'tBack? | Aug 28 2011, 05:30 PM Post #9 |
Advanced Member
|
>> Are Jones and Paul just useful idiots, as Lenin said? << ...and let's not forget Max Keiser, though he seems to have a sense of humor about it. >> I'll suggest everyone research the Mont Pelerin Society. Here's some material to get you started. << Mount Perelin? Christ- what'll you guys lurch onto next, the Jesuits? Take a trip to D.C. and look for the two tallest old [pre-20thc] buildings that overlook (one's a joke; the other's for real). Edited by HomeworkDone;Gov'tBack?, Sep 3 2011, 10:44 PM.
|
|
"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it." - John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went, 1975 'What I cannot create, I do not understand'. 'Remember propaganda is 95% truth, just like rat poison it is that 5% that will get you.' | |
|
|
|
| cowboy | Aug 29 2011, 09:03 PM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I like Max, Alex, and Ron, and I think that talking about the possible failure of a gold currency and it being sponsored by the Rockefellers would help to give them more credibility. I think Max is kind of crazy though in communist kind of way, sometimes bordering on maniacal. He seems to think that the French Revolution was GREAT! It only plunged Europe into endless wars and revolutions for years and lets not forget Napoleon that bastion of virtue. Alex Jones is starting his own news network. I wonder if Bill will be invited to be a pundit or writer. I mean clearly Alex doesn't agree with Tarpley, but he seems to have him on a lot. Bill's been a newspaperman for a long time, experience counts, I wonder why he doesn't have Bill on more? |
|
|
|
| HomeworkDone;Gov'tBack? | Sep 4 2011, 01:51 AM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Yes- all inconsistencies & self-contradictions aside- they all have likable personas. I can only guess [engaging in the supposed academic sin of 'teleology'] that they're all 3 (to different extents) doing some advance work for an "inexorable/inevitable" hand-off from the gold bugs- supposedly getting some initial traction- to the obviously better answer of (what Zarlenga has called) 'Constitutional' or 'Societal' money. I'm not so sure about Keiser and Paul, but Jones himself (in his remarkable 8/2008 interview with Bill and Patrick S.J. Carmack  ) makes it clear that he knows the score: "The bankers are...always going to offer another solution that gets you deeper under their control. That's why we have to identify them.... This effects you whether you mow lawns for a living, or you're a rocket scientist." "They've taken that engine of creativity and empowering people, and turned it into an agent of feudalism and criminal consolidation of wealth." [google vids; 8/2008, part 4, min.4-5] Then with Bill in 7/2010: "'Congress shall control the issuance of currency and credit'... but... Bernanke... [is] telling Ron Paul, 'You're not even allowed to know what we're doing, because you're not supposed to be involved'..." [google vids; 7/2010, part 2; min.5-6] I'm not sure if it was towards the end of the '08 or '10 interview that Jones was motivated to (like a balancing gatekeeper) defend his show's neutrality (within alt. media circles)... perhaps it was the final segment of the '08 interview, as Bill & Carmack had made such an overwhelming case. Since then 'of course' he's gradually backed off 'the' issue- with (increasingly) 10 or 20 Lew Rockwells for every Bill Still slot, or something to that effect. Of course at some point 'our fearless leaders' in the alt. media must put away their scientific management and come clean in regards to what they really think are really the best solutions to this current crisis, which I think any reasonable man can see is clearly attributable to the monetary/financial system (an Age of Usury in its late, and probably terminal, phase). Regarding 'controlled opposition', I'm sure you know that internet and micro-broadcasting wasn't exactly the first of it. It probably goes back to Sumeria as far as I know. But about the French Revolution in particular, 'some say' that the main lasting effect (and there were many) of all the wars- internal and external- was to consolidate control of the hitherto diverse European financial interests and gold... all rounded up by super-man Napoleon and his "Rothschild" "Jew" helpers [closely collaborating on both sides of the Channel by then], c.1800-10, before Napo's million-man conscript army [based, at least for some time, on a super-non-debt fiat currency] was conveniently marched off deep into Russia in 1812 [a year of semi-world war], never to return. So by 1813 we have a consolidated Continental financial system- w/o the French militarist overlordship anymore- but with 'Rothschilds'/'Illuminati' or whatever you want to call Them cooperating, or rather collaborating, in full from London [3 years later Pres. Madison would acquiesce to the pressure and sign the 2nd 'Bank of the US' cartel onto a 20 year charter]. Within a couple years and Napoleon's deflated sequel campaign, the Congress of Vienna (1814-15) officially re-instated many if not most of the conservative/traditional institutions of Europe, including the royal families. One new inst. not upturned however, was the newly consolidated financial order, which apparently served the purposes of the new 'Metternich System' just fine. Essentially the Royals, having been chased out (or guillotined) a few years earlier, were re-instated as puppet/figureheads... No more major intra-continental wars, for what was until then an unprecedented length of time (1815-1914), as the world was made safe for Industrial/Commercial Revolution... Oh, and, last but not least, "Napoleon's Pope" Pius VII was allowed to return to Rome in 1814, whereupon one of his first acts was to officially re-instate The Jesuit Order, after it was banned 'forever' (throughout all of 'Christendom' anyway) 41 year earlier by the ill-fated Clement XIV. So, it would appear that we are to believe that, henceforth, "Bankers" and- at least according to Marx several decades later (more controlled op?)- "Industrialists" (try not to LOL) were/are running the then-newly-consolidated show. Why They are so afraid of (real input from) We The People, I can only guess. But it just seems like another ancient tradition whose time [like guillotines, royals, powdered whigs, and professional obfuscation] has passed. |
|
"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it." - John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went, 1975 'What I cannot create, I do not understand'. 'Remember propaganda is 95% truth, just like rat poison it is that 5% that will get you.' | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Bill's money reforum · Next Topic » |