Talk:David Rockefeller
what is the source of the quote about sovernty?
- —This unsigned comment is by 85.214.83.222 (talk • contribs) .
This may be trivial, but it's ironic to see the New York Times incorrectly print "60's" instead of "'60s" as it usually would. Maybe the fact that the writer was from Newsweek explains this. I noticed the link--the quote was reproduced precisely with the errors retained.
- —This unsigned comment is by 99.254.25.5 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Bilderberg
According to the article “Behind The Bias” (W. N. Grigg, The New American, February 10, 2003, p. 4), “Excerpts from Rockefeller’s opening address were leaked to two independent French publications. They then came to the attention of Hilaire du Berrier, an international correspondent living in Monaco, who published them in his newsletter, HduB Reports.”
According to various internet sources, the French publications were Minute, 19 June 1991, and Lectures Françaises, July/August 1991 and it was the HduB Reports of September, 1991 which republished the quote.
I haven't been able to verify any of this myself. Here are links to the periodicals, in case anybody in France wants to go to the bibliothèque. I'm not absolute sure that this Minute is the correct one.
The quote as it appears in English must have been a translation from the French sources, since "auto-determination" would be an extremely rare word for a native English speaker. Of course, there may have been an English original translated into French, but it sounds like a satire, especially this sentence: “The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
—KHirsch 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Minute changed name several times and there are different ISSN's for the different names. For the period January 1991 - January 1993 (which includes the issue of interest) it was called La France or Minute - La France, with ISSN 1156-4007. And the here's the catalog record at the Bibliothèque Nationale, just in case someone wants to go scan the article. —KHirsch 04:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- The quote is deleted. This conversation has gone on long enough--in a year no one has found a single reliable source. In conspiracy theorist nonsense. Sailingfanblues 03:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- The purported quote has been restored as "Disputed" — I believe it can be characterized as either sarcasm, satire or fraud, but would not remove the challenge of substantiating what seems to be a widely circulated statement to anyone who is inclined to try to do so. I was going to further try to source a few dubious quotes on the page but have been called away, and might not get back to this for a few hours. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you can get a reliable source within the next day or two it can stay, but otherwise it should be taken out. Also, based on one quick google search the author you are citing is the author of such books at "Trillion Dollar Lie- the Holocaust: The Lies of the "Death Camps," the Deliberate Lies of the "Numbers." the Myth of the Six Million Swindle." Not exactly a reliable source! Sailingfanblues 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- As with many other spurious or dubious quotes on other pages the primary quote in question should definitely remain here, in order to effectively debunk it within a "Disputed" or "Misattributed" section, though there is probably not as yet enough evidence to label it clearly "Misattributed" as I am much inclined to do. Neither you nor I have or should have dictatorial authority to choose what people find notable and choose to quote, but each of us and everyone else should be free to provide what evidence we can for the proper attributions of any apparently notable statements. I would like to point out that I am restoring material such as has long been posted here by others, and that I myself did not cite these books, that I actually have no personal interest in the promoting the defamatory implications of some of these statements, and in fact find those who do promote them generally contemptible in many ways — but I also definitely find those who would censor them and remove them, based upon pretensions to any form of absolutely authoritative judgment, similarly objectionable.
I am sure that there are many worthy and admirable quotes of Rockefeller which I or someone else might eventually add, but I do not believe mere removal of statements meant to be defamatory are appropriate — especially when they seem favorites of the more persistent of conspiracy theorists, and believe that it is far more appropriate to actively debunk them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)- I understand your logic. How about adding 'conspiracy theorist' or 'fringe' before the name of the quoted author as per his books that would seem to be accurate.Sailingfanblues 06:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- That of course would be explicitely endorsing a specific point of view about an author rather than providing clear facts about any purported quote such an person might provide. To the extent any statements can be verified or debunked by presentations of facts they should be, but without too much injection of our own opinions, such as can be properly relegated to discussion pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your logic. How about adding 'conspiracy theorist' or 'fringe' before the name of the quoted author as per his books that would seem to be accurate.Sailingfanblues 06:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- As with many other spurious or dubious quotes on other pages the primary quote in question should definitely remain here, in order to effectively debunk it within a "Disputed" or "Misattributed" section, though there is probably not as yet enough evidence to label it clearly "Misattributed" as I am much inclined to do. Neither you nor I have or should have dictatorial authority to choose what people find notable and choose to quote, but each of us and everyone else should be free to provide what evidence we can for the proper attributions of any apparently notable statements. I would like to point out that I am restoring material such as has long been posted here by others, and that I myself did not cite these books, that I actually have no personal interest in the promoting the defamatory implications of some of these statements, and in fact find those who do promote them generally contemptible in many ways — but I also definitely find those who would censor them and remove them, based upon pretensions to any form of absolutely authoritative judgment, similarly objectionable.
- If you can get a reliable source within the next day or two it can stay, but otherwise it should be taken out. Also, based on one quick google search the author you are citing is the author of such books at "Trillion Dollar Lie- the Holocaust: The Lies of the "Death Camps," the Deliberate Lies of the "Numbers." the Myth of the Six Million Swindle." Not exactly a reliable source! Sailingfanblues 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- The purported quote has been restored as "Disputed" — I believe it can be characterized as either sarcasm, satire or fraud, but would not remove the challenge of substantiating what seems to be a widely circulated statement to anyone who is inclined to try to do so. I was going to further try to source a few dubious quotes on the page but have been called away, and might not get back to this for a few hours. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm currently in France and i'd like to check the newspapers "Minute" and "Lectures Françaises", to see if Rockefeller's quote is acurate. Do I have to scan this article and send it to you ? Here is my e-mail : crepe_sucree@hotmail.com
