Goals of the Elite?
Hollywood director and documentary film maker Aaron Russo has gone in-depth on the astounding admissions of Nick Rockefeller, who personally told him that the elite's ultimate goal was to create a microchipped population and that the war on terror was a hoax, Rockefeller having predicted an "event" that would trigger the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan eleven months before 9/11.OK, so some of this believable, but I think we need to be wary of disinfo as well. First, who exactly is "Nick Rockefeller" and how much do we trust him? Second, I don't quite get the "chip" thing, as we are already pretty well controlled and coded (social security number, etc) as it is. Besides the fact of the immense impracticality of getting everyone "chipped", I'm not sure what the chip adds. So the chip thing may well be disinfo or a joke. And it's important to think about what the true ultimate goal of the PTB is.
Rockefeller also told Russo that his family's foundation had created and bankrolled the women's liberation movement in order to destroy the family and that population reduction was a fundamental aim of the global elite. (snip)
"I used to say to him what's the point of all this," states Russo, "you have all the money in the world you need, you have all the power you need, what's the point, what's the end goal?" to which Rockefeller replied (paraphrasing), "The end goal is to get everybody chipped, to control the whole society, to have the bankers and the elite people control the world."(snip)
Russo states that Rockefeller told him, "Eleven months before 9/11 happened there was going to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan to run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we were going to invade Iraq to take over the oil fields and establish a base in the Middle East, and we'd go after Chavez in Venezuela."
Rockefeller also told Russo that he would see soldiers looking in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and that there would be an "Endless war on terror where there's no real enemy and the whole thing is a giant hoax," so that "the government could take over the American people," according to Russo, who said that Rockefeller was cynically laughing and joking as he made the astounding prediction.
In a later conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo what he thought women's liberation was about. Russo's response that he thought it was about the right to work and receive equal pay as men, just as they had won the right to vote, caused Rockefeller to laughingly retort, "You're an idiot! Let me tell you what that was about, we the Rockefeller's funded that, we funded women's lib, we're the one's who got all of the newspapers and television - the Rockefeller Foundation."
Rockefeller told Russo of two primary reasons why the elite bankrolled women's lib, one because before women's lib the bankers couldn't tax half the population and two because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.
This revelation dovetails previous admissions on behalf of feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem that the CIA bankrolled Ms. Magazine as part of the same agenda of breaking up traditional family models.
Rockefeller was often keen to stress his idea that "the people have to be ruled" by an elite and that one of the tools of such power was population reduction, that there were "too many people in the world," and world population numbers should be reduced by at least half.
Third, I think population control IS important, and it can be done ethically. As things stand, there aren't enough resources for six billion people to have a high quality of living and for there to be some semblance of nature left. But the population can be managed without massive culling of humanity. Simply spreading the wealth better to poor people and better access to birth control and eliminating the Catholic church would go a long way towards managing the population.
Fourth, while it is possible that the woman's movement was a CIA deal, with some goal to destablilize the family, I still have a big problem with the idea that feminism is a bad thing. Women were very much subjugated before to men, and that clearly wasn't right. I think it is a great thing for women to get advanced degrees and have serious professions. It is ridiculous to think we should go back to the way it was in the 18th and 19th and early 20th centuries for women. The issue of child-rearing is complex, but I think the idea that daycares and schools somehow brainwash the kids to be slaves of the state is silly. There is no doubt that society could help families more with child-rearing, and have better maternity-leave policies and easier to access to good child-care. But the whole idea that the progress women have made over the last 100 years is an evil plot, it just sounds like dumb right-wing propaganda.
So, the 9/11 stuff here sounds believable, but the rest? I don't know.