http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=692
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.
Of course this doesn't take away from the truth of AE or praxeology, but I am just curious about why Rockefeller would fund Mises. Why does a great work like Human Action have to be bankrolled by eugenicist bloodmoney like the Rockefeller Foundation? This just goes to further my conviction that the boys up top are praxeologists, perhaps even the top notch of the field.
Can someone speak to this?
free paradigm blog ::: free paradigm on youtube
I am just curious about why Rockefeller would fund Mises.
Pure speculation: He was a Jewish intellectual fleeing from the Nazis. I imagine that there were quite a few American foundations looking to support such men during and following the war.
Rockefeller was long dead by then.
Yes, the Rockefeller Foundation funded Mises' works, not Rockefeller himself.
I saw that in Omnipotent Government's opening section, where he said he was grateful to the Rockefeller Foundation for helping fund his work.
von Mises, apart from being intelligent, was also likable and charismatic enough to get the attention of some head honchos of academia, business, and journalism. It's why Bill Buckley, Manuel Ayau,.etc knew him in some capacity.
I guess charisma and social impression really take you places.
This came up once before, can't find the thread. However, this should really knock your socks off.
Edited to add:
From here (most of the article is babble, but the following quotes from Rockefeller's Memoirs are fascinating:
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.
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.
Perhaps this goes a little way to explain my theory that the Rockefellers and their allied American wealth interests are currently tangled in a subtle, high-level war over currency, oil and global regulations with the Rothschilds and their allied British and European wealth interests and that, so far, the Rockefellers are winning (Copenhagen global government attempt shot down by CRU email scandal, BP oil spill had no major environmental impact, economic crisis is hurting the US economy but I theorize that Rockefeller interests are actually sheltering the storm in China, biding their time, ready to swoop back in after the economic storm has run its course). I also theorize that the War in Iraq, as terrible as it is, was actually a calculated move by the American wealth interests to sap the US public of its willingness to engage in a much more expansive, expensive and dangerous conflagration in Iran (and, ultimately involving Israel, Russia, China, the other belligerent Middle Eastern powers and possibly even India), long planned by the British and European wealth interests who did not have a controlling interest in the Bush administration and only in 2008 finally got hold of the US executive. But by 2008, it was way too late, the US public will never get behind a war in Iran. For the first year and a half of the Obama administration, the war drums were beating incessantly in the US media but in the second half of 2010, this has begun to taper off as TPTB are beginning to realize the US public simply will not bear a new war. They have their clown puppet Ahmadinejad running around making all kinds of insane and inflammatory statements that happen to be useful to the war machine but, other than that, the Iran nuke mania has largely been a big, fat dud (do you think the American public is weary of fake WMD witchhunts?)
What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in one of Rockefeller's private offices.
Clayton -
@Clayton
That's very fascinating. Do you believe that the 2008 market crash, or at least its timing, was engineered? If the behind-the-scenes powers do buy into ABCT like you suggest, do they have enough influence with the Fed to actually deliberately create a boom-bust cycle, and control enough assets to dictate the time when to the plug is pulled on the boom? Or instead was it simply well-meaning but stupid Keynesian inflation that created an uncontrollable disaster without any influential conspiracy element?
The crisis was most certainly designed. I made a client of mine over 15k by telling him to invest everything in Chase; they're going to buy everything. And they most certainly did. Do you know how I had this "advanced knowledge." I got it from researching conspiracy theories about the great depression.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Yep, when the shit hits the economic fan, buy Goldman Sachs or buy Chase! It will yield a better return than gold.
Clayton:Yep, when the shit hits the economic fan, buy Goldman Sachs or buy Chase! It will yield a better return than gold.
Doesn't that only hold for as long as they can get bailed out by the government?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
They are the government.
These foundations fund all sorts of intellectuals, that's how they capture those intellectuals.
It's no surprise that they supported Mises, although I think they may have been foolish if there was any expectation he would alter his views to suit his patrons. Mises was heroic for his commitment to liberal ideals.
I am still trying to imagine what a complete life David Rockefeller lived. He is the rich and smart version of Forrest Gump.
Consider. This man met in professional capacity many people who were then young aspiring but unproven men, and those very men would become leaders of entire nations years later. And if not leaders, then top journalists, top academics, or top something. It is simply that the exposure of this man from his wealth allowed him to be in so many places, that those he'd brush along on the way would be people already on a quiet rise to power. Thus he met Saddam Hussein before he was Saddam Hussein and...okay, I can't even remember all the crazy examples.
His own life though started out with him working as a spy in North Africa and his two other spies who were his contacts would also become people in power.
This. While you'd be insane to lock any cash into a 401k, IRA or other carrot-and-stick capital control mechanism, if you're just buying paper for the ride, why not? They're going to bankrupt sooner or later but later can be a long time and it certainly won't be tomorrow.
I am still trying to imagine what a complete life David Rockefeller lived. He is the rich and smart version of Forrest Gump. Consider. This man met in professional capacity many people who were then young aspiring but unproven men, and those very men would become leaders of entire nations years later. And if not leaders, then top journalists, top academics, or top something. It is simply that the exposure of this man from his wealth allowed him to be in so many places, that those he'd brush along on the way would be people already on a quiet rise to power. Thus he met Saddam Hussein before he was Saddam Hussein and...okay, I can't even remember all the crazy examples. His own life though started out with him working as a spy in North Africa and his two other spies who were his contacts would also become people in power.
No doubt David Rockefeller's mind is a highly non-linear function.
EiK: "The crisis was most certainly designed."
I hope you mean this in a non-Alex Jonesy way. I mean, if you consider the actions of the Fed and the feds "engineering", then yes, I agree with you.
" I made a client of mine over 15k by telling him to invest everything in Chase; they're going to buy everything. And they most certainly did. Do you know how I had this "advanced knowledge." I got it from researching conspiracy theories about the great depression."
How did you know when their prices had hit bottom?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Why is it so hard to believe that it was designed on purpose? Alex Jones isn't the only person who says this, and I'd suspect you doubt it solely because you heard Alex Jones say it. Don't put your head in the sand just because you think he's a sensationalist or whatever. If you are smart enough to understand AE and ABCT, and would presumably know some of the fundamental steps to take to avoid such a disaster, then why is it so hard to imagine that there are evil geniuses out there willing to do the exact opposite?
I agree with demosthenes. We may find Alex Jones distasteful, but let's not get caught in the genetic fallacy.
No, I don't believe the NWO is a group, specifically. Sure, there are the bilidebergers and the CFR, the FED and all that. But I see the NWO as that scene in Money Never Sleeps when all the businessmen, bankers, and govt officials are sitting around that table discussing how they're going to maintain their control of the world.
Remember, according to that movie, it all started with one guy trying to screw over someone he thot had screwed him over (Shai's boss, the one who killed himself).
I didn't need to. AIG had fallen, someone else was failing I think. Stuff was going down quick, and then I noticed Chase started buying companies. I knew Chase (and Sachs) would be go up tremendously cuz it's exactly what they did in the Depression.
I know you recommended it to your client, but did you also invest? Or were you more tentative when handling your own money?
I'm just curious.
demosthenes: "Why is it so hard to believe that it was designed on purpose? Alex Jones isn't the only person who says this, and I'd suspect you doubt it solely because you heard Alex Jones say it. Don't put your head in the sand just because you think he's a sensationalist or whatever. If you are smart enough to understand AE and ABCT, and would presumably know some of the fundamental steps to take to avoid such a disaster, then why is it so hard to imagine that there are evil geniuses out there willing to do the exact opposite?"
I think "engineering" is too sensationalist. And by "Alex Jonesy", I meant sensationalist and that the crisis was entirely and perfectly controlled, thus, engineered, by the descendants of Amun Ra. If by "engineered" he simply meant "caused", then I agree with him.
I didn't have any at the time, it was all tied up in my business. But he ended up coming back to me and giving me 3k. I'm seeing decent gains now.
Quit exploiting the bank workers.
Haha. Nice try. You obviously pay no attention to my posts.
I don't follow the marxist theory of exploitation.
I guess the things I wonder about are:
1.) To what degree is the Fed really earnestly attempting to fulfull their stated mission of monetary stability? Do they just think the crash was a "mistake" they made managing the money supply, or a miscalculation while playing interest-rate brinkmanship? If they're really just dumb Keynesians, then I would certainly agree that it could not have been "engineered".
2.) But if that's not the case, if the Fed is actually being purposefully used as the fraudulent inflationary tool we know it in fact is, whose directives is it serving? Is it mostly directed by politicians who enjoy being able to spend unlimited funds, and are buoyed by the populist euphoria of the masses who mistake the artificial credit boom for real prosperity? Or does it actually do the bidding of a smaller, less-known, behind-the-scenes business elite that systematically directs its actions to gain further wealth and influence?
I suspect that it's some degree of a mix of all of the above, but I sometimes really wonder how strong each influence is. To what degree can our economic situation be blamed on conspiracy versus stupidity versus irresponsibility?
Good god Clayton, that was something.
I guess the things I wonder about are: 1.) To what degree is the Fed really earnestly attempting to fulfull their stated mission of monetary stability?
1.) To what degree is the Fed really earnestly attempting to fulfull their stated mission of monetary stability?
There is no earnest attempt. Even if there were, we understand that "monetary stability" is meaningless.
Do they just think the crash was a "mistake" they made managing the money supply, or a miscalculation while playing interest-rate brinkmanship? If they're really just dumb Keynesians, then I would certainly agree that it could not have been "engineered".
The rank-and-file economists and mid-level managers who comprise the intellectual bodyguard of the Fed are Keynesian true believers. But the folks at the top understand exactly what it's all about.
2.) But if that's not the case, if the Fed is actually being purposefully used as the fraudulent inflationary tool we know it in fact is, whose directives is it serving?
The Federal Reserve's?
Is it mostly directed by politicians who enjoy being able to spend unlimited funds, and are buoyed by the populist euphoria of the masses who mistake the artificial credit boom for real prosperity? Or does it actually do the bidding of a smaller, less-known, behind-the-scenes business elite that systematically directs its actions to gain further wealth and influence?
Well, the central bankers are a small, less well-known, behind-the-scenes business elite that systematically direct their actions to gain further wealth and influence. Central bankers are one variety of rent-seekers but there are many other specialties within the broader category. Rent-seeking has become so pervasive in Western culture that there is an element of rent-seeking to almost any economic activity. This is why many (all?) major corporations belong to a lobby. You can't afford not to lobby for political privileges - your competition certainly will.
Being a fly on the wall of a Rockefeller office is largely humdrum. The Rockefeller children insufferably and invariably believe themselves to have some semblance of wit whilst sitting at the kiddy table playing checkers. And they still have to read the damn instructions...
Here are some preliminary observations that I was able to dig up regarding the issue of Mises being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. I summarize my observations first and then give all the links and quotes later in this post. Keep in mind that these are all just preliminary observations; I do not have a full thesis statement or theory as of yet to explain it all. And I openly admit that I do a lot of speculating here as well.
From Austroliberalism to Anschluss: Oskar Morgenstern and the Viennese economists in the 1930’s by Robert Leonard. The link is: https://depot.erudit.org/bitstream/001205dd/1/2006_03.pdf
On page 6, in the section called “Social Planning and Contemporary Civilization,” Leonard writes that it was Mises who approached the Rockefeller Foundation and not the other way around. “Hayek’s memo was part of a campaign begun earlier that year by Mises to attract Rockefeller support.” One page 7, Leonard emphasizes that it was Mises who pushed hard for the Rockefeller funding. Also notice that the Rockefeller Foundation was not too keen on supporting Mises and had all these reservations.
In Vienna, one of the first to seize the Rockefeller opportunity was actually von Mises, who, in 1930, although he viewed social planning and control as antithetical to contemporary civilization, approached Van Sickle for support. The latter sought second opinions elsewhere. At Harvard, Bullock expressed reservations about the excessive Austrian emphasis on theory and deductive methods, as opposed to the empirical methods favoured by the American economists, but he spoke highly of Hayek and Morgenstern and underlined the need to preserve Viennese economics in the face of economic decline and inadequate university salaries.
Apparently, some of the reservations were due to the fact that Mises was Jewish. Keep in mind the context; we are in early 1930s Europe. Continuing on pages 7-8 of Leonard, and note that all the square bracket editorial editions are from the original, not me:
In his professional diary, Rockefeller’s Van Sickle hesitated. He was concerned that it would apparently be only a matter of time before Hayek received a call from elsewhere, and that Mises, who, because of his Jewishness, could never hope to be more than a Privatdozent in Vienna, was supposedly in negotiations with a German university. He wondered about the wisdom of funding in light of “present dissention in the SS [social science] field, and the anti-Jewish feeling [which] would complicate future relations of the RF [Rockefeller Foundation] in Vienna.” However, he was by and large well disposed towards the “very good men in Vienna.” A September dinner with Mises seems to have sealed the affair, and in November 1930 the Foundation guaranteed the Institute a generous $20,000 for the period till 1935.
The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1930 gives us a short summary of what Mises’s Austrian Institute was doing during this time period. The link is:
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/f430e279-336b-424b-8bd1-e85769a406bd-1930.pdf
The section that Mises’s Institute is classified under is called “Industrial Hazards and Economic Stabilization.” You can find the key references on pages 221 [Adobe Reader 229/389], 224 [Adobe Reader 232/389] and 227 [Adobe Reader 234/389]. There are some missing pages in this report labeled “Photographs Excised.” Notice that in the introduction section the Rockefeller Foundation’s purpose was to attack competition. They are blaming the free market for the Great Depression by suggesting some sort of ‘market failure’ explanation.
One of the most important of these is concerned with the hazards of economic enterprise, particularly as these relate to uncertainty of competitive outcome in such ways as to raise issues of general economic stability.
It seems to be counterintuitive. Why would someone committed to blaming the market economy turn around and fund the market economy’s staunchest supporter? Maybe the Rockefeller Foundation really didn’t expect major policy conclusions from Mises’s Institute. Notice how the amount of funding was relatively low. The total allocation for this project was $980,000 of which Mises got $20,000 or roughly 2%. The vast majority, $875,000 or over 89% went to Harvard. So my guess is that whatever Harvard was up to at this time is probably a better indicator of the true Rockefeller Foundation intention. I also noticed that the report specifically mentioned that the Austrian Institute was doing work on “comparative studies of a general character.” What can we infer from that? Maybe, and I am just speculating, the Austrian Institute was put into a ‘safe’ discipline of “comparative studies” in order to keep them far away from something dangerous like “policy proposals for decision makers.” Obviously, Mises’s policy proposals would not favor attacking competition or the market mechanism but would support free trade, lower taxes, and an unregulated economy. Mises might even be so bold as to attack central banking and fractional reserve money creation. After all, his whole thesis is that depressions are caused by central bank manipulations.
The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1935 also mentions what Mises’s Institute was up to at this time. The report praises the Austrian Institute for its high level of academic excellence. Why am I not surprised! The link is:
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/6e12d533-f1bb-4e7d-bb28-45c1566f78ac-1935.pdf
On pages 211-212 [Adobe Reader 223/491 and 224/491] they write:
The Austrian Institute for Trade Cycle Research received $12,000 to be available over the two calendar years 1936 and 1937. Its work has been described in preceding Foundation annual reports as attempting to provide a prompt and accurate factual picture of business conditions in Austria and to improve methods of analysis. The institute's studies are published in book form and are regarded as significant contributions to the growing literature on the business cycle.
In a way, this quote seems either disingenuous or contradictory. Earlier, the Leonard report mentioned that the Rockefeller Fund was thinking of not funding Mises because of his methodological approach. Now, in 1935, they mention that Mises is helping ‘improve methods of analysis.’ So now are they saying that they like Mises’s approach to economic science? Of course the phrase 'methods of analysis' might means something different from 'methodological individualism' or 'deductive' or 'qualitative.'
Then, I noticed a trend in the literature that seems to suggest that the Rockefeller Fund wanted to move away from funding Mises and these feelings were growing over time. I am not sure what promoted this growing dislike of Mises. Maybe they really do not want his methodological approach after all.
An excellent source is Jorg Guido Hulsmann’s Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. The link is:
http://mises.org/books/lastknight.pdf
They easy way to do this analysis is to type in ‘Rockefeller’ and you will get lots of results. The theme of ‘methodological differences’ keeps coming up as well in Hulsmann's book. Apparently, the push was to fund the statistical and econometric approach over the verbal-qualitative approach favored by Mises. This was in the section about the London School of Economics and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Foundation.
The more vocal concerns about Mises seem to have started in 1936. For example, Hulsmann writes on page 723 [Adobe Reader 723 (740 of 1161)]:
One reason for his [Mises’s] renewed interest in returning to Vienna might have been the precarious financial situation of the Institute: in the course of 1936 it had become clear that certain elements within the Rockefeller Foundation were increasingly reluctant to lend further support.
By the time Mises moves to New York, we see that the Rockefeller Foundation has really cut him off. They are basically giving him a charitable handout. Hulsmann writes on page 800 [Adobe Reader 800 (817 of 1161)]:
The money from the Rockefeller Foundation was not enough to live on, and in 1941 it was almost all the income they had. He had never known such destitution.
Obviously, something must have made the Rockefeller Foundation really dislike Mises given that the Foundation gave him so little money that he had to live at a level Hulsmann described as ‘destitution.’ Finally, Mises gets ‘fired.’ The Rockefeller Fund totally cuts him off. Hulsmann writes on page 822 [Adobe Reader 822 (839 of 1161)]:
The second year’s bonus was a not-so-subtle good-bye. The Rockefeller Foundation’s Willits made it clear, and NBER’s Carson made it even more stark, that this extension would be the last one. Fortunately for Mises, he found a more amenable source of support independent of the Rockefeller Foundation: the National Association of Manufacturers.
My guess is this: Mises approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the simply reason that he needed money to hire staff, expand the Institute, pay for publishing costs of his monographs etc. It probably looked bad from a public relations perspective that the Rockefeller Foundation was going to be so into statist funding—since they openly blame market competition for the Great Depression in the 1930 report. So, they throw Mises a bone in order to look ‘balanced’ and ‘objective’ in their funding. It makes it look as if they are trying to find the 'truth' about what is really going on. But really, they don't care for Mises and his approach. As time drifts on, Mises's approach becomes more and more irrelevant to 'mainstream' economics. So they keep cutting his funding until they 'fire' him completely.
Clayton: Perhaps this goes a little way to explain my theory that the Rockefellers and their allied American wealth interests are currently tangled in a subtle, high-level war over currency, oil and global regulations with the Rothschilds and their allied British and European wealth interests and that, so far, the Rockefellers are winning (Copenhagen global government attempt shot down by CRU email scandal, BP oil spill had no major environmental impact, economic crisis is hurting the US economy but I theorize that Rockefeller interests are actually sheltering the storm in China, biding their time, ready to swoop back in after the economic storm has run its course). I also theorize that the War in Iraq, as terrible as it is, was actually a calculated move by the American wealth interests to sap the US public of its willingness to engage in a much more expansive, expensive and dangerous conflagration in Iran (and, ultimately involving Israel, Russia, China, the other belligerent Middle Eastern powers and possibly even India), long planned by the British and European wealth interests who did not have a controlling interest in the Bush administration and only in 2008 finally got hold of the US executive. But by 2008, it was way too late, the US public will never get behind a war in Iran. For the first year and a half of the Obama administration, the war drums were beating incessantly in the US media but in the second half of 2010, this has begun to taper off as TPTB are beginning to realize the US public simply will not bear a new war. They have their clown puppet Ahmadinejad running around making all kinds of insane and inflammatory statements that happen to be useful to the war machine but, other than that, the Iran nuke mania has largely been a big, fat dud (do you think the American public is weary of fake WMD witchhunts?) What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in one of Rockefeller's private offices. Clayton -
I found your theory that the Rothchilds and Rocefellers are feuding very interesting. I came across the theory first when I watched Ben Fullford, ex-asian pacific beureu chief for Forbes Magazine, interview David Rockefeller. Ben Fullford talks about both an ongoing feud between both Rothchild vs. Rocefeller, and also a feud between Eastern vs. Western secret societies. This seems very similar to some things I have read you mention. I'm wondering if you had heard of Ben Fullford before you came to these conclusions or did you come to the conclusion without hearing about him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW4p9N2Ocs8 (Fast forward to 11:15 to see the interview with David Rockefeller)
P.S. - Though I have found Ben Fullford's theories interesting, I find he often relies on one taking his word for what he is saying. Also in some interviews he seems overly emotional and illogical. So for those reasons I some what disregarded his theories, but now that I see you proposing a similar theory my interest has been re-sparked. That is actually my main reason for joining this forum. Though I'm also I huge fan of Von Mises ideas, and coniser myself an anarcho-capitalist.
Why does a great work like Human Action have to be bankrolled by eugenicist bloodmoney like the Rockefeller Foundation?
Explain. Why is Rockefeller money "blood money?" Who did they kill, exactly? As I understand it, J.D Rockefeller was an ingenious entrepreneur, a self-made man and the world's greatest philanthropist.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
While Rockefeller didn't kill anyone, he was not above engaging in violence against his competitors. See, for instance, Wealth Against Commonwealth by Henry Lloyd. While Lloyd was a socialist, his facts mostly checked out (for that, see Historians' Fallacies) - including a case where Rockefeller bombed a competitor's factory.
So even though Rockefeller did do much good, he didn't exactly follow the non-aggression principle to the letter.
David Rockefeller was personally tutored by F.A. Hayek. What of it? Sure, David went on to manage JP Morgan Chase for a few decades with the knowledge of themarkt Hayek imparted to him. lexander took lessons from Aristotle. Look what he did.
I'm not going to argue with people that the Rockefeller Foundation has funded some pretty insidious stuff, but not everything they have done is bad. This is why the left doesn't trust the 'right-libertarians' though. The original J.ohn Rockefeller was dick, for sure, but he was not nearly as corrupt as his kids and grandkids. John II is the Rockefeller that lobbied so hard for the Federal Reserve, tax exemption for research foundations, and early eugenics programs. David is the one who started the Trilateral Commision with Bush Sr. and Brzezinski, so we know where he stands. (The CFR was started by British interests.) Rothbard makes clear that British interests were in conflict with American/German interests in the early 20th century.
RF has funded everything from Dr. Kinsey to the first eugenics programs. The people who run that foundation have generally been scum. However, the policy making think tanks do consult opinions that differ from their own. The CFR, RAND, Brookings, Carnegie, etc. They all have a mixed bag of funding history. They have funded public "health" experiments with the CIA in third world countries that have resulted in tens of thousands contracting diseases (look at Thailand AIDS vaccine).
We need to discern between policies and not generalize and personify particular policies as being indicative of everything that goes on.
Ben Fullford talks about both an ongoing feud between both Rothchild vs. Rocefeller, and also a feud between Eastern vs. Western secret societies. This seems very similar to some things I have read you mention. I'm wondering if you had heard of Ben Fullford before you came to these conclusions or did you come to the conclusion without hearing about him?
I'd be careful how much of what that guy says you believe. He was incredibly unprofessional and did not at all know how to broach the subjects he wanted to talk about. He could not even avoid the "conspiracy keywords" when asking the questions. David constantly looks at his PR guy and is rolling his eyes at questions. Now, having said that, he does, in my opinion, have some interesting revelations. Learning the actual realities of the western secret societies is hard enough. The Eastern ones are, again in my opinion, seem to be more based on honor than virtue. Their secret methods and agenda are probably far more "secret" than ours. And I doubt that they have something as shallow as "world domination" as their end game.
I am just curious about why Rockefeller would fund Mises
I discovered this some time ago and it really shocked me, but I think I have an explanation now.
Three possibilities:
1) Rockefeller et al are interested in real economics (as opposed to the nonsense they promote to the public) because one needs to understand real economics to run the world. So they funded an intellectual who promised to do work which they would find useful, even if they would oppose having that work popularized. An analogy would be a "magician" in the 15th century who wanted to know chemistry to perform his "magic" better, even though he'd oppose having the knowledge of chemistry popularized.
2) They thought they could buy him and turn him off the course he was on, and it didn't work.
3) This is probably the least likely, but also my favorite possibility - they were too dense to realize the implications of his work.
I think that the first is the most likely. The biggest profits on the stock market are to be made when everyone is wrong but you. You can get metals cheaply while the popular investing world is jabbering over blue chips in a bubble.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
How the f--- did that Fulford clown get an interview with David Freakin' Rockefeller??? That was probably like $10M worth of Rockefeller's time!
My view of the Rockefeller family is the following:
Disclaimer: This is all built on 100% pure hunch, take it with a block of salt.
- John D. Rockefeller was a consummate businessman who happened to be at the right place at the right time (oil boom)
- When the Establishment found they couldn't shut him down and take him over through the usual dirty business tricks, they went after him through (extra-) legal means
- This is where most new money is ground to powder - but Rockefeller fought back and not only did he fight, he beat them at their own game
- The Establishment won an apparent victory when Standard Oil was parceled out but Rockefeller bought up the pieces anyway and went on doing what he knew how to do best: pump oil
- The Rockefeller strategy from then out was not only to defend the core business but to counter-attack - Rockefeller bought railroads, broadened and deepened his social ties including marrying into existing wealth, actively bought political influence, and so on. The purpose was not to try to own everything (the JP Morgan strategy) as I'll argue below.
- I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that the Rockefellers were willing to resort to strong men except to protect their assets
- The Rockefeller family's psyche is etched by its early persecution; they became more closed and less trusting of the often fickle public's sympathy as a result of John D's early experiences and later episodes
Over time, they realized the necessity of "working within the system" and became more team players. Nevertheless, I perceive in the Rockefeller family the following mentality: "We own oil". This mentality is not one of entitlement, as in, "you owe your oil to us" but, rather, that their family remains to this day the consummate oil business in the world. As their core competency, they defend it like a ruler defends his turf - they will attack if provoked (other players begin using dirty tricks to seize legitimate Rockefeller interests) but otherwise they maintain diplomatic relations with the rest of the political and economic world as a non-aggressive power.
I think they take an apathetic stance toward foreign political oppression - it's up to the subject people to deal with their rulers. It's not the job of the Rockefeller family to depose corrupt dictators just because the dictator happens to control oil fields that the Rockefellers are pumping. But if you nationalize Rockefeller assets, they will seek to recoup them, through political (ultimately, violent) means, if necessary.
I believe this explains some of the Rockefeller influence in USG and CIA, in particular. The Rockefellers' primary interest in politics is to expand their business as broadly as possible while reducing the risks to themselves of asset seizure by foreign tinpot dictators or populist nationalization programs. If they sit at home and twiddle their thumbs because there's no way to "play nice" with people like Gaddafi, they lose turf to other oil industry magnates, such as BP. They won't own oil for long, with that strategy. So, there's no choice but to play dirty. But I think what makes the Rockefellers different from, say, JP Morgan or the Rothschilds, is that they are conscientious about the fact that playing dirty is dirty. You do it as little as you can possibly manage. You don't go wading into the mud just because you can't get through the business day without scuffing your shoes a little.
I don't think the Rockefellers are fans of central banking. That's a Rothschild/UK/European-establishment thing. They're plugged into the system to one extent or another anyway and I don't think they're about to risk their own interests in order to attack central banking. However, I think there is a real tension there because the Rockefellers are (I believe) more "hard asset" people and the effect of central-bank inflation is, naturally, to transfer hard assets away from their owners to the government, the central bank and their cronies.
Notice that Mr. Rockefeller equivocates on the central banking question. His answer is perfectly consistent with the idea that central banking does need to be ended... just not "at this time." By applying my formula "we own oil", I suspect that the Rockefellers cooperate with the central-banking system because they can't fight it. It's too dangerous to take on that beast. Instead, they use their own political pull to influence matters so that their core business is not hurt.
When the central-banking Establishment has launched attacks on Rockefeller oil interests, I think the Rockefellers have retaliated in under-the-radar ways. For example, I believe that the CRU email leaks in 2009 that shot down the Copenhagen summit were - one way or another - the work of the Rockefellers and were in retaliation for some attack on Rockefeller oil interests which I have not been able to identify. The Establishment struck back four months later with the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and a string of other oil "accidents" around the globe followed immediately after. I haven't taken the time to study the matter yet but I suspect that Arab Spring may also have been further retribution for the Copehagen defection. My theory is that Arab Spring toppled long-standing Rockefeller "equilibrium" political regimes in that oil-rich region, throwing the gate wide open to nationalization and private cannibalization of Rockefeller interests by other oil-magnates, such as BP.
</rambling>
While I agree that Rockefeller's are more conscientious of how dirty playing diry is, do you really think they dislike central banking? In what way? JPM and Citigroup are within the Rock ambit. They're the greatest beneficiaries of central banking in America. It's not as though they're still battling the Morgans, though that may remain the case with the other 'R' family. Why should they fight it when they have so much (and have had) to gain from it?
@Jargon: As I said, my theory is all hunch. I'm aware of the Rockefeller involvement in central banking but I suspect that it's a defensive move - they have to be in the game, otherwise, they can't exert influence. Perhaps things have changed over time and they're so plugged-in that they're no different from the Old Money. But I think every family has its own character and disposition, so I'm speculating on the Rockefeller's.
I also don't think the Rothschilds are as evil as they're made out to be, either. In fact, I suspect that they are a lot like the Rockefellers except with banking: "we own banking." The difference is the engagement of the political establishment with banking as an industry - banking has been a very suitable tool for political domination for going on 200 years now. It used to be the Church before that (and look how opulent and powerful the Church used to be compared to what it is today). I think people read it backwards when they say the Rothschilds rule the world and the European powers are beholden to them. It's the other way around, the European/Anglophile power elite rule the world and one of their key instruments of power for the last 200 years has been manipulation of money and banking... the Rothschilds happen to have been the world's best bankers during this period and happy to do business with the State.
I think that John Rockefeller Jr. was a very different man than his father. He may have been driven by an era of statism to change his methods towards a corporatist paradigm, but his actions belied a different attitude. JD Sr., as much of a prick as he may have been, was a boon to the American civilization, whereas his son can only be said to have been a boon to the Rockefeller family.
I don't know if either Rockefeller or Rothschild are 'evil', because I don't know if any human can fulfill that word. They are however crooks or criminals and trade much of the suffering of others for their own gain. I understand after getting to know these people and their modus operandi's, the injustice of it dulls and is left with a kind of admiration for that incredible force of will. I try to not to lose sight of the main thing though: the world would be better off without these people. This is especially more apparent to me after becoming acquainted with the works of Antony Sutton, who I recommend you bite into. Can you elaborate when you say 'it's the other way around' by the way?
Clayton: [...]I think people read it backwards when they say the Rothschilds rule the world and the European powers are beholden to them. It's the other way around, the European/Anglophile power elite rule the world and one of their key instruments of power for the last 200 years has been manipulation of money and banking... the Rothschilds happen to have been the world's best bankers during this period and happy to do business with the State. Clayton -
[...]I think people read it backwards when they say the Rothschilds rule the world and the European powers are beholden to them. It's the other way around, the European/Anglophile power elite rule the world and one of their key instruments of power for the last 200 years has been manipulation of money and banking... the Rothschilds happen to have been the world's best bankers during this period and happy to do business with the State.