David Rockefeller dead at age 101

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently a half dozen people on my Facebook think he was literally evil, moreso than the Koch bros, with zero evidence.

And of course Stormfront says he's a Jew.
 
Completely unrelated but TIL that the Rockefeller mentioned in Ether by Nas was not related to the famous family or Rockefellers
 
It's no coincidence this happened the same day as the Russia hearing.

Just Trump putting our reptilian overlords on notice.
 
RetroDLC said:
I saw a lot of hate for him on Twitter (surprise, surprise). Why was he hated to much? It's obvious he's done a lot of good for the world.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theorists think He secretly ran the world and was the leader of the Illuminati..... Seriously


Other people just hate old rich white guys because old rich white guys are always bad. Especially old white guys who were born into wealth.



He always seemed like a decent guy to me. I know he wasnt the biggest philanthropist of them all but he did alot of stuff for Science, Education and even was trying to help middle eastern countries. I know David Rockefeller Jr is a full on philanthropist though, working with Bill Gates Sr and Warren Buffet. Id like to know why people hate his whole family. His son is a really good guy.
 
temp said:
The mere fact that this guy had nearly a billion dollars to give away to charities speaks to the unimaginable wealth he accumulated at the expense of the mass of poor.
Click to expand...

Well, i don't know his history. But assuming that he had a hand in the usual behind the scenes nepotism that many rich people push, that one billion pales to the negative impact that people like him have on social mobility and wealth distribution as a whole.
 
Nabbis said:
Well, i don't know his history. But assuming that he had a hand in the usual behind the scenes nepotism that many rich people push, that one billion pales to the negative impact that people like him have on social mobility and wealth distribution as a whole.
Click to expand...

And this is all assuming that "charity" is always a good thing.

For example, $35 million of his charitable contributions went to the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, whose overview explains its goal to "respond to real-world changes in the Americas resulting from democratic transitions and economic restructuring."

It's a mystery what kind of interest the CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank would have in the economic restructuring of poor Latin American countries.
 
Beer Monkey said:
Apparently a half dozen people on my Facebook think he was literally evil, moreso than the Koch bros, with zero evidence.

And of course Stormfront says he's a Jew.
Click to expand...

We live in a world where it's more morally pure to say "Good Riddance" on a social network than it is to donate $200m to poverty relief in Africa, fighting Climate Change, fund a world class art museum, and some other $800m in charity.

The same people who will say "Good Riddance" or take some joy in David Rockefeller dying were probably silent or in mourning when Fidel Castro died 4 months ago. In one case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, made billions, and donated billions -- Rockefeller. In another case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, murdered thousands, imprisoned tens of thousands, exiled a million, and held millions more in forced poverty for half a century and beyond -- Castro, obviously. One is morally pure to some people, the other is despicable.

I'm against a system that allows people to amass tremendous amounts of wealth, while millions of people in the same city that he lives in lack access to affordable health care and baseline housing. But when somebody is born into extreme wealth, expands his wealth, and does some semblance of good while still being a generally likable guy by both prominent Republicans and Democrats (David Rockefeller was critical of both Reagan and Nixon, and Jimmy Carter wanted him for Secretary of the Treasury), I'm less likely to spit on his grave... Even though he has many more billions of dollars than I ever will.

I'm biased, though, as I'm a sustaining member of NPR and think the MoMA is a cherished American institution -- both causes that Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. I also care about climate change, global access to health care, poverty relief, global nutrition, all issues that the the Rockefeller Foundation supports, but supporting the news is my pet causes, and I think well of the Rockefellers for being major NPR sustainers.

But like you allude to, this is one of those rare moments where the far left and the far right come together in harmony. For the far left, it's another dead capitalist pig. For the far right, another dead liberal Jew.
 
RetroDLC said:
I saw a lot of hate for him on Twitter (surprise, surprise). Why was he hated to much? It's obvious he's done a lot of good for the world.
Click to expand...

Anti-capitalists. The Rockefeller family has pretty much been the personification of modern American capitalism forever, so they make a good target for those who think that capitalism is flawed or worse.

While capitalism definitely has (many) flaws, *very* well-regulated capitalism is still the most effective economic system we've developed.
 
The Albatross said:
We live in a world where it's more morally pure to say "Good Riddance" on a social network than it is to donate $200m to poverty relief in Africa, fighting Climate Change, fund a world class art museum, and some other $800m in charity.

The same people who will say "Good Riddance" or take some joy in David Rockefeller dying were probably silent or in mourning when Fidel Castro died 4 months ago. In one case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, made billions, and donated billions -- Rockefeller. In another case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, murdered thousands, imprisoned tens of thousands, exiled a million, and held millions more in forced poverty for half a century and beyond -- Castro, obviously. One is morally pure to some people, the other is despicable.

I'm against a system that allows people to amass tremendous amounts of wealth, while millions of people in the same city that he lives in lack access to affordable health care and baseline housing. But when somebody is born into extreme wealth, expands his wealth, and does some semblance of good while still being a generally likable guy by both prominent Republicans and Democrats (David Rockefeller was critical of both Reagan and Nixon, and Jimmy Carter wanted him for Secretary of the Treasury), I'm less likely to spit on his grave... Even though he has many more billions of dollars than I ever will.

I'm biased, though, as I'm a sustaining member of NPR and think the MoMA is a cherished American institution -- both causes that Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. I also care about climate change, global access to health care, poverty relief, global nutrition, all issues that the the Rockefeller Foundation supports, but supporting the news is my pet causes, and I think well of the Rockefellers for being major NPR sustainers.

But like you allude to, this is one of those rare moments where the far left and the far right come together in harmony. For the far left, it's another dead capitalist pig. For the far right, another dead liberal Jew.
Click to expand...

Man...your post just summed this up so succinctly, I don't even know if there's anything left to say.

RIP, dude obviously did a lot for the world and it's clear that he's left a lasting impression on the American consciousness.
 
Marquis said:
good riddance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because he is the Illmunitami!!1!

c94add7e2e76ed4b568ecgru5u.jpg
 
RIP, just read through this thread cuz i didn't really have an opinion on him before
Seems like he really used his money as a force for good in this world
 
The Rockefeller name has become such a fixture of pop culture representations of the rich that I think many people forget that they're people too, not cartoons. The entire notion of Rockefeller involvement in conspiracy theories is almost completely down to the fact that they're incredibly wealthy, which leads to the assumption that they have to be involved somehow by definition.

This is what David looked like, by the way.

mg_1954-cr21.jpg


There are a lot of other pictures out there of him looking a heck of lot more evil, but that's par for the course with how people want the supposed dark lords of the world to look. From what I can tell by a cursory overview (anything beyond quickly seems to get bogged down due to the above mentioned conspiracy theorists) he was an elite career philantropist, if anything. His financial career looks par for the course, although somewhat more succesful than most. Sure. He was born rich. He could spend as much as he did on charity and still live a life of luxury. That's a valid point. But he could also have gone the other way and hoarded it, or tried to keep amassing wealth and power for no particular reason beyond self-gratification - much like Trump. For whatever it's worth, he chose a reasonably worthy path. I also give you the point that, of course, it would have been even more worthy if he simply donated the lot and lived like the rest of us.

But honestly, has any sane person ever done that? It's not how people function, typically.

From what I can see, he wasn't a saint or a devil. Just a guy with seemingly decent intentions that probably didn't always make the best call, like most of us. Good enough for me. Let's let the man get his rest.
 
hanspampel said:
hope i will be still alive, when the first person reach 1trillion
Click to expand...

Augustus Caesar or Mansa Musa. Adjusted for inflation of course, still hard to track down a specific amount. First modern Trillionaire will probably be Jeff Bezos/Elon Musk/some space corporation CEO.
 
The Albatross said:
We live in a world where it's more morally pure to say "Good Riddance" on a social network than it is to donate $200m to poverty relief in Africa, fighting Climate Change, fund a world class art museum, and some other $800m in charity.

The same people who will say "Good Riddance" or take some joy in David Rockefeller dying were probably silent or in mourning when Fidel Castro died 4 months ago. In one case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, made billions, and donated billions -- Rockefeller. In another case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, murdered thousands, imprisoned tens of thousands, exiled a million, and held millions more in forced poverty for half a century and beyond -- Castro, obviously. One is morally pure to some people, the other is despicable.

I'm against a system that allows people to amass tremendous amounts of wealth, while millions of people in the same city that he lives in lack access to affordable health care and baseline housing. But when somebody is born into extreme wealth, expands his wealth, and does some semblance of good while still being a generally likable guy by both prominent Republicans and Democrats (David Rockefeller was critical of both Reagan and Nixon, and Jimmy Carter wanted him for Secretary of the Treasury), I'm less likely to spit on his grave... Even though he has many more billions of dollars than I ever will.

I'm biased, though, as I'm a sustaining member of NPR and think the MoMA is a cherished American institution -- both causes that Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. I also care about climate change, global access to health care, poverty relief, global nutrition, all issues that the the Rockefeller Foundation supports, but supporting the news is my pet causes, and I think well of the Rockefellers for being major NPR sustainers.

But like you allude to, this is one of those rare moments where the far left and the far right come together in harmony. For the far left, it's another dead capitalist pig. For the far right, another dead liberal Jew.
Click to expand...

I think the cognitive dissonance is too great among the anti-capitalists. If they aren't capable of admitting that capitalism has done more to bring people out of poverty(from 95%+ to less than 10 percent in less than 200 years, and the trend has been accelerating as capitalism has spread, through the works of guys like Rockefeller), I doubt they are capable of having positive opinions of some billionaire philanthropist. Especially a banker, ugh. :P
 
The Albatross said:
We live in a world where it's more morally pure to say "Good Riddance" on a social network than it is to donate $200m to poverty relief in Africa, fighting Climate Change, fund a world class art museum, and some other $800m in charity.

The same people who will say "Good Riddance" or take some joy in David Rockefeller dying were probably silent or in mourning when Fidel Castro died 4 months ago. In one case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, made billions, and donated billions -- Rockefeller. In another case, you have a wealthy elitist who was born rich, murdered thousands, imprisoned tens of thousands, exiled a million, and held millions more in forced poverty for half a century and beyond -- Castro, obviously. One is morally pure to some people, the other is despicable.

I'm against a system that allows people to amass tremendous amounts of wealth, while millions of people in the same city that he lives in lack access to affordable health care and baseline housing. But when somebody is born into extreme wealth, expands his wealth, and does some semblance of good while still being a generally likable guy by both prominent Republicans and Democrats (David Rockefeller was critical of both Reagan and Nixon, and Jimmy Carter wanted him for Secretary of the Treasury), I'm less likely to spit on his grave... Even though he has many more billions of dollars than I ever will.

I'm biased, though, as I'm a sustaining member of NPR and think the MoMA is a cherished American institution -- both causes that Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. I also care about climate change, global access to health care, poverty relief, global nutrition, all issues that the the Rockefeller Foundation supports, but supporting the news is my pet causes, and I think well of the Rockefellers for being major NPR sustainers.

But like you allude to, this is one of those rare moments where the far left and the far right come together in harmony. For the far left, it's another dead capitalist pig. For the far right, another dead liberal Jew.
Click to expand...

This dude didn't even deserve to be in a position to donate hundreds of millions in dollars. That alone is a disgrace. Who is going to cheer on someone who stole the whole package of cookies and gave the rest of the group 2 in return.
That shit isn't being generous, it is saving face for being a straight thief. Shit that makes you sleep at night because you are unfortunate to not be an egoistical sociopath like Trump.

The reason why liberals don't know how to deal with poverty is because they don't acknowledge the systematic nature of it. Cheering on gazillionaires who donate money that they shouldn't have had anyway. I mean come on people.

I didn't even start about the political power donating that stolen dollar gives you. It's one big magic trick and you guys are falling for it.

iamblades said:
I think the cognitive dissonance is too great among the anti-capitalists. If they aren't capable of admitting that capitalism has done more to bring people out of poverty(from 95%+ to less than 10 percent in less than 200 years, and the trend has been accelerating as capitalism has spread, through the works of guys like Rockefeller), I doubt they are capable of having positive opinions of some billionaire philanthropist. Especially a banker, ugh. :P
Click to expand...

Anti-capitalists are mostly dialectic ie.: Acknowledge the need for capitalism as a stage but also acknowledge that societies have to move on after a certain point.
 
SaviourMK2 said:
I'm curious too. On Facebook there seems to be a trend of religious people hoping he burns in hell and calling him Satan, saying they've never been happy someone died.

What the hell did he do?
Click to expand...

RetroDLC said:
I saw a lot of hate for him on Twitter (surprise, surprise). Why was he hated to much? It's obvious he's done a lot of good for the world.
Click to expand...

They believed he ran the NWO and controlled the world's riches and caused wars.
 
Condom said:
This dude didn't even deserve to be in a position to donate hundreds of millions in dollars. That alone is a disgrace. Who is going to cheer on someone who stole the whole package of cookies and gave the rest of the group 2 in return.
That shit isn't being generous, it is saving face for being a straight thief. Shit that makes you sleep at night because you are unfortunate to not be an egoistical sociopath like Trump.

The reason why liberals don't know how to deal with poverty is because they don't acknowledge the systematic nature of it. Cheering on gazillionaires who donate money that they shouldn't have had anyway. I mean come on people.

I didn't even start about the political power donating that stolen dollar gives you. It's one big magic trick and you guys are falling for it.



Anti-capitalists are mostly dialectic ie.: Acknowledge the need for capitalism as a stage but also acknowledge that societies have to move on after a certain point.
Click to expand...

That's a critique against the system, then, not against David Rockefeller personally. Which was pretty much the point of the poster you quoted anyway. As for dialectic arguments - that's a fine position to take if you actually have a workeable alternative, in which case I'd love to hear it. All recent examples seem to end in totalitarian failure.
 
Condom said:
This dude didn't even deserve to be in a position to donate hundreds of millions in dollars. That alone is a disgrace. Who is going to cheer on someone who stole the whole package of cookies and gave the rest of the group 2 in return.
That shit isn't being generous, it is saving face for being a straight thief. Shit that makes you sleep at night because you are unfortunate to not be an egoistical sociopath like Trump.

The reason why liberals don't know how to deal with poverty is because they don't acknowledge the systematic nature of it. Cheering on gazillionaires who donate money that they shouldn't have had anyway. I mean come on people.

I didn't even start about the political power donating that stolen dollar gives you. It's one big magic trick and you guys are falling for it.
Click to expand...
Who is the judge of what someone deserves? You? Wider society? Do we need a vote on how much money people can have? By all means, argue that taxes should be higher, and inheritance tax should be way higher, so that his money would go back into the government and can then be spread out by spending there. But saying someone who - as far as I know - didn't do anything bad with his money and influence, supported good causes and just lived his life like that doesn't deserve to be rich is a strange argument.
 
Captain Smoker said:
Yeah, because he is the Illmunitami!!1!

c94add7e2e76ed4b568ecgru5u.jpg
Click to expand...
Note the Koch brothers absence.

They're "pure" hyper wealthy elitists for "some" reason.

Lol at Paul Volker on there too. The last truly effective chairman of the Fed who sacrificed his own position to save the tumbling dollar during hyper inflation.
 
Nivash said:
That's a critique against the system, then, not against David Rockefeller personally. Which was pretty much the point of the poster you quoted anyway. As for dialectic arguments - that's a fine position to take if you actually have a workeable alternative, in which case I'd love to hear it. All recent examples seem to end in totalitarian failure.
Click to expand...

ClosingADoor said:
Who is the judge of what someone deserves? You? Wider society? Do we need a vote on how much money people can have? By all means, argue that taxes should be higher, and inheritance tax should be way higher, so that his money would go back into the government and can then be spread out by spending there. But saying someone who - as far as I know - didn't do anything bad with his money and influence, supported good causes and just lived his life like that doesn't deserve to be rich is a strange argument.
Click to expand...

Nobody deserves to be that rich. It's shit feature of our current economic system.

Is he personally and fully responsible for the system's flaws? Is he the reincarnation of satan himself? No of course not. Is he someone who fought against that system? Well no, he enjoyed the fruits of other's labor, promoted it and gave some relative crumbs in return.

He was a human who had access to far too much money and power and shared a little bit of that money but lived to keep the system like that. No reason to cheer this man on at all.
 
Condom said:
Nobody deserves to be that rich. It's shit feature of our current economic system.

Is he personally and fully responsible for the system's flaws? Is he the reincarnation of satan himself? No of course not. Is he someone who fought against that system? Well no, he enjoyed the fruits of other's labor, promoted it and gave some relative crumbs in return.

He was a human who had access to far too much money and power and shared a little bit of that money but lived to keep the system like that. No reason to cheer this man on at all.
Click to expand...
Nobody is cheering for him. Just saying that nobody should condemn him because it's ludicrous.
 
Condom said:
Nobody deserves to be that rich. It's shit feature of our current economic system.

Is he personally and fully responsible for the system's flaws? Is he the reincarnation of satan himself? No of course not. Is he someone who fought against that system? Well no, he enjoyed the fruits of other's labor, promoted it and gave some relative crumbs in return.

He was a human who had access to far too much money and power and shared a little bit of that money but lived to keep the system like that. No reason to cheer this man on at all.
Click to expand...
Again, says who? You are making easy statement that he did not deserve that money. So a few questions:

- If he didn't inherit anything, did he deserve to built such a fortune himself?
- If not, where is the line? At 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion?

It's all fine to say people shouldn't be that rich. But I can't really imagine any system where it would be impossible to become very rich for some. So the ones that do, I rather have them be like the Rockefellers then the Trumps and Kochs of this world.

Also, he accumulated 3.3 billion over his life it seems. So if he gave away almost 1 billion to charity, that would mean he gave away around 25% of his fortune. I don't know how you define crumbs, but seems like a decent percentage to me.
 
Condom said:
Nobody deserves to be that rich. It's shit feature of our current economic system.

Is he personally and fully responsible for the system's flaws? Is he the reincarnation of satan himself? No of course not. Is he someone who fought against that system? Well no, he enjoyed the fruits of other's labor, promoted it and gave some relative crumbs in return.

He was a human who had access to far too much money and power and shared a little bit of that money but lived to keep the system like that. No reason to cheer this man on at all.
Click to expand...

David's net worth at his time of death according to Wikipedia was only 3.3 billion, which is a lot but is a far cry from his grandfather's wealth.

If you want to know his legacy, here are his children, again from Wikipedia:

  • David Rockefeller Jr. (born July 24, 1941) – vice chairman, Rockefeller Family & Associates (the family office, Room 5600); chairman of Rockefeller Financial Services; Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation; former chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller & Co., Inc., among many other family institutions.
  • Abigail Aldrich "Abby" Rockefeller (born 1943) – economist and feminist. Eldest and most rebellious daughter, she was drawn to Marxism and was an ardent admirer of Fidel Castro and a late 1960s/early 1970s radical feminist who belonged to the organization Female Liberation, later forming a splinter group called Cell 16. An environmentalist and ecologist, she was an active supporter of the women's liberation movement.
  • Neva Rockefeller (born 1944) – economist and philanthropist. She is director of the Global Development and Environment Institute; trustee and vice chair of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Director of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
  • Margaret Dulany "Peggy" Rockefeller (born 1947) – founder of the Synergos Institute in 1986; Board member of the Council on Foreign Relations; serves on the Advisory Committee of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University.
  • Richard Gilder Rockefeller (1949–2014) – physician and philanthropist; chairman of the United States advisory board of the international aid group Doctors Without Borders; trustee and chair of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
  • Eileen Rockefeller (born 1952) – venture philanthropist; Founding Chair of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, established in New York City in 2002.

Basically, all super powerful people who are ostensibly 'good guys' in the grand scheme of the elite, who petitioned and lobbied often against their own best interests and have been heavily involved in social justice movements and philanthropy.

Your righteous indignation just seems like waste of energy here.
 
TwitchZeezbruh said:
Augustus Caesar or Mansa Musa. Adjusted for inflation of course, still hard to track down a specific amount. First modern Trillionaire will probably be Jeff Bezos/Elon Musk/some space corporation CEO.
Click to expand...

yeah. some ancient leaders
not quite comparable, tho

i don't think it will be any space corporation CEO/founder
rather some break trough in the robotic or artificial intelligence industry
transportation could be the other. hyperloop, teleportation or any other major shift in the way we transport goods and people. in that case i give you "space corporation". but just not in the classic way of space exploration

but i do stand by my comment, that neither Bezos or Musk will make it to Trillionaire
exciting times ahead
 
I find it difficult to fathom anybody having feelings of sadness about the death of this man or others like him. I mean really think about it.
 
Which one of his seven hearts gave out, or was he about to reveal why he lived to 101, but they had him assassinated at the behest of their leader, Baphomet?
 
Bulbasaur said:
I find it difficult to fathom anybody having feelings of sadness about the death of this man or others like him. I mean really think about it.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree but I also find it hard to fathom why anyone would be happy about it either.

By all accounts the man wasn't a monster, he made a lot of money and gave a lot of it away. Most importantly, I never met him, so I have no actual feelings about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

KISS Guitarist Ace Frehley Dead at 74
22
406
poodaddy replied
R&B Singer D'Angelo Dead at 51
News 
3
199
EviLore replied
Chuck Mangione dead at 84
6
338
Dacvak replied
Hulk Hogan Dead at 71
2 3 4 5 6
278
3K
Syphon Filter replied
Soul legend of RDR2 fame D'Angelo dead at 51
1
154
Toots replied
Top Bottom