David Rockefeller Was a New World Order Agent
Jonas Alexis
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the
best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as
'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to
build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one
world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud
of it.”--David Rockefeller
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.”[1]
David & Nelson Rockefeller & The Satanic New World Order Exposed Like Never Before
The simple question is this: how did the Rockefellers themselves go about conspiring with others and projecting the New World Order ideology on much of the world? Well, John D. Rockefeller in particular strongly believed in Darwin’s survival of the fittest. As one writer puts it, John
“was able to demonstrate that what
was good for civilization was also good for business—and vice versa.
The large corporation that grew by swallowing up its smaller competitors
was merely exhibiting the law of the ‘survival of the fittest…’”[2]
Had it not been for Darwin’s “survival of the fittest,” which was and
still is a crucial element when talking about capitalism, Darwin’s
theory would have been thrown in the trashcan of history long ago. But
the oligarchs quickly realized that Darwin was simply providing
“intellectual” ammunition for their greed and lust. So they ended up
defending Darwin. As philosopher James Rachels puts it, Darwin’s theory
was picked up by the capitalists and they used it as “an ethical precept
that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition.”[3] One scholar noted:
“The theory of natural selection,
it is said, could only have originated in England, because only
laissez-faire England provided the atomistic, egotistic mentality
necessary to its conception. Only there could Darwin have blandly
assumed that the basic unit was the individual, the basic instinct
self-interest, and the basic activity struggle.
“Spengler, describing the Origin
as: ‘the application of economics to biology,’ said that it reeked of
the atmosphere of the English factory . . . natural selection arose . . .
in England because it was a perfect expression of Victorian
‘greed-philosophy’ of the capitalist ethic and Manchester economics.”[4]
Both Julian Huxley and H. B. D. Kittlewell agreed that Darwin’s
theory “led to the glorification of free enterprise, laissez-faire
economics and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism…”[5]The Rockefellers just indicate that Darwinism does play a role in bringing about the New World Order ideology, which is fundamentally based on strife, greed, and lust. Darwin’s entire project was doomed to fail precisely because he deliberately excluded morality from his weltanschauung. (We will pick this theme up in the summer in an article entitled, “Darwin Meets Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel.”)
Darwin could never solve the moral dilemma without abandoning his metaphysical premise. He therefore had to live in blatant contradictions. To this very day, his intellectual children are still morally and intellectually crippled by his worldview. These people are still toe-dancing around Darwin’s obvious contradictions because some of them, sad to say, do not want to think or do not want to abandon a morally and intellectually repugnant idea.
These people use morality to debunk Zionism, but they people love Darwin and modern Darwinists, who say that morality is an illusion! Philosopher of science Michael Ruse again meant it when he said:
“Morality is a biological
adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered
as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something,
ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they
neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond
themselves . . . . Nevertheless such reference is truly without
foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . .
and any deeper meaning is illusory . . .”[6]
Ruse went on to posit elsewhere that “Morality is flimflam.”[7]Now how can Darwinists seriously go about criticizing Zionism using morality when morality doesn’t exist? Obviously one needn’t be an intellectual to realize that this is generally dumb. If people cannot see that this is just mumbo jumbo, then we have to say that they are being dishonest and that have no place in any serious discussion, particularly when dealing with Zionism.
[2]Quoted in Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds: A Study of Intellectuals in Crisis and Ideologies in Transition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1952 and 1968), 317.
[3] James Rachels, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 63.
[4] Ibid., 418.
[5] Julian Huxley and H. B. D. Kittlewell, Charles Darwin and His World (New York: Viking, 1965), 81.
[6] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9.
[7] Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010.
