Open Letter To Rockefellers Of August 16
Rockefeller family members have long accused Exxon of working to deny the existence of global warming. Today WE ARE KINDLY ASKING Rockefellers TO FUND STOPPING A MUCH BIGGER CRIME:
WE ARE ACCUSING The Rothschilds' BARCLAYS/BOE/BIS IN DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF THEIR DEBTS TO S. Beloy, - TOGETHER WITH EXISTENCE OF S. Beloy PERSONALLY!
"It wasn't far ago when the Rockefeller-funded articles sent climate activists into a frenzy. Bill McKibben, the writer and environmentalist, was arrested while protesting at an Exxon gas station with a sign that read, THIS PUMP CLOSED BECAUSE EXXONMOBIL LIED ABOUT (#EXXONKNEW) CLIMATE. A hashtag was born, and activists tried naming a melting Antarctic iceberg “Exxon Knew 1” and brought a 13-foot “Exxon Knew” ice sculpture to the company’s shareholder meeting. For the Rockefellers who had taken a risk with the grant, the results were validating. “It proved the whole debate over climate change was a phony construct from the beginning,” Wasserman said.
Similarly, new Bgate's HASHTAGS #BarclaysKnew, #RothschildsKnew, and #RockefellersKnew are introduced today!!!
The Rothschilds' Barclays Bank Misled the Public About #Bgate case for 18 Years!!
Just like "Exxon Misled the Public About Climate Change for 40 Years, Study Says":
"Exxon Mobil spent more than three decades treating man-made climate change as a scientific reality in internal documents, even as the company portrayed it as a dubious theory in its public communications — or so reporters, science historians, and many of the company’s current and former employees have alleged. Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications. Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public. ... at least their efforts to systematically mislead the public about the downsides of their product didn’t risk hastening the demise of human civilization across the entire planet".
Source: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/the-rockefellers-vs-exxon.html
Sounds familiar within context of Bgate case?
Here is more analogies:
"Exxon is currently fending off lawsuits from investors who claim that the company deliberately misled them about how big a financial risk climate change posed to the value of its reserves; current and former employees who believe that they were similarly deceived when they opted to invest in Exxon shares as part of a company-sponsored savings plan; and three California communities that believe the company knowingly contributed to .."
Our case may be expanded by lawsuits from investors who claim that the Barclays/BOE banks deliberately misled them about how big a financial risk is for the whole #Bgate story:
It actually can bring down current Banking System, Capitalism, and Money in general,
- all of which are based on the need to pay debts.
Then it's even more interesting:
"Exxon had decided to play the victim(!!!) ... At offices shared by the Brothers Fund and the Family Fund, one participant had sent an email with possible discussion topics, including how “to establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.” ... Then the Family Fund announced it was divesting from Exxon as a result of the company’s “morally reprehensible” behavior ..."
David Rockefeller never completely rejected the accusation: “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,” he wrote in his memoir — and his descendants did not deny having coordinated their efforts to bring Exxon to task. They simply disagreed with the idea that they had done anything wrong. “We’re getting creamed by the right, and Exxon, for doing nothing but associating with other civic associations to try to address larger societal problems,” Wasserman said. “They are attacking behavior that is pretty central to what this country is about."
... "Kaiser expected Exxon to go after the family but was surprised by the ferocity of the attack."
"Exxon has since devoted considerable effort to DELAYING(!!!) that process.
Proving Exxon’s legal culpability remains a difficult task, and veterans of the tobacco litigation, which produced more than $200 billion in settlements, point out that it took many years for incriminating documents to emerge and the legal process to play out. Exxon’s lawsuit against the AGs remains in front of Judge Caproni, and there is no saying when a trial might begin, if ever. But the Rockefeller-funded journalistic investigations have helped open the door to a range of litigation. Several coastal cities in California, including San Francisco and Oakland, have sued Exxon and other fossil-fuel companies over the costs of adapting to rising seas, and the SEC launched an investigation into whether Exxon has improperly valued what have come to be known as “stranded assets” — oil reserves that companies count as potential profit on their books but that may go unused if the world makes a serious effort to regulate fossil fuels. In January 2017, Exxon wrote down more than $2 billion in such assets, and the company seems nervous enough about potential lawsuits ... Neva Goodwin, who led the Rockefellers’ early shareholder efforts, said she had largely lost faith in the strategy but that things had changed when major financial institutions like #BlackRock and #Vanguard expressed their concern about stranded assets.
... In announcing its decision, the Rockefeller fund attacked Exxon for what it called the company's "morally reprehensible conduct," alluding to allegations that the company has hidden evidence that fossil fuels contribute to climate change.
"Evidence appears to suggest that the company worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change's march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change's destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities ...
Bob Litterman, a former head of risk management at Goldman Sachs, told me that he had helped the World Wildlife Fund make what he called a “stranded-asset total-return swap” as part of its endowment strategy, essentially betting against companies with potentially stranded assets, like Exxon, which is one of the swap’s largest positions. So far, it has returned a 64 percent profit.
When I met David Kaiser for coffee in the fall, his family had come under attack again, this time for sponsoring two Harvard researchers’ analysis of Exxon’s claim that the journalists had “cherry-picked” documents. The academics rejected Exxon’s assertion, but the company’s supporters quickly dismissed the report as part of “the Rockefeller Family Fund cabal,” and Exxon accused the Rockefellers of seeking “reparations.” Kaiser admitted as much — adapting to climate change will cost trillions, and someone will have to pay for it — but insisted he and his relatives weren’t interested in destroying the family business. “
In Kaiser’s view, Exxon had turned it into a divisive issue and was now uniquely positioned to undo that damage.
What the Rockefellers hoped, in essence, was to push Exxon toward the light, just as their own family came to understand the various ill effects of its success. In the early 1900s, Ida Tarbell wrote a series of articles in McClure’s magazine lambasting John D. Rockefeller’s business practices:
"Our national life is on every side distinctly poorer, uglier, meaner for the kind of influence [Rockefeller] exercises. From him we have received no impulse to public duty, only lessons in evading it for private greed; no stimulus to nobler ideals, only a lesson in the further deification of gold …"
"In 1932, five years before his death, John D. himself acknowledged the fortune God had given him would require amends. “As a nation,” Rockefeller said, “looking proudly to our past where it has been noble, and recognizing with humility our mistakes of extravagance, selfishness, and indifference, let us with faith in God, in ourselves, and in humanity, go forward courageously resolved to play our part in worthily building a better world.”
#Bgate: PLEASE, FUND STOPPING K*LLINGS OF S. Beloy, Capitalism, and (YOUR) Money!!!!!
*This article appears in the January 8, 2018, issue of New York Magazine.
WE ARE ACCUSING The Rothschilds' BARCLAYS/BOE/BIS IN DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF THEIR DEBTS TO S. Beloy, - TOGETHER WITH EXISTENCE OF S. Beloy PERSONALLY!
"It wasn't far ago when the Rockefeller-funded articles sent climate activists into a frenzy. Bill McKibben, the writer and environmentalist, was arrested while protesting at an Exxon gas station with a sign that read, THIS PUMP CLOSED BECAUSE EXXONMOBIL LIED ABOUT (#EXXONKNEW) CLIMATE. A hashtag was born, and activists tried naming a melting Antarctic iceberg “Exxon Knew 1” and brought a 13-foot “Exxon Knew” ice sculpture to the company’s shareholder meeting. For the Rockefellers who had taken a risk with the grant, the results were validating. “It proved the whole debate over climate change was a phony construct from the beginning,” Wasserman said.
Similarly, new Bgate's HASHTAGS #BarclaysKnew, #RothschildsKnew, and #RockefellersKnew are introduced today!!!
The Rothschilds' Barclays Bank Misled the Public About #Bgate case for 18 Years!!
Just like "Exxon Misled the Public About Climate Change for 40 Years, Study Says":
"Exxon Mobil spent more than three decades treating man-made climate change as a scientific reality in internal documents, even as the company portrayed it as a dubious theory in its public communications — or so reporters, science historians, and many of the company’s current and former employees have alleged. Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications. Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public. ... at least their efforts to systematically mislead the public about the downsides of their product didn’t risk hastening the demise of human civilization across the entire planet".
Source: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/the-rockefellers-vs-exxon.html
Sounds familiar within context of Bgate case?
Here is more analogies:
"Exxon is currently fending off lawsuits from investors who claim that the company deliberately misled them about how big a financial risk climate change posed to the value of its reserves; current and former employees who believe that they were similarly deceived when they opted to invest in Exxon shares as part of a company-sponsored savings plan; and three California communities that believe the company knowingly contributed to .."
Our case may be expanded by lawsuits from investors who claim that the Barclays/BOE banks deliberately misled them about how big a financial risk is for the whole #Bgate story:
It actually can bring down current Banking System, Capitalism, and Money in general,
- all of which are based on the need to pay debts.
Then it's even more interesting:
"Exxon had decided to play the victim(!!!) ... At offices shared by the Brothers Fund and the Family Fund, one participant had sent an email with possible discussion topics, including how “to establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.” ... Then the Family Fund announced it was divesting from Exxon as a result of the company’s “morally reprehensible” behavior ..."
David Rockefeller never completely rejected the accusation: “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,” he wrote in his memoir — and his descendants did not deny having coordinated their efforts to bring Exxon to task. They simply disagreed with the idea that they had done anything wrong. “We’re getting creamed by the right, and Exxon, for doing nothing but associating with other civic associations to try to address larger societal problems,” Wasserman said. “They are attacking behavior that is pretty central to what this country is about."
... "Kaiser expected Exxon to go after the family but was surprised by the ferocity of the attack."
"Exxon has since devoted considerable effort to DELAYING(!!!) that process.
Proving Exxon’s legal culpability remains a difficult task, and veterans of the tobacco litigation, which produced more than $200 billion in settlements, point out that it took many years for incriminating documents to emerge and the legal process to play out. Exxon’s lawsuit against the AGs remains in front of Judge Caproni, and there is no saying when a trial might begin, if ever. But the Rockefeller-funded journalistic investigations have helped open the door to a range of litigation. Several coastal cities in California, including San Francisco and Oakland, have sued Exxon and other fossil-fuel companies over the costs of adapting to rising seas, and the SEC launched an investigation into whether Exxon has improperly valued what have come to be known as “stranded assets” — oil reserves that companies count as potential profit on their books but that may go unused if the world makes a serious effort to regulate fossil fuels. In January 2017, Exxon wrote down more than $2 billion in such assets, and the company seems nervous enough about potential lawsuits ... Neva Goodwin, who led the Rockefellers’ early shareholder efforts, said she had largely lost faith in the strategy but that things had changed when major financial institutions like #BlackRock and #Vanguard expressed their concern about stranded assets.
... In announcing its decision, the Rockefeller fund attacked Exxon for what it called the company's "morally reprehensible conduct," alluding to allegations that the company has hidden evidence that fossil fuels contribute to climate change.
"Evidence appears to suggest that the company worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change's march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change's destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities ...
Bob Litterman, a former head of risk management at Goldman Sachs, told me that he had helped the World Wildlife Fund make what he called a “stranded-asset total-return swap” as part of its endowment strategy, essentially betting against companies with potentially stranded assets, like Exxon, which is one of the swap’s largest positions. So far, it has returned a 64 percent profit.
When I met David Kaiser for coffee in the fall, his family had come under attack again, this time for sponsoring two Harvard researchers’ analysis of Exxon’s claim that the journalists had “cherry-picked” documents. The academics rejected Exxon’s assertion, but the company’s supporters quickly dismissed the report as part of “the Rockefeller Family Fund cabal,” and Exxon accused the Rockefellers of seeking “reparations.” Kaiser admitted as much — adapting to climate change will cost trillions, and someone will have to pay for it — but insisted he and his relatives weren’t interested in destroying the family business. “
In Kaiser’s view, Exxon had turned it into a divisive issue and was now uniquely positioned to undo that damage.
What the Rockefellers hoped, in essence, was to push Exxon toward the light, just as their own family came to understand the various ill effects of its success. In the early 1900s, Ida Tarbell wrote a series of articles in McClure’s magazine lambasting John D. Rockefeller’s business practices:
"Our national life is on every side distinctly poorer, uglier, meaner for the kind of influence [Rockefeller] exercises. From him we have received no impulse to public duty, only lessons in evading it for private greed; no stimulus to nobler ideals, only a lesson in the further deification of gold …"
"In 1932, five years before his death, John D. himself acknowledged the fortune God had given him would require amends. “As a nation,” Rockefeller said, “looking proudly to our past where it has been noble, and recognizing with humility our mistakes of extravagance, selfishness, and indifference, let us with faith in God, in ourselves, and in humanity, go forward courageously resolved to play our part in worthily building a better world.”
#Bgate: PLEASE, FUND STOPPING K*LLINGS OF S. Beloy, Capitalism, and (YOUR) Money!!!!!
*This article appears in the January 8, 2018, issue of New York Magazine.
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий