I'm not even entirely sure as to what Sullivan & Cromwell has to do with David Rockefeller. — thewonder

Sullivan & Cromwell were a top law firm that represented top bankers and industrialists like J P Morgan, Ford, and Rockefeller.

As the Rockefellers gradually replaced the Morgan and Ford Groups, S&C came to represent Rockefeller interests.

S&C lawyers were not just CIA directors they were part of the US Administration and were involved in public policy making as admitted by the S&C own website;

"During World War II and its political aftermath, S&C lawyers such as noted partners John Foster Dulles and Arthur Dean played important individual roles in helping shape domestic policy and international affairs"

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

As I said, the Rockefellers used top lawyers to run their banking and oil empire as well as to influence domestic policy and international affairs.

I'm sure that this law firm, given what information we have of it, has had a fairly decisive influence over American politics. Previously, however, you had depicted this as if they had set up the CIA. That is what I have been discounting. As I said before, perhaps I have merely misinterpreted you, though?

When it comes to intelligence, I think that people often think that wealth just must be somehow behind it. There's a fairly limited set of social circles where people who join intelligence trades tend to arise, most of which do have a fair amount of wealth, as well as that wealth can motivate people to do all sorts of things, and, so, we can generally assume that there is a certain interest of both old and new money that does become effectuated by the intelligence services, particularly that in the United States, as well as that in the U.K.. What I think that people often fail to understand about politics, however, is that the primary point of contention is over political power. Wealth offers a person a certain degree of power, but it is not power itself. What is moreso often at stake in political disputes are that various classes attempt to set out the world in such a manner that is to their benefit. People occasionally talk about social capital, but often fail to see its relevance. Within a political context, social capital is power. There are various factions out there who engage in the dispute over what classes are let to arbitrate the organization of society in so far that it is to their benefit to do so. Giorgio Agamben has echoed Walter Benjamin in stating that "God didn't die, he was transformed into money". What we can take from this is that money has become the "opium of the people". It is the capacity to rule, and not to profit, that people wage political disputes over. Were all of what happens in the world really to just relate back to wealth, I think that you would find for shameless opportunism to be preferable the various forms of authoritarianism that have created our political plights.

I'm just kind of dishing out some ideas, here, more or less because I feel like it, but, have only really continued to engage in this debate as such to get that point across. In a way, it is a point of contention, but I have no real intention of being contrary. What you know of Sullivan & Cromwell is kind of interesting information. I don't know. Originally, I had just kind of wanted to speculate on the intelligence trade.

The problem with Capitalism is that it rewards shameless opportunism. While I'm only discounting so much as to your claims of Rockefellers, what I'm suggesting is that, if you keep on as you have, you'll be following that paper trial forever, as it just doesn't lead anywhere. True Capitalism would be preferable to however you want to describe the various forms of control that exist today. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri called them "Empire". Call it what you will. What I see as the primary plight both within and without the intelligence community, the CIA just being a fairly useful example for me, in all of the political foray is that people just become obsessed with securing and maintaining control. It's the implicit thesis to the film, Protagonist. This is just my speculation, however.

I'm just going to continue to elaborate on this as I, at least, feel like I'm onto something.

When a-political types take a jab at the politically-minded and say something like, "It's all just some high school popularity contest.", they tend to assume that their social critique is somehow "cheap", if not motivated by some form of envy or what they lack in self-confidence. On some level, they're right. They probably haven't really put too much thought into it. By the same token, however, the aforementioned statement does kind of call to light the primary political predicament. It's like how some Feminists will say that the problem is just chauvinism. It's a way of seeing the world that makes a lot of sense if you don't believe in it too directly. People aren't motivated to abuse power out of materialistic selfishness. They either have some vision of the world that they can't let go of or just simply want to cultivate a certain persona, a certain culture, a certain conduct, and a certain way of life. They become convinced that, in order to do so, they have to secure a certain degree of control over society. When the world rebels, and it always does, they, further come to justify what they deem to be necessary in order to maintain it. It becomes about the cult of personality, the coterie clique, and the clandestine course of action. It is like some high school personality contest, but one where one's place in the world relates to their existential status. The sets of society to have inspired the a-politically minded to put forth such a critique are reflections of the overarching social order. Intelligence plays into that as well, just as wealth or anything else does, but they only play, when the game itself is what has become of control.

I have finished my rambling. It's basically the beat-speak variant of the thesis to All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace or primary critique in The Cybernetic Hypothesis. I thought that it would make more sense of this, but now kind of doubt that it will. Oh well, I guess.

The problem with Capitalism is that it rewards shameless opportunism. While I'm only discounting so much as to your claims of Rockefellers, what I'm suggesting is that, if you keep on as you have, you'll be following that paper trial forever, as it just doesn't lead anywhere. — thewonder

And what I'm suggesting is that you’re reading the wrong books, ignoring the sources, denying the facts, and constructing your own science fiction theory just to contradict others.

To understand how the Rockefellers ran their banking and oil empire you need to read objective and factual books like Rulers of America: A Study of Financial Capital by Anna Rochester.

As for the CIA, it was conceived by Rockefeller people, headed by Rockefeller people, and funded by the Rockefellers.

William “Wild Bill” Donovan, the “founding father of the CIA” was a long-time employee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

In 1941 Donovan organized US intelligence operations into COI (Coordination of Information) and asked Rockefeller lawyer Allen Dulles to head it. The COI HQ was at room 3603 at the Rockefeller Center.

In 1947 the CIA was officially created.

In 1952 Dulles was officially appointed as head of the CIA.

William J. Donovan – Wikipedia

Rockefeller people created the CIA, headed the CIA and were sitting in the US Administration as advisers and policy makers in matters concerning the CIA.

The CIA was a Rockefeller operation from start to finish. That’s why it has always represented the interests of the oil, pharmaceutical, and chemical industry.

But if you choose to deny the facts, that's your problem, not mine. It makes no difference to me.

Okay.