Yeah, I read where someone asked David Rockefeller what view of economics he was most sympathetic to, and he responded it would be Austrian economics. Blew me out of the water. By the way, he went to London School of Economics and actually studied with/under Hayek for awhile. A lot of central-banking critiques operate on the presumption that the highest officials are actually clueless about ABCT, for example. But I think a subtler view is that - while the rank-and-file are indoctrinated in mainstream, Keynesian economics - the tip of the pyramid must understand ABCT if by no other means than sheer experience. The first central bank was established back in the late-17th century! And they’ve been debasing currencies for at least a dozen centuries prior to that. So, the idea that they are clueless, babe-in-the-woods naive about the general effects of central banking and inflation on the economy is simply ridiculous. (On a related note, I also don’t think they were “confused” about the viability of communism.)
Food, as you mentioned, is another one of these. I think a lot of the mind-control stuff, too… it’s not scientific and yet it is. They know that human minds can be manipulated and tricked and mass-propagandized because they’ve been doing it since the dawn of history. I think the MKULTRA-variety of experimentation is not so much “is mind-control possible?” - as the History channel would have you believe - as “let’s see how far we can take this using the latest tools of modern science.”
What is really bothering me lately is this plasma cosmology stuff. The orthodox cosmology is so grotesquely horrible and wrong that it smells of the same kind of “indoctrination-by-PhD”… just flood the research community with grant money that only points in a certain direction then nurture a battalion of PhDs that all hold exactly the same view: Big Bang, black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, (WTF!!! is this a trading card game???), etc. etc.
And even more suspicious is that plasma cosmology is actually ridiculed. I haven’t found any mainstream astrophysicists or cosmologists who have openly ridiculed it, but if you look at online forums, you will see that the self-appointed Einstein-relativity buffs consistently ridicule plasma cosmology as on a par with Young-Earth Creationism or something. Whenever you see that, you know immediately that these guys picked it up from their time in college - their professors either didn’t talk about it at all (which means it must be quack) or they were dropping snide remarks whenever the topic came up. Why is plasma cosmology ridiculous? I cannot find a single ridiculous thing about it. Velikovsky is pretty wild but even he isn’t ridiculous. And then Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt??? Come on!
I have two hypotheses. One I will state. The other is too insane to be stated in public. 
I have written earlier in the thread that I suspect that nuclear bombs are a Big Lie. My reasons (in brief) are: a) There’s nothing in the footage that couldn’t be faked, b) some governments’ footage (e.g. China) is obviously fake, c) release of radioactivity by “test firings” could easily be accomplished by “dirty bomb” methods, d) the Moon landings were faked; going to the Moon had been written about by a famous fictionalist (Verne), e) the “atomic bomb” was a term first used by fictionalist HG Wells… decades before the actual nuclear bomb, f) the Manhattan project has the same aura of “impossibly perfect” about it that the Moon landings do, g) both occurred after the arrival of central-banking to America (the possibility of funding monumentally expensive “fake-out” projects), h) the science of radioactivity is bizarrely incongruous with other sciences… of course radioactivity exists but why is it simply posited that matter can “decay” into energy?.. and what does that even mean… “matter is energy”… not it’s not, matter is matter, energy is the latent propensity within matter to move, i) related to this, there are a variety of serious metaphysical bungles in the foundations of modern philosophy of science related to the meaning of time, energy, causality and even existence, j) radioactive particles could alternatively be understood as “transducers” of some kind that capture energy at one frequency and emit it at another… in other words, radioactive particles could be atomic-scale radio circuits that degrade over time (thus explaining radioactive decay) and this gives us a theory of radioactivity that does not violate conservation of mass/energy nor require us to say such absurd things as “matter and energy are the same thing”, k) variation in the purportedly “constant” radioactive decay rates of a handful of elements has been discovered (and virtually covered up, hand-waved away)… turns out their decay rates move up and down in synch with the Solar sunspot cycle.
This last point is a real doozy. It suggests that there could be a connection between the Solar environment and radioactivity itself. These points combined suggest that perhaps the purpose of steering the scientific community away from plasma cosmology is that a focus on the electrical nature of the Earth and the Solar environment will lead to a cascade of discoveries that would rewrite the physics of radioactivity. Which would take all the air out of their Big Lie which is one of the tools being used to create a world government (HG Wells specifically wrote on this point… he even posited the suitcase-nuke scenario as an insuperable rationale for world government!)
Clayton -