Following Brown v. Board of Education (1954) under Orval Faubus (D 1955-1967), who was governor for 12 years, Arkansas suddenly came back under “Republican” leadership for the first time since 1873 in 1967.
A new leader emerged, with radical new conservative vision for Arkansas’ future.
Winthrop Rockefeller
Stepping forward in the 1964, 66, 68, and 70 primaries, Rockefeller won handily each time, surely without hijinks and due solely to the gravitas of his policies - 98% in 66, 95% in 68, and 95% in 70.
The Republican Party of the time became firmly Machine politics, with operations loyal to Rockefeller and seemed to become Republican … in name only. This was done in a matter of months. Winthrop’s brother Nelson had been governor of NY from 59-66 at the time. The party was notably very progressive during this turn, and reverted immediate upon Reagan’s entry into office. Rockefeller raised taxes and used them to buy influence in Education, Health, Welfare, and Municipalities, as he was “a man of the people and not of moneyed interests”.
In the two general elections, in spite of 100 years of democrat ownership of the governor’s office, he won … 54/46, 52/48, then lost 32/68 to… “Dale Bumpers” before dying 3 years later of pancreatic cancer.
His son would later be Arkansas lieutenant governor from 1996 until his death in 2006 at age 58.
Oddly enough, Win (the son) was elected in 1996 alongside one Mike Huckabee, baptist minister and father of Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
What was the Rockefeller interest in Arkansas? Why did he focus so much on the prisons?
… I always wondered what the real purpose of the Vietnam War was.
Afghanistan seems to have been poppies and military positioning, …and something else, possibly biblical, that isn’t clear yet.
Iraq was petrodollar and hegemony.
But Vietnam? There may have been some truth in the “stop the spread of communism” narrative, but seems unlikely. Best guess had always been population control (on both sides - Vietnamese are wonderful people in my experience) and destabilization.
The Rockefeller oil angle adds a whole new dimension to it.
There is no way that massive war efforts are one, two, or three goal operations, though. Naturally there may be a few primary goals, sure, but there are likely dozens, if not hundreds of secret goals we don’t even begin to know about.
It’s very possible that there have been populations in all these countries [they] have warred against, including the US, that were much more advanced, righteous, and aware than we who remain - akin to the Tartaria theory, or how it’s possible that they focused on selecting people to send to war primarily from America’s most righteous locations, and areas where they needed to consolidate power. https://www.reddit.com/r/tartarianarchitecture/comments/pjnzgf/the_unsettling_mystery_of_the_worlds_columbian/
That article on Bill is very interesting, will be reading more later, thanks!
Lt Col Prouty mentions in an interview that after WW2 when he was getting ready to ship all the weapons and stuff from Japan back to US, he was told to leave them there since they will be heading to Korea and Vietnam next.
I think these two were purely war for the sake of war - just so they could escalate to create the WW3, but USSR did not co-operate and they had to settle for a cold war.
That’s definitely going to be involved, too. “They’ve financed both sides of every war since…”. There are surely a primary 1-5 goals, but also an unknown number of secondary, tertiary, and “nice-to-have”s.
Good info to know that they were already prepping Korea and Vietnam during WWII, and probably before. Not so much shocking at this point, but hadn’t heard or considered that the plans dated back that far.