Talk:Aaron Russo

Alex Jones interview?
I'm a bit surprised this isn't already on here. One of Russo's last interviews before his death implied that the Rockefeller family had advanced knowledge of 9/11, and that he had been told so in confidence by Nicholas Rockefeller. Nicholas doesn't have a Wikipedia page or much in the way of other internet material so I don't know how legitimate the claim, but it's an area of interest and in many cases probably the only time anyone will have heard of Russo since the interview was included on Zeitgeist as well. The interview is linked below, and Zeitgeist is easily found. I've also sourced a 'debunking' article which doesn't so much debunk as provide an alternative theory as to why Russo may have made these claims (i.e. he was already ill and had nothing to lose by making something like this up), but it's still definitely worth a mention on here because a lot of people were taken in or affected by it.

As an example, this might be a good way to phrase it in an impartial manner:

"In 2006, Russo was twice interviewed by Alex Jones stating that a member of the Rockefeller family, Nicholas Rockefeller, had divulged information to him in late 2000 on an imminent war with Afghanistan and Iraq, with Venezuela mentioned as a later possibility for invasion. This has been treated by conspiracy theorists as evidence that the September 11th terrorist attacks were either known well in advance or were planned by people close to Rockefeller as a 'false flag' pretext for warfare. Russo also alleged that Rockefeller offered him a place on the Council on Foreign Relations as a way to keep him quiet. However, this claim has been treated with much skepticism due to its timing (a few months before Russo's death from long-term cancer, and five years after the attacks themselves), Russo's political allegiances regarding the financial system and globalisation, and very little credible evidence that Rockefeller has any permanent involvement with the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as doubts about his relation to the rest of the Rockefeller family."ManchesterRenamedPersonchester (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason this isn't already on here is that it has been repeatedly removed. Inserting allegations that a named living person (who may or may not be a member of the Rockefeller family) had something to do with a hidden conspiracy to murder nearly 3,000 people, sourced only to an interview given by someone else to Alex Jones and a Blogspot page, would be a severe violation of WP:BLP (please read that page). An article on Nicholas Rockefeller has been repeatedly deleted. Hut 8.5 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I get that, I realise it's almost certainly bollocks, but a good number of people have seen it and will more than likely take it as fact just because Russo said so and it affirms their pre-existing belief system, and in some cases I've seen people commenting that the lack of any information about it on the Russo page or a Nicholas Rockefeller page (or indeed any mention of him at all on the page for members of the CFR) is 'proof' of a cover-up. It just might be worth mentioning that he made the claim at least, so people know they're not being kept in the dark. Just a suggestion, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it but it seems like a fair compromise.ManchesterRenamedPersonchester (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I strongly recommend you read WP:BLP, which overrules all the considerations you give here. We can't make contentious claims about living people without providing good sourcing. Suppose that you are Nicholas Rockefeller, that all these claims are nonsense, and that this information was added to Wikipedia. Anyone who typed your name into Google would immediately see a Wikipedia article accusing you of being a mass murderer. This would have severe consequences for you and you might even consider taking action against Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor for publishing this slander about you. This is why we don't allow claims like these to be added to articles unless we have the sources to prove that they are true. Hut 8.5 10:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How many sources do you expect to confirm the authenticity of a conversation that at least one party definitely doesn’t want public? Both?  Some random person who was not present during the conversation?  Good luck with that. 5.90.207.231 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

For those of you who claim there is absolutely no evidence of Nicholas Rockefeller- if you search his name under the Council on Foreign Relations members list, his name appears. There are also numerous articles online from business related news pieces that mention him by name and have a photo of him. You can also find his registered attorney page here. If Aaron made the whole thing up, Nicholas was well within his rights to sue Aaron for defamation of character, considering that millions of people have seen his interview, it's to say the least chilling that he didn't.


 * The existence of some Californian lawyer called Nicholas Rockefeller in no way verifies this story. And the claim that because something hasn't lead to a libel lawsuit constitutes compelling evidence of its truth is frankly ridiculous.  Hut 8.5  21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, if you were part of an elite class and someone you had befriended did what Aaron did and over 100,000,000 people saw that interview, wouldn't you sue him? Or would you not care that everyone in your business network saw it? This absolutely effected his business relationships and you're foolish to doubt that. One example of this is a link I've provided below that shows Nicholas's attempt to befriend Yao Ming and the reaction of Yao and a friend close to him in response to that. (They tell him to "stay the hell away") In response to what you've said above, I'd like to also point out that he isn't just "some" attorney named Nicholas Rockefeller, he is the only California attorney to have registered under the name Nicholas Rockefeller, which you can verify through my link. Also, numerous references are made to him by mention of his name, photo, association with the Rockefeller family and main location of his practice proving it is indeed him. This solidifies that he truly does exist and that is in fact him in the photo with Aaron (Please see the following links) and he is a legitimate Rockefeller (He controls an official Rockefeller trust.)   Now that we can say with one hundred percent certainty that yes that is Nicholas with Aaron and yes he is a powerful member of the Rockefeller family, we can move onto the subject of Aaron's claims and whether we should believe them or not. Yes, we can't prove that he said anything of that nature, but we can gain some insight into the likelihood of the claims by looking at what information we have available on Nicholas and his business partners/friends many of whom I've found to be of morally questionable character. I will post further information backing this up soon but I will say that information is public if you dig deep and it's unsettling who he chooses to surround himself with.


 * Dear Anonymous user: As noted by another editor, this is old, old, old, old news. You really, really late to the game. Still, if you want to contribute in a meaningful way, you really need to focus on the purpose of this talk page. Regarding whatever you want to add to the article, you need to come up with a reliable, previously published source for that. You have not done that. Alex Jones is not a reliable source, and whether Nicholas Rockefeller is or is not a part of the famous Rockefeller family -- or whether he is a "powerful" member of that family -- is not material.


 * Please review Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability. Famspear (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alex Jones is not a reliable source but CNN, MSNBC and activist curated Wikipedia are. Got it. 5.90.207.231 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've published numerous sources if you bothered looking. I wouldn't say news of Yao Ming being terrified of Rockefeller is old, old, old, old news. I'm bringing new material to the table that you can't point to having been posted about in the past. The point of this post is to discuss the interview with Russo and the validity of his claims. For me to provide even further proof of Nicholas's existence that other's on the internet have yet to provide, is a significant contribution to this post and anyone interested in this entire story and proving certain aspects of the story true. I've provided a number of legitimate credible sources that prove my claims that Nicholas is a Rockefeller and Nicholas did in fact meet Russo at some point as proven by the photo of them together and other news sources referencing Nicholas with a photo and information that he is a member of the Rockefeller family. What you're saying really isn't making much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1805:23D:1B18:1576:2353:76CA (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for general discussion of Russo or Nicholas Rockefeller. It is a place to discuss the article and any changes to it. If you have a suggested amendment to the article, please post it here. You will need to be able to show that it meets the following core Wikipedia policies:
 * Verifiability - statements in articles must be attributable to reliable published sources. In the case of particularly remarkable or controversial claims more rigorous sourcing standards are applied.
 * No original research - you cannot present your own conclusions or reasoning in articles, only the conclusions of reliable published sources. This includes drawing inferences from the appearance of people in pictures.
 * Biographies of living persons - these policies and others are enforced more stringently in articles which contain information about living people, particularly when they contain material that may be libelous, defamatory or otherwise have negative real world effects on a living person. This will apply to anything the article could possibly say about Nicholas Rockefeller, unless you can prove he's dead.
 *  Hut 8.5  22:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor: Yes, what I am saying makes perfect sense. And as editor Hut 8.5 has also explained, this talk page is not a forum for a discussion of Aaron Russo, or Nicholas Rockefeller, or Yao Ming. Again, with respect to your own proposed language for the article, it appears you are trying to put Statement A from Source A and Statement B from Source B, etc., etc. together to arrive at Conclusion Z -- which appears to be your own conclusion, and not a conclusion made by Sources A or B, etc.

We are not going to "move onto the subject of Aaron's claims and whether we should believe them or not" as you put it -- for the simple reason that this talk page is not the proper place for that. There are plenty of places on the internet for that. Wikipedia is not one of them. Famspear (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wiki has never minded defaming others who go against the mainstream narrative, I’ve noticed-so I think you’re wasting your precious time. Wiki used to be credible and unbiased; however like most things these days- it’s leaned left and no longer published both sides- which is what most of us would like to hear to make our own educated decisions/ opinions. 68.0.37.44 (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, because your posts are attempting to argue the validity of my evidence and conclusions while simultaneously telling me this isn't the place for such a discussion. That appears to be hypocritical. If you're having trouble drawing conclusions based on evidence I provided (which proves everything I claimed true is true) I'm sorry you're unable to accept any source from anywhere on the internet, whether from our own government or major newspapers. But unless you're going to detail what it is you disagree with, haphazardly disagreeing with what I provided while telling me this isn't the place for such a discussion is more inappropriate and pointless than what I was doing.


 * No, you're wrong yet again. You keep veering back to this idea that you're supposed to be presenting "evidence" of things and you're supposed to draw your own "conclusions" from that evidence. Wikipedia is not a digital, virtual "soapbox" on which you can stand to promulgate your views or feelings. It is not a forum for you to discuss Aaron Russo, etc. You're still stuck on this false idea that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the truth or falsity of your material. You're still stuck on this false idea that I or others are supposed to "detail what it is we disagree with" with respect to your evidence or your conclusions.


 * Wikipedia articles are not places for you to insert your own Original Research (as that term is used in Wikipedia) and your own conclusions about things. Instead, look for what OTHER people have said or concluded about the subject (in this case, Aaron Russo). Famspear (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Wrong yet again"... There is no argument here. I'm presenting facts that happen to contradict what you believe, so you're trying to mitigate what I have posted. What I presented silences the doubts presented at the beginning of this thread "As an example, this might be a good way to phrase it in an impartial manner: little credible evidence that Rockefeller has any permanent involvement with the Council on Foreign Relations" etc. (He's listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in the link I provided on their official site). There is a clear bias in the beginning of this thread and what I posted are facts that happen to prove those dismissive bias descriptions wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.36.85 (talk • contribs)


 * Dear IP at 98.189.36.85: No. You have not presented facts, and it's not a question of what I "believe." The rest of the world is not here to "mitigate" what you have posted. What you presented "silences" no "doubts". Read Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and re-read what I wrote above. Famspear (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * He did present a fact, the fact being that Russo relayed a conversation he had with Nick Rckerfeller foreshadowing the 9/11 attacks. If you’re uncomfortable with that fact, that’s your problem. 5.90.207.231 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're just saying I'm wrong without saying what specifically is wrong that I presented, in terms of facts. And, you're arguing what you believe to be true, so when you say it's not a question of what you believe, you're really making it a question of what you believe without acknowledging it. So, you're offering nothing of substance. You're making a statement that I haven't presented facts, when I provided links to official sites, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, which displays his name on their member roster if you bothered looking. "The rest of the world" being you, because you're the only one arguing against sources and rather lazily stating it's all false. I literally provided a link showing that Nicholas Rockefeller is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which was mentioned earlier in a completely bias comment in this thread as not being true. That's one example of what it means to present a fact. Please read the definition of a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.36.85 (talk • contribs)


 * You're going around in circles. No matter how many times you circle around, the rules will be the same. Wikipedia is not a digital, virtual "soapbox". You're still stuck on this false idea that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the truth or falsity of your material. You're still stuck on this false idea that I or others are supposed to "detail what it is we disagree with" with respect to your evidence or your conclusions.


 * Read or re-read the rules, especially WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Famspear (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You're telling me it's not a place to disagree or agree with material, yet you disagreed with facts that I had posted earlier. I'm posting facts and you're disagreeing with the material I'm posting and dismissing it as something that isn't true. I wasn't doing that, you were. Stating that what I'm saying isn't the proper way to approach comments on here while doing literally everything you said I shouldn't do is hypocritical. I addressed a biased opinion near the beginning of this post which you did not acknowledge or address and when I posted sources proving that it was false, you continued to attack those facts by pretending to follow the Wikipedia rules while simultaneously breaking them. You're on a soapbox telling me not to be on a soapbox solely because you don't want to believe the facts.


 * Enough. If you have an actual change to propose to the article, which is consistent with WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, then suggest it here. Otherwise please go elsewhere. This is not a forum for general discussion.  Hut 8.5  06:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Allegations he was murdered
Currently, Wiki says "Russo confided [to Alex Jones] that he suspected a cancer-causing agent had been intentionally and covertly introduced into his system in an effort to eliminate him from the picture."

I watched the entire Alex Jones interview last night. I did not see any reference by Russo to his being murdered. Has anyone else seen anything to substantiate this? Otherwise, I really think this bit needs to be deleted. If no one can provide a proper quotation I shall remove it myself from Wiki in due course.

If Russo did make this claim, it's pretty significant and he should be quoted directly. It's a major aspect of his biography. If he didn't, then someone has purposefully misused Wiki and, in turn, has made Russo sound more outlandish which is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodpolitics (talk • contribs) 10:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed this from the article and anyone who wants to put it back should come up with some better sources for it. The second citation included for this statement doesn't even mention the claim in question and even if it did it is wildly unsuitable for use as a reference.  Hut 8.5  14:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aaron Russo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807045751/http://www.betteontheboards.com/boards/magazine-20.htm to http://www.betteontheboards.com/boards/magazine-20.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327023459/http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ to http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Russo is a conspiracy theorist
Conspiracies Russo promoted: He is the idol of most conspiracy theorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddGrande (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bankers planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks
 * Bankers planned to control humans with chips.
 * The SPLC source is probably usable but may still ideally be attributed, I'm not sure about conspiracyresearch. It appears to be a wiki?  WP:USERGEN likely applies.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Drastic Changes Required

 * I will try to stay objective across the following discussion*

Firstly, I am shocked at the state this page is in. This page currently only has surface level information. However, if you search ‘Aaron Russo’ on google it is possible to find multiple controversial articles such as video links to an interview with Alex Jones. I received 4 links all to different versions of the same video — just on page one!

This interview is controversial, and acts as kindling to many pseudo-factual discussions which occur on the internet. Just the past week I have unintentionally found two anti-vax webpages using this videos of this man (Aaron Russo) as proof of their beliefs.

This interview, and these discussions are essentially absent from this man’s Wikipedia page. Similarly, none of the errors and mistakes made in this man’s documentary ‘America: Freedom to Fascism’, which are referred to in that page are mentioned here.

As a cumulative result, if you only read this wiki Aaron Russo appears to be an uncontroversial and normal Hollywood elite. If we consider wikipedia to be the only place a gullible and naive internet trawler will go after watching (or reading) a claim made by this man this page will provide an incorrect assessment of this man’s life. They will find their views validated by default here.

I don’t believe I’m qualified to do this, but I think this page should receive a preemptive lock-symbol and begin to receive a discussion of the controversy in a similar way to Alex Jones or anyone else of that ilk.

TLDR. This man is controversial, the wiki doesn’t address this, needs to be addressed.

P.s. How do you address this when the majority of discussions concerning this man are occurring within the bubbles that believe him? Edmo496 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)