Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Bush Family Are America's Romanovs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:22 AM
Original message
The Bush Family Are America's Romanovs
From the time of the poisoning of Catherine the Great's husband in 1762 until the Czar and his family were shot in a cellar after the 1917 October Revolution, Russia was ruled by Prussian and Hapsburgian nobles. Today, we would call them Germans. For two centuries, Russia was essentially a huge feudal estate run by and for a small group of Baltic German aristocrats, who maintained their grip on power despite a series of disastrous wars by an efficient secret police. Until the Bolsheviks, the resistance movement was largely ineffectual, riddled with agents provocateur who carried out bombings and outrageous acts of international terrorism. Its democratic opposition thus discredited, Russian autocrats held power for decades after dynastic rule disappeared in most of the other major powers.

Move forward to the end of World War Two. For the second time in a quarter-century, German imperial ambitions have just been reduced to ruins by the western powers and the United States. Russia has thrown off its occupiers and emerged as the Soviet Superpower. It carves off the Eastern half of Germany and the Austrio-Hungarian empires as its own colonial holdings. If you're a German aristocrat, what do you do? You call on your old friends, the Dulles Brothers and the Harrimans.

At the end of the First World War, John Foster and Allen Dulles became Germany's outside counsel through their Wall Street firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, a law firm that had already earned its reputation as "the CIA before there was a CIA." Sulivan & Cromwell, along with William Donovan's competing firm across the street, represented virtually every American corporation doing business in Germany, including Brown Brothers Harriman, the employer of Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush, who are tapped to manage Union Trust Bank, the American holding of German Industrialist and banker Fritz Thyssen. Fritz was head of the German steel trust, the earliest large corporate contributor to the emerging Nazi Party.

Come 1942, Union Trust Bank is seized along with other American subsidiaries of German companies managed by Walker and Bush. Other Sullivan & Cromwell clients, including Standard Oil and DuPont Chemical are investigated by the Custodian of Enemy Property for continuing to trade with Nazi Germany, with which the U.S. is now at war. With good lawyers, nobody goes to jail, and the New York Times buries the story.

John Foster Dulles stays in New York, where he is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee while his brother Allen heads to Switzerland where he will run the OSS office in Bern, the Swiss banking capital which continues to service both sides during the war.

Come the end of World War Two, the Republicans take control of Congress, and narrowly miss winning the 1948 Presidential election. In 1950, Prescott Bush receives a plum from Dulles and is appointed to fill the seat of a retiring GOP Senator from New York. John Foster becomes Ike's Secretary of State and Allen is appointed Director or Central Intelligence two years later. Under the Dulles Bros., America enters a Cold War with the Soviet Union, which almost results in a nuclear exchange after a failed invasion of Cuba and the discovery of nuclear weapons on Cuban soil.

Move forward to 1974. George Herbert Walker Bush, former oilman, Ambassador to China, and head of the Republican National Committee, is appointed CIA Director. He is tapped to be Ronald Reagan's running mate in 1980. With money provided by Islamic bankers and drug barons, he sets up something called the Enterprise, a sort of private CIA, from which the Iran-Contra operation is run, and an army of loyal political dirty-trickster and enforcers are trained and maintained. Despite the scandal, he is elected the 41st President in 1988. Bush invades Iraq in 1992, but rather than occupy the country, Saddam Hussein is left in power.

As the Reagan-Bush era unfolds, another dynasty is nurtured. After the death of Avarell Harriman, his widow Pamela (who had earlier divorced the son of Winston Churchill), by force of charm and deep pockets assumes the role of Grand Dame and kingmaker of the Democratic Party, which she steers to the Right, mentoring a talented and compromised couple into the White House.

That brings us, finally, to George W. Bush, like his father an unsuccessful oilman with huge debts held by the Arabs, is appointed President by the Republican dominated Supreme Court in 2000. The GOP takes control of every branch of government. Following claims that Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons, the US occupies Iraq, and the occupation sinks into a costly mire of continued resistance, casualties, and scandalous payouts to companies aligned with the Administration and the Republican Party. The US economy stagnates, and its industrial base and technology industries are transferred offshore to China and India. American government collapses into a One-Party police state under the guise of an endless "War on Terrorism". That war is started after a former friend of the Bush family and ex-CIA operative organizes a spectacular terrorist attack that topples the tallest buildings on Wall Street. America teeters on the brink of dictatorship, political upheaval, and economic crash, as inflated US assets are bought up, jobs destroyed, and profits sent abroad.

The Bush Dynasty, like the Romanovs before them, are essentially resident managers of a large colony owned by foreign speculators. The Bushes are an alien dynasty kept in power by secret police in order to pay off endless war debts. The future comes down to a race between a determined prosecutor and those within the cabal pushing a yet more devastating and costly war.

Mark G. Levey, 2006

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. I hope the end of their story is not similar
Anybody who believes that we will find much happiness or success out of a revolution is, well, i don't think they are correct.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. There's a difference between description and advocacy.
I'm just a liberal Democrat who's about reached the end of my patience.

BTW: Harriman was Stalin's chief business partner, as well as Hitler's. I also don't want to see history repeat itself, which is why I'm posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. the usa was born in revolution
sure, we should have gone the way of canada... but the truth is that we did not...we revolted..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yeah and it worked for us.
How did it work in Russia? China? Cambodia?

I'd rather work on evolution rather than revolution. There is still plenty of good in the American system.

Bryant
Check it uot --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. perhaps it could have worked better
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. We're more likely to have a bloodless coup than a revolution
Whatever's about to happen, it had better happen soon, or we're going to be in a war we can't win, one that will cost America everything it gained after both World Wars of the 20th Century.

As the Russians learned under the Czars, losing wars are the ultimate transfer mechanism for wealth going abroad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. What would be needed is a "people power" type response
such as state wide strikes (no work) - not just by Unions - but by everyone (all jobs) - and carried out by enough people to grind most businesses and other work endeavors to a stop. Waves of such strikes would likely force series of reforms to begin to restore our democratic system.

Frankly I don't see it coming to that. However, what struck me the other day (after reading a recap of Marcos), is that if the midterms go poorly for the repubs - and those in power fully realize that they are no longer able to manipulate the public to support their party control of govt - that we may witness a very accelerated looting and plundering of resources and wealth from our nation in a last gasp to squeeze out all of the riches that can be squeezed out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. the Romanov ended up being executed...
besides it depends on the contents and results of the revolution, not of the revolution itself. According to you obedience should hav been given to another King George 1776....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Nope
Different historical conditions. The American Revolution was a revolution against a foreign power, so worked differently. In this case a revolution would be against our own government, and the result of that revolution would be to permenantly change our government from what it is now to something else.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. The point is Bryant69, this isn't our government
It belongs to multinationals. They are a foreign power. All major change works differently. I don't expect this to be a repeat of the great social revoltions that Skocpol and Crain Brinton described: the English Revolution of 1630, the French in 1789, the Russians in 1917 or the Chinese in 1949.

We're looking here for a restoration of an older, cherished system of democratic self-rule, not a complete upheaval of the social order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #19
33. it depends how far the collapse goes...
if the current administration (or a coming one) turns the US into a country where the majority is really enduring constant hardships, combined with brutal repression of dissent, you could have a real revolution...

besides the "older, cherished system of democratic self-rule" is IMHO mostly a myth. There are major flaws in the system, even if "on the paper" its seems pretty good. Other democracies have by experience organized other systems of self rule and social protection, which even if not perfect, should be a major improvement to the US system in certain fields...

a new better social order, doesn't mean uppheaval of all social order. But if you are thinking "let's go back to the old system", you are making a serious mistake. The old system was (is) containing the causes of the current debacle (the voting system is one of those components for example). Going back is not an option, evolution towards a better system the only option...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. That's the key - evolution
I'm all in favor of evolution.

The problem with revolution is that it concentrates power - of course our current system does taht as well. But revolution, particularly ideologically driven revolution, i have no faith in.

I'm not in favor of going back to any previous system, I just don't think revolution and particularly violent revolution will get us anywhere (and will in fact take us further away from where we wnat to be.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #37
50. it depends on the revolution's leaders
sometimes revolutions have to turn violent because the sitting power won't leave any other way. But on the other hand revolutions have a tendency to "eat their children". The american civil war can be seen in that light, even if the first revolution years were peaceful compared to the French revolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. All people are bastards
All revolutionary leaders are people
So, all revolutionary leaders are bastards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
36. Bryant, almost half of the colonials considered themselves brits
quite a few returned to England after our little war. Heck, Ben Franklin's son was a governor and strongly opposed the war and freedom for the states. Even some who signed the declaration felt a tug of nationalism in favor of the crown, and hoped to the very end that some sort of reconciliation could happen.

So, to say that we threw out a foreign power is erroneous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. A violent revolution is almost unavoidable.
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 09:40 AM by Selatius
With enough time, all nations go through violent revolutions. It doesn't matter if we're talking about the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, Austria, Iraq, Iran, China, Japan, and many other nations across the world.

The fact is those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. If there is a violent revolution in the US within the next hundred years, it is most likely because powerful groups such as the Bush family brought it upon themselves by preventing change through peaceful remedies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
35. well, we had one here, agin those snotty brits, I seem to recall.
the french threw out their monarchy.
The Chinese threw out some pretty nasty folks, and then sought relations with the US. But, we snubbed Mao, laughed at his comparison of his revolution and ours, and look what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Because if we had made friends with him
there wouldn't have been a cultural revolution?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. a cultural revolution, not THE Cultural Revolution nor the Great Leap
Backwards. How many did Mao cause to die? According to his personal doctor, upwards of 20-30 millions. Starved to death, beaten to death, taken out in midwinter, stripped and tied up, then soaked in water, skin stripped off, burned to death or even buried alive. I wonder if all that would have happened if China and the US had become strong partners, trading scholars, diplomats, and others and building strong ties.

I suspect that Mao truly believed that he was following in the path of American revolutionaries. Certainly, the few communications made public of those early days seemed to suggest that.

Our problem is our myopia. Unless the CIA or DIA or today the NSA, is involved in destroying governments and creating friendly puppet regimes (Greece, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Grenada, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Italy, - damn, it is so easy to lose track of all the trouble we've caused) we can't stand people taking their country into their own hands. It offends our power brokers something awful, so they do their best to destabilize the new freedom fighters and revolutionaries. Even, and especially democratic minded ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. who is mark g. levey?
is this copyrighted...published?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. He is the OP
:hi:

Good isn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
39. better than good!
Fantastic posts. I always read them. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. Me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. nice stuff
well written, thoughtful. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. Remember that the original Prussians were a Balt tribe who were devoted
Pagans. Once the Teutonic Knights were saved from infamy and were invited north to help the Catholic Poles, they proceeded to extreminate the Prussian tribe to the last man and woman. Over time, after many battles for territory, crops, animals and power, the Teutons settled in Prussia and began making plans for diplomatic take overs. Interestingly, their biggest competitor was Rome, followed by Constantinople. Their eventual take over of the Muscovy tribes occured only after the last crusades, after Rome's power was seriously ebbing and after the tribes were becoming more integrated with the Tatars and Saracens who also inhabited what is now Russia.

Of course, for a price, Rome was willing to sell anyone a crown, so long as they swore allegience to Rome. True to their nature, the Prussian aristocrats said one thing and often did another in an effort to consolidate their power. Let's just say that Rome and the German aristocrats trusted each other equally.

Your recent history is also accurate and unfortunately, one that is not taught in today's history classes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
41. Did you know that the Knights of Malta relocated to Russia after Napolean
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 01:20 PM by leveymg
kicked them out of Malta? They were Catherine's original Palace Guard, and kept order at Court in St. Petersburg, never allowing any Czar to rule for more than 30 years, and assassinating several of the more independent-minded Czars.

In this way, Mother Church at Rome captured and ruled the Two-Headed Eagle of the second church at Byzantinium until the Leninists took over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Oh, that's right! Hey, Rome caused much in the way of trouble around the
world. It was at their insistence that stupid historians renamed the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. Only the Durants refused to be swayed by the politicking. I still enjoy studying their work. Pity that many modern historians have accepted the convenient relabeling and spin.

Recall when an extremely short-lived pope tried to stop priests from carrying and using swords, and tried to get the Curia to behave in a "christian" manner, rather than like a bunch of scheming, evil, power-hungry manipulators and money-grubbers? So the Curia assassinated him after a little more than a month in office, then taking his edict to heart, they gave priests the new and improved mace (turned out to be more bloody and deadly than the sword, with longer reach) AND they eventually permitted Loyola start up his spy organization, the Jesuits.

What really pisses me off is how they allowed the 4th crusade to go on. how many tens of thousands of small children ended up in slavery, or more likely, in graves, simply because the popes wanted to grab more land, and crusades seemed to be a convenient way for them to steal, tax, grab or otherwise get more control.



Heck, the soviets may have had their 5 yr plans. The Jesuits have their 50 yr plans and the Curia has 100 and 150 yr plans. A more evil and burro-cratic organization has never existed, not even the Soviet Politburo. Stalin and Hitler were rank amateurs in mass manipulation and large scale murder compared to the church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. The last four paragraphs are the most important IMHO.
Great article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
12. We can only hope that what happened to the first Romanovs.......
.....happens to the second Romanovs and the sooner the better. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
14. Triumph of Death
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 09:48 AM by seemslikeadream
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. kick for the art
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
17. The British royal family is German, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. That's correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. True.
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 10:13 AM by Jawja
But the succession line has married into British blood with the Queen Mother and with Diana.

on edit: K&R Excellent piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
18. I have always found it strange that both Bush and Kerry
belonged to the same exclusive Yale club "Skull and Bones" and wind up running against each other in 2004.

Maybe they were hedging their bets for 2004 because it was too close to call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. There alsways this kind of hedging going on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
21. For centuries
the czars cruelly oppressed the serfs. The image that the serfs carried in their heads was that the czar-their "Little Father" didn't personally do this, it was just that some of his nobles had gone too far. So occasionally the czar would slap down one of the more oppresive nobles and the peasants were satisfied that their "Little Father" was taking care of them. This system worked for centuries until the last czar-who was openly contemptuous of the peasants- which is why he was the LAST czar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Nicolas II didn't appear in public after 1905, except at carefully staged,
controlled events surrounded by his secret police, the Okhrana. Sound familiar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
40. Apparently, he wasn't very bright either.
Who is Rasputin in this scenario? Hmmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
27. K&R this excellent thesis on the Mayberry Machiavellis.
There are many parallels in history. And the Bushes, servants for America's robber barrons, have long fancied themselves some sort of royalty.

If Bushler hadn't been a secret policeman during the "Bay of Pigs Thing" and eventual head of the secret police to protect "The Family Jewels", we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today, at the mercy of the War Party.

The only thing they fear is the one thing that can stop them -- Truth. Way to dish it out, leveymg!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
29. Thank you for writing/posting this.
It gives a very good chronology and perspective to how we ended up here. Very educational and enlightening post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
30. I recently watched a DVD on the Medici
and I found the Bush family eerily similiar to them as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
31. Rove is their Rasputin (sp)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. I had that thought myself when I read the headline n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
32. You should add a blirb about ole ...
Prescott's "Trading with the Enemy Act" bust:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012303A.ma.dead.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
42. Edwin W. Pauley's role in all this needs evaluation imo.
The first link is quite lengthy and focused on the hidden history of financial connections.

"Follow The Yellow Brick Road: From Harvard To Enron"
by Linda Minor 2002
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/lm4,17,02,harvardtoenronpt3.htm

For researchers of the illegal domestic "surveillance" programs of the 60's-70's and the role of Edwin W. Pauley here is an article from the San Francisco Gate about the free speech movement.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/09/MNCFWHERE.DTL

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. I've always thought that Pauley was an important, but overlooked,
power-broker.

When you read about guys like Pauley, the Dulles bros., Murchison, Hammer, Hunt, etc., it makes it clear that what appears to mortals to be Two Party politics in mid- 20th Century America and Cold War rivalries between the US, UK and Soviet Russia were actually just the mechanizations of competing oil and banking syndicates.

That's certainly true today as it was in the beginning of the 20th Century when the great game pitted the Standard Oil-Morgan syndicate against the Royal Dutch Shell-Anglo Persian-Rothschilds bank group.

The faces change, but basic outlines and the strategies of the game are pretty well set. When you see the repeating plays, its not so hard to predict what is to come next.

Not at all irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
43. Relevent?
not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocknrule Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
45. I always thought the Bushes were like the Malfoys
Rich, corrupt to the core, lots of political influence, ties to really evil people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Wow. I just finished re-reading Book 5 today. I kept seeing
so many parallels in the Ministry's attempts to take over the school and completely restrict the flow of information. Creepy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamarama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
49. Of course, you know that would make Rove Rasputin.
Where's Prince Yussupov when ya need him?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC