Anon Op-Ed + Public Backlash = Coup?

[Eric the Green]

(09-14-2018, 05:20 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-14-2018, 10:40 AM)TheNomad Wrote: The very definition of FASCISM is when government rules beside powerful corporations.  FASCISM is consolidation of power between govt entities and corporate giants.

Googlefakebooktwitteryoutubeamazon is "the corporation".

The name could be a lot longer.  And there are many more.

U say don't blame sons for sins of fathers but the Bush family has done a lot of filthy things.  I can't believe you must pack it all up in a neat box and heap the blame onto Prescott and exonerate others.

Its the same Oswald picture.  Neat and no mess.  No further investigation required.  Move along no cabals exist here.

I don't go much for dictionary definitions unless the dictionary definition is official within the profession (as with Black's Law Dictionary or the DMS-V in psychology). Laymen often use such words as conspiracy and paranoia more loosely than do the experts in the fields of law and psychology.

I have my own practical definition of fascism, which implies the ferocity of Bolshevist revolution and the pervasiveness of its propaganda in the service of the reactionary agenda of existing elites. Our President's pep rallies have much in common with those of the late Fidel Castro, stirring up hatred for the enemies of El Maximo Lider. Lider means exactly what it sounds like in English.

The Bush family is on the whole awful. One one-term Bush Presidency was enough. in view of what happened.

As for Oswald -- I wanted to believe that there was some deep conspiracy involving right-wing semi-fascists 



as shown on handbills in the station wagon of retired General Edwin Walker in Texas -- or the KGB. But we find that the scientific evidence indicates that the bullets that felled President Kennedy came from the general direction of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository wherein Lee Harvey Oswald had access because of his work... paradoxically, his pot-shot at JFK would have missed had it not been for a rigid back brace which prevented the President from ducking. He did not know about the back brace, but he took a shot at the President as if his target were an immovable object. Without the back brace, JFK survives, and a bullet lodges in the Presidential limousine.  

No, the back brace is not part of any sinister plot.

American security in 1963 was far more lax than it is today.. but if you want to exculpate Lee Harvey Oswald you must ignore that he was an angry, mixed-up man full of resentments and whose loyalties could turn on anything. Ge murdered a Dallas police officer while in flight, which he would not have done had he not had knowledge of his guilt. This man defected to the Soviet Union and couldn't get along there. We will never know the whole story of psychological pathology of Lee Harvey Oswald, but it is safe to say that he was someone that one did not reasonably want in possession of a firearm. I have known of his type, a troubled young man whose parents urge to join the Armed Forces to straighten him out -- and it often works to drum out delinquency and a lack of direction, both of which military discipline often counteracts effectively. In his case he learned how to get a lucky shot but remained delinquent and without direction as before he enlisted.

I tend to think the nomad is right about fascism and Bush, and it's pretty clear to me that pbrower is right about JFK.

[TheNomad]

If you don't like dictionary definitions, no one can help you.  It means you can make up whatever you want (just like those you call "foe" and their fake news).  How disappointing.

And you say things like "But we find that the scientific evidence indicates....." NO.  You have not seen evidence.  You have not studied the case except through possibly one or more of the OUTLETS you chose to study.  None of us has really studied it to the depth of poring through documents and making connections.  But where we disagree is you act as if you HAVE.  I do not.  I am open to possibilities.  I am also showing THROUGH HISTORY how a many plainly affiliated with the Nazis had a dynastic family who went on to hold the highest offices in the land and many offices of power throughout America.

And they are not just called "Bush" anymore.  They have different names now through marriage, etc.  But Prescott's empire and family dynasty is really no different from Joe Kennedy and that whole tribe.  The Kennedys were no angels either.

Lee Harvey Oswald you must ignore that he was an angry, mixed-up man full of resentments and whose loyalties could turn on anything

Who told you that?  It's back to this again.  Some chosen news source or book or documentary "told you" that.  You did not come to that conclusion yourself.

But anyway, these "elite" families that go back WAY back in our history, they have been involved within themselves and with others of the same ilk to RULE BY FIAT.  There are a set of rules for them, and a whole other set for us. 

I can prove this to you by the idea the current president already accomplished the biggest success he ever could.  Do you think it's about legislation or changing the world?  He has already INSTALLED his family members (sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, IN-LAWS) into the global economic landscape of the future.  THAT is how he legitimizes himself in his own mind.  He can never be a Bush or a Clinton or even a Romney.  But now, JUST by occupying the white house, he has bumped his family and his family name up higher than he ever could without the presidency.  People like Bush and Obama actually have to engage with him now!  In the future.  FOREVER now, they have to stand beside him as a Former President.  

That's what this is really about.  They've made ties with China.  They have made relationships with Russia.  They have made inroads into every political power play that is to be had. His family was not really a TRUE oligarchy until 2016.  Whether impeachment or even arrest and jail, his family has already ascended to that level and rank of power and nothing can change it now.

I encourage you to start doubting your disbelief in such oligarchical THUS cabalistic elite.  Remember, Oswald is just a figure I use to say "um, no it wasn't one guy who crashed the 2008 banking system and went to congress to basically accomplish a heist in the middle of the work day in front of a thousand cameras".  THAT was not Lee Oswald.  It was not an "angry lone nut" who knocked over (sorry, flattened) WTC.  But if it could have been an "angry lone nut" and if that would have been accepted by America, it would have been. 

Instead of Lee Oswald it would just be Lami Osama.  Or, "the ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free".  And instead of a mail-order rifle purchased in Texas (when anyone could in 1963 go into any store in Texas and buy one anonymously) Lami Osama would have a Rider truck of fertilizer with a traceable VIN found miles away from the blast (wait that was McVeigh - another "angry lone nut").  When does the pattern become too obvious for you?  Or just..... never does?

"The ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free" is the reason since 911 for anyone and anything that attacks us.  And we accept it without question.  Oswald didn't have that platform back then.  Nothing he said or did in any trial would have been useful to anyone. 

This may be a bit firm, but it's as if you shot the gun that killed Oswald yourself.  Yup.  You gotta think about it.  You silence him.  Every time you say "angry lone nut" you deny him a trial of any kind.  That's why he was killed.  You may have hearty disagreement with that, but if you then want to move to "Ruby killed him because he genuinely wanted to spare Jackie a trial" u got magic birds flying around your head.

I will NOT turn this into JFK debates but you speak of bullets left in the car and a back brace or something, but that limo had a bullet hole through the WINDSHIELD witnessed by many, and the vehicle was - THAT DAY - air-lifted to Detroit to remove and destroy the windshield and replace it with a new one, and ALL damage to the vehicle fixed that same day, completely restored/washed/cleaned.  Really?  Of course no one knows this at the time.  It gets lost among all the other MANY things happening.  But questions like that pile up really fast.

So many people in this very forum do this exact thing.  The conclusion is already decided.  Then, whatever doesn't fit into the conclusion is destroyed or altered to fit the conclusion.  I don't work like that.

Lastly: I have known of his type, a troubled young man whose parents urge to join the Armed Forces to straighten him out -- and it often works to drum out delinquency and a lack of direction, both of which military discipline often counteracts effectively. In his case he learned how to get a lucky shot but remained delinquent and without direction as before he enlisted.

Lee didn't have parents.  He had a mother.  She did not pressure him to join anything.  And you could never explain how someone you describe above is SENT to Russia after having been trained by our military in the Russian language.  It was never clear exactly what he was doing there and for whom.  Not just that, but how he had not a dime to his name and gets free airfare to and back from Russia -- and is able to return with a Russian bride and 2 children at the height of the Cold War.  You can't explain any of that.  I don't want you to.  Just don't be so closed minded. 

Dummies and angry screamers on the corner don't usually pick up Russian and learn Cyrillic script at the tender age of 19.  But maybe you will say he learned it just because he was bored and spent a lot of time at the library.  Do you mean the libraries during the McCarthy era where everyone was being accused of possible Communist ties?  I think a military operative learning Russian at the library would draw attention.

[pbrower2a]

(09-14-2018, 06:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-14-2018, 05:20 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-14-2018, 10:40 AM)TheNomad Wrote: The very definition of FASCISM is when government rules beside powerful corporations.  FASCISM is consolidation of power between govt entities and corporate giants.

Googlefakebooktwitteryoutubeamazon is "the corporation".

The name could be a lot longer.  And there are many more.

U say don't blame sons for sins of fathers but the Bush family has done a lot of filthy things.  I can't believe you must pack it all up in a neat box and heap the blame onto Prescott and exonerate others.

Its the same Oswald picture.  Neat and no mess.  No further investigation required.  Move along no cabals exist here.

I don't go much for dictionary definitions unless the dictionary definition is official within the profession (as with Black's Law Dictionary or the DMS-V in psychology). Laymen often use such words as conspiracy and paranoia more loosely than do the experts in the fields of law and psychology.

I have my own practical definition of fascism, which implies the ferocity of Bolshevist revolution and the pervasiveness of its propaganda in the service of the reactionary agenda of existing elites. Our President's pep rallies have much in common with those of the late Fidel Castro, stirring up hatred for the enemies of El Maximo Lider. Lider means exactly what it sounds like in English.

The Bush family is on the whole awful. One one-term Bush Presidency was enough. in view of what happened.

As for Oswald -- I wanted to believe that there was some deep conspiracy involving right-wing semi-fascists 



as shown on handbills in the station wagon of retired General Edwin Walker in Texas -- or the KGB. But we find that the scientific evidence indicates that the bullets that felled President Kennedy came from the general direction of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository wherein Lee Harvey Oswald had access because of his work... paradoxically, his pot-shot at JFK would have missed had it not been for a rigid back brace which prevented the President from ducking. He did not know about the back brace, but he took a shot at the President as if his target were an immovable object. Without the back brace, JFK survives, and a bullet lodges in the Presidential limousine.  

No, the back brace is not part of any sinister plot.

American security in 1963 was far more lax than it is today.. but if you want to exculpate Lee Harvey Oswald you must ignore that he was an angry, mixed-up man full of resentments and whose loyalties could turn on anything. He murdered a Dallas police officer while in flight, which he would not have done had he not had knowledge of his guilt. This man defected to the Soviet Union and couldn't get along there. We will never know the whole story of psychological pathology of Lee Harvey Oswald, but it is safe to say that he was someone that one did not reasonably want in possession of a firearm. I have known of his type, a troubled young man whose parents urge to join the Armed Forces to straighten him out -- and it often works to drum out delinquency and a lack of direction, both of which military discipline often counteracts effectively. In his case he learned how to get a lucky shot but remained delinquent and without direction as before he enlisted.

I tend to think the nomad is right about fascism and Bush, and it's pretty clear to me that pbrower is right about JFK.

I've seen the stories on Prescott Bush -- and those stories reek of gross amorality in profiteering with the aid of the Nazi Germany. They are ugly.

Thank you on JFK.

[pbrower2a]

(09-14-2018, 06:57 PM)TheNomad Wrote: If you don't like dictionary definitions, no one can help you.  It means you can make up whatever you want (just like those you call "foe" and their fake news).  How disappointing.

No, I do not accept them as proof, especially when most words have imprecise and even multiple meanings. Thus, "the Giants moidered the Dodgers at the Polo Grounds" does not mean that members of the New York Giants literally murdered members of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Giants won 12-2 or something like that.

And you say things like "But we find that the scientific evidence indicates....."


NO.  You have not seen evidence.  You have not studied the case except through possibly one or more of the OUTLETS you chose to study. [/quote]

Try this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

Quote:None of us has really studied it to the depth of poring through documents and making connections.  But where we disagree is you act as if you HAVE.  I do not.  I am open to possibilities.  I am also showing THROUGH HISTORY how a many plainly affiliated with the Nazis had a dynastic family who went on to hold the highest offices in the land and many offices of power throughout America.

It's hard to be on the side of the Nazis if one is serving in the US armed forces against Japan in World War II as was George H W Bush. You can associate the sons of '43' with questionable things, but certainly not with Nazis.

Quote:And they are not just called "Bush" anymore.  They have different names now through marriage, etc.  But Prescott's empire and family dynasty is really no different from Joe Kennedy and that whole tribe.  The Kennedys were no angels either.

Republics die by going under the effective rule of dynastic families. OK, Trump is new at it, and he is far worse than Dubya, who was often considered the worst President in American history -- until we got the creep that we now have.

Quote:Lee Harvey Oswald you must ignore that he was an angry, mixed-up man full of resentments and whose loyalties could turn on anything

Who told you that?  It's back to this again.  Some chosen news source or book or documentary "told you" that.  You did not come to that conclusion yourself.

Few people have first-hand information. One must believe something, lest one go nuts. Defecting from the Marines to the Soviet Union because he could not get along with America, failing to get along with the Soviet Union so badly that the Soviet Union let him return along with his Soviet-born wife (which is really unlikely)... It is a weird story. I don't see him as a double agent or anything so complex.

Quote:But anyway, these "elite" families that go back WAY back in our history, they have been involved within themselves and with others of the same ilk to RULE BY FIAT.  There are a set of rules for them, and a whole other set for us.

 
Adams. Lee, Taft. Roosevelt. Stevenson. So?

Quote:I can prove this to you by the idea the current president already accomplished the biggest success he ever could.  Do you think it's about legislation or changing the world?  He has already INSTALLED his family members (sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, IN-LAWS) into the global economic landscape of the future.  THAT is how he legitimizes himself in his own mind.  He can never be a Bush or a Clinton or even a Romney.  But now, JUST by occupying the white house, he has bumped his family and his family name up higher than he ever could without the presidency.  People like Bush and Obama actually have to engage with him now!  In the future.  FOREVER now, they have to stand beside him as a Former President.  

With this sort of President we have a Republic in Name Only. This President acts more like a despot or dictator than any President that we have ever had. The pathology is obvious: personal loyalty and ideological alignment matter more than competence. Government becomes a pretext for self-enrichment. Anyone who dissents is an Enemy of the People or whatever the formulation is today. The President arranges and leads Castro-style rallies with a picked audience. Mercifully we still have an independent judiciary, military, and law enforcement... not that the President isn't trying to take away their independence.

Quote:That's what this is really about.  They've made ties with China.  They have made relationships with Russia.  They have made inroads into every political power play that is to be had. His family was not really a TRUE oligarchy until 2016.  Whether impeachment or even arrest and jail, his family has already ascended to that level and rank of power and nothing can change it now.

I could hardly agree more. But note well: some would-be dynasties die when the Big Boss is overthrown, as with Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania. Trump looks as if he will lose at the least the 2020 election, barring electoral fraud on a grand scale.

Quote:I encourage you to start doubting your disbelief in such oligarchical THUS cabalistic elite.  Remember, Oswald is just a figure I use to say "um, no it wasn't one guy who crashed the 2008 banking system and went to congress to basically accomplish a heist in the middle of the work day in front of a thousand cameras".  THAT was not Lee Oswald.  It was not an "angry lone nut" who knocked over (sorry, flattened) WTC.  But if it could have been an "angry lone nut" and if that would have been accepted by America, it would have been. 

Oswald represents the person on a grand purpose without the means to make such work, and he gets infamy for doing something horrible. No single person could have caused the Crash of 2008; indeed, there were plenty of culpable people beginning with shysters who found that it was more lucrative to set up a mortgagee to lose a house to foreclosure in a market with rising real-estate prices, politicians like Dubya who sponsored a corrupt boom whose basis was predatory lending -- all bubbles collapse. Our politicians supported policies that favored speculation over investment in plant and equipment that might create jobs that allow people to afford houses the old-fashioned way.

Quote:Instead of Lee Oswald it would just be Lami Osama.  Or, "the ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free".  And instead of a mail-order rifle purchased in Texas (when anyone could in 1963 go into any store in Texas and buy one anonymously) Lami Osama would have a Rider truck of fertilizer with a traceable VIN found miles away from the blast (wait that was McVeigh - another "angry lone nut").  When does the pattern become too obvious for you?  Or just..... never does?

Mohammed Salameh was part of the despicable cult known as al-Qaeda, and he planted the truck laden with explosives in the parking garage of the Twin Towers building. Timothy McVeigh was up to no good, but nobody knows of any conspiracy except with Terry Nichols, whose wife told him to stay clear of McVeigh.

Quote:"The ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free" is the reason since 911 for anyone and anything that attacks us.  And we accept it without question.  Oswald didn't have that platform back then.  Nothing he said or did in any trial would have been useful to anyone. 

It turns out that jetliners are excellent missiles -- and as Osama bin Laden showed, weapons of mass destruction. Except for Osama bin Laden and people around him, nobody knew. Now we know.

Quote:This may be a bit firm, but it's as if you shot the gun that killed Oswald yourself.  Yup.  You gotta think about it.  You silence him.  Every time you say "angry lone nut" you deny him a trial of any kind.  That's why he was killed.  You may have hearty disagreement with that, but if you then want to move to "Ruby killed him because he genuinely wanted to spare Jackie a trial" u got magic birds flying around your head.

Jack Ruby was a shady character... and a firm believer in John F. Kennedy. He took revenge by shooting Oswald in the spot that would cause the most agony -- the pancreas. Have you ever heard of pancreatic cancer? I would find an indoor use of a hibachi if I had that.

Ruby owned a strip club -- hardly the sort of business that one associates with any but a dodgy character.

Quote:I will NOT turn this into JFK debates but you speak of bullets left in the car and a back brace or something, but that limo had a bullet hole through the WINDSHIELD witnessed by many, and the vehicle was - THAT DAY - air-lifted to Detroit to remove and destroy the windshield and replace it with a new one, and ALL damage to the vehicle fixed that same day, completely restored/washed/cleaned.  Really?  Of course no one knows this at the time.  It gets lost among all the other MANY things happening.  But questions like that pile up really fast.

So many people in this very forum do this exact thing.  The conclusion is already decided.  Then, whatever doesn't fit into the conclusion is destroyed or altered to fit the conclusion.  I don't work like that.

You brought up the Kennedy assassination and some arcane, unattested conspiracy theories. The best explanation of any phenomenon is the simplest explanation that facts support (Occam's Razor).

Quote:Lastly: I have known of his type, a troubled young man whose parents urge to join the Armed Forces to straighten him out -- and it often works to drum out delinquency and a lack of direction, both of which military discipline often counteracts effectively. In his case he learned how to get a lucky shot but remained delinquent and without direction as before he enlisted.

Lee didn't have parents.  He had a mother.  She did not pressure him to join anything.  And you could never explain how someone you describe above is SENT to Russia after having been trained by our military in the Russian language.  It was never clear exactly what he was doing there and for whom.  Not just that, but how he had not a dime to his name and gets free airfare to and back from Russia -- and is able to return with a Russian bride and 2 children at the height of the Cold War.  You can't explain any of that.  I don't want you to.  Just don't be so closed minded. 

So imagine this situation. Your son is living with you, a single mother or a widow... He is not attending college or trade school and he is unemployed or you have erratic employment, as in day labor. He has few friends, or such friends that he has are involved in questionable activities.

Does "Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines!" sound like a solution to her? Maybe!

Quote:Dummies and angry screamers on the corner don't usually pick up Russian and learn Cyrillic script at the tender age of 19.  But maybe you will say he learned it just because he was bored and spent a lot of time at the library.  Do you mean the libraries during the McCarthy era where everyone was being accused of possible Communist ties?  I think a military operative learning Russian at the library would draw attention.

The Cyrillic alphabet isn't hard to learn. What looks like a B gives a "v" sound' what looks like a C invariably gives an "s" sound, what looks like a Y gives an "oo" sound as in moon, what looks like an H is a representation of an "n" sound... and note well that the Armed Forces strongly encourage soldiers to learn foreign languages. Because the Soviet Union was long assumed to be the most likely and most dangerous enemy, it is not surprising that the Armed Forces strongly promote the learning of Russian... and not so that soldiers can read Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский[ or Лев Николаевич Толстой in the original Russian. It's for reading technical stuff, which is easier to read than subtle masterpieces of literature, so the learning is limited.

Learning a language the military way is a far easier use of time than is marching, drilling, doing KP, etc. You can probably figure that if I had spent time in the military as an NCO it would probably be in intelligence, likely examining documents.

[TheNomad]

It's hard to be on the side of the Nazis if one is serving in the US armed forces against Japan in World War II as was George H W Bush. You can associate the sons of '43' with questionable things, but certainly not with Nazis.

You really don't know?  Wealth finances campaigns, it wins campaigns, it influences, it purchases, it gives fortune, it inserts into the right crowds and schools.

I really have to explain?  That was very shocking, I could not read more of your post.  As far as I am concerned, if Nazi wealth went into Bush coffers, it also funded his (and the rest of them) all their political campaigns and made them viable people in the closed circle cabals of things like Skull & Bones and societies where you would never know or associate with people of that CRUST if you were not afforded that privilege through wealth. 

The same above could be said of the Kennedys and the patriarchy making bank to insert all HIS blood into the world stage. 

You can't believe in cabals because somehow, you are unable to make the very simplest connections like "Prescott profiting from the Nazis has nothing to do with his progeny and their political ascension".  <--- that is just a really ignorant statement at best.  Think it over before you respond (seriously).

[pbrower2a]

(09-15-2018, 12:46 AM)TheNomad Wrote: It's hard to be on the side of the Nazis if one is serving in the US armed forces against Japan in World War II as was George H W Bush. You can associate the sons of '43' with questionable things, but certainly not with Nazis.

You really don't know?  Wealth finances campaigns, it wins campaigns, it influences, it purchases, it gives fortune, it inserts into the right crowds and schools.
[/quote]

I think we all know that in an aristocratic society, mediocrities get elevated and talented people from the masses find barriers. Careers open to all? That is an innovative idea of the French Revolution, and not ours. I see our executive elite similar in many ways to the Soviet nomenklatura,  a class of experts necessary for making the alleged worker's paradise work when it lacked the economic rewards
upon which a market society depends as motivations. It is hardly surprising that those experts got their kids into the best schools and out of doing work 'proletarian' in character. Does this sound familiar? As monopolistic tendencies and crony capitalism emerge in the American economy, opportunity itself becomes a privilege often inherited.

It is also possible that certain elites see themselves as operating under a principle of noblesse oblige, defining themselves with public service that includes high political office, support of high-profile charitable activities, patronage of the arts, and even military service.  The best of such cultivate talented people from the masses. The worst?

I can tell you about fascist movements in Hungary in the 1930s and early 1940s; in them the leadership was aristocratic, and it collaborated with the Nazis in killing off the Jews who were much of the Hungarian middle class as competitors with the aristocracy. Aristocratic elites at times are almost as hostile to a market economy as are Marxists.

Know the enemy. Anyone who believes that no human suffering is ever in excess so long as that suffering coincides with their gain, indulgence, and power is the enemy of democracy and all social equity.

Quote:I really have to explain?  That was very shocking, I could not read more of your post.  As far as I am concerned, if Nazi wealth went into Bush coffers, it also funded his (and the rest of them) all their political campaigns and made them viable people in the closed circle cabals of things like Skull & Bones and societies where you would never know or associate with people of that CRUST if you were not afforded that privilege through wealth. 

World War II interfered with the ability of Prescott Bush to profiteer off connections with Nazis, Nazis developing a slave-labor economy that relied upon brutality that would have put the fictional Simon Legree to shame. We will never know what the future was for a Nazi hierarchy after 85 years of its hold on power in Germany. Thank God -- and the Allied armies!

There would have been room for some wealthy German families to wax incredibly rich off the toil of slaves in industry. Nazi Germany was the first country to adapt slavery to an advanced industrial society. (The Soviet Union, when Stalin was trying to force its rapid industrialization, used forced labor).

... Skull And Bones is spooky, but all and all it sounds about as dangerous as the local Masonic Lodge. I do not try to make something out of some organization just for having some strange rituals, which could be dangerous to innocent people. Jewish conspiracy for world domination, anyone?

Quote:The same above could be said of the Kennedys and the patriarchy making bank to insert all HIS blood into the world stage. 

Rothschild? Rockefeller? Krupp? Sassoon? That's before I talk about outright Mafia families.

Quote:You can't believe in cabals because somehow, you are unable to make the very simplest connections like "Prescott profiting from the Nazis has nothing to do with his progeny and their political ascension".  <--- that is just a really ignorant statement at best.  Think it over before you respond (seriously).

Amorality. I see it as nothing more than a profit-and-loss decision on the part of Prescott Bush -- who of course is no longer with us.

[TheNomad]

Skull And Bones is spooky, but all and all it sounds about as dangerous as the local Masonic Lodge.

Fuck "Skull & Bones" I am talking about ACCESS to the most prominent other figures in a society and the only way you get that access is to become one of them.  You say WWII did not allow Prescott to profit off the Nazis, go take a nap.

[Marypoza]

(09-15-2018, 12:46 AM)TheNomad Wrote: It's hard to be on the side of the Nazis if one is serving in the US armed forces against Japan in World War II as was George H W Bush. You can associate the sons of '43' with questionable things, but certainly not with Nazis.

You really don't know?  Wealth finances campaigns, it wins campaigns, it influences, it purchases, it gives fortune, it inserts into the right crowds and schools.

I really have to explain?  That was very shocking, I could not read more of your post.  As far as I am concerned, if Nazi wealth went into Bush coffers, it also funded his (and the rest of them) all their political campaigns and made them viable people in the closed circle cabals of things like Skull & Bones and societies where you would never know or associate with people of that CRUST if you were not afforded that privilege through wealth. 

The same above could be said of the Kennedys and the patriarchy making bank to insert all HIS blood into the world stage. 

You can't believe in cabals because somehow, you are unable to make the very simplest connections like "Prescott profiting from the Nazis has nothing to do with his progeny and their political ascension".  <--- that is just a really ignorant statement at best.  Think it over before you respond (seriously).

-- l think he misread your post. 43 has twin daughters but no sons, & it was Grampa who was consorting with Nazis