Now, I have for a long time believe that the Bushes have been working to insinuate themselves into a sort of American Aristocracy/Oligarchy since Prescott Bush. For the past three generations they have made their plays for the Presidency, and succeeded twice, each time subverting America toward their own ends. Now, I know this is fodder for conspiracy, but I’m going to come right out and say it, I do believe the Bush family is engaged in a conspiracy to subvery American democracy. I think it is willful and conscious and has been a long term plan passed from Father to son every since Prescott rose to power on the back of his Father Samuel’s Standard Oil fortune.
I know people are a fan of scoffing at conspiracies, and believe me I don’t go in for the Illuminati there is a cabal of 9 demons running everything style of conspiracies, but I do think that conspiracy is normal politics by normal means, and that plays for power occur all the time. To think otherwise, is in my mind, naive.
I do not believe that Skull and Bones is a mere Fraternity where people get drunk and wear togas and bone sorority chicks. I think it is much deeper and more far reaching than that. However, I don’t want to get too far outside of what I see as the agenda of the Bush family, which here I will classify as the attempt to create around themselves a hereditary elite, to become American royalty. I think this bears out in the careers of the Bushes from Prescott to W. Neoconservatism has done a great deal to undermine our Democracy, and I think that it is a much longer thread than we generally are willing to accept, because most people do not think in familial dynastic terms.
Now, I am going to bed. I will come back later and see what responses I’ve gotten, and I will flesh this out with more cites for people after I see what kind of responses I get.
If your thesis is true, Old man Prescott must be rotating so fast that you could generate a lot of electricity. Dubbya has put an end to any hope of a Bush dynasty.
And your point is? After all, the same could be said of the Roosevelts and the Kennedys, not to mention a certain family in and around Boston with the name of Adams.
I agree with the OP. It’s not like it’s that unusual for powerful families to try to turn themselves into the permanent government; quite a few have succeeded. I also agree that it’s silly to scoff at conspiracies just because they are conspiracies; on the contrary, I consider them the norm. We just have this odd habit of labeling any conspiracy that’s proven to be true as something else than a conspiracy ( a “hoax”, a “-gate”, a “backroom deal”, a “scandal”, etc ), and go on denying that conspiracies exist.
The Bush family is more repellent, has done more damage to the country, and is the one presently in the White House.
Personally, I don’t want any family to become the American “royal family”, even if they never officially call themselves that. Hereditary rule has a poor track record. One thing I’m glad of, is that it looks highly unlikely that the next President will be a Bush, a Clinton, a Kennedy, or anyone else from a family that’s had a President in my lifetime.
Btw, I’ve known that story for over 20 years- Antony Sutton’s WALL ST AND FDR tells all about it.
Btw, Sutton’s WALL ST trilogy is the best Conspiracy-Theory documentating books I’ve seen (WALL ST AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION, … AND FDR, … AND THE RISE OF HITLER).
The only book I’ve read by Sutton is his ‘America’s Secret Establishment’. He’s quite good and cites his sources quite meticulously, a rare commodity amongst conspiracy theorists. I’ll have to get Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution. Currently I am reading, “Soldiers of Reason: The Rand Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire.”, it’s most illuminating.
I didn’t say it succeeds in rebutting my thesis, only that it is a rebuttal. I am not prepared yet to expand on what I posited in the beginning, as I want to see some other responses before I proceed.
I had to look up ‘subvery’ because I’d never heard it before, and since I didn’t find it I assume you meant subvert :smack:.
So, to what end do you think they want to subvert our democracy? Isn’t that, on some scale, the goal of every politician- to change things around, to run things how they see fit? Do you fear that we are in danger of them succeeding? Are you a declare martial law and suspend elections type, or do you think we can all breathe a sigh of relief next January?
He does have more sources than the Wikipedia article indicates, but ASE is not the most organized & documented of his books, and he can also make wild leaps of conjecture. The Wall St trilogy is much better on all counts.
At least you can admit it. There are some conspiracy theorists out there that I suspect might have a good thing or two to say, and if they could only admit this, I imagine a lot more people would listen.
He’s already said it’s to make themselves royalty in America. Maybe not with titles, but their family would run things in American politics the way the Tudors ran things in England.
No. Subverting democracy means opposing democratic institutions. You know, things like fixing the vote so your guy gets elected no matter what. Like Huey Long did. Or like the Bushes did in Florida in 2000. Not every politician wants to do that.
What’s the name of our current President again? Can anybody help me out there? And what did Karl Rove do exactly to help him get elected?
Hopefully a Dem president and Congress will be careful to dismantle the political machinery that Bush has set up to create the “Imperial Presidency” should they get elected. If that doesn’t happen, democracy in America is in serious trouble.
Most likely to set themselves up as the permanent ruling family, and the Republicans as the ruling party of a one party state. Remember the supposed permanent Republican majority we were going to have ?
At this point no; they screwed up too badly. At least not right away; but they’ve laid a lot of groundwork for a more capable second attempt by someone else.
I think part of the problem is that many Americans use the term “conspire” very loosely, to describe any organized effort. But it’s not really a conspiracy unless secrecy is involved. For example, some might say “The Catholic Church is conspiring to prevent Americans from having access to birth control techniques and medications.” Well, no. Opposition to most forms of birth control is a very public part of Catholic doctrine, there’s no conspiracy involved. The Catholic Church DID conspire to prevent their pedophile preists from being visited with the legal consequences of their actions – secrecy was DEFINITELY involved there.
The point of the propaganda article cited is to mislead one to conclude a Bush family dynasty when one does not exist.
The cite of propaganda in the OP says
“Prescott Bush was of course deep into the business of the Hamburg-America Lines, and had tight relations throughout this period with the new Government that had come to power in Germany a year earlier under Chancellor Aldoph Hitler.”
.
.
The role of the most powerful political dynastic family in the nation’s history in this whole affair is shocking.
all opinions of the author writing to inflame and mislead.
And the lies are perpetuated and reinforced by the ‘assumed’ real people posting to web logs that follow.
1)None of the evidence you’ve provided for conspiracy existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for a conspiracy
2)therefore we have no reason to suppose a conspiracy exists.
