Bush Crime Family Book Series .2 Two Faces of George Bush by Antony C Sutton 1988: Untold History Channel
Summary
Transcript
Welcome, everybody, to the untold History Channel. My name is Ron partain. Today we’re going to jump back into the two faces of George Bush. And today is going to be interesting because I have a new partner who’s going to be helping me read you. Not really, but this little one is just absolutely glued to me. She will not leave me. She will not leave my side. It’s kind of funny.
She just loves to hang out with me. But, but anyway, so this is going to be interesting as she’s kind of coming out of her shell. I picked her up last Thursday, and the first couple of days she was just really shy and whatnot. But now she’s extraordinarily affectionate, which is great. I love it. So come here, baby. Come on. You want to come up here? Come on.
She likes to get up on my shoulder. Anyway, well, it’s been pouring down rain. I don’t know where you guys are in the country, but here in Socal, it is just absolutely and just been nuts. But anyway, I digress. Let’s jump into the book, shall we? And something else. If I’m reading something or people have an issue with how I’m reading, I am absolutely all about constructive criticism and I want to be the best that I can be.
And somebody said in the comments the other day, oh, you’re hard to follow. Why don’t you just be a producer and get different talent and like, well, this is my show, but this is what I would ask of the audience. If you’re tuning in and you guys have something that you want to pass along to me in a constructive way, you think that I could be better, then by all means tell me.
I am absolutely not closed minded to things that I can do to improve, but don’t criticize me and just say I suck and then just walk away. If you have something that you think that I can be better at, then please, by all means pass it on to me because I obviously want to be the best that I can be and I only know me. If you have an issue with something that I do, then let me know.
Like I said, I do not pretend to know all the answers and I want to be the best. So please, by all means pass along constructive criticism. I am open minded to that. I am teachable, but don’t just tell me that I suck and walk away. So anyway, that’s the only ask that I have. Anyway, let’s see. No, I don’t want to do safari. She’s absolutely gorgeous. So she is Bengal and she’s what they call a snow Bengal, but I think she’s got Siamese in her or something, but her eyes, too.
Let me see if I can get her up close to the. You can see her eyes, how? The beautiful blue eyes. And those are her eyes. Almost all kittens are born blue eyes, but those are her eyes forever. Those will be her eyes. So she’s freaking gorgeous. But she’s a pistol, no doubt. She is a pistol. Anyway, yeah. And I’ve learned quite a bit about the. The. In terms of different colorings and patterns, and that was one of the reasons why the breeder up in Vegas area, she had these called melanistic, the black ones, and they’re all black.
And apparently the melanistic Bengals are very rare. There’s only, like, one or only a couple of authorized breeders in North America, and they go for, without papers, like $5,000. Anyway, she made me a hell of a deal, so I couldn’t say no to that. And then I found another somebody else who had a silver. This is like a gray, all gray. I. I do. I’m going to do a YouTube channel on that.
I got to reorganize my little office area here so that I can make it video friendly, because I don’t want to say it’s messy, but it’s not the way I would want to have it to be presentable for a video. But I’ve got a couple of pretty big pieces of exercise equipment that I need to move out of here into a different room. I need to get that done first before I start shooting.
Let me read some of the comments here. And for the most part, I do ignore the critics. I do ignore the critics. But I mean it sincerely that if you guys feel that I could be better at something, then please tell me. I want to know. I want to be the best, or I want to be the best me, that I can be the tomcat. Let’s see. Where are you, jfigs? Where did you say you were? I don’t remember where you said you were in the country.
But anyway, I digress. Let me get into some of the book here, and then we can come back and I’ll dig into some of the comments later. But make this a little bit bigger so I can see it. Chapter three, Bonesman Bush. Oh, that’s right. You’re in New Jersey. That’s right. Without question, the single most damaging flaw in the bush drive for the presidency is also by far the least known.
George Bush is a member of a secret society whose members are sworn to absolute secrecy. They may not admit membership, nor may they even discuss membership in the presence of nonmembers. The secret society is skull and bones. Founded in 1833 at Yale University, George Bush was initiated in 1948. One researcher has spent several years in an attempt to have Bush fulfill a public duty to admit this membership and so present an open book to the electorate, to the electorate above his oath of allegiance to a future or to a furtive secret society with apparently satanic initian rights.
Here is an extract from a report submitted by researcher Richard A. Land Kamer of Houston, Texas. When I wrote to Vice President Bush regarding his membership in Skull and Bones approximately two years ago, the end result was that Mr. Bush adamantly refused to either affirm or deny his membership in Skull and Bones. In the second letter, dated February 1984, from Vice President Bush, then acting press secretary Shirley M.
Green, I was referred to Yale University directly in response to all of my questions regarding VP Bush’s membership in Skull and Bones. This letter also referred to Skull and Bones as a college organization. In her first letter to me, dated December 13, 1983, Ms. Green alleged that Vice President Bush’s public career has been conducted in great openness to the press for scrutiny of his performance. It’s Ms. Green’s evasive double talk that can get the VP into trouble.
This writer also asked the White House about Bush membership in Skull and Bones and was informed that the VP had never belonged to a sorted secret society. However, the question was phrased as follows. Was the vice president ever a member of Skull and Bones? It was subtly, or perhaps not so subtly, rephrased to include the word sorted not in the original question. Mr. Bush has a problem. We have in our possession the only copy of the Skull and Bones membership list outside initiated members.
It is the 1983 two volume set divided into living and deceased members. We reproduced parts of pages 25 and 26 with George Bush’s name. Mr. Bush was sworn into the 1948 club or cell. Mr. Bush has also taken a solemn oath never to divulge or discuss membership, which is more important than oath to a juvenile secret society or an oath of office to the United States, which requires openness with the electorate.
Mr. Bush will neither admit nor deny membership. This is not enough. We say Mr. Bush is a liar if he denies membership. We also say Mr. Bush has broken his oath if he admits membership, what George Bush promised in an oath to his fellow bonesmen in order to place their common initiation bond above the people of the United States. We reproduce on pages 17 to 21 of this chapter, pages from the secret membership list of skull and Bones pages 22 and 23 indicate how seemingly persons of different political philosophies are bound together by oath in a secret society.
This bond presumably is tighter than their public pronouncements or on ideology made by these members. Pages 188 and 189 give more information. They list the members in each club or cell from 1932 through 1949. A key point is that each club chooses the membership of the succeeding club. Club 1948 contains George Herbert Walker Bush, who with 14 fellow brothers, chose the club of 1949. The club of 1949 includes Reverend W.
Sloan Coffin, Jr. The antiwar cleric with a decidedly offbeat revolutionary fervor based at the old time Riverside Church, New York. Sometimes it appears that everything stemming from marxist revolution in the United States also stems from Riverside church. The church has been host to persons ranging from the KGB to peace movements to Cora Weiss, whose minions financed the Institute for Policy Studies, the extremist think tank in Washington, DC.
In the same cell as revolutionary coffin, we find C. E. Lord. Generations of Lord families have always had representatives in skull and bones. This lord was comptroller of the currency. Also P. W. Lufkin of the firm Donaldson, Lufkin and Generet Van Dyne was a long term CIA operative, as was William Sloan Coffin. All, however, are sworn by common oath not to divulge their activities. The leadership of both major parties is essentially controlled by members of Skull and Bones.
As we have noted, the Bush family is skull and Bones. Gary Hart, who was the one time unfortunate leading democratic candidate, is scrolling key. Another Yale society, usually known as a weak sister of skull and bones. Again on the democratic side, Senator John F. Kerry, only two years in the Senate, was chosen by the Senate to head the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Kerry is skull and Bones. The chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign committee was, at the time of going to press Senator John Hines, also a member of Skull and Bones.
In brief, the key positions the leading candidates are members of a secret society bound together by an oath of silence. And then this is page 17, Bush entries in the Skull and Bones catalog of members and biographical entries, pages 25 through 26. And I’m not going to read all these. We’ll just scroll through them briefly. You guys can pause the video if you want. Actually, let’s look at the list real quick.
Ashley Bigelow, Bush, Culkins, Clark, Connolly, Cook, Grimes, Jenkins, Mack, Mosley, Pafao, Walker, Weaver, and Wilkie. 49. Barry, Balt, Bassett, Coffin, Davidson, Goodyear, Hollister, Lavelli, Leaper, Lippencott, Lord Lufkin, Raymond, Cheryl van Dyne Wickenwire or Wickwire. Pages from the secret membership list, pages 22 and 23 include William Buckley, conservative, followed by Frederick McGeorge Bundy, liberal uncle of McGeorge Bundy, Skull and Bones, 1940, and W. P. Bundy, Skull and Bones, 1939.
And I don’t know how many of you guys remember William Buckley, but William Buckley was the. He was essentially like the conservative in a way. He was kind of like the rush Limbaugh of the early 80s, but he was skull and bones. Let’s see. I’m not going to go through all of these because it doesn’t really matter. I mean, it matters, but it doesn’t matter for the purposes of what we’re doing here.
And then these are the pages from the secret membership list of from 1933 to 49. And again, I’m just going to go through these slowly. So if you guys want to pause the video, you can and look at the names. Let’s see. Okay, so the Dunesbury cartoon by Trudeau, March 1986. As explained in this chapter, Vice president George Bush is an initiative. Skull and Bones Club, D 146, the Yale Secret Society and Career springboard for establishment elitists.
Less well known is that Gary Trudeau, the cartoonist who draws the highly popular Dunesbury, is also an initiate of skull and Bones, reported in success of May 1987. Consequently, it is unlikely that Trudeau would cartoon fraternity fellow Bush in a bad light. And this likelihood should be considered as you read the next paragraphs. The last frame of the cartoon is intriguing. The balloons read as follows. Thank you, Mr.
Vice President. Shall we set up the hoops now? I love this part, says the gentleman on the right with a smile on his face. What meaning does Trudeau intend to convey with the set up the hoops now? It’s elusive. Basketball fans would say the political group is about to get some basketball practice or game underway. But can one put a basketball practice or a game in a new right meeting addressed by vice president of the United States? The vice president has been a sports enthusiast, but this is not widely known and is not included in its official biographies.
So intrigued, we made some inquiries about double meanings for the phrase set up the hoops now and came up my freaking mouse. I don’t know if you guys notice it, but how the scrolling, if I’m scrolling down and then it pops back up. It just does that and I don’t know why it’s done it for a long time. It’s just frustrating to me. I was airing my frustration.
So intrigued, we made some inquiries about double meanings for the phrase set up hoops now and came up with a shattering alternate explanation in contemporary drug sling. To set up the hoops is code phrase used when users want to get together to fix without others in the room being made aware of their intent. In this slang, to set up the hoops means to fix, I. E. To set up cookers, syringes, etc.
For use of heroin or cocaine intravenously. You, the reader will have to choose among the following alternative explanations. Trudeau was unaware of the slang use of to set up the hoops. Trudeau intends to convey the idea that a new right group and the vice president would get into basketball practice after a Bush political confession. This is certainly not humorous and is far fetched. Trudeau knew the slang use of set up the hoops when he drew the cartoon and used it knowingly when he made the drawings.
This interpretation has shattering implications. Four set up the hoops has a hidden meaning for skull and bones initiates and they relish in hidden symbolic statements. Is Trudeau telling his fellow initiates that skull and bones? Is he telling fellow initiates in skull and bones something? We also note bush links with drug using and smuggling figures in chapter eleven. These links include Conan, David Owen C. Page 80 and Jim and Tammy Baker C.
Page 58. In brief, we have other curious links to bush to cocaine using circles. And that’s from the Washington Post, May 13, 1987. Let’s see. So it. Let me do something here. Let me open this up in a different. In a different. Make it so that this is visible for us here. Let’s see. It’s it. And this one. Turn the page that way. It’s okay. So let me make this bigger and see if we can’t make out what he’s saying here.
Let. It’s not going to really work out too when maybe what I’ll do is I’ll upload is I give you the next president of the United States and McGeorge Bundy with Avril Harriman, Winston Lord and William Buckley. And then George Bush is in a. That is. And then this is Reverend Falwell down here. He’s got my vote. Underground cartoons of George Bush. Links to skull and bones satanic practices and Reverend Falwell, Avril Harriman and other powerful establishment figures.
And then you see this is a six six six symbol here. This is the all saying I. And then this is a. Looks like it’s a pentagram. And then the clock is at Yale and it’s at midnight or twelve noon. But anyway, I digress. Let’s see. Okay. Chapter four. Bush, the oil man. This is the problem. She is clumbing all over the keyboard and it makes the thing jump.
George Bush started his business career in Texas oil as a salesman for dresser industries of Dallas, Texas. We will come back to Dresser later in this chapter. After leaving the US Navy, Bush was two years with dresser. Prescott Bush was a director of this oil supply company which has long standing links with Soviet Union. The Bush family then set up George Bush in his own oil and gas lease business as president of Bush Overbee development company based in Midland, Texas from 1951 to 53.
Bush then became cofounder and director of Zapata Petroleum of Corporation of Midland, Texas, incorporated in Delaware in 1953 and merged with Walker Bush Corporation in 1955. In 1954, Zapata Offshore Company of Houston, Texas was formed with Bush as cofounder and president from 1954 to 64. And then chairman of the board from 64 until 66 when Bush became republican congressman from the Texas 7th district. In brief, Bush’s money came from Texas oil.
In this he was always associated with H. L. Leidke. Leideke was, for example, president of Zapata when George Bush was vice president. And Bush then gave Leidekey favorite treatment when Bush entered the political scene. We cannot trace why the name Zapata was chosen. It would make an interesting story. Why would an alleged conservative republican vice president of an oil company named after Emilio Zapata, revolutionary guerrilla fighter, killer and allied with Poncho Villa, the revolutionary forces? The Zapatas spent a decade fighting the mexican constitutionalist forces under Alvaro Obragon.
And this is the name chosen by Vice President Bush for an oil company. Zapata developed a constructive relationship between Bush and Lightkey. In 1977, for example, Bush and Leidekey went to China, Bush in an official capacity. Knowing this, the Chinese made their confidential oil surveys available to Leideke, the only oil company to receive these surveys. This gesture was obviously because of Bush’s official position. More recently, Penzoil, a leadkey company, has been the recipient of the largest damages award in american history.
Texaco was charged with interfering with a merger deal made by Penzoyle and Getty. For this, the judge awarded a phenomenal $12 billion damages, a sum that, if paid, could break Texaco. Oddly, no one has investigated possible Bush influence on the outcome of the subsequent appeal, which was settled at $4,000,000,000. 01 year later, another company, Zapata Offshore company, was founded with George Bush as president and J. H. Lightkey as treasurer.
This has become a highly successful operator in offshore drilling for oil. More recently Bush’s son has been president of Zapata offshore. I don’t know which son he’s referring to there. This explains why the vice president personally flew to Middle east, or to the Middle east in early 1986 to persuade the arab countries to raise the price of oil, which had, to the delight of the average citizen, fallen once again below a dollar a gallon.
Bush used the argument to the Arabs that us security depended on a rise in the price of crude oil. Then $12 a barrel on the spot market, with operating costs at $2 a barrel, Arabs were making eight to $10 a barrel. But this was not enough for the vice president and his Texas oil friends. This Middle East Bush visit triggered concernation in the White House. Here was the vice president of an administration devoted to free markets, encouraging use of oligabilistic.
I know I butchered that practices to raise the price of crude, said one White House official with reference to Bush. I don’t know what he’s up to. The Wall Street Journal, April eigth, 1986. The Reagan administration hastened to put some distance between itself and vice president, and a vice president who apparently only got tough when crude oil prices started to fall to the advantage of the american consumer.
And then Bush, the oil man. Emiliano Zapata, organization of American States and then securities and Exchange Commission form ten K Zapata oil, said another official. Look, the policy is and remains free market. That’s the core of the policy. The reason there’s no oil import fee is because the decisive vote against it was cast by Ronald Reagan. There were even expressions that in hastening to the end of or to the aid of the high oil price Arabs, Bush may be digging himself a political hole for the 1988 elections.
This prompted some Bush double talk. I’m in a listening mode when it comes to the intentions of these major producing countries. And again, the interest of the United States is bound to be cheap energy if we possibly can. But from our interest, there is some point where the national security interests of the United States say, hey, we must have a strong, viable domestic industry. This is political double talk at its worst.
When we need the Saudis in 1987, or when we needed the Saudis in 1987 during the Iraq attack on the stark, they refused to aid us. And it was dresser industries, founded with the Friends of the Bush family that has been the major assist in expanding soviet crude oil production to compete with us and Arab crude. And I want to think about this for a second here, because keep in mind this book was written before he was president.
But think about when he lost in 92. So if he had connections all over the Soviet Union, and I thoroughly believe that he threw the 92 election to lose on purpose to make Clinton president. And all the stuff that he did when he went over to, he was involved in a lot of the stuff after Russia tanked or after Russia collapsed. So he was very intimately involved in a whole lot of things going on in Russia.
And then of course, I don’t know if you guys have ever seen the 45 minutes video on the names and connections associated with 911 and how there was a tremendous amount of ten year bonds and whatnot that had been put into place and they came due right about that time. I think they came due on September the twelveth. So they had to have 911 happen so that the prying eyes of the SEC to verify bond ownership for the payouts and all this other stuff, they couldn’t have that.
So they couldn’t have those prying eyes looking on them because of the criminal activity that had been done there. They had to essentially make it so that they could get those underneath the scrutiny of the SEC. Anyway, that’s a whole nother video on another topic, another day. But I just find it interesting that he has such, this is in 1987 time frame when this book was written and they’re talking about his deep connections with Soviet Union, Russia.
Interesting that the only time one finds non wimpish behavior on the part of Bush is when oil interests and family business interests are at stake. Crude oil prices promptly rose $2 a barrel right after the Bush Middle east visit. This resolute action on behalf of big oil accounts for the proliferation of oil company contributions to the Bush Political action Committee or PAC Fund for America’s Future. Probably one third the contributions came from Midland, Dallas and Houston, Texas.
And I’m not going to go through that. Chapter five fast track. Bush privilege is well known to have its advantages. And in the case of George Bush, born into a privileged, elitist eastern establishment family, the advantages have been numerous. A fairly brief business career built around Texas. Oil was financed by the Bush family. Zapata had the advantages of Bush investment banking connections and family wealth built from scratch.
Starting in 1953, Zapata’s 1985 annual report listed revenues of well over one quarter billion dollars from a fleet of offshore drilling rigs. This relatively unknown company today employs some 7300 people. Not bad for a. What happened to this thing is so frustrating to me? Not bad for a 30 year old company built from an idea. However, Zapata owes its success more to an ability to negotiate contracts with large international oil companies in competition with some 140 other offshore drilling companies, Zapata has been more than willing to take advantage of government financing programs and especially us government guaranteed ship financing securities at the favorable interest rate of eight and five 8% subsidized by the US taxpayer.
The Bush fast track in business can be traced to family connections combined with judicious use of government financing and assistance rather than good old american free enterprise. It is, however, in the geopolitical field that the real fast track, elitist favored son, George Bush, shows up. George Bush has had a remarkable political career. Bush apparently tackles a political objective, falls flat on its face, and is then guided by his elitist friends into a more coveted position by political appointment.
In 1963, Bush got elected chairman of the Republican Party in Harris County, Texas, and was a Texas delegate to the 1964 Republican National Convention. Under a cloak of Goldwater conservatism, Bush campaigned for the US Senate in Texas against the liberal Democrat incumbent Ralph Yarborough. Beating off conservative primary candidates, Bush grabbed the republican nomination, only to lose to Yarborough by 300,000 votes. But his father, Prescot Bush United States senator, was determined that his son George should have a political career.
The following exchange was recorded in Texas Monthly magazine by Harry Hurt II between Prescott Bush and Houston Republican James A. Bertrand. The Bertrand family is skull and Bones. Prescott Jimmy, when are you going to get George involved? Bertrand senator, I’m trying. We’re all trying. Bush made two unsuccessful stabs at the Senate, losing both times. Running as a Goldwater Republican, Bush actually held left liberal political opinions, opposing, for example, repeal of the federal income tax for gun control and a dove on Vietnam.
A public facade of conservatism can be traced throughout the Bush political career, over our career, but is inconsistent with voting records and political actions. Bush basically is a compromiser, reasonableness as he terms it, generating a wimp image. In 1966, with backing from family, friends, and the establishment business community, George was elected to Congress from a safe, affluent Houston district. From that point on, Bush adopted what has become known as the Eastern Establishment position, a weak, unprincipled mishmash of policies that has brought no win war and economic chaos to a once prosperous, proud United States.
As a freshman congressman on the fast track with elitist backing, Bush was given an unusual honor, an immediate seat on the House Ways and Means committee. It was reported Washington Post magazine, September 20 eigth, 1986, that Bush got this coveted seat through pressure from Democrat Wilbur Mills, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and then leader of the House Jerry Ford, a Republican. This fast track treatment. Honor went to Bush’s head.
Ambition was all too easily fulfilled and Bush immediately set his eye on the Senate for the second time, where a prudent man would have made a name for himself in the House and then, after multiple terms and hard earned political record, moved to the Senate chamber. Bush, the eager beaver, waited only two terms and ran again for the Senate in 1970. To lose and throw away the opportunities and status brought by family and business contacts.
Once again, privilege came to George’s assistance. To throw up a safe congressional seat on a premature wild gamble for the Senate demonstrates a lack of judgment. This lack of judgment was rewarded by the establishment with a coveted appointment. In February 1971, Bush became us ambassador to the United nations. His activities in the post we will come back to later. In January of 1973, this unsuccessful, artificial political career was boosted once again, this time by appointment as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
The Republicans, in a death wish which had allowed the Democrats to promote Jimmy Carter instead of choosing a seasoned, proven, hard nosed politician, chose a two time Senate loser who needed outside influence to make his way in Congress and a loser who was deeply suspect by constitutionalists within the Republican Party. After 18 months at the National Committee, George once again ached for change and without leaving any memorial at the Republican National Committee, was appointed by his friends as envoy to the People’s Republic of China to replace an ailing David Bruce.
This came about because of the Nixon Kissinger change of face, I. E. To treat communist China as an ally rather than as a threat to a constitutional United States. However, as more than one commenter has observed, principle is not a George Bush hallmark. His approach has been called gutless pragmatism. In other words, a shifting, of course, effortlessly from position to position irrespective of principled consistency. The Bush voting record as congressman opposed increasing national debt limit under Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, but voted to increase the limit under Republican President Richard Nixon.
Consistently voted for foreign aid and giveaway programs, including those programs that supported and kept in power various marxist regimes around the world. Voted for the Family Assistance act, voted to remove the gold cover from the US currency, voted for the 1968 Gun Control act, and then had the nerve to tell a 1980 audience that he opposed gun control. And I don’t know if you guys are familiar with the 1986 Gun Control act, but that’s essentially what created the ATF as I understand it, and it was what created prohibited possessors.
It also. Well, and a lot of the things that happened as a result of the 86 Gun Control act. The 1968 Gun Control act was the second major piece of federal legislation on firearms, the first one being the 1934 National Firearms act, or NFA, as they say. And then the Gun Control act is called. They call it the GCA. But anyway, it was very much not good for firearm ownership.
Bush voted for the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act. Bush voted for the extension of the National Science foundation into social research, far from its original objectives. Bush supports the federal office of Education. Of course he does. In the Bush China policy, we find the Bush pragmatism at work. Actually, pragmatism is no policy. A shifting change of ideas and approaches determined by temporary advantage. Time. Let’s see. That was Time magazine, February 22, 1982, page 22, reported Bush pragmatism as his conduct suggests that he has an expedient political positions, not deeply held convictions.
Time can hardly be accused of being anti Bush. After all, the journal itself was founded by a dozen members of skull and bones, the Bush family fraternity at Yale. The Bush China policy reflects a pragmatic image which, incidentally, over the long run, comes across as a wimp approach to the world. In 1964, while running for Congress, the Bush was against admitting Red China to the United nations. As reported in the american opinion, September 1982, page 100.
Bush stated, if Red China is admitted to the United nations, then the UN is hopeless and we should withdraw. But as ambassador to the United nations in 1971, Bush worked for admission of communist China and again was reported. My own view is that it is in our national interest to have normalized relations with China as soon as possible. China should never be slighted in our foreign policy. And if memory serves correctly, the way the United nations is formed, you’ve got the five main allies of World War II are what they call the Security Council.
You’ve got the United States, England, France, Russia, and China. But the China that was in the United nations before they normalized relations with China was like Taiwan was Taiwan. And then when they began normalizing relations with China, then it became communist Chinese, so it became the People’s Republic of China, as opposed to Taiwan. I don’t know how well you remember the movie Top Gun, but if you look at Tom Cruise’s jacket on the back, it has a picture of basically the flag of Taiwan.
And that was the national flag of China. And it’s an homage to the bomber jackets of World War II that the guys who flew, I think, what was it, the doolittle raid against Tokyo. They wore that on the back of the back of their jackets, so when they got to China, guys would know that they were friendly with them. Anyway, I’m going down a rabbit hole there. But the point of the matter is that, and this was a big deal back in the early seventy? S in terms of the United nations and China.
And then Bush was the second. I think he was either the first or the second primary ambassador to China when he went over there. And he was essentially laying the foundation for getting all of the american jobs into all the factories over in China, outsourcing all the jobs of the manufacturing jobs in the United States, outsourcing them to China. I mean, the guy’s just an absolute fucking douchebag.
I don’t know a nicer way to say it yet. As we see later, the Bush family and associates in such firms as dresser industries has been a prime supporter of building the soviet oil industry, the Soviets large supplier of former wait a second here. I think I missed a paragraph here utterly inconsistent with the 1964 Antichina statement and the Bush reason for the changing in position. We should be on China’s side.
The threat to the free world today does not come from China, but from an aggressive Soviet Union. That was from the New York Times, March 24, 1980. Yet, as we see later, the Bush family and associates in such firms as dresser industries has been a prime supporter of building the soviet oil industry, the Soviets large supplier of foreign exchange and a means of financing world imperialism and terrorism.
Communist China did not apparently agree with Bush. He remained only a year as China envoy and then received another coveted boost, this time to Directorate of the Central Intelligence Agency, one of the most sensitive positions in the United States. Nothing in the previous Bush career suggests intelligence orientation. In fact, as conservative Digest from January 1984 reported, he’s foggy on some of the most basic principles. Bush had never administered a large government department and had never been involved in intelligence gathering or operations, had no military operations experience, that is, staff work, and had never demonstrated the specialist knowledge required for intelligence.
Yet from January of 76 to January of 77, Bush was director of the CIA. It is from this period that we can trace the deterioration of CIA activities. Some of the better CIA old time operations were fired or eased out, as we found to our cost later in the 1980s. CIA was also too much for George Bush. His one year stint, which, looking back, was probably instigated to have his personal biographies look good, was over in 1977, and he resigned to become a member of the executive committee of First International Bank Shares, Inc.
The largest of the Texas bank holding companies. In 1980, to the dismay of conservatives, Bush was selected to run with President Ronald Reagan for the presidency and vice presidency of the United States. On the Reagan ticket, Bush made it to within a heartbeat of the presidency itself. In brief, nothing in the Bush business or political career suggests that Bush has any significant ability. He has an ability to fall flat on his face and then, with elitist help, work out a year in a coveted appointed position.
That’s about the sum of it. All right, pause here and check the chat. Let’s see. Ever read the book by Rush? I know I have not, but actually, I have it. I do have it. Family of secrets. I’m not going to say I haven’t read it cover to cover, but I have opened it up and looked at pieces of it, and it’s not flattering. Let’s see. Yeah. Jfigs, I don’t know if I’m sure you guys know this, but I served on the USS New Jersey, so, you know, I have.
I have a little fondness for New Jersey, but not because of the state. It’s more because of the ship. Hello there, Shannon. How you doing? And CPA Deb. Okay. All right, chapter six. Bush, internationalist, anti american. As vice president of the United States, and earlier as director of the Central Intelligence Agency and United States Representative to the United Nations, George Bush has taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
In fact, looking back over the Bush career, the oath of allegiance must have been taken on many occasions, from induction into the US naval reserve onwards. Now, elementary logic suggests that one cannot have a dual loyalty if the oath of allegiance is taken to the United States and its constitution, and then no other conflicting oath or statement can be made or supported. Yet George Bush is on record also as a supporter of globalist design known as mundialization, presumably taken from the latin word mundus, or world mundialization.
Popular during the 1970s is a process by which a town or city unilaterally abdicates from the laws of its own country and declares itself a world city. To quote the promoters of mundalization, the city becomes a fragment of the world territory linked to the community of men. A number of communities in countries as far apart as Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, India, and Britain have made such unilateral declarations, thus divorcing themselves from the mother country to become part of a mythical world community.
For example, on February 20, 1967, Dundas, Ontario, Canada declared itself mundalized, and the city adopted the following steps to demonstrate rejection of canadian sovereignty. A to fly the United nations flag beside the Canadian Maple Leaf and b raise annually an amount equal to 0. 1% of city taxes to be donated to the United nations, which already has a surplus of high priced, useless, tax exempt bureaucrats. Adoption of bundleization is also rejection of national sovereignty.
No city or community has the power to do this without due constitutional process. No more can any individual declare himself above the law and opt out of a constitutional process. That is what the whole process of orderly government is about. Mondalization is no more than polite subversion. The first american city to join the new world order by the mundalization process was Richfield, Ohio. At a dedication ceremony, November 22, 1970, city officials abandoned their oath of office and raised the United nations flag alongside the United States flag.
At the time Richfield adopted mundalization, George Bush was the US representative to the United nations. To abide by his oath of office, George Bush should have scorned the improper legal procedure in his relations with the United States. To the contrary, Bush sent the following message to congratulations to the city, thus encouraging an unconstitutional act and simultaneously breaking his oath of office. Permit me to congratulate you and the other members of your community on your proclamation of mundalization.
There cannot be anything more encouraging to us here than to hear from a community like yours that supports the United nations and believes in it and its importance to the establishment of world peace. Equally significant is your community’s commitment to help increase understanding among the peoples of the world. For without that understanding, peace among peoples can never be achieved. What a profound contribution Richfield is making to man’s greatest efforts to build a world in which all the pledges of the United nations charter will truly govern relations among nations.
This naive support of subversion of the constitutional process was recorded in the Richfield community. News and calendar, May 1970, as follows. Richfield’s actions may have been especially commended by the Honorable George Bush, United States Ambassador to the United nations, by Senator Stephen Young, and by Congressman Charles Mosier. The enthusiastic support of George Bush was also recorded in the localization news. In an article by John P. Myers, we made all the big news services and had coverage in both Cleveland and Akron.
We received congratulations from many, including Utante was, I want to say Utant was like the secretary general of the United States or the United Nations. Senator Stephen Young, United States Representative to the UN, George Bush, and representative to Congress, Charles Mosier. A symbol was chosen, an official committee formed, and we were on our way just of and by itself. This Bush action tells us that he is unfit to be president of the United States.
It takes no great thorough or no great thought to understand that mundalization is utterly inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. No government official can support, condone, or approve in any way or a surrender of the United States sovereignty. At that time, Bush was an officer of the United States government. Bush clearly broke his oath of office in a word, community. If a word. If a world community comes, it has to come only by the constitutional process, not by federal officials who jump every time some Dreamer promotes a self serving device to erode national sovereignty.
This support for mundalization was echoed in Bush’s membership in the Trilateral Commission, a private, powerful organization founded and controlled by David Rockefeller, former chairman of the chaseman of Chase Manhattan bank. The trilateral commission had 200 or so members worldwide selected by David Rockefeller and had an extraordinary influence in government. We reported in the former and the trilateral observer that the trilateral game plan to win the 1980 presidential election surfaced in the Iowa caucus.
An article in the Des Moines Register, January 28, 1980, by professor of politics Nicholas O’Barry opened as follows. Jimmy Carter’s strategy for defeating Edward Kennedy has had the unintentional effect of wrecking Ronald Reagan, boosting George Bush, and raising issue that promote a republican victory in 1980. Barry goes on to outline the foreign policy errors of Carter and how traditionally such errors had opened the gate to a republican victory.
Barry concluded that Carter has practically insured his own defeat and adds, when the bubble bursts, there will be George Bush. George Bush, the foreign policy expert. So the trilaterals would have won either way. A their first shot was incumbent trilateralist Jimmy Carter on a democratic ticket. B their second shot is George Bush, foreign policy expert and a trilateralist on a republican ticket. Bush became vice president on Ronald Reagan’s coattails.
Many have questioned about his former association with the trilateral commission. So many, in fact, that he issued this statement. I personally served my association with the trilateral commission as well as with many other groups I had been involved with because I didn’t have time to attend endless conferences. I hold our nation’s highest declaration for national security. Clearly, I would never have belonged to any organization that had devious designs or favored one world government.
We documented that the trilateral commission favors a one world economic and political system. We have analyzed the writings of official commission reports and those of its co founder and original executive director, Zigni Brzinski, Tridental out of Lushlva, Washington in the August corporation, 1979. So, with regard to the last sentence of the statement, either Bush was lying to his inquiry, to his inquirers, or is terribly naive. Whatever Bush may have claimed as reason for leaving the trilateral commission an expediency appears.
The most likely membership in internationalist one world groups was by no means limited to trilateralism. At one time, Bush was a member of the elitist, powerful Council on Foreign Relations. As a member of the similarly internationalist I can’t even talk today, similarly internationalistic Atlantic Council made a statement supporting the known admitted goals of the Atlantic Council, I. E. World government. Said Bush, perhaps the most important fact in all is that the world is now so linked together by investment and trade that we simply have to try to talk over problems together.
Never before in history have people been so aware that this is one world. Vista reproduced in Spotlight, January 6, 1986. Bush appears to have fallen for the claim that the world is now interdependent and is therefore one world. The point ignored is that the world has always been interdependent. The difference today is that transportation has made distances collapse. It is now easier to get from New York to London or Paris than, say, Bozeman, Montana.
This has given the illusion of interdependence. But in fact, interdependence is not much greater than in previous eras. The claim of interdependence appears to many as the vanguard of imperialism, and imperialism leads to war, not peace. Yes, all Marxists in the trilateral. The trilateral commission, the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, all of world government. Yeah. Let’s see. Yes, the magnificent ship is the USS New Jersey.
Yeah, I know. I was on it. I served on, actually, my workstation on the ship. Here, I’ll share this with you guys since we’re talking about it real quick. Here’s. Let’s see. Pull this up here. There. This will give you guys an idea of. Okay, so that’s the New Jersey. And let’s see. I worked. See if I can do this here. I worked right here. Really, right there.
That was my duty station on the ship. And this is a picture of me when I was just a kid from that position overlooking the ship when we were underway. And then this was me the day that they decommissioned the ship. So gives you an idea of my role when I was on the ship. Anyway, let’s see. It’s a huge ship. It was big. It was a lot of fun, too.
I ain’t going to lie. There’s times when I miss it. There’s times when I miss it. Okay, so back here, Bush the extremist. Probably read a couple more chapters and then call it a night. The real George Bush is decidedly different to the media image of George Bush, and certainly from any Bush self description. Bush hails from the old line eastern liberal establishment, cast in the image of Nelson Rockefeller and essentially reflecting a welfare philosophy.
I’m going to pause it for a second here because there’s another book that I read this quote frequently, but I think it bears on this. Let me see here. Let’s see it here. It is ruled by secrecy. There’s a, there’s a paragraph in this book that is very. And I have it highlighted here because I read it so frequently. Okay. According to conspiracy researchers Jonathan Venkin and John Whalen, the american public’s attitudes are shaped by a sanitized Disney view of both history and current events.
The Disney version of history could just as easily be called the New York Times version or the tv news version or the college textbook version. They wrote, the main resistance to conspiracy theories comes not from people on the street, but from the media, academia and government, people who manage the national and global economy of information. Anthony C. Sutton, the guy who wrote this book, a London born economics professor, he’s the one who wrote the book that I’m reading right now about Bush, who was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, agreed that an establishment history dominates textbooks, publishing, and the media and library shelves.
During the past 100 years, any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical association and the major foundations with their grantmaking power, has been attacked or rejected, not on the basis of evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the arguments to the so called eastern liberal establishment and its official historical line. He commented, wobie tied any book or author that falls outside of the official guidelines, foundational support is not there.
Publishers get cold feet and distribution is hit or miss or nonexistent. So essentially the eastern liberal establishment, what he’s talking about here is the one worlders, the one world government people who, they are the ones who control the history books. And if you really want a, really want to have your hair raised on the back, the little hairs on the back of your neck raised in anger and frustration, go back a couple of months when I read the articles on histories written by the winners and about how they went back.
And essentially they utilize the whole thing of having evidence to support your claim, but then they destroy the evidence to make sure that you can’t use that evidence to support your claim. And then it’s all about, oh, well, you have to have things that fall under the guidelines of was a word has to be, you have to have evidence to support it and then peer reviewed that was word I was looking for peer reviewed.
It has to be peer reviewed. And that’s how they get around. That’s how they essentially dominate the history, is that they rewrite it, which is straight out of 1984 and the ministry of truth. It’s sick and twisted. The gold unrule. He who has the gold makes the rules. And these are the same people who started the Federal Reserve and reversed the flow of money anyway. And it’s no shock that Bush, he mentioned it in here earlier that Bush was a fan of the Department of Education.
Go figure. Bush hails from the old eastern line. From the old line eastern liberal establishment cast in the image of Nelson Rockefeller and essentially reflecting a welfare, welfare philosophy. The mark of this elitist group is that it always claims to be centrist and moderate. Even when proposing and acting upon the most extreme of proposals. Bush has followed this two faced gambit. From 1977 until he joined the Reagan Bush ticket, Bush took a definite stand in his own wimpish manner against reaganite conservative arguments.
Repeatedly Bush referred to himself as moderate and tried to unite the Republican Party as moderate liberal opposed to what he saw as extremist conservative principles. Similarly, under Reagan, George Bush has maintained a centrist image while acting as the perfect team player and protected against breaking scandals as he was protected in Watergate. In fact, however, when one looks at actions and especially foreign speeches and actions, George Bush as vice president comes across as one of the worst of extremists.
Giving substance to one commentator’s phrase that Bush is a chameleon who adopts coloration in order to advance his own interests. This chameleon like quality is typical of the old time liberal establishment. We have cited the example of W. A. Harryman Company financing through union Banking Corpor.ation of the early Nazis. We have published the evidence extensively in our Wall street and the rise of Hitler. Avril Harryman was the leader of the Democratic Party and the very essence of welfare welfare state liberalism.
However, though through the Wa Harryman Company, later Brown brothers Harrymann was actively, if secretly linked to the rise of Nazism. Prescot Bush, father of George Bush was a partner in Brown Brothers Harryman while the Union Banking Corporation link was in place. Now this does not of course implicate George Bush who was a schoolboy during this period. But it is significant that Bush himself has repeated the two faced procedure with contemporary regimes that might well be termed fascist of the hitlerian brand.
When Zimbabwe was founded out of southern Rhodesia, trilateral Lord Carrington, the british Foreign Office negotiator left a british type constitution and granted certain paper freedoms. Robert Mugabe became prime minister and immediately set about suspending the constitution and worked towards rule by decree. Zimbabwe rapidly degenerated into the very worst of human rights violators. The list of violations over the years is horrendously long. But the old line welfare liberal establishment represented by George Bush, has not only refused to face the violations, but has enthusiastically lauded and supported Robert Mugabe in particular.
Mugabe has moved against his tribal enemies, the Nadelle I don’t know how to say that right. Matabele has been systematically slaughtered by Mugabe in what is locally termed a cleanup campaign. Bishop Muzaroa was imprisoned. Mugabe’s Zayn has been responsible for numerous terrorist acts against blacks and whites, including the murder of seven roman catholic missionaries in 1977. An article in the Washington Post for February of 86, which can hardly be accused of extremist attitudes, listed the horrible means of persuasion used by Mugabe under the headline, Mugabe promised to crack down on dissent, and he meant it.
Critics say means of persuasion is torture. Methodist Bishop Abel Muzaroa, head of the United African National Council and the first black prime minister of Rhodesia, was imprisoned in Harare central police station by Robert Mugabe without visiting rights and with no formal charges. Mazaroa incurred Mugabe’s wrath by charging that oppression in Zimbabwe was worse under Mugabe than under former white rule. Said Muzaroa, I continue to hope and pray that God can somehow deliver us from the oppression of today imposed on us not by Ian Smith, not by Israel, and not by the people with white skins, but our own ruling party and government with black skins.
One would expect that moderate George Bush would have lauded Bishop Maseroa, used the bishop as an example of ruthless persecution of human rights in Africa, and perhaps even come to bishop’s aid. In fact, George Bush took an extremist stance, visited Mugabe and made an extraordinary supporting speech which he presumably did not expect to surface in the western press. Said Bush about murderer Mugabe, I stand in the presence of a genuine statesman, the prime minister of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, and added, I do want to say on behalf of the Reagan administration that we support, we strongly support the policy of reconciliation to which you have committed yourself.
We believe Zimbabwe represents a noble experiment. We have supported your country because its success is consistent with U. S. Principles and U. S. Interests. I will report to President Reagan that Zimbabwe continues to deserve our support because America is committed to backing peaceful change. This fawning Bush speech was made while Mugabe’s political enemies were tortured and forgotten in Harare jails and native villages of the Matabelli were massacred by Mugabe’s guards.
This indicates the change of chameleon Bush that the bush cry of modernization is merely skin deep. George. And keep in mind that Bush going back to the school of the Americas article and whatnot, how Bush was probably, if he was involved in central intelligence, had a hand or was certainly knew about school of the Americas and the Phoenix program of how they were torturing people and utilizing that in the School of Americas from the Phoenix program for all throughout Central and South America.
George Bush’s fondness for hitlerian like strongmen is not limited to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe when Yuri Andropov was leader of the Soviet Union. Once again Bush demonstrated his fondness for totalitarianism. Here are some Andropov highlights. At only 23, Andropov helped run the slave labor camp building in the Moscow Volga canal extension. His gulag experience was rewarded with appointment to the Noman clatura, the party bureaucracy during the great purges and drop off, followed the Stalin line so closely, not an easy job, that he became first secretary of the Carol Finnish Republic.
For eleven years he operated a gulag system on the spot after the war, and Dropov stayed in forced labor and advanced by clinging to Saslov’s coattails. In 1956, during the Hungarian Revolution, Andropov pulled a classic double deception on that should burst itself into the bush mine. And Dropoff advised hungarian general Bella Kirali that the Soviets wanted to discuss evacuation of Hungary while negotiations were in progress. The Soviets sent 4000 tanks built with western technological assistance into Budapest and crushed the revolution.
After this master stroke of duplicity, it wasn’t hard for Andropov to make head of the KGB by the mid 1960s and become notorious race for introduction of forced labor, use of mind control, drugs and a vast disinformation campaign in the west. And what is vice President Bush’s comment on this hitlerian tyrant as the case of Zimbabwe’s mugabe? Our friend George can hardly restrain himself from falling all over tyrant Andropov.
This adulation surfaced as Bush returned from the funeral of Lenad Brezhnev when Bush had the opportunity to visit with Yuri and Dropov. Here’s the fawning Bush again. My view on and Dropov is that some people make this KGB thing sound horrendous. Maybe I speak defensively as a former head of CIA, but leave out the operational site of the KGB, the naughty things they allegedly do. And here’s a man who has had access to a tremendous amount of intelligence over the years from this premise.
Bush argued that Andropov would therefore be less likely to misread the intentions of the United States. This statement tells us a great deal about Bush. His concept of human rights is zero. Bush, obviously, like Andropov, sees Gulag residents as non persons, people not worth considering. This reflects the failing of the elite that it only respects power and has no concept of rights. Without power, Bush is willing to excuse the KGB record of global terrorism and domestic suppression.
Bush not only sympathizes with Andropov, but in not portraying the human side of the soviet equation, tells us kind of a man bush would become in power. Would you want executive order powers in the hands of a man who excuses KGB atrocities? Another disturbing aspect of the Bush Moscow visit was his attitude to soviet whining and dining. Here’s Bush again. They treated us very well and in a protocol sense, outstandingly.
They extended us courtesies far above the rank of vice president. We were halfway up the steps, and the soviet protocol fellow came and pulled us out, secretary of state Schultz and me, and put us ahead of all these chiefs of state, Royal Highness and excellencies and plenty of potential, and shoved us right up to the head of the line. It was under tv, and they could see Schultz and me walking past everybody, and we spent a total of 40 minutes within drop off, which was a lot of time.
This single G whiz statement is enough to warn any american voting citizen away from a Bush for president ticket. It tells us a great deal about Bush, that he can be flattered and is responsive to these protocol tricks, that he is so insensitive as to be unaware that the Soviets do nothing by accident, and that he should be wary, not optimistic. Any man that can be influenced by cheap favors is not fit to be president of the United States.
Whatever else we write in this book, this single Moscow statement tells us enough about Bush to rule him out completely from the presidency. Anyone who reacts in this manner has no inner strength. Cheap adulation is accepted because it fills the void left by absence of inner strength. Bush is a wimp, according to his own words. Unfortunately, the Soviets have already characterized Bush as a wimp and know exactly how to play the wimp strings like a violin.
The full interview with Urim Dropoff is reproduced on pages 49 and 48 and 49. As originally reported in the Christian Science Monitor, December 20 of 1982. Just one year later, in the fall of 83 and a tour of Eastern Europe, Bush once again went completely ape in the midst of eastern european strongmen without regard for human liberty or history. In Yugoslavia, Bush called the country completely independent and truly nonaligned.
Yet Yugoslavia is a known transshipment point for illegal high tech exports from the west destined for the Soviet Union. In the United Nations, Yugoslavia has supported the United States only 21. 8% of the time, while the Soviets did 17. 7% of the time. This hardly makes Yugoslavia not aligned. On the same trip in Hungary, Bush toasted Janos Qadar as a man with enormous capacity and leadership capability and made the unbelievable statement that human rights was no longer a point of discord between the United States and Hungary.
A quick response to this Bush statement came from Dr. Andres Pogani, former chairman of the World Federation of Hungarian Freedom Fighters. Poghani called the Bush remarks shocking, disgusting and outrageous, adding that Qadar is a faithful servant of the soviet masters, a well known traitor, killer and mass murderer of 18 year old hungarian kids. Anne Bush comments earn the contempt of our adversaries and the disgust of suffering and oppressed millions behind the Iron Curtain in Romania, the worst of the eastern european dictatorships, Bush continued his fawning, groveling obedience to communist leaders, citing Romania’s independence and prosperity.
In fact, Romania is not at all prosperous, and it is a miserable example of communist planning chaos gone wild with one of the lowest standards of living in any communist country, which themselves are notorious for an inability to feel the needs of the working class. What does this tell us about Bush? Essentially, Bush is more dangerous than a mere wimp who lacks inner strength. Bush is unread on the realities of the world.
The often observed comment that Bush is uncomfortable around common people is true. Bush is a perfect specimen of elitism. Not only is he uncomfortable with the common man, but he ignores the human need for freedom and we suspect, may even despise the peasant on the street. Very interesting. Give me a second, guys. Reading this thing about Romania, it made me think of something, and I want to read you guys a passage from a book that’s kind of obscure, but it talks about communism right about the same time that this is.
Give me about 60 seconds. I’m going to be right back. It. Okay, I’m back. This is not something that is going to be visible on screen. This is a book written. It’s called the Blue Communism by Raven Alb J. And I remember reading this. It was very interesting. He actually defected from Romania. And there was a part in here that when I read it, it was just absolutely kind of shocking.
Find it. Here’s his writing style was. Here it is. All right. Who really won the Cold War? The reason for this book being written is stated, is stated in the title of this chapter. I remember the excitement that occurred throughout the world when communism collapsed. Of course, I was extremely pleased that when tortured by the agony of death, communism, this horrible disease of society, was coming to its last breath.
But I was worried. Communism, on the other side of the curtain, was dying. But a disguised, illegitimate child of communism was already born and already walking on its own feet in the west. The child was the result of an unreported rape and was growing strong and being fed well, exactly the way a cuckoo’s fledgling is developed and fed by swindling parents whose fledgling does not belong in that nest.
I had already noticed that this little cuckoo, and it was very disappointing for me to see my side, the conservatives brag all over about how Ronald Reagan defeated communism without firing a shot. I watched communism rot and die from its own self created disease with my own eyes. And the conservatives were dancing all over the streets, happily telling everyone how they killed this monster. I realized that hardly anyone in America understood anything about communism, but I didn’t think they were that stupid.
It is the very fact that stupid conservatives believe that they killed this monster, which then facilitated disguised communists to really take off. After the death of red communism, for the first time in american history, communists moved into the White House. When Bill and Hillary Clinton won the presidency, the guard against communism was completely dismantled. And now the disguised communists had free rein. They could jump on the conservatives, kick them in the butt, thumb their nose, and the conservatives simply smiled.
Nobody had the slightest idea that those liberals were not liberals, but communists. First, let me explain why and how communism died. To begin with, it must be known that I observed the situation more than anybody on earth. The reason for was the prediction I made approximately in the year 1975 in New York. And this guy, camera baby, come on the show here. In. In 1975 in New York, there was a group of perhaps five to six Romanians talking about communism.
This guy had, he had fled. He defected and fled Romania, I want to say in the late 60s, early seventy s. And when I said that communism would change when a man our age became head of the Soviet Union, when Gorbachev arrived at that position, I expected the changes I predicted. And it came. Of course, I didn’t expect or predict the whole collapse. But as things developed and communism died completely, I knew why.
Here are the reasons. In 85, I went to Romania for the first time since I escaped in 71. Everything had changed dramatically in those 14 years. Things were bad before I left, but now it was a disaster, a disaster which nobody could predict, because nothing can be predicted in a communist front society. Any society under a constitution has problems predicting the future. But under the communism, it was impossible to get even the slightest idea.
Common property was tried in Greece, as Aristotle wrote, but it didn’t work. And even in a city state scale, and no information whatsoever was passed on to us on that subject. All Aristotle said was it was tried in a few times, and it never worked. And if it never worked, in a situation where only a few thousand people were involved, how was it going to work when millions of people.
Communism was barely into the second generation in eastern Europe, except for the Soviet Union. And what I saw in Romania in 85 made me wonder how long it was going to continue. It couldn’t go on for much longer. No matter what, wherever I went, the people were in total apathy. Nobody was interested in anything. And they were so discouraged that not even the will to complain remained within them.
I had to pull words out of their mouths, one short phrase at a time. The year before my visit to Romania, no one wanted to harvest the corn anymore. Listen to the story. This is crazy. Nobody wanted to harvest the corn anymore. They all simply stayed at home harvesting with machinery, which was a promising idea. By the time I escaped turned bad, because the mechanics who were raised and trained by communists and were supposed to maintain and repair the combines, became as depressed and in the same state of apathy as everyone else.
Schoolchildren were tried on harvesting by hand when farmers refused to go into the fields. But these children were raised on communism principles as well, and were as useless at harvesting corn as they were in everything else. Sound like our young generation. The corn roted in the fields the year before I returned to America, wondering how the communists were going to force those depressed people to harvest the corn in a couple of months.
I hadn’t begun studying the books of antiquity quite yet, but I was a well read man. I’d heard plenty from former prisoners in Siberia, and knew that when people reach a certain point, force doesn’t work anymore. When people give up on life, nobody can scare them into doing anything. Some sort of madness takes over them, and no threat or punishment works ever. I’d seen that psychological situation in Romania that summer.
They had not completely gone mad yet, but any abuse would have only made the situation worse. I was kept informed on the situation by correspondents, because even the security force was overtaken by total apathy. And either they didn’t read the mail anymore, or they read it and didn’t give a damn. That kind of correspondence would have never left Romania ten years earlier. What happened during the harvest time that year was the desperation forced the communist authorities to do something they hated dearly.
They had to do it in order to stop the corn from rotting in the fields. They seemed to have come to their senses and promised 10% of the harvest corn to the harvester. Each person would have their shared weight at the end of the day. And then, when all the corn was harvested, each person received 10% of that total weight. At the end of the harvesting. Everybody went into the fields and worked like mad.
Because this was similar to private enterprise and everyone was paid according to efficiency. Some of the more inventive individuals came up with crafty ideas on how to become extremely efficient. And all the corn was harvested in no time at all. But communists are communists, and they can’t see further than one day ahead. Realizing that some people would have to receive too much corn for someone living in a communistic society, they decided not to pay what they promised, and only an above starving corn ration was distributed based on daily work.
Like before. Any reasonable person, even the dumbest one, would ask who would harvest the corn the following year. That would be a question asked by a reasonable person. But communists are anything but reasonable. The next year, harvest time came, and the communists were in the same situation as they always are. Nobody would go into the fields then. They very enthusiastically propagandized the. Come here, baby. Come on. Sorry, guys.
I told you she won’t leave me alone. It’s a good problem to have, but not this moment in time. A very enthusiastic propaganda was proposed by the comrades, telling everybody that this year they would really pay the 10% to the harvesters. Meetings were congregated, and everybody was assured that this time the promise would be kept. Half the people were convinced that they would really hit the jackpot this time and went to harvest.
The smart ones stayed home because only half the farmers worked. They barely managed to get all the harvest in that year, mainly because the winter delayed its arrival. Now even the most stupid people on earth would think that the communists learned their lesson from the year before and would have paid the harvesters the 10% promised. But they wouldn’t be communists if they did that. Of course, they came up with all sorts of excuses and fooled the farmers who worked the whole fall for almost nothing.
The smart people who stayed home got a good laugh for a while, depressed as they were. But the following year the harvest came and went, and the activists went from home to home, trying to convince the people. This time they would really pay the 10% with all their efforts. The persuasion didn’t work anymore, and nobody went to the harvest school. Children were tried again, so was the military.
And some gypsies were swindled into who knows what pie in the sky promised. And of course, the harvest failed. It’s the farmers that knowing about farming, not children in the military or gypsies. Shortages existed before, but now the only thing found in the stores were salt and vinegar. And I’m not exaggerating, that was all that could be found to buy in Romania. Even the black market was completely empty.
The following year, all the people revolted as one, and that was the end of communism. In thought, I was one that fell into that trap that, oh, we beat the Russians. Now the communists beat the Russians. The communists defeated the communists in the Soviet Union and in Romania and all the other eastern Bloc countries. The reason the wall fell was because of the communistic principles. And you look at kind of what’s happening right now in our country, and I see so many people that I talked to that are from that time.
They talk about how Americans don’t have any idea. And now I don’t believe that this is all communistic, but the point I’m making is that communism, we didn’t beat communism. Communism imploded in on its own self. As bad as things are and what things they want to do to us, I don’t believe that. If they were to succeed, I don’t think it would last very long, because it’s not going to last.
People won’t. They either have to kill us off or people will revolt. But anyway, that’s enough for tonight. It’s kind of depressing, I think, and a little bit of it. Let me look at the. Let me check the chat here. Yeah. All Marxists are in TLC, the kingdom of America. I did see something about that. Well, I think I saw Scott Bennett say something. Scott, actually, I’m in a group, and he posted a thread the other day, actually, recently, and he said, america will and must change its name to the united republics of America.
Why? Republic of America is the umbrella for the United Republic of America. We are not states of a confederation anymore. That was dissolved when we entered into the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees us a republican form of government, which means every state is now a republic form of government, meaning that every state is a republic, I. E. The Republic of California, the Republic of Texas, et cetera. These words and names need to be re embedded into our being and replace the lies and garbage of statehood, which is a synonym for slavery under a tyranny of bureaucracies in DC with no legitimate authority and I tend to agree with know statehood because we are not a collection of states, we are a collection of republics or that’s what we should be.
That’s what we are in our most basic form is we are 50 republics together and we are independent countries who have come together and those independent countries have dished out to the federal government things that they don’t want to do themselves. For example, border defense, national security or the security of all 50 states or all 50 republics. We’ve given that out to the. We have put that burden onto the federal government but the federal government has taken so many of those rules or so many of those.
What’s the word I’m looking for? They’ve taken so much away from the states now the states are just essentially the states are now sucking on the tit of DC and it all really goes back to the Federal Reserve when the Federal Reserve, the money of the Federal Reserve has essentially made the states drunk on the free money from the federal government. But anyway, I’ve said this a thousand times in the past and you guys all know any people who watched me long enough know kind of my stance on that.
So I’m not going to regurgitate it. I remember the japanese pilot who crashed into the Indianapolis was turned allowed to escape as a double agent. I did not hear that. I have not heard that. I’d be interested to hear about that, though. I didn’t know if he crashed into he. How, how would he have survived that? I’m curious. How would he have survived that crash? Llama did they train sailors to fight with? Ha.
That was funny. Yes, Patriot Dave agree 100% as well. All right, guys, well, I think I’ve talked your ear off enough for one night. I don’t know what. I’m about halfway through this book. I’m probably not going to finish it tomorrow, obviously, because tomorrow we have constitution class and then Mike’s feeling a lot better. So we’ll do the show tomorrow night with Mike and then I’ll try to finish the Bush book on Wednesday if I’m able.
And if I’m not, then we’ll do it on Thursday. But a few other things that I really kind of want to get into going down this bush hole, this bush rabbit hole has really opened my eyes to some things that I knew he was bad, but good lord, when I read that thing about the savings and loan, I had no idea that the bushes were responsible for the savings and loan thing.
But it makes so much sense. I’m embarrassed to say that Bush is the first president I voted for, 1988. And before I went into the Navy, I remember having a picture of this guy on my wall in his flight suit from when he was in. And I remember him being so proud. He was my president and I was going to go into the Navy, and he served in the Navy, and, oh, man.
God, the shame that I feel. I was fooled by that guy, but, I mean, I was fooled by so many other things, too. It’s not just that, but anyway, yeah, it’s amazed me how dirty they are as well. Anyway, everybody. Well, hey, I do hope you all have a great night. And again, if you guys are watching this, if you came in late, somebody made a comment from the other day saying that I was hard to listen to, and I don’t really know what that meant, but I say this again to the much larger crowd.
If you guys have criticisms of how I perform, then by all means, I’m not above constructive criticism. By all means. I want to be the best me that I can be. So if you have something that you want to, if you think that I can do that would be different, that would be better, by all means, put it out there. I don’t think that I know everything. I’m just a lowly old podcaster.
That’s not me being sensitive. That’s just me being humble and saying, hey, listen, I know I’m not perfect, and if there’s something that I can do that somebody thinks that, hey, that I could do and be better at it, then by all means. Again, I’m not above, by all means, I’m teachable. I’m not being sensitive to that comment. I’m just saying, if people think that I could do better, then by all means make suggestions.
Like I said, I only know how to do it the way I know how to do it. A friend of mine who had a radio station and does stuff, and he actually made some suggestions on lighting, and he was kind of shocked that I was open, had made some changes as a result of his constructive criticism. I say that as a point of, look, if you guys think I could do something better, by all means tell me, but just don’t be a dick and just say, oh, you suck, and then walk away.
Okay, those comments, I’m just going to tune out anyway. All right, guys. Well, I sincerely appreciate all you guys. Really, I do. I hope you understand what I’m saying there. Pedro. Dave, I’m essentially taking that guy’s asshole comment and flipping it around and somebody thinks that has a history of doing this and they think I could do something better, then by all means make a suggestion. It’s no different than the suggestion box at work.
Just make a suggestion. But that said, another thing is if you guys have things that you’d like me to cover, things that you’re curious about, by all means, please put some of that stuff in the comment section as well. Give me ideas to cover things. So I’m kind of having to just cover the things that are on my mind to cover. But if there’s anything specific that you guys want me to cover, by all means let me know.
Anyway, that said, guys, I’m going to go and take care of my little fur babies and enjoy the remainder of my evening. So I pray that you guys do the same and you stay safe wherever you are. It’s freaking pouring down rain here, so I’m going to stay inside where it’s nice and warm. So hope everybody has a great evening and I will see you all mana. Have a good night, everybody.
.
See more of Untold History Channel on their Public Channel and the MPN Untold History Channel channel.
