The analysis offered about the death of Bush's sister makes a lot of sense,
and I am sure plays a part. However, there is another looming constellation
issue in the Bush family, which is a multi-generational pattern of financial
involvement with international perpetrators.
Recently in New York, Bert Hellinger alluded to it perhaps, when he said
that in watching the first Presidential debate, he saw that each of the
candidates was acting in the service of "larger forces."
In the case of Bush, what forces, one wonders?
In addition to families, long term business partnerships, financial
investments and alliances, also form systems of relationships and shared
interest, and hence a shared field. And that is the playing field into
which George W's father, and grandfather directed their principle energies
and loyalties. Indeed, in American ruling elite families, these working
alliances even move down the generations, with Geo Bush Sr's most trusted
advisor being the son of someone who worked closely with his father.
The book Diane mentions documents the long term alliance of the Bush family
with the funders of Hitler and the Third Reich. His Grandfather Prescott
Bush directed the banking interests of the key supporters and financiers of
the Third Reich. He managed their money from New York, the money they used
for their war making efforts.
MY husband and I first heard of these alleged activities, from an elderly
couple whose families had known the Bush family for nearly a century. We
were at a RAw Food Thanksgiving retreat in Florida, during the fall of 2000,
when the Presidential election results were still being tabulated.
Although I cannot personally affirm the truth of these allegations, the
British newspaper the Guardian reported on September 25th that three books
on this topic will be published this Fall since the documents demonstrating
them have recently been declassified.
Currently the same book Diane mentions documents these claims. See:
http://www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook/bush2.htm
under The Hitler Project.
Although some reviewers claim that this particular book draws overly extreme
conclusions from the evidence, from a constellation perspective, it's
interesting.
Eventually Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush's funds were seized by
Roosevelet under the Trading with the Enemy Act. In other words, his
grandfather acted in a way that lead him to be declared an enemy of US
interests. It is also claimed by some that the Bush family fortune arises
from Prescott Bush's redemption of his one share ownership in these
holdings, which were worth $1.5 million dollars in the late 40's or early
50's when they were redeemed.
If true, this would certainly qualify as profiting at the expense of others'
lives.
Some excerpts:
" President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley,
signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under
the Trading with the Enemy Act..
The Walker-Bush firm's banking activities were not just politically neutral
money-making ventures which happened to coincide with the aims of German
Nazis. All of the firm's European business in those days was organized
around anti-democratic political forces. "
The book documents the tremendous breadth of financial resources and all the
key players and the history of their alliance. He goes on to to wonder
whether that the group of wealthy American financiers who along with
Prescott Bush had played a substantial role in funding Hitler, were not so
much supporting his interests, as Hitler was acting upon their's. What's
more, although initially in funding Hitler's rise, these men might have
simply made an unwise investment of uncertain outcome, as these investments
continued into the early 40's, it could be considered perhaps that they
were, perhaps unwittingly, betraying the interests of their own country and
citizens who later went to war to defeat Hitler.
Prescott Bush was one of a small, privileged group whose role in World War
II has never been seen or acknowledged in US or world history. Bush could
well be acting out of loyalty to this Grandfather.
From a constellation perspective, this seems to me a highly crucial
entanglement. What's more, I wonder and would ask members of this group for
your thoughts on how to address it potentially, via other avenues of
entree-- beyond members of the immediate Bush family. For example, the
descendants of others who were party to these activities could assemble to
heal this on behalf of their families-- and the victims. Customers or
clients of the firm, Brown Brothers, which still is in existence today could
also initiate a constellation with their investment firm about its historic
role in these undertakings. (It is interesting that Hitler's followers were
called Brown Shirts). Children of Holocaust victims and those who fought on
the American side and suffered injury would also include these American
perpetrators along with German ones in their family systems. Perhaps naming
these American perpetrators along with the Nazi ones would bring them into
the constellation field for healing.
Of this international group, I would ask your advice and also help in these
times, to consider what types of people could legitimately initiate
constellations that might tap into this wider field, help us to see this
particular group of perpetrators and investigate whether there is movement
towards reconciliation to any degree. In addition, to sharing your comments
and thoughts, I would invite facilitators to be open to these options in
your workshops, and to share with us anything relevant that occurs.
Many thanks!
Alison
Alison Rose Levy
On 10/9/04 10:30 PM, DIANE YANKELEVITZ at dianeyankelevitz@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
?
I found an unofficial Bush family biography site and asked what the
President's little sister Robin died of, and Webster Tarpley thinks it was
leukemia. http://www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook/bushb.html#Table
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Walsh <mailto:chrisjwalsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Fw: Bush on the Couch
What a pity we don't have the opportunity to do a constellation for George
W. We could give his sister a place of respect and acknowledgement and help
George bow with respect to his parents and their fates. Then maybe the world
would be a safer place.
What a pity!
By the way Diane, do you know how his younger sister died?
hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
An Australian Constellation Website:
www.constellationflow.com <http://www.constellationflow.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: DIANE YANKELEVITZ <mailto:dianeyankelevitz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 27 September 2004 4:26 AM
Subject: [ConstellationTalk] Fw: Bush on the Couch
You guys will love this one: especially the part where his little sister
died when he was 7 (the age when boys usually turn from their mother and
bond with their father) and his parents were emotionally unavailable - a
disturbance in the force.
September 16, 2004
Bush on the Couch
By Justin Frank
Dr. Frank is the author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the
President (2004). He is a Washington, D.C.based psychoanalyst and professor
of psychiatry at George Washington University Medical School.
If one of my patients frequently said one thing and did another, I would
want to know why. If I found that he often used words that hid their true
meaning, and affected a persona that obscured the nature of his actions, I
would grow more concerned. If he presented an inflexible worldview
characterized by an oversimplified distinction between right and wrong, good
and evil, allies and enemies, I would question his ability to grasp reality.
And if his actions revealed an unacknowledged even sadistic indifference
to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of compassion, I would worry
about the safety of the people whose lives he touched.
For the last three years, I have observed with increasing alarm the
inconsistencies and denials of such an individual. But he is not one of my
patients. He is our President. He wants to remain our President for four
more years, and he intends to do so on his own terms. On August 27, the eve
of the Republican Convention, Bush said to New York Times reporters Sanger
and Bumiller that ³he would resist going on the couch¹ to rethink
decisions.²
Since the Swift Boat controversy hit center stage in mid-August both the
ads and Bush¹s refusal to take responsibility for them we again see his
reluctance to examine his conscience. Instead he remains mired in his
long-standing pattern of denial and blame. Responsibility is something this
president flees at all costs. It is a behavior pattern that began long
before Bush became president, governor, or even a college student. It even
began before Bush had become an alcoholic (he finally stopped drinking at
age forty, with the help of his religion), though his response to criticism
is typical of untreated alcoholics.
Bush was the first born child to a family that had long and moneyed
traditions on both sides. When he was three and a half his sister Robin was
born. It has been said that the nursery rhyme ³Humpty Dumpty² was written
with the first-born child in mind. It seems to capture perfectly the
irrevocable trauma felt with the second child is born: Nothing can put the
first-born back together again. Of course, first-born offspring find
different ways to manage this insult. Some can be suspicious and overly
competitive; others can be overtly nice while covertly furious; still others
always keep an eye on the second child, making sure he doesn¹t get too much.
First-born children keep careful track of how much food mother gives to
their siblings.
But if the second-born dies, as Robin did when George was seven, then an
entirely new and complex dynamic is set in motion. The first-born often has
to disown his destructive fantasies and banish them into his unconscious.
But such fantasies threaten his mental equilibrium and he has to do
something with them. One solution is to project them outward, thereby
experiencing people around him as destructive or a source of danger.
By the time Robin died Bush already had a mother who was emotionally
elsewhere. Children resent it when the mother is absent, and Bush¹s
resentment would have grown stronger in the face of his mother¹s grief after
Robin¹s death. If George¹s feelings were never addressed and it is clear
from numerous family accounts that the parents didn¹t have a funeral and
never talked to George about the loss his natural animosity toward his
sister would have remained unresolved; he would have been left with a host
of forbidden feelings that were too threatening to acknowledge, only
furthering the process of having to disavow these unwanted aspects of
himself. He was deprived of the opportunity to learn to mourn, to heal. In
that deprivation lays the kernel of what has by now become Bush¹s knee-jerk
reaction of denying responsibility for anything that goes wrong. He can¹t
allow it to be his fault.
It is true that blame and denial are arguably as typical of politicians as
of alcoholics, though the latter are generally more likely to involve family
members in the process. But blame is also a reminder of one¹s destructive
impulse; the individual who hasn¹t resolved his anxieties surrounding that
impulse is particularly motivated to avoid confronting those anxieties,
which he can accomplish by shifting responsibility to someone else, or
denying it outright. Drinkers turn to alcohol to suppress anxiety.
The untreated alcoholic who has simply stopped drinking treats anxiety as an
enemy, and with good reason: He is often more challenged by anxiety because
he has lost his time-tested means of numbing its sting. He knows that
anxiety is a threat to his abstinence he fears anything that might lead
him back to the bottle but his years of drinking get in the way of
learning other methods to manage uncomfortable feelings. Bush manages his
anxiety through his inflexible daily routines the famously short meetings,
sacrosanct exercise schedule, daily Bible readings, and limited office
hours. All public appearances are controlled and staged even the ones that
appear to be spontaneous. They have to be.
But when routines fail, denial kicks in as the treatment of choice to manage
the potential development of internal chaos. The habit of placing blame and
denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush¹s personal history
that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat; when Jay Leno,
on the eve of Bush¹s DUI revelation (just a week before the 2000 election),
asked him if he¹d ever done anything he was ashamed of, he replied, ³I
didn¹t² and proceeded to tell a humiliating story of his brother Marvin
urinating in the family steam iron. Fast forward to the Swift Boat ads,
taking a brief stop at his denial that he knew Ken Lay (³Kenny who?²) of
Enron who was in fact a friend and major contributor to his campaigns; then
to his blaming 9-11 for the failing economy when the market actually began
to crash after he announced his tax cut plans; then to his inability to
admit to any mistake he made after 9-11 (in the April 2004 press conference
he couldn¹t bring himself to accept even a modicum of responsibility for
either the intelligence failures before 9-11 or for the war in Iraq), to his
denial in May of knowing Iraqi information source Chalabi despite having
invited him to sit just behind the First Lady at his 2004 State of the Union
Address. Putting it all together, we see a pattern that I call the KWD the
Kenny Who Defense. He employs it whenever and wherever he can, whenever he
feels threatened.
All his disavowed destructiveness coalesces and requires management whenever
anybody challenges him. He becomes instantly wary: Questions mobilize his
anxiety and invite that exaggerated degree of rigidity he uses for
self-protection. It is not a matter of intelligence per se, but a matter of
paralysis when confronted with any question that requires thinking. When
there is nobody in particular to blame he stumbles anyway, as he did at the
Unity Conference on August 6 when asked to discuss the sovereignty of the
Native American tribes. Mark Trahant, of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
noted that children study city, county, state and federal government but
that Indian government is not part of that structure. In noting Bush¹s
unique experience as governor and president, he asked about Bush¹s
understanding of sovereignty and how to think about tribal conflicts in the
twenty-first century. Bush hesitated, and then said, ³Sovereignty means
[pause] that you¹re a sovereign that you¹ve been given sovereignty and can
be viewed as a sovereign entity. Therefore the relationship between
Government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.²
His relationship to his father makes all the more sense in light of the
anxieties I have described. First, his father cast a giant shadow: he was a
good student, a fine athlete, a war hero, a successful businessman. One
grows up in awe of such a father and given this particular son¹s need
already to disown his own feelings of destructiveness, he imbues his father
partly by projecting his own aggression onto the father as a man of
enormous power, making him more of a threat. And young George W. had few of
his father¹s qualities with which to defend himself. Being a cheerleader and
a big fraternity drinker are just not the same thing. This situation can
make a son feel rage, frustration, and shame.
One way Bush managed his feelings was through his humor, his sarcasm (not
unlike his mother), and his need to be in charge of any undertaking. At
times, being in charge meant mocking his father¹s power (being stick-ball
commissioner while his father had been an All-American first baseman is a
good example). One particular power that George Sr. did not express,
however, was the important paternal responsibility to help a son separate
from his mother. I doubt the success of that endeavor with George Jr., as
his father was absent for most of Bush¹s childhood. And when he was present,
George Sr. was absently reading or distant.
This particular son is driven by the need to retaliate against his father
and against a world full of enemies. He does so in a variety of ways
though the underlying motives are the same. He tells Bob Woodward that he
needn¹t consult his father before invading Iraq because he consults a
stronger higher father; he regularly introduces Vice President Cheney as the
greatest vice president in history, without mentioning that his father was
VP for eight years; he dismantles international coalitions once valued by
his father; he practices what his father called ³voodoo economics² by
implementing massive tax cuts for the rich, maintaining that deficit
spending will revive the economy; and at the Republican Convention in New
York, he doesn¹t make a place for his own father an actual ex-president
to speak. Each event taken on its face value is but an incident. When they
are linked together they reveal a distinct pattern.
His drive to manage anxiety is paramount. That requires him to shift
responsibility whenever possible. He can consciously deny blaming his father
for having failed him in his time of greatest need as a child in helping
him both stand up to his mother and to let go of his need to be her
cheerleader rescuing her from her unspoken grief. But unconsciously, the
blame persists crippling his ability to think. He remains a cheerleader,
not a leader. The inability to take responsibility makes Bush genuinely
unable to lead: he can bully others and seem to act decisively, but he
retreats from threatened confrontation (he says ³bring em on² only when
embedded behind the Secret Service thousands of miles away from the battle).
His need to remain in control makes him unable to think things through in
order to lead from strength. His is a stage-managed strength, something we
saw all too clearly during the week of the Republican Convention.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConstellationTalk/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ConstellationTalk-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=Unsubscribe>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
