The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Charles Drago]

I understand and respect (at least in part) your hypothesis.

But based on what you have shared to date, I must conclude that its fatal weakness is its America-centric bias.

How about this tweak -- Harriman was an anglophile in matters of intelligence. It was "Brown Brothers Harriman", after all. His partners were Brits.

In the 19th century the world's opium market was controlled by the British with American allies (Skull & Bones was founded by opium runners, for instance).

Perhaps all that never changed.

Please change my bias to "Anglo-centric."

A "tweak" just ain't gonna cut it insofar as ANY NATION/ETHNIC-centric bias fails to encompass and address the timeless quest for "power and control" to which Jan insightfully refers.

I get it that the majority of sober, accomplished researchers of all things deep political choose to tread very carefully around the borders of what they might term Dan Brown Territory. But for many years now I have allowed logic to lead me to acceptance of what I choose to call non-material motivations driving elites for whom the acquisition and preservation of earthly power are forever foregone conclusions.

An example: It is impossible for me and others not to see ritual and magic(k) driving the brutal subjugations of indigenous aboriginal/tribal peoples by their imperialist conquerors long after military and material objectives of conquest have been met.

Systematic obliteration of Native North American cultures by the heirs to the masters of conquistadors and Custer continues to this day. So too do the efforts to obliterate the cultural origins and traditions of Native Central and South American peoples continue under the auspices of those who make certain that the Rockefellers' will (among others) continues to be done in those regions.