Wednesday, December 22, 2010

George W. Bush, easily played for a fool by the Jewish neocons

George Bush: The First Jewish President

(Occidental Observer) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

Michael Kinsley’s review of Bush’s memoir has this tidbit:
When Bush called for a new Palestinian leadership, Barbara Bush the elder (“Mother,” he invariably calls her) rang up to say, “How’s the first Jewish president doing?” Maybe I’m deficient in humor, but I don’t see why this is funny, as her son clearly believes it to be. I might even find it alarming if Bush didn’t crowd this book with ?maybe-you-had-to-be-there witticisms.
Philip Weiss writes that the comment is
a little window into the important mystery of how the realist [G. H. W] Bush absorbed the shocking reality of his neoconnized son — after all, a question of huge historical import. I.e by gentle ribbing, in the hope that it might eventually make a difference. Perhaps it even did; Bush didn’t attack Iran. Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he began to call Kristol and Krauthammer “the bomber boys” in the last years of his presidency. I’m a little surprised that Kinsley would have thought it alarming.
Actually, it’s easy to see why Kinsley would find it alarming: He finds any suggestion of Jewish influence anathema. (See below.)

Bush may have wised up, but the sad thing is that he was so gullible early in his presidency. Kinsley reports that after being elected governor of Texas,
God told him to run for president. “I felt a calling to run,” Bush writes. “I was concerned about the future of the country, and I had a clear vision of where to lead it. I wanted to cut taxes, raise standards in public schools, reform Social Security.” Bush never indicates where this laundry list of views came from. He had no political views he deems worthy of mention before the age of 40, but a few years later he has a complete set. You do have to wonder how deep they run.
Well, not exactly a complete set. None of the policies that Bush says he wanted to implement had anything to do with foreign policy (much less help out the really crucial issue of the future of White America). He was a babe in the woods and the neocons loved it so much that they made him into the first Jewish president. Jacob Heilbrunn has a nice account of Bush’s naivete:
The first time [Richard Perle] met Bush, he immediately sensed that he was different from his father. Two things were clear to Perle: one was that Bush didn’t know much about foreign policy and another was that he wasn’t too embarrassed to confess it. Like Wolfowitz, Perle admired Bush’s ability, as he saw it, to cut to the heart of the matter rather than become mesmerized by Washington policy talk. (p. 230)
The fact that Bush was a babe in the woods on foreign policy was seen as a plus by the neocons. “In August 1999 an excited Wolfowitz told me over lunch . . . that Bush had the ability to penetrate the dense fog of foreign policy expertise to ask a simple question. ‘Tell me what I need to know? [sic]’” (Heilbrunn, p. 230).

Although Heilbrunn states that we can never know for certain what was going on in Bush’s brain in the days and months after 9/11, his comment that Bush “moved further and further into the web that the neoconservatives had woven around him” (p. 235) seems reasonable. It’s pathetic to realize that someone can become president with such lack of experience or concern about foreign policy. I suspect that even the inexperienced Obama had more understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian situation if only because of his contacts among political radicals.

Bush may have wised up, as Weiss suggests. But by then it was too late. Kinsley quotes Bush:
“The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false.” A handsome admission, but it raises the question: So why were they still there, dying and killing, when he left office years later?
An even better question is why the intelligence was false. Neither Kinsley nor Bush would want to consider the evidence that neocons (Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Abraham Shulsky, Elliott Abrams, Michael Ledeen, Michael Rubin, David Schenker; see here, p. 48) at the Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense cooked the intelligence on Iraq.

Best to keep that one under wraps.

Re Kinsley’s aversion to the idea of Jewish influence: Here he is on Jewish involvement in the financial crisis; he makes similar dumb arguments on the neocons and the Iraq war. Quick rejoinders: people are often unaware of how they are biased by their ethnocentrism, so it’s no surprise that Jewish neocons firmly believe that Israel and the U.S. have the same interests. Secondly, no one is saying that all Jews are neocons, but people are saying that Jews with a strong Jewish identity and commitment to Israel were extraordinarily influential in the Bush administration...LINK

"Learning" on the job: Paul Wolfowitz tutors President Bush

Chris Moore comments:

The comments that MacDonald attributes to Weiss above were actually by Scott McConnell of The American Conservative magazine on Weiss’ blog.

I think the neocons’ eyes got big when they realized what an empty vessel Bush was; I know they’re thinking the same thing about Sarah Palin. These people are wolves who devour the empty-headed goy that the rubes of both Left and Right cast before them, which makes any politician who isn’t Jew-wise a threat to the country.

MacDonald: “no one is saying that all Jews are neocons, but people are saying that Jews with a strong Jewish identity and commitment to Israel were extraordinarily influential in the Bush administration.”

I think nearly all Jews are Jewish supremacists, which is their right. Most Whites probably secretly harbor White supremacist attitudes, although I’m starting to wonder if they’ve finally been bashed (mostly by Jews in media, academics, government, etc.) for so long that this might no longer be the case. Another difference is that Jews inevitably seek to institutionalize their Jewish supremacist beliefs via their Jewish networks, and by establishing Jewish supremacist policy like Zionism. America has unquestionably become a Jewish supremacist nation both in terms of policy and in terms of the hugely disproportionate number of Jews at the highest levels of nearly any hierarchy.

If a group of Whites were to pursue institutional supremacy at anything approaching a level of that of the Jews, they would be quickly targeted as a “hate group” and the full force of government would be turned upon them. But it’s okay for the Jews to pursue the most vicious and ruthless institutional racism de facto in America and de jure in Israel, and still declare themselves a vulnerable minority that deserves huge amounts of our money, praise, compassion, sympathy and promotion.


Anyone who has viewed the collapse of WTC 7 has to be an idiot to conclude it's anything but a controlled demolition. If you follow the logic of who had to be in on it as I’ve done here...

...then it’s clear that a group of ideological Zionists (most of them Jewish) had their hands in the operation, and even in stages of the attacks themselves. I suspect they facilitated and enabled the attacks in much the same way that the neocons did the brainwork behind the false evidence that framed Iraq. They put the pieces in place, wound up the operation, and sat back and watched it all come together.

These are very sick people with very sick minds. They are programmed to believe anything and everything is justified so long as it is done “on behalf of the Jewish people.” They’ve been getting their chains jerked by this pharisaic matrix which itself is a wind-up operation for 2,000 years. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to recognize that 2,000 years of obsessive, relentless, neurotic, self-propagating, cult indoctrination is going to create some very disturbed minds.

No comments: