“Decision Points” by George W. Bush.

Standard

“I had no desire to turn the NSA into an Orwellian Big Brother. I knew that the Kennedy brothers had teamed up with J.Edgar Hoover to listen illegally to the conversations of innocent people, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Lyndon Johnson had continued the practice. I thought that was a sad chapter in our history, and I wasn’t going to repeat it.” (p.164)

This book offers a crucial insight into how American enlightenment principles colour the world view and drive the foreign policy of Washington. It can be seen in the small sentences – as quoted and commented on by me further down in this long entry. Please read this book. It is a must read for those of us who want to understand. 

When my mother suggested to me some years ago that I should read “Decision Points,” I was less than enthusiastic in my response. It probably resembled more of a grunt. Why would I be interested in reading a book authored by a President my peers and I, along with all of our teachers, the entertainment industry and (eventually) the mainstream media had disliked to such an extent? Anti-war protesters young and old were risking imprisonment all in the name of publicly displaying their dissent loud and clear. Michael Moore was on the war path spreading his propaganda far and wide, Europeans rolled their eyes at “Cowboy-politics” from the USA while “anti-Bush” songs became almost a music industry standard in the last years of Bush’s presidency. I guess it displays maturity to expose oneself to something authored by those one disagrees with. Just as it would be wise to read up on Marxist literature and the Quran.

To anyone who lived in the USA during and after 9-11, like myself,  Bush’s book proves an emotional read as the reader is reminded of a bleak time when the US was united in grief and anger. The vocabulary and flow of the book is straightforward and easy, but for anyone who remembers that fateful day in September, the Anthrax threat that followed, preachers visiting schools and fathers getting ready to go to war; it will be impossible to not shed a tear or two. For a President that was so widely vilified and hated in the  later years of his presidency – it should be made mandatory to get a peek at the President’s perspective – from the man himself. I also started criticising the “Bush regime” at a certain point due to water boarding as approved by the Bush administration, the damning photos leaked depicting abuse towards muslim prisoners, the War in Iraq and the lack of weapons of mass-destruction + the potential for violation of civil rights due to the much criticised Patriot Act. Did I read the Act myself? No funny enough I did not; yet I was against it as the narrative of America turning into Orwell’s dystopian 1984 prevailed everywhere. You could get sent to Guantanamo without a trial. Protests were rampant. The Bush administration was hated just as much on both sides of the Atlantic. Many were peddling the viewpoint that the USA Inc. only wanted the oil in Iraq, many Americans even started believing that 9-11 was planned and executed by their very own government….

IMG_3503

“I knew that an interrogation program this sensitive and controversial would one day become public. When it did, we would open ourselves up to criticism that America had compromised our moral values. I would have preferred that we get the information another way. But the choice between security and values was real. Had I not authorised waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take.” (p.169)

Yet here we are again with a conservative administration in power. Iran & North-Korea are once again defined as enemies, the axis of evil is back into the public discourse, the war on Islamic terrorism has gotten worse and the Obama administration now seems like some awkward intermezzo. Much like The Ministry Of Magic in Harry Potter denying the return of Voldemort and Professor Dolores Umbridge seeing no need in teaching her students how to defend themselves as there are no dangers, there are no threats. Much of the general hatred towards Bush had to deal with the fact that he was a conservative I’m sure. Dick Cheney was Darth Vader, Karl Rove was the grim reaper; now Steve Bannon has taken over “the grim reaper torch” while Trump is the new Hitler, just like Bush was back in the day….

“I was amazed the Times couldn’t wait even a month to tag Afghanistan with the Vietnam label.” (p.199)

“We killed the PATRIOT Act,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who had voted for the law in 2001, bragged at a political rally.” (p.177)

“Perceptions are shaped by the clarity of hindsight. In the moment of decision, you don’t have that advantage.” (p.180)

It is particularly illuminating and revealing to read about the accusations of “bigotry,” “racism,” and “xenophobia” that were thrown around at the time, directed towards Bush’s associates, most of whom you’ve probably never heard of or remember. It is also interesting to note that Bush’s legitimacy was questioned in addition to calls for his impeachment. After witnessing a couple of Presidential elections and how different politicians are treated by the press, the cultural elite and the protesters on the streets; it becomes a bit easier to see the bigger picture. I remember very clearly that a good friend of mine who was very active politically, told me that protest organisers in the US didn’t really care about the War in Iraq. They engaged in “inter-sectionalism” recruiting “foot soldiers” from various disgruntled groups so that they could descend upon Washington great in numbers. How unpopular the Bush “regime” really was I guess we’ll never know too clearly, since anti-Americans and radical-revolutionaries ceased the “recruitment” opportunity presented to them back then. We see it all again now with all of these anti-Trump protests, accusations of his illegitimacy and calls for murder and impeachment.

“Our national security was tied directly to human suffering. Societies mired in poverty and disease foster hopelessness. And hopelessness leaves people ripe for recruitment by terrorists and extremists.” (p.336)

What is most striking about Bush’s chapter about the War in Iraq is/was his idealistic vision of the world, something which he shared and probably still shares with his pal Tony Blair. Some of the segments in this book display a blind belief that more current experiences with Islamism in Europe surely must have dispelled … “People who could choose their leaders at the ballot box would be less likely to turn to violence. Young people growing up with hope in the future would not search for meaning in the ideology of terror. Once liberty took root in one society, it could spread to others.” The highlighting of that quote was my doing, but I find it crucial to bring attention to it due to its ignorance. It is precisely due to this type of thinking that Europe will lose against Islamists. We have no understanding of convictions … we believe that materialism will miraculously satisfy the hunger for a cause, something to stand for, something to fight for, and most crucially the enormous importance of identity and fundamental tribalism. Only those with a deep understanding of the true meaning of diversity and the deep-seated need for masculine-honour will be up to the modern challenges we face. We have to ask ourselves what our “shared values” really are, clearly articulate and define them while establishing a National or Continental objective – a common purpose. What do we really stand for? What are we aiming for? What are we fighting for?

“One of the most effective forms of diplomacy is to show the good heart of America to the world.” (p.214)

The idea that dropping democracy into people heads will change the world into a peaceful global utopia is in my opinion absurd. It is also a questionable action to empower and enrich other competing nations that might not adhere to such strong morals as us in the west. It might force us into very unfavourable situations in the future.  Another interesting quote is this: “For months, we had been pressing the Turks to give us access to their territory so that we could send fifteen thousand troops from the Fourth Infantry Division to enter Iraq from the north. We promised to provide economic and military aid, help Turkey access key programs from the International Monetary Fund, and maintain our strong support for Turkey’s admission to the European Union.” The highlight was mine once again. This quote openly displays black on white America’s lack of knowledge or carelessness when it comes to European heritage and cultural interests. If Turkey gets access to the EU and the “free float of people” we are officially done. That will be the end of us. Completely. The fact that the US would actually promise to engage in lobbying intended to sell out Europe in order to have strategic access into Iraq – speaks volumes, when you think about the long-term consequences a EU membership for a Muslim nation would entail – it is surely not the act of friends and display dubious intentions on behalf of the US or an inability to foresee long-term negative consequences.

I suppose that my predictions and writings have been true – that we really and truly do stand alone. All alone as a continent. With enemies in the East, in the South, in addition to indifference or ignorance from the West. There you have Europe.

“I left the clinic inspired. The patients reaffirmed my conviction that every life has dignity and value, because every person bears the mark of Almighty God.” (p.333)

On the other hand a conclusion can be drawn that Bush was one hell of a “domestic president,” maybe even a visionary, as he tackled sensitive national issues head on rather than looking away. He tried to change social security that was heading for bankruptcy and was willing to put his head on the chopping block politically as he was more concerned with the future of America rather than instant popularity and elections. He also tackled the immigration crisis and tried to stretch out his hand to the Democrats in an attempt to again solve a sensitive and controversial, in fact divisive issue. He managed to change healthcare to a certain degree for those who were forced to work in their old age to pay for drugs. He managed to keep schools accountable for their performance levels in a political climate where money spent was seen as more important than actual tangible results. He was particularly focused on levelling the playing field for forgotten minorities, so the accusations he had to endure about his “racist nature” seem dubious and unfounded. All in all I think that Bush would have been a phenomenal success if he had kept to his vision of being the education president, instead he became the war president. His face branded by the media as that of a modern Satan character. After reading Bush’s book there is no doubt in my mind that he would have thrived as the domestic CEO of USA Inc. rather than a global exporter of well-intentioned enlightenment principles.

Reading about Bush’s initiative to save sub-Saharan countries from the AIDS epidemic, the Malaria maladie and whatnot, proves an interesting read taking into account the migration crisis Europe currently faces from those regions…. We as a continent are in deep shit in lack of better words and matters will only get worse. Yet another example of how well-intentioned charity can turn lethal and dangerous in the long run. I know it isn’t a popular thing to say, but it is true. Europeans are not guilty of over population. Far from it. If we don’t get more kids and become more militant in the protection of our borders, we are doomed.

“The last thing I wanted to do was bail out Wall Street.” (p.460)

After reading about Bono’s visit at the Bush White House where he praised Bush’s Africa initiative I’ve reached the conclusion that Bono & celebrities like J.K.Rowling should be sent down to the Mediterranean or elsewhere on the Southern border, so that they can be the “first responders” when the real Tsunami of the African zombie-apocalypse hits us. No wonder people are furious all over the western world, when righteous celebrities who :

  1. hide behind their armed security guards
  2. hide behind high walls on their estate
  3. hide within fortified buildings when travelling
  4. do everything to avoid the taxes they want to impose on everyone else

voice their opinions and even lobby for their culturally suicidal endeavours. You wonder why people are angry? It’s easy to see why. Of course Bono would appear out of nowhere to praise the strengthening of Sub-Saharan Africa – I bet he supports the current migrant crisis as well. Idiots. Go talk to ethnic-Europeans or go look at all of those areas that are now ruined. Of course a familiar name pops up too: “I later learned that one of his major funders, ultra-liberal investor George Soros, had excoriated Bono for joining me at the MCA event without getting more in return.” The highlighting was mine. Soros pops up further down in this long entry, in the “quotes section” as well.

Bush also includes some of his speech after a trip to see a grim “slave museum” in Africa: “At this place, liberty and life were stolen and sold. Human beings were delivered and sorted, and weighted, and branded with the marks of commercial enterprises, and loaded as cargo on a voyage without return.” Yes it is good that we acknowledge history and refrain from repeating atrocities, but we cannot let our guard down and expect others to be as civil. A day may come when Europeans are enslaved after being subjugated either by an alien population reaching majority status within our continent or by foreign invaders breaching our depleted defences….It is naive to expect gratitude or that western charity will be reciprocated. We should never take friendliness for granted or expect that the rest of the world put their arms down just because we do it. People are still kidnapped and sold into slavery by international organised crime cartels today. Women and children are forced into prostitution. Human beings are subjected to illegal “organ harvesting.” Militant muslim fighters re-opened ancient slave markets. If anything there should be an intellectual awakening in the west to the violent and dangerous nature of man. Especially in regards to the hate directed towards us. Only then will we be equipped to confront future challenges.

“I am always amazed when I hear Democrats say the financial crisis happened because Republicans pushed deregulation.” (p.455)

BOMBSHELL→ I intended to paste this quote further down in my entry. But since the general attention span in today’s society equals nil I had to put it here: “West Germany emerged as the engine of European prosperity and a vital beacon of freedom during the Cold War. Japan grew into the world’s second-larger economy and the lynchpin of security in the Pacific. South Korea became one of our largest trading partners and a strategic bulwark against its neighbour to the north. All three countries benefited from relatively homogenous populations and peaceful postwar environments. In Iraq, the journey would be more difficult.” (my highlighting) Ha! Take that. Everyone with more than two brain cells know the pitfalls of multiculturalism. But what is this? On page 357 Bush finally reveals the inevitable challenges posed by the glorified multi-ethnic utopia that political forces have fought so hard to implement upon us Europeans? H-y-s-t-e-r-i-c-a-l. There goes your post-modern enlightenment values straight out of the window. Or down the toilet. It took me 357 pages to finally find a truthful sentence about the difficulty of implementing post-modern bliss around the world. People are different. Races are different. Ethnicities are different. We create the systems and adapt the values that resonates the most with our genetic inheritance. Thank you Bush. I can’t believe you actually wrote that. “With time and steadfast American support, I had confidence that democracy in Iraq would succeed. That confidence was tested daily.” (My highlight)…ehhh…whatever…when someone is strong in the faith I guess there is no turning back. Whatever. I will celebrate the fact that there at least was some sort of admission about the fallibility of multiculturalism…that is more than what our current European leadership will give us…

I see my country & continent die in slow-motion. Only isolation can spare me the reminder of our perdition. Only self-imposed ignorance can muffle my sadness – but nothing can kill my spirit when faced with the truth – and all truth bequests me is fury and anger.

On a positive note, at least from an American perspective, this book highlights America’s impressive military capabilities and conveys some truly touching stories of the commitment and attitude of American soldiers who hailed Bush as their leader and dedicated all of their strength physically and psychologically to take down America’s enemies and win the war on terror. It is impossible to not get emotional when reading some of these stories.

Of course it is understandable that fighting abroad was justifiable in the name of national security when a primitive looking ensemble broadcasting from what looked like a cave or something over in the impoverished country of Afghanistan could wreak such havoc upon the USA. Bush describes his encounters with troops wounded in battle and grieving families imploring him to keep on going, as they didn’t want their sons or spouses to have died in vain. Bush describes one mother who became an anti-war protester: “She is a mother who clearly loved her son. The grief caused by his loss was so profound that it consumed her life. My hope is that one day she and all the families of our fallen troops will be comforted to see a free Iraq and a more peaceful world as a fitting memorial to the sacrifice of their loved ones.”

After reading that section I couldn’t help but wonder if such a sentiment will ever take hold when there is such a vast geographical distance? That is a question I will not even attempt to answer.

“I wished there were some way to hold individual firms to account while sparing the rest of the country. But every economist I trusted told me that was impossible. The well-being of Main Street was directly linked to the fate of Wall Street.” (p.460)

Bush describes their military victories in Iraq and the Iraqi people’s desire for freedom. This hunger for liberation seceded though when faced with the gruelling fear of terror. Bush writes on page 371: “I read accounts of sectarian extremists torturing civilians with power drills, kidnapping patients from hospitals, and blowing up worshippers during Friday prayers.” A grizzly account for sure. While violence was rampant Americans kept pushing for elections and the apparent success of democracy. According to this book the problem was fortification. Maintaining strongholds. The strategy was to train the Iraqis to look after themselves. This failed and a new strategy was therefore needed.

What is especially interesting to note, was intercepted communication from one of the extremist leaders in Iraq, where it was obvious that their objective was to prolong the war effort by dividing the various tribes in Iraq further. It is obvious that they wanted to drag “the unbelievers” into a drawn-out quagmire.

Touchingly Bush writes on page 373: “I marvelled at the contrast between a regime so brutal that it would hack off men’s hands and a society so compassionate that it would help restore their dignity. I believed the Iraqi man who wrote those words spoke for millions of his fellow citizens. They were grateful to America for their liberation. They wanted to live in freedom. And I would not give up on them.”

“I had opposed Jimmy Carter’s bailout of Chrysler in 1979 and believed strongly that government should stay out of the auto business. Yet the economy was extremely fragile, and my economic advisers had warned the immediate bankruptcy of the Big Three could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion, and set back America’s GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars.” (p.468)

Bush describes the success of the legendary General Petraeus: “Lincoln discovered Generals Grant and Sherman. Roosevelt had Eisenhower and Bradley. I found David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.” And concludes his “Surge” chapter with:

“A free and peaceful Iraq is in our vital strategic interest. It can be a valuable ally at the heart of the Middle East, a source of stability in the region, and a beacon of hope to political reformers in its neighbourhood and around the world. Like the democracies we helped build in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, a free Iraq will make us safer for generations to come.” Hmm….all I could think about when reading that was of the current mess in Germany and the nationalist uprising in Japan. But oh well…..

There is no doubt that the US military kicks ass and that the famous surge at the command of Petraeus worked. I guess the issue was that highly skilled and competent US warriors thought or were told that Iraqis would be equipped to just take over. Why people would think that when reading about how quickly the US military could successfully take over both Afghanistan and Iraq beats me. There is an obvious diversity between the best America has to offer and whatever it is that dysfunctional low-performing societies in the middle east can conjure. It is obvious that the militant Islamist have some impressive strategists and masterminds behind their operations, but as a group of people I personally think that their situation looks dire if modern science and cluster imaging of traits is to be believed. Which it should be, since it is based on scientific facts. The US military is an elite and a damn impressive one. It surely cannot be claimed that such a force can be easily replaced?

Bush offers some crucial facts about the 9/11 attack:

“The toll of 9/11 will always be measured by the 2,973 lives stolen and many others devastated. But the economic cost was shattering as well. The New York Stock Exchange shut down for four days, the longest suspension of trading since the Great Depression. When the markets reopened, the Dow Jones plunged 684 points, the biggest single-day drop in history – to that point. …

By the end of the year, more than a million Americans had lost their jobs. “The United States and the rest of the world are likely to experience a full-blown recession now,” one economist predicted.

That was what the terrorists intended. “Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event,” Osama bin Laden later bragged, “while America . . . lost – according to the lowest estimate – $500 billion.” He outlined what he called a “bleed-until-bankruptcy” strategy and said, “It is very important to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means.” (p.443)

On Palestinian elections in 2005 Bush writes: “Some interpreted the results as a setback for peace. I wasn’t so sure. Hamas had run on a platform of clean government and efficient public services, not war with Israel.” Why should we assume honesty? Is this a symptom of our high-trust societies, that we venture forth into the world clad from top to toe in idealism? “We sent financial assistance and deployed a high-ranking general to help train the Palestinian security forces.” We display open palms with trust as our currency, offering a peaceful handshake while expecting low-trust societies to respond to this in the same manner that our own kin would. This can explain our blind immigration policy in Europe, feminist politics in Sweden, resulting in their loss of control over their own territory. A European inability to enforce the law of individual nations within every inch of their territory. This can explain bewildered politicians expressing in Norwegian newspapers the importance of getting Norwegian born Jihadis back to Norwegian soil to offer them psychological help. Obama’s ignorant belief that jobs could destroy terrorism, when well-integrated, well-adjusted, high-achieving Jihadis left comfortable England to fight a holy war.

This also explains how I can live in the countryside of England where neighbours simply put up a sign saying how much money to leave behind when picking up eggs, cards, newspapers, or drinks that are neither guarded by people or locked away in cupboards.

IMG_7251.jpg

The church is always open where I live, all interactions are based on trust – people will reciprocate this trust and stay true to their word. (I don’t live in a particularly diverse area by the way). In London this level of trust is absent. Water bottles that had been set out for runners during the London marathon some years ago were stolen. The other day I saw an interesting article about how a transport system somewhere in the western world wouldn’t release CCTV footage or reveal the ethnicity of those guilty of crimes on their transport network, as apparently they saw this as racist or building up around subconscious bias. In Sweden they’ve stopped collecting crime data, since the findings are “racist,” in Norway officers are instructed to compare criminals with the crime-level of their countries of origin, since it is fairer to compare an Afghan criminal to crime levels in Afghanistan than to those of Norwegians. Welcome to multicultural, political correct hell.

IMG_7615

A public toilet in London … Toilet usage has all of a sudden become a major issue all over Europe.

Only those who have been exposed to street level diversity and those officers in the streets tasked to deal with “unfortunate crimes that could jeopardise the utopian vision” known the truth. Diversity is not unity. It is the equivalence of division and hate. The multicultural utopia can only be held together with l-i-e-s. A failure to realise this seals the fate of what is left of Europe and also the USA. Our constructs will wither, like those we left behind in Africa. Our culture will be erased. Everything our forefathers built will be left in ruins. Some smart folks might say that Europe has waged war against its own countless times before, but I dare to say that no threats have ever been greater than those we face today as there is no interest to conserve even a smidgen of what is ours.

 

” . . . I had to safeguard American workers and families from a widespread collapse. I also had my successor in mind. I decided to treat him the way I would like to have been treated if I were in his position.” (p.469)

“. . . my administration and the regulators underestimated the extent of the risks taken by Wall Street.” (p.470)

Ok – time for some humour courtesy of Bush. On page 412 Bush describes meeting Angela Merkel. Apparently she complained about how horrible it was to grow up in communist East Germany where “her mother constantly warned her not to mention family discussions in public. The secret police, the Stasi, were everywhere.” Ha-ha-ha-ha … That is rich as hell coming from Merkel who appointed an ex-Stasi official to spy on the “evil-alt-right.” Fantastic. Bush continues: “It was hard to believe that less than twenty years had passed since tens of millions of Europeans lived like that.” Øhø…If you are looking for an alt-right propaganda tool look no further than George W.Bush’s “Decisions Points.” I’ve highlighted this whole section due to its importance. I really hope that people bother to read this entry and the whole book. And if people do I hope that they read it paying attention to the things that are popping out to me. Angela Merkel complaining about not being allowed to express her political opinions in Stasi Germany is f—– priceless.

Bush finally departs from his naiveté when describing the Iranian and North Korean leaderships:

“Ahmadinejad called Israel “a stinking corpse” that should be “wiped off the map.” He dismissed the Holocaust as a “myth.” He used a United Nations speech to predict that the hidden imam would reappear to save the world. I started to worry we were dealing with more than just a dangerous leader. This guy could be nuts.” (p.416)

“When I took office in 2001, an estimated one million North Koreans had died of starvation in the preceding six years. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-il cultivated his appetite for fine cognac, luxury Mercedes, and foreign films. He built a cult of personality that required North Koreans to worship him  as a godlike leader. His propaganda machine claimed that he could control the weather, had written six renewed operas, and had scored five holes in one during his first round of golf.” (p.423)

“I told my national security team that dealing with Kim Jong-il reminded me of raising children.” (p.423)

This work is a fascinating read to say the least. To call it a page-turner would be an understatement.

It is particularly interesting to read about how the former President weighted his decisions. About all of the various input from advisors, how tough it is to run for office, how chance/luck always plays a major role and how active Bush Jr, was in his youth. Nobody can surely claim that G.W.Bush was inexperienced regardless of whether one chooses to agree with him in hindsight. The former president illustrates perfectly what a daunting undertaking it is to be the President of The United States. This is certainly a book that I would strongly recommend. It should be read by all regardless of their political convictions. I would also like to add that this is the first book I’ve read in a very long time without any typos at all.

“History can debate the decisions I made, the policies I chose, and the tools I left behind. But there can be no debate about one fact: After the nightmare of September 11, America went seven and a half years without another successful terrorist attack on our soil. If I had to summarise my most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it.” (p.181)

What follows are some very interesting quotes from George W. Bush himself; as always I recommend that people read the work in its entirety, but for those of you who can’t be bothered and in the name of sharing crucial information; well here we go:

While visiting his father in China Bush observed:

” In 1975, China was emerging from the Cultural Revolution, its government’s effort to purify and revitalise society. Communist officials had set up indoctrination programs, broadcast propaganda over omnipresent loudspeakers, and sought to stamp out any evidence of China’s ancient history. Mobs of young people lashed out against their elders and attacked the intellectual elite. The society was divided against itself and cascading into anarchy.” (pp. 22-23)

Bush on the art of campaigning:

“On the Fourth of July, we campaigned in Muleshoe, in the far northern part of the district. In the May primary, I had received 6 of the 230 votes cast in Bailey County. The way I saw it, I had plenty of room for improvement. Laura and I smiled and waved at the spectators from the back of our white pickup truck. Nobody cheered. Nobody even waved. People looked at us like we were aliens. By the end I was convinced the only supporter I had in Muleshoe was the one sitting next to me.” (p.41)

“I learned that allowing your opponent to define you is one of the biggest mistakes you can make in a campaign. And I discovered that I could accept defeat and move on.” (p.41)

This reminds me of the last Presidential election. Both how “grab a pussy” was revealed at a point when those who published the conversation obviously thought that it would yield the greatest impact and the re-opening of the Clinton investigation:

“Then, four days before the election, Lawrence Walsh, the prosecutor investigating the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration, dropped an indictment on former defence secretary Caspar Weinberger. The indictment dominated the news and halted the campaign’s momentum. Democratic lawyer Robert Bennett, who represented Cap, later called the indictment “one of the greatest abuses of prosecutorial power I have ever encountered.”” (pp.49-50)

This reminds me of all of Hillary Clinton’s celebrity endorsements:

” Ross Perot weighed in on the race, endorsing Ann Richards. It didn’t bother me. I’ve always thought that endorsements in politics are overrated. They rarely help, and sometimes they hurt. ” (p.55)

Bush on describing his team:

“While Dick helped with important parts of our base, he had become a lightning rod for criticism from the media and the left. He was seen as dark and heartless – the Darth Vader of the administration. Dick didn’t care much about his image – which I liked – but that allowed the caricatures to stick. One myth was that Dick was actually running the White House. Everyone inside the building, including the vice president, knew that was not true. But the impression was out there.” (p.87)

“Colin (Powell) and Don (Rumsfeld) were always respectful to each other in my presence. Over time I realised they were like a pair of old duelers who kept their own pistols in their holsters, but let their seconds and thirds fire away.” (p.87)

” Colin Powell made it easier for me. That same spring of 2004, he told me he was ready to move on. He had served three tough years and was naturally fatigued. He was also a sensitive man who had been wounded by the infighting and discouraged by the failure to find weapons of mass destructions in Iraq.” (p.90)

” I felt for Don (Rumsfeld)  again in the spring of 2006, when a group of retired generals launched a barrage of public criticism against him. While I was still considering a personal change, there was no way I was going to let a group of retired officers bully me into pushing out the civilian secretary of defence. It would have looked like a military coup and would have set a disastrous precedent.” (p.93)

“It seems to me that there was another argument against Harriet, one that went largely unspoken: How could I name someone who did not run in elite legal circles? Harriet had not gone to an Ivy League law school. Her personal style compounded the doubts. She is not glib. She is not fancy. She thinks hard before she speaks – a trait so rare in Washington that it was mistaken for intellectual slowness.” (p.101)

“While the idea of selecting a woman still appealed to me, I could not find any as qualified as Sam Alito. … Our critics knew they would not be able to block Sam’s confirmation, but they subjected him to a nasty hearing anyway. They tried to paint him as a racist, a radical, a bigot, anything they could think of – all based on zero evidence. I was disgusted by the demagoguery. As one senator recounted the false charges, Sam’s wife, Martha Ann, broke into tears. Her reaction was so genuine that even some Democrats realised they had gone too far.” (p.102)

Bush on dealing with embryo based research:

“That  scene was not the creation of Jay Lefkowitz, the bright lawyer reading aloud to me in the Oval Office in 2001. It came from Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World. With the recent breakthroughs in biotechnology and genetics, the book now seemed chillingly relevant. So did its lesson: For all its efficiency, Huxley’s utopian world seemed sterile, joyless, and empty of meaning. The quest to perfect humanity ended in the loss of humanity.” (p.106)

“That same day, I also met with representatives of National Right to Life. They opposed any research that destroyed embryos. They pointed out that each tiny stem cell cluster had the potential to grow into a person. In fact, all of us had started our lives in this early state. As evidence, they pointed to a new program run by Nightlight Christian Adoptions. The agency secured permission from IVF participants to place their unused frozen embryos up for adoption. Loving mothers had the embryos implanted in them and carried the babies – known as snowflakes – to term. The message was unmistakable: Within every frozen embryo were the beginnings of a child.” (p.115)

“As one put it, “The fact that a being is going to die does not entitle us to use it as a natural resource for exploitation.” (p.115)

“Many of the first to turn against the policy were scientists. By providing some federal funding, I had whetted their appetite for more. In the spring of 2002, I addressed a major complaint by allowing privately funded embryonic stem cell research to be conducted at facilities that received federal dollars. It was an important step, but it did not satisfy the scientists, who constantly demanded more … Politicians recognised that they, too, could capitalise on the issue. By 2004, Democrats had concluded that stem cell research was a political winner. … Nonetheless, Kerry’s campaign used stem cell research as the foundation for a broader attack, labelling my positions “anti-science.” The charge was false. I had supported science by funding alternative stem cell research, promoting clean energy development, increasing federal spending on technology research, and launching a global AIDS initiative. Yet the demagoguery continued all the way up to the election. The low point came in October, when Kerry’s running mate, Senator John Edwards, told  a political rally in Iowa that if Kerry became president, “people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.” (pp.120-121)

This segment was of such interest that I made the decision to quote it in its entirety:

“The stem cell debate was an introduction to a phenomenon I witnessed throughout my presidency: highly personal criticism. Partisan opponents and commentators questioned my legitimacy, my accent, and my religious beliefs. I was labeled a Nazi, a war criminal, and Satan himself. That last one came from a foreign leader, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. One lawmaker called me both a loser and a liar. He became majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

In some ways, I wasn’t surprised. I had endured plenty of rough politics in Texas. I had seen Dad and Bill Clinton derided by their opponents and the media. Abraham Lincoln was compared to a baboon. Even George Washington became so unpopular that political cartoons showed the hero of the American Revolution being marched to a guillotine. Yet the death spiral of decency during my time in office, exacerbated by the advent of twenty-four-hour cable news and hyper-partisan political blogs, was deeply disappointing. The toxic atmosphere in American politics discourages good people from running for office.

Over time, the petty insults and name-calling hardened into conventional wisdom. Some have said I should have pushed back harder against the caricatures. But I felt it would debase the presidency to stoop to the critics’ level. I had run on a promise to change the tone in Washington. I took that vow seriously and tried to do my part, but I rarely succeeded. The shrill debate never affected my decisions. I read a lot of history, and was struck by how many presidents had endured harsh criticism. The measure of their character, and often their success, was how they responded. Those who based decisions on principle, to some snapshot of public opinion, were often vindicated over time.

George Washington once wrote that leading by conviction gave him “a consolation within that no earthly efforts can deprive me of.” He continued: “The arrows of malevolence, however barbed and well pointed, never can reach the most vulnerable part of me.” I read those words in Presidential Courage, written by historian Michael Beschloss in 2007. As I told Laura, if they’re still assessing George Washington’s legacy more than two centuries after he left office, this George W. doesn’t have to worry about today’s headlines.” (pp.121-122)

This quote is particularly valid in today’s political environment, take note:

“Congress’s response to my veto was not so warm. The Democratic sponsor of the bill erupted with a statement claiming that my veto was based on “cynical political gain.” It was hard to see how, since most polls showed my stem cell stance was not popular. As punishment for my veto, Democrats refused to pass legislation supporting research into alternative sources of stem cells. The message was that if they couldn’t fund stem cell research that destroyed embryos, they would prefer to fund none at all. So much for their passionate desire to see new cures.” (p.124) – [the highlighting is my own] – [I just wanted to bring attention to how caring the “caring-party” truly is] –

On dealing with 9/11 & the new rules of engagement in a modern era:

“Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic majority leader, issued one cautionary note. He said I should be careful about the word war because it had such powerful implications. I listened to his concerns, but I disagreed. If four coordinated attacks by a terrorist network that had pledged to kill as many Americans as possible was not an act of war, then what was it? A breach of diplomatic protocol?” (p.142)

“Late in  the afternoon of September 12, I made the short trip across the Potomac to the Pentagon. The building was smoldering, and there were still bodies inside. Don Rumsfeld and I walked   the crash site and thanked the work crews for their devotion. At one point, a team of workers  atop the building unfurled a giant American flag. It was a sign of defiance and resolve, exactly what the nation needed to see.” (p.142)

“The CIA believed that there were more al Qaeda operatives in the United States and that they wanted to attack America with biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It was hard to imagine anything more devastating than 9/11, but a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction would qualify.” (p.144)

“On 9/11, it was obvious the law enforcement approach to terrorism  had failed. Suicidal men willing to fly passenger planes into buildings were not common criminals. They could not be deterred by the threat of prosecution. … The war would be different from any America had fought in the past. We had to uncover the terrorists’ plots. We had to track their movements and disrupt their operations.” (p.154)

“I was frustrated that Democrats would delay an urgent security measure to placate labor unions.” (p.156)

“Striking the right balance between alerting and alarming the public remained a challenge for the rest of the administration. As time passed, some critics charged that we inflated the threat or manipulated alert levels for political benefit. They were flat wrong. We took the intelligence seriously and did the best we could to keep the American people informed and safe.” (p.159)

On the PATRIOT Act:

“The last thing I wanted was to allow the freedom and access to information provided by American libraries to be utilised against us by al Qaeda.

Lawmakers recognised the urgency of the threat and passed the PATRIOT Act 98 to 1 in the Senate and 357 to 66 in the House. I signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001. “We took time to look at it, we took time to read it, and we took time to remove those parts that were unconstitutional and those parts that would have actually  hurt liberties of all Americans,” Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said. His Democratic colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, added, “If there is one key word that underscores this bill, it is ‘balance.’ In the new post-September 11 society we face, balance is going to be a key word….Balance and reason have prevailed.”

Over the next five years, the PATRIOT Act helped us break up potential terror cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Florida.” (p.161)

“As the freshness of 9/11 faded, so did the overwhelming congressional support for the PATRIOT Act. Civil liberties advocates and commentators on the wings of both parties mischaracterized the law as a stand-in for everything they disliked about the war on terror. … My one regret about the PATRIOT Act is its name. When my administration sent the bill to Capitol Hill, it was initially called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. Congress got clever and renamed it. As a result, there was an implication that people who opposed the law were unpatriotic. That was not what I intended. I should have pushed Congress to change the name of the bill before I signed it.” (p.162)

“….if a terrorist in Afghanistan contacted a terrorist in Pakistan, NSA could intercept their conversation. But if the same terrorist called someone in the United States, or sent an email that touched an American computer server, NSA had to apply for a court order. That made no sense. Why would it be tougher to monitor al Qaeda communications with terrorists inside the United States than with their associates overseas?” (p.163)

When extending  the authority of the NSA Bush explains:

“They concluded that conducting surveillance against our enemies in war fell within the authorities granted by the congressional war resolution and the constitutional authority of the commander in chief. Abraham Lincoln had wiretapped telegraph machines during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson had ordered the interception of virtually every telephone and telegraph message going into or out of the United States during World War I. Franklin Roosevelt had allowed the military to read and censor communications during World War II.” (p.163)

“They assured me the Terrorist Surveillance Program had been carefully designed to protect the civil liberties of innocent people. The purpose of the program was to monitor so-called dirty numbers, which intelligence professionals had reason to believe belonged to al Qaeda operatives. Many had been found in the cell phones or computers of terrorists captured on the battlefield. If we inadvertently intercepted any portion of purely domestic communications, the violation would be reported to the Justice Department for investigation. To be sure the program was used only as long as necessary, it had to be regulated reassessed and reapproved.

I gave the order to proceed with the program. We considered going to Congress to get legislation, but key members from both parties who received highly classified briefings on the program agreed that the surveillance was necessary and that a legislative debate was not possible without exposing our methods to the enemy.

I knew the Terrorist Surveillance Program would prove controversial one day. Yet I believed it was necessary. The rubble at the World Trade Centre was still smoldering. Every morning I received intelligence reports about another possible attack. Monitoring terrorist communications into the United States was essential to keeping the American people safe.” (p.164)

About the Islamic shoe-bomber:

“Reid’s case made clear we needed a new policy for dealing with captured terrorists. In this new kind of war, there is no more valuable source of intelligence on potential attacks than the terrorists themselves. Amid the steady stream of threats after 9/11, I grappled with three of the most critical decisions I would make in the war on terror: where to hold captured enemy fighters, how to determine their legal status and ensure they eventually faced justice, and how to learn what they knew about future attacks so we could protect the American people.” (p.165)

Bush describing Guantanamo Bay:

“At Guantanamo, detainees were given clean and safe shelter, three meals a day, a personal copy of the Koran, the opportunity to pray five times daily, and the same medical care their guards received. They had access to exercise space and a library stocked with books and DVDs. One of the most popular was an Arabic translation of Harry Potter.

Over the years, we invited members of Congress, journalists, and international observers to visit Guantanamo and see the conditions for themselves. Many came away surprised by what they found. A Belgian official inspected Guantanamo five times and called it a “model prison” that offered detainees better treatment than Belgian prisons.” (p.166)

Bush on the Geneva Conventions & al Qaeda:

“The purpose of Geneva was to provide incentives for nation-state to fight wars by an agreed set of rules that protect human  dignity and innocent life – and to punish warriors who do not. But the terrorists did not represent a nation-state. They had not signed the Geneva Conventions. Their entire mode of operation – intentionally killing the innocent – defied the principles of Geneva. And if al Qaeda captured an American, there was little chance they would treat him humanely.” (p.167)

On negotiating with terrorists:

“America has a longstanding policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and I continued it. I knew that if I accepted one terrorist’s demands, it would only encourage more kidnappings. Our military and intelligence assets were searching urgently for Pearl, but they couldn’t make it in time. In his final moments, Danny Pearl said, “My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.” Then his al Qaeda captors slit his throat.

On the trial of terrorists:

As I made my decision on Geneva protection, I also decided to create a legal system to determine the innocence or guilt of detainees. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Franklin Roosevelt had faced similar dilemmas of how to bring captured enemy combatants to justice during wartime. All had reached the same conclusion: a court operated by the military” (p.167)

On “enhanced interrogation”:

“Zubaydah later explained to interrogators why he started answering questions again. His understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation only up to a certain point. Waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfil his religious duty, and then cooperate. “You must do this for all the brothers,” he said. (p.169)

This whole segment was of such interest that I had to quote the whole thing:

“Of the thousands of terrorists we captured in the years after 9/11, about a hundred were placed into the CIA program. About a third of those were questioned using enhanced techniques. Three were waterboarded. The information the detainees in the CIA program revealed constituted more than half of what the CIA knew about al Qaeda.

Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States. Experts in the intelligence community told me that without the CIA program, there would have been another attack on the United States.

After we implemented the CIA program, we briefed a small number of lawmakers from both parties on its existence. At the time, some were concerned we weren’t pushing hard enough. But years later, once the threat seemed less urgent and the political winds had shifted, many lawmakers became fierce critics. They charged that Americans had committed unlawful torture. That was not true. I had asked the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government to review the interrogation methods, and they had assured me they did not constitute torture.

To suggest that our intelligence personnel violated the law by following the legal guidance they received is insulting and wrong. The CIA interrogation program saved lives. Had we captured more al Qaeda operatives with significant intelligence value, I would have used the program for them as well.” (p.171)

On dealing with the media and opposition:

“I was disappointed in the Times and angry at whoever had betrayed their country by leaking the story. … The left responded with hysteria.” (p.176)

“Other lawmakers compared the conduct of our military and CIA professionals to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.” (p.179)

“While I believe opening Guantanamo after 9/11 was necessary, the detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies.” (p.180)

“From the beginning, I knew the public reaction to my decisions would be coloured by whether there was another attack. If none happened, whatever I did would probably look like an overreaction. If we were attacked again, people would demand to know why I hadn’t done more.” (p.180)

After describing a remarkably swift and impressive victory in Afghanistan hailed by the international community, Bush goes on to describe how the project started spiralling downwards in the “nation building phase”:

“There was little coordination between countries, and no one devoted enough resources to the effort. The German initiative to build the national police had fallen short. The Italian mission to reform the justice system had failed. The British-led counternarcotics campaign showed results in some areas, but drug production had boomed in fertile southern provinces like Helmand.

The Afghan National Army that America trained had improved, but in an attempt to keep the Afghan government from taking on an unsustainable expense we had kept the army too small. The multilateral military mission proved a disappointment as well. Every member of NATO had sent troops to Afghanistan. So had more than a dozen other countries. But many parliaments imposed heavy  restrictions – known as national caveats – on what their troops were permitted to do. Some were not allowed to patrol at night. Others could not engage in combat. The result was a disorganised and ineffective force, with troops fighting by different rules and many not fighting at all.

Failures in the Afghan government contributed to the problem. While I liked and respected President Karzai, there was too much corruption. Warlords pocketed large amounts of customs revenue that should have gone to Kabul. Others took a cut of the profits from the drug trade.

The result was that Afghans lost faith in their government. With nowhere else to turn, many Afghans relied on the Taliban and ruthless extremist commanders like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani.” (p.211)

Bush on the “Pakistani issue”:

“The primary cause of the trouble did not originate in Afghanistan or, as some suggested, in Iraq. It came from Pakistan.” (p.212)

“Over time, it became clear that Musharraf either would not or could not fulfil all his promises. Part of the problem was Pakistan’s obsession with India. In almost every conversation we had, Musharraf accused India of wrongdoing. Four days after 9/11, he told me the Indians were “trying to equate us with terrorists and trying to influence your mind.” As a result, the Pakistani military spent most of its resources preparing for war with India. Its troops were trained to wage a conventional battle with its neighbour, not counterterrorism operations in the tribal areas. The fight against extremists came second.

A related problem was that Pakistani forces pursued the Taliban much less aggressively than they pursued al Qaeda. Some in the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, retained close ties to Taliban officials. Others wanted an insurance policy in case America abandoned Afghanistan and India tried to gain influence there.” (pp.213-214)

Bush on the hostile relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan:

“I invited Karzai and Musharraf to dinner at the White House in September 2006. When I welcomed them in the Rose Garden, they refused to shake hands or even look at each other. The mood did not improve when we sat down for dinner in the Old Family Dining Room. Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Steve Hadley, and I watched as Karzai and Musharraf traded barbs. At one point, Karzai accused Musharraf of harbouring the Taliban.

“Tell me where they are!” Musharraf responded testily. “You know where they are!” Karzai fired back. “If I did, I would get them” said Musharraf. “Go do it!” Karzai persisted. I started to wonder whether this dinner had been a mistake. I told Musharraf and Karzai that the stakes were too high for personal bickering. I kept the dinner going for two and a half hours, trying to help them find common ground.” (pp.215-216)

Bush on Pakistan’s “improved strategy” and commitment to anti-terrorist military actions:

“While well intentioned, the strategy failed. The tribes did not have the will or the capacity to control the extremists. Some estimates indicated that the flow of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan increased fourfold.” (p.216)

By the middle of 2008, I was tired of reading intelligence reports about extremist sanctuaries in Pakistan. I thought back to a meeting I’d had with Special Forces in Afghanistan in 2006.

“Are you guys getting everything you need?” I asked. One SEAL raised his hand and said, “No, sir.” I wondered what his problem might be. “Mr.President,” he said, “we need permission to go kick some ass inside Pakistan.” (p.217)

Bush recounts a touching moment, displaying the admirable commitment and sense of duty among American soldiers:

“There in that lonely hangar, in the nation where 9/11 was planned, in the eighth year of a war to protect America, these men on the front lines chose to reenlist.” (p.221)

Leading up to the infamous Iraq War:

“By early 2001, Saddam Hussein was waging a low-grade war against the United States. In 1999 and 2000, his forces had fired seven hundred times at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones.” (p.228)

“Saddam Hussein wasn’t just a sworn enemy of America. He had fired at our aircraft, issued a statement praising 9/11, and made an assassination attempt on a former president, my father.” (p.228)

“Saddam Hussein didn’t just violate international demands. He had defied sixteen UN resolutions, dating back to the Gulf War. (p.228)

Here comes an interesting segment; I lived in France when America decided to “invade” Iraq (pretty much everyone referred to it as an invasion). I read in the French papers that the government were against the initiative due to their business dealings with Saddam, this of course shed doubt on their “moral” justification for opposing the war:

“Vladimir Putin didn’t consider Saddam a threat. It seemed to me that part of the reason was Putin didn’t want to jeopardise Russia’s lucrative oil contracts. France also had significant economic interest in Iraq.” (p.233)

“But when the German elections arrived later that year, Schroeder had a different take. He denounced the possibility of using force against Iraq. His justice minister said, “Bush wants to divert attention from domestic political problems . . . Hitler also did that.” I was shocked and furious. It was hard to think of anything more insulting than being compared to Hitler by a German official. I continued to work with Gerhard Schroeder on areas of mutual interest. But as someone who valued personal diplomacy, I put a high premium on trust. Once that trust was violated, it was hard to have a constructive relationship again.” (p.234)

When Bush spoke in front of the UN Security Council asking for a new UN resolution forcing Saddam to reveal his WMD:

“The vote was unanimous, 15 to 0. Not only had France voted for the resolution, but so had Russia, China, and Syria. The world was now on record: Saddam had a “final opportunity to comply” with his obligation to disclose and disarm. If he did not, he would face “serious consequences.” (p.241)

Pushed by Tony Blair who recommended Bush to address the Security Council once more when Saddam still proved to be difficult, Colin Powell delivered his infamous speech about Iraq’s WMD. Probably one of the most famous moments of the Bush administration. It seemed like the Security Council weren’t particularly interested in enforcing the “serious consequences” they had warned about:

“We are both moral men,” Jaques Chirac told me after Colin’s speech. “But in this case, we see morality differently.” I replied politely, but I thought to myself: If a dictator who tortures and gasses his people is not immoral, then who is? Three days later, Chirac stepped in front of the cameras and said, “Nothing today justifies war.” He, Gerhard Schroeder, and Vladimir Putin issued a joint statement of opposition. All three of them sat on the Security Council. The odds of a second resolution looked bleak.” (p.245)

It is an interesting thing to note that Bush writes: ” gasses his people.” The Kurds weren’t part of Saddam’s tribe, so what worth did they have to him? Again we get a glimpse of a fundamental lack of understanding of low-trust, extreme-tribal societies far removed from the excessively civic-minded, high-trust societies of Europe. Something that must have lingered on in certain parts of America as Bush described his childhood home in Texas as a place where no one locked their front doors…These type of statements lend an incredible insight into the “American mindset” where introduction to enlightenment ideas will automatically convert people to our way of life. If one operates under the belief that “all men are created equal” well then there isn’t much hope that western interference will ever come to a halt or that our own societies will survive – as massive immigration will be justified, since we are all the same and can function perfectly within a democratic, western, social construct. Bush goes on to share his take on the Iraq War critics:

“I’ve always wondered why many critics of the war did not acknowledge the moral argument made by people like Elie Wiesel. Many of those who demonstrated against military action in Iraq were devoted advocates of human rights. Yet they condemned me for using force to remove the man who had gassed the Kurds, mowed down the Shia by helicopter gunship, massacred the Marsh Arabs, and sent tens of thousands to mass graves. I understood why people might disagree on the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. But I didn’t see how anyone could deny that liberating Iraq advanced the cause of human rights.” (p.248)

After the Americans and their allies had delivered yet another quick and impressive “take over” matters got ugly both in terms of PR and chaos in Baghdad:

“I hadn’t noticed the large banner my staff had placed on the bridge of the ship, positioned for TV. It read “Mission Accomplished.” It was intended as a tribute to the folks aboard the Lincoln, which had just completed the longest deployment for an aircraft carrier of its class. Instead, it looked like I was doing the victory dance I had warned against.” (p.257)

“In the weeks after liberation, Baghdad descended into a state of lawlessness. … Part of the explanation was that Saddam had released tens of thousands of criminals shortly before the war. But the problem was deeper than that. Saddam had warped the psychology of Iraqis in a way we didn’t fully understand.” (p.258)

“In some ways, the orders achieved their objectives. Iraq’s Shia and Kurds – the majority of the population – welcomed the clean break from Saddam. But the orders had a psychological impact I did not foresee. Many Sunnis took them as a signal they would have no place in Iraq’s future. This was especially dangerous in the case of the army. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency. In retrospect, I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry’s orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect.” (p.259)

Here is an interesting thought. Was America as a nation played? And if so by who? After reading the following pages one can start to wonder…Bush writes in his book that everyone had intelligence about Saddam’s WMD. So did he ship them somewhere? Or did he lie? Was it all part of a grand scheme where Saddam behaved as if though he had something to hide – knowing that the Americans would come after him? Luring them into a situation he thought would cripple them? Was Saddam just the bait? These quotes, in fact these pages are of great interest:

“Their strategy was to present an image of Iraq as hopeless and unwinnable, swinging American public opinion against the war and forcing us to withdraw as we had in Vietnam.”

“When Saddam didn’t use WMD on our troops, I was relieved. When we didn’t discover the stockpile soon after the fall of Baghdad, I was surprised. When the whole summer passed without finding any, I was alarmed. The press corps constantly raised the question, “Where are the WMD?” I was asking the same thing.” (p.261)

“Nobody was lying. We were all wrong.” (p.262)

“No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons.” (p.262)

On receiving Saddam’s pistol in a glass box from the Delta Team that captured him Bush writes:

“The pistol always reminded me that a brutal dictator, responsible for so much death and suffering, had surrendered to our troops while cowering in a hole.” (p.267)

These are some very interesting quotes from Bush:

“One of the ironies of the war is that we were criticized harshly by the left and some in the international community for wanting to build an empire in Iraq. We never sought that. In fact, we were so averse to anything that looked like an empire that we made our job far more difficult. By reducing our troop presence and focusing on training Iraqis, we inadvertently allowed the insurgency to gain momentum. Then al Qaeda fighters flocked to Iraq seeking a new safe haven, which made our mission both more difficult and more important.” (p.268)

“Every psychological profile I had read told me Saddam was a survivor. If he cared so much about staying in power, why would he gamble his regime by pretending to have WMD?

Part of the explanation came after Saddam’s capture, when he was debriefed by the FBI. He told agents that he was more worried about looking weak to Iran than being removed by the coalition.” (P.269)

“Had Saddam followed through on that intention, the world would likely have witnessed a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran. .. Instead, as a result of our actions in Iraq, one of America’s most committed and dangerous enemies stopped threatening us forever. The most volatile region in the world lost one of its greatest sources of violence and mayhem.” (p.270)

Our favourite Moriarty character makes a guest appearance: 

“Wealthy donors like investment mogul George Soros gave Kerry huge amounts of money….” (p.290)

Bush on the looming financial meltdown:

“By the summer of 2008, I had publicly called for GSE reform seventeen times. It turned out the eighteenth was the charm. All it took was the prospect of a global financial meltdown.” (p.455)

Bush’s account of the impending financial collapse and the repercussions for not only Americans but the “global economy” makes for a terrifying read. Bush describes trying to rescue the “sinking Titanic” a hopeless mission requiring federal interference through the purchasing and selling of public companies. This went completely against Bush’s free-market stance, but he saw himself as forced to “bail out Wall Street” due to the severe consequences that would manifest themselves as a result of bankruptcy upon bankruptcy among humongous businesses entrenched in all sort of enterprises far and wide. These pages read like a high-pace action thriller, where you’ll find yourself on the edge of your seat as a reader. The fact that major corporations are so sensitively interlinked in terms of their finances and investments/speculations is alarming for all, regardless of who they are or where they might live.

As we near the end of these 481 pages Bush writes:

“When I hung up the phone, I said a prayer that all would be well during my successor’s time. I thought about one of my favourite presidential quotes, from a letter John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail: “I pray Heaven to bestow the best blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” His words are carved into the mantel above the fireplace of the State Dining Room.” (p.467)

Finally Bush closes with a wonderful epilogue and a touching acknowledgments section. All I can say is what a book. 10/10 for sure. Magnificent!

jon snow

Winter Is Coming.

 

Rex Perpetuus – Trump, Mattis, Putin, Bill Gates & Revolutionaries.

Standard

The other day I watched Donald Trump’s important speech over in Poland. It was refreshing and shocking to hear a western leader talk about how our heritage has to be protected! People in the east love and respect President Trump while west-hating individuals in western Europe and America seem to head for a public social-media breakdown every time Trump or anyone from his administration say anything at all. The speech was not as energetic as his inauguration speech but it reached a climax towards the very end. It is a great shame that a powerful western country such as America can shift so violently in terms of their political platform since straight-up self-loathing is allowed to fester even influencing policy making and America’s dealings with the rest of the world… These awkward flag-burning, genuinely anti-American sentiments seem to be protected under “freedom of speech” and liberty – so what if the revolutionary “libtards” with all their ethnomasochistic hatred are voted back into office next election? Long may Trump and his associates reign – the west needs leaders who are strong and proud. Never forget that there is an ongoing culture-war where those on the hard-left are at war with “western civilisation” that according to them is a fiction or something oppressive worth deconstructing and destroying. It is sad. Discussing our various ideas and reaching a compromise while being united in love for our mother-country is what we are supposed to do. Not divide ourselves between “let us protect our land” or “to hell with it, let it all burn.” You can’t be friends with those who want you dead – obviously……………

My two favourite leaders meeting for the first time! I don’t know what they are saying in this video but you can see the first handshake between the two presidents. Putin looks like he has a “Trump-crush” 😛

Speaking of Putin:

I love this! ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤

Speaking of which, I had no idea that secular censorship had been pushed through in terms of “BC & AD.” I spotted this in one of my siblings books some days ago and then noticed it again in a book about warfare published by the same publishing company. It is quite disturbing this dictatorial change of how we are supposed to speak – I’m pretty sure I’ve posted a link in the past to an article concerning ‘the racism of proper English grammar.” Read this article to be mortified of the “rewriting/adjustments” of western history as this is just one of many adjustments being carried out:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8737038/To-BC-or-BCE.html

Some weeks ago I came across this disturbing article about abortion: http://birthofanewearth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/one-third-of-new-york-babies-aborted.html This is also an interesting take on the issue – http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/jan/19/wendy-davis/flawed-wendy-davis-claim-1-3-women-has-had-abortio/

Here are some cool vids with (Ret.) Marine General, now US Defence Secretary Mattis: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/29/james-mattis-a-warrior-in-washington

An interesting video from one Hollywood’s most respected actors:

Lindsay Lohan standing by her president on her official twitter, as can be seen above…

A Guardian article about American politicians rocking out. Quite funny actually: https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2017/jun/21/us-politicians-bands-rock-music

Black Lives Matter are being sued for their “revolutionary” actions against the American police: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/09/us/lawsuit-black-lives-matter-baton-rouge/index.html

More “revolutionary” behaviour in America……http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html

Horrible “revolutionaries” disturbing the peace in Germany. A disgrace. #StandByThePolice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/german-police-fire-water-cannon-g20-demonstration/ 

 

An interesting article about Madonna and her relationship with Tupac, actually. Worthy a read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/tupac-split-madonna-white-prison-letter-reveals/

And now over to the most politically incorrect part of this entry … Bill Gates has shocked the world by expressing logical concerns about the flood of migrants heading for Europe. His opinion is that we should seek to help African populations where they are rather than killing our own countries by letting them in – as we cannot handle the burden. Those who have seen or heard of the future “migrant” predictions might go even further in their views on the “African issue” as we will not have enough men nor conventional weapons to defend ourselves if future predictions of movement towards our beloved Europe rings true. Which they are according to this EU official: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4676640/Europe-underestimating-scale-migrant-crisis.html We are facing quite a potential-situation if “lost territories” within our European nations expand in addition to increased pressure at our “gates” from without…I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…our leaders should nip things in the bud now. If all of Europe’s nations could come together to enforce our borders in the south this would be a good thing. Will it happen? I do not know, but I suspect that it won’t as it would be seen as “xenophobic,” “racist,” and or “bigoted” to keep these people out as “freedom of movement” ought to be a human right…Further down as a last video in this entry I’ve included a cartoon that in my opinion illustrates European charity perfectly. It isn’t considered “nice” of course to speak of these matters/issues … but sooner or later we will be forced to, whether we like it or not. :/  😦

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4665198/Bill-Gates-warns-open-door-migration-overwhelm-Europe.html

Here is a bonus article for those who are curious; Mike Pence created waves in the liberal-leaning media after admitting that he never eats or have drinks alone with other women than his wife. This statement resulted in him being accused of holding extremely old-fashioned views, but funny enough it turns out that Americans agree with him. It is an interesting topic for discussion in our post-modern times because it is becoming increasingly difficult to know how to operate socially within our progressive construct. As a woman active in a predominantly male profession I would be very lonely if I never spoke to any of my male colleagues…. It is also difficult to know if you are “hanging-out” or “going on a date” with one of your “metro-sexual” peers for example. Is he gay or is he straight? Is he interested or not? If the bill is split equally I would classify it as a “non-date.” You are hanging out in a “sibling/cousin-fashion.” I’ve chatted with “male friends” and “colleagues” several times in real-life and online which from a traditional perspective can probably be perceived as dubious – why would a woman talk to a man unless she is interested? Mike Pence’s statement makes sense from a traditional perspective but it is confusing in a post-modern society of socially enforced equality between the genders – when you aren’t really aware of what is what or what is going on. I certainly remember saying and probably writing to male colleagues that “we should have a drink next time I’m in the country” or “what about dinner” without this meaning that I’m interested. I guess that our progressive society will just spin even further into confusion. I remember when I was introduced to American high-school culture years ago and I heard of “friends with benefits” I had no clue what on earth this meant – much to the amusement of my American peers. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/06/nyt-poll-americans-agree-with-mike-pences-rules-about-dining-with-women/

 

The Odyssey – for children.

Standard

Years ago I learned about Greek legends in school – it’s been a while so I was curious to check out my younger brother’s child copy of “The Odyssey.” It was very cool but it was surprising to read something so “politically incorrect” in this day and age 😀 I certainly enjoyed it and see why boys and men alike will never tire of these tales. Much could be gained from sharing these stories with school children in the North as well; conditioning our future to solely depend on a modern, convenient, high-tech, pacifistic social construct can best be described as reckless. What happens the moment that climate change or destabilisation as a result of conflict shatters our current comfort?

Diversity – Why It Is A Complex Issue.

Standard

Several times I’ve received great expertise and service at the hands of personnel of immigrant background in the UK. I’ve ran into successful mixed couples, my own family is at this point multi-ethnic and an old childhood friend of mine has converted to Islam, even adopting a “foreign” way of speaking her native language …

On the other hand; there is an over-representation of immigrants when it comes to crime, prisons in the UK are recruitment grounds for Islamists, territories are becoming no-gone zones for European natives and European nations are constantly being undermined in terms of their cultural identity and heritage in order to be “open” and “inclusive.” Quotas are enforced, killing off the idea of a meritocracy, racial targeting of “whites” is rampant when it comes to sex-attacks committed by Muslims not to mention the well documented struggle a great amount of migrants face when trying to function within a western democratic societal structure.

It is easy to become sceptical towards diversity when focusing on the latter, but equally easy to feel guilty about these feelings when encountering likeable and/or high achieving individuals from the same group as mentioned above. It is equally disappointing if stereotypes are re-inforced and confirmed by the behaviour of those of immigrant background as one lives in the hope that all of these are the products of biased, out of date, prejudiced thinking.  It must surely be beneficial to “import” high achievers into ones society as long as these individuals don’t engage in cultural subversion, just as it cannot possibly be in the interest of any reasonable ruler to flood their nation with the very worst from other cultures.

It is especially interesting to note that certain European leaders threaten those who don’t want to listen to them, with sending in more migrants. By referring to these people like they are some sort of a weapon, these politicians display that they are conscious and fully aware of the current “European issue” which of course can make one question their motives and end goal with importing even more aliens indiscriminately . 

It is easier to call someone out on their “funky business” when dubious leaders are impeded from hiding behind foreigners … My father for example, explained how “cultural marxists” wished to destroy an old Norwegian fortress of historical significance, erecting housing projects in its stead. Why tear down a monument of military significance if not to dismantle parts of a nations cultural heritage? Again, the agenda of the “deconstructionists” become apparent when they don’t have Islam and/or any other alien group to hide behind…..

How can the current cultural crisis be solved in Europe? That is a very good question as one cannot forget or deny the bad, nor can generalisation be allowed to destroy and undermine valuable contributions from individuals. There is no reason to be filled with antipathy when running into a well integrated, well functioning foreigner, but there is also a serious danger to the integrity and safety of a nation if the “common-will” is to “give up” ones territory entirely, especially when this happens voluntarily, willingly … which surely must be unprecedented, historically speaking….

If one is to follow the current progressive agenda, it means undermining and de-valuing blood spilled by previous generations who died in battle to preserve the dignity, borders and future of Europe’s various indigenous ethnic groups. It is a sensitive and problematic issue, that can neither be brushed under the carpet or be entirely presented in a grim light. In my opinion it is crucial that immigration is halted completely from cultures alien to the European continent as of now, in order to stabilise a very unstable situation. If it could become illegal by law for future immigrants to self-segragate then maybe this could help as well. Massive responsibility rests on the shoulders of our civilian leadership that have as of now failed miserably by not being more critical as well as modest when opening up the “gates.”

As flawed and divisive as multiculturalism is, it has become our reality and with that reality comes an avalanche of social issues that has to be addressed in a balanced and nuanced way, without destroying the integrity and validity of western societies, without altering and falsifying history in order to sell fictious modern narratives, without diminishing western authority or smashing any hopes of future prosperity for those law abiding, well integrated aliens who would be unethical, immoral and unheard of to deport.

  1. A very important and accurate article. If you have limited time then please read this and the article mentioned about Western Civilisation, below. ↓
  2. An equally important article about a topic that should concern us all: The Crisis of Western Civ.
  3. The President of the German police union, admits that “integration” has failed ever since Germany initiated their “multiculturalism project.” For 30 years we’ve proven that it can’t be done – the Video has English subtitles.
  4. This is part II of an extremely interesting article concerning “high-trust” vs. “low-trust” cultures. This is a must read for all of those who don’t believe in borders and who don’t want to admit that “genuine diversity” exists. It also presents a completely different perspective in the migrant debate: Why are those who chased away Europeans risking their lives to get back under Euro-rule? A very awkward scenario for sure.
  5. This is a very intriguing article about (drumroll) Sweden … It is the descendants of immigrants who are guilty of the crime wave. Who would have thought?
  6. This is an alarming video. A must see as it talks about future migrant predictions. Any individual who justify strengthening other continents and nations, should think about the repercussions this can have for our future.Our future problem with Africa.
  7. A shocking article about:Totalitarian Sweden. This is a story of a couple who unfortunately found themselves in the middle of altercations between “new-Swedes” and the police. They filmed the ordeal and uttered “anti-migrant-sentiments” which isn’t strange considering how Sweden is currently suffering under the “humanitarian-load.” The result? They were asked to denounce their quips by admitting to having “unsound minds” due to mental health. It is an interesting thing to note that mental disorders are increasingly stigmatised in order to cover up both “terrorist-activity” and “resentment towards migrants.” An ugly reality. Very ugly and utterly oppressive. The couple was fired and had their equipment confiscated. 
  8. Erdogan addressed an issue that those on the right (and probably the police & the military) have been concerned  about for a long time. – Look at us we are so many, & look at you, you are so few…. – Turkish Agitation Europe.
  9. This is an article about the same problem, the quotes are in English, but the main text is in Norwegian. Foreign agitation.
  10. This is the second video I’ve seen of an Italian reporter being chased by migrants when reporting on their ordeal. One of the videos I linked to here on my blog was from the satirical news-program”Striscia La Notizia” who were creating a  critical story about the “new arrivals” and their criminal activity, but this video , depicts a female reporter for a serious tv-program creating a sympathetic portrayal of the hardships of the migrants before an alien man tries to attack her and she is thankfully rescued by a taxi driver… In the (now)removed video you can hear her saying that the “refugees” are heading north…..Nice.
  11. According to this reportage this lady understands “Arabic.” This made it possible for her to understand what “the new arrivals” were saying as she witnessed the alien masses streaming into the continent. An interesting watch.
  12.  A couple of articles about the tragedy that is “modern-Sweden.” Our neighbours have become a cautionary tale for anyone who might feel inclined to support “feminist politics” or the idea of being “a humanitarian superpower.” This article is in English but this other article that is very descriptive of the deep cultural issue is in Swedish. Hate-crimes are a very “real-thing” but not quite how the mainstream might imagine it. Racism is rampant towards ethnic locals. Now how to you explain or justify that?
  13. The online-behaviour depicted in this article is spot on. Anyone reacting to the recent terrorists attacks in England with anger “reacted wrong.” It is of course understandable that individuals with limited knowledge about the current “ice-berg-issue-with-immigrants” will perceive terrorism in Europe as the “act-of-evil-people” not as the ‘visible-tip-of-a-gigantic-ice-berg.” If the mainstream media were more vocal and if people paid more attention to mainstream and independent news, they would be mortified. Never before has an enemy been more excused or loved.
  14. Ariana Grande is more equipped than the Pentagon to handle the terror threat apparently….It’s the end of the world as we know it, & I don’t feel fine.
  15. The best anti-west propaganda ever. This video is a must watch!
  16. A peaceful Muslim doing the right thing.
  17. 23.000 Jihadis are strolling around in the streets of Britain, taking it easy. The quotes in this article are in English, so it is possible to understand the issue, the rest of the text is in Norwegian. The mess.
  18. Aesthetic perimeters in France. Yes. It is not nice to call a spade a spade. I remember walking underneath the Eiffel tower taking lots of breathtaking pictures in 2007. Shame that I don’t know where those photos are anymore.
  19. A very interesting “Macron-leak” if it is genuine. Apparently it is. I remember having to frequent “mandatory French classes for non-French speakers” when I attended school in France. I was the only non-muslim and beside one Arab boy and myself nobody else even bothered to put in any effort to learn French. They were just killing time, mocking the initiative. Taking into consideration that the EU apparently envisions “the new-European man” these documents shouldn’t come as a surprise. 😦
  20. If you feel like going for a swim in Europe.
  21. What really happened at the Bataclan?
  22. A very good article presented in a very professional manner about modern-Europe.
  23. The Catholic Church’s Involvement with Immigration. This is why people lose faith. At least in the organised-established-corruptible-bureaucratic-structure.
  24. A tragic video about the destruction of English identity … the worst part is that you can’t make this up.
  25. It is predicted that “Swedish-conditions” will contaminate our nation as well. It is said than coming generations will be worse. This article is about crime committed by immigrants/aliens in Norway.
  26. Norway’s official conservative newspaper declaring that “Europe is not primarily a Christian continent” before they continue with their ethno-masochism in order to protect Islam.
  27. A Norwegian independent news website, set the record straight regarding our cultural heritage and ancestry. The title of this article translates into ” Aftenposten have chosen submission.”
  28. A shocking article from Norway’s official statistics bureau revealing that we have more Polish immigrants in Norway than people from “alien cultures.” This is very revealing when one considers how representative other cultures are in terms of crime and racist activity directed towards locals…A surprising find…
  29. Yet if one looks closely … Population predictions Norway…do we have reason to worry? Absolutely if one looks closely at the methods of the bureau; at a certain point you are considered a “Norwegian” even though you are technically a foreigner.
  30. This is very bad news about Norway’s “welfare-bubble,” contrary to what our leaders like to delude their voters into believing, Norway is not the world’s richest country and needs to wake up!
  31. This theory could very well be why we’ve deluded ourselves:The Noble Savage
  32. A very interesting article with this off-putting title:”Breivik’s Norway.” It is a worthy read and especially interesting if what ABB wrote is actually true. Wether it is or not is hard to tell, unless he contacted the authorities each time he bore witness to a hate-crime.
  33. A video about the current ordeal in our part of the world:”Diversity in Europe.”
  34. A disturbing article that everyone should read. I’ve shared it several times and will probably continue doing so:”Racism towards Whites.
  35. Here are some videos/articles from Tommy Robinson. He is commonly depicted as a “right-wing-extremist” but this does not seem particularly accurate. Please take the time to check out this:”Justice for Chelsey.” This is a very good video that anyone should take the time to watch: “Maajid Nawas vs. Tommy Robinson.” This is Robinson making videos about how upset he is about racist violence in England:”Tommy Robinson” & “Tommy Robinson Again.
  36. This might be the reason as to why “integration” has failed in Europe. We’ve created  specific systems for ourselves and there is no guarantee that other people will neither like our constructs nor function within them: “All traits are heritable.
  37. More about our genetic heritage: “Replicants.”
  38. Evolution is happening faster than what we thought … we are becoming even more different to one another: “We Are All Mutants.
  39. A very interesting read that should be made mandatory:”The Race FAQ.”
  40. Another article along the same lines:”Such a thing as Race.”
  41. How the world reacts to unconventional truths:”The Ugliness of reality.”
  42. How to write an article meant to condemn only to sound like you’re endorsing “the enemy” since what ‘the bad-guy” said makes sense …Charles Murray.
  43. Genes… notice how the picture in this article, published by a mainstream media outlet has been removed by The New York Times….I took a screen shot of it ↓Diversity
  44. A very interesting guy sharing lots of relevant information. I’ve checked out all of these:”Information Processing – Several Articles.
  45. 100 Years of Ideology. This is quite interesting. It’s in all in the blood as our ancestors said.
  46. More of the same:”Bowling with our own.”
  47. How a brilliant man lost everything due to his lack of political correctness:”Watson.”
  48. Nixon talking about IQ:”Nixon phone conversation.
  49. Here are a coupe of articles about “The Alt-Right.” I don’t know enough about this guy to have an opinion, some say he is a right-wing extremist, others say he is not. I’m certainly not endorsing neo-nazis but the articles I’ve linked to are worthy a read. “Why is the alt-right so threatening?” & “The long history of “Nazi punching.”
  50. A Donald Trump supporter losing his love for The President. I still like the Trump administration, but it’s interesting to read/see other perspectives….
  51. I don’t like the style of this YouTuber at all, but he has some interesting points. So even though I find his presentation vulgar, it doesn’t hurt checking it out: “This week in stupid.”
  52. An interesting video about the skeptic community. It is very true that people construct their very own carefully designed echo-chambers. Trying to open people’s eyes to untraditional narratives is a hopeless operation. I’ve officially given up. There will be no more entries about “the Islamist-threat” coming from me after this. I’ve said a lot, I’ve proposed solutions, I think the only next step would be to 1)write petitions &/or 2) run for office. “The End of the Skeptic Community.
  53. Since this entry is about diversity it makes sense to include this intriguing video about: “The Kurdish Question.” This is very informative and eye-opening. Please check it out!
  54. I will finish off this long entry with links to a number of articles from Norway; some of these I’ve been thinking about translating. I will publish at least one of them in English, in due time….  “Politics vs. Emotionalism.” this article describes how the west has fallen for “the emotional” rather than the “boring, factual, realpolitik.” It was very enlightening to read it actually as it is very easy to recognise where/how we are failing. In my opinion it should be: 1)illegal to promise unrealistic policy-changes that cannot be fulfilled & 2)illegal to drastically alter war-efforts, initiated by the outgoing administration, if it is detrimental to the desired outcome of the involvement. No wonder the world is as messy as it is when one administration can initiate a war-effort and a new, incoming administration has the power to just abruptly halt it. If you have made the decision to overthrow a regime – then you better make sure that you got things under control maintaining a presence in the region. It’s not about popularity or at least it shouldn’t be. It is about what is best for the country. This next article is about how the “mainstream” try to sell a narrative about how Norway used to have Sharia-law… if you ever wondered how deep we’ve sunk into denial over our own identity then look no further than here: “Re-defining what it means to be ethnic-Norwegian,” uff…excuse me if I vomit. Our police-force is being nannied by “sociologists” who will probably succeed in making officers quit in protest. They do everything in their power not only to undermine Norwegian identity but to deny Norway’s problems with crime due to our “cultural enrichment.” When you try to be a cop … in a politically correct climate…
  55. The title of this article is: Europeans will lose the only place on the planet, that they call “theirs.” & Europe the proud, has become an old lady tired of life who refuses to eat. Very good articles that should be translated into English….
  56. Here is an overview of Norwegians killed by foreigners in Norway between 1981-2008. At least 58 individuals were killed in this time-period a pretty  big number compared to the 4-5 foreigners killed by Norwegians in the same time-frame. I have written about the racist murder on Benjamin Hermann before, but I had no idea that the number of murders directed towards “100%” Norwegians looked like this…it is a very different story than the one presented by the major media-outlets out there. Where is SOS Racism when ethnic-Norwegians are the victims? (Si det….man kan jo spoerre seg…)Due to how unconventional-facts have a tendency to disappear, (just look at the article I shared concerning the police) I’ll paste in the article in its entirety below. This is not mine in any way, I’m just spreading this information and making sure that if it gets deleted, well…then there is a backup here (I’ve added the highlights):“Frem fra glemselen”

    Siden 1981 til og med 2008, er minst 58 norske menn og kvinner blitt drept i Norge av utlendinger eller noen med innvandrerbakgrunn. Det er en lang rekke av drap som hver gang knapt fikk en avisnotis og i dag er fortiet og glemt. I samme tidsrom er 4-5 innvandrere blitt drept av nordmenn.

    1 1981, sommer, Bjørn Erik Solberg, Oslo, 24 år, skulle hjelpe en kvinne som ble trakassert av sin mann, men ble i stedet knivdrept av mannen som var en innvandrer fra Nord-Afrika

    2 1991, ? mars, Gunvor Refsdal, forgiftet med timetylklorid i vin av sin mann Hani Abdullah.

    3 1991, 3. sept. Tage Ansethmoen, Oslo, lege, drept med 20 knivstikk i sitt hjem av en marokkaner.

    4 1991, 14. des. Jarle Næss, Bergen, 23 år, dørvakt og bokser. Skutt midt i hjertet og drept med en halvautomatisk 11,25 Remington US Army, av marokkaneren Nour-Eddin Khouya, utenfor utestedet Maxime i Bergen. Marokkaneren kom til Norge i aug. 1990, og får midlertidig oppholdstillatelse. Kameraten til Næss, Bård Trones (25) blir skutt i magen, men overlever.

    5 1992, 26. jan. Tore A. Holthe, Gjøvik, 27 år, knivdrept av to marokkanere – 24 og 31 år.

    6 1992, 14. aug. Paul Gamlem, 31 år, ble sparket til døde i Oslo av to pakistanere – 17 og 19 år.

    7 1993, 7. mars, Berit Backer, sos. arbeider, ble kvalt i sitt hjem av en innvandrer fra Kosovo. Drapsmannen ble idømt sikring, men fikk senere norsk statsborgerskap og oppholdstillatelse i 2001.

    8 1993, 24. april, Linda M. Sandvik, 24 år, Oslo, Kvalt av en iraker, – også tiltalt for flere voldtekter.

    9 1994, 21. juli, en nordmann ble knivdrept i Larvik av en palestiner. (Nærmere detaljer mangler).

    10 1995, 13. okt. Kvinne, 57 år, sos. arbeider – brent inne da en iraner tente på Veitvedt sosialkontor.

    11 1996, 17. des. Heidi S. Sørli, drept av sin jugoslaviske mann som rømte, – er ikke pågrepet.

    12 1997, 3. mars, Randi Rastad, Høybråten, 61 år ble dyttet ned i kjelleren av utlendinger fra Brumunddal og døde av sjokk/ hjerteattakk.

    13 1997, (6.?) nov. Hilmar Jarle Fjørtoft 68 år, pensjonert sjømann fra Ålesund, ble funnet drept i sin egen leilighet i Latinskolegata 6. Fjørtoft var blitt utsatt for grov stump vold. Gjerningsmannen var tamilen Sivaguru som kom som asylsøker til Hareid i 1987. Tamilen fikk 12 års fengsel pluss sikring. Straffen omfattet også voldtekt, seksuelle overgrep og grov vold. Han slapp ut tre år før tiden. Nå er han tiltalt for to nye voldtekter i Ålesund (aug. 2007).

    14 1998, 1. mai, Tom Halvorsen, Rogaland, 18 år, drept ved tvangsdrukning. Vietnamesisk aksjon.

    15 1998, 21. mai, Ken-Gøran Abrahamsen, Balsfjord, 28 år, sparket i hjel i Oslo av 17 årig pakistaner.

    16 1998, ? ? En ung nordmann kom tilfeldig i ildlinjen mellom to innv. gjenger i Oslo og ble skutt.

    17 1998, 15. juli, Marie Louise Bendiksen, Sjøvegan, drept og brent. En 20 årig tamil pågrepet.

    18 1998, 26. juni, Bernt Chr. Reppe, Moelv, 24 år, skutt av en pakistaner i Rosenkratzgt, Oslo.

    19 1998, 31. okt. Rune Åge Berg, sparket i hjel av en 16-årig makedoner i Akersgata, Oslo.

    20 1998, 14. nov. Ulf Bråthen, 42 år, taxisjåfør skutt i bilen av to utlendinger (19 og 23 år) på Godlia.

    21 1998, 10. des. Ola Wangen, 33 år, knivdrept på Grunerløkka av en sinnssyk iraner på frifot.

    22 1999, 17. mai, Barbro Zhedini, Oslo, drept av sin tunisiske mann Hassa Zhedini og dumpet i Gjersjøen. En arm avskjært. Hassa Zhedinis bror var med på ugjerningen.

    23 2000, 31. jan. Vegar Midtveit, 18 år – jaget av utlendinger utfor en skrent ved Kristiansand – og døde.

    24 2001, ?. jan. Gry Husein, funnet i Skienselva, kvalt av sin palestinske mann Gamal – fra Israel.

    25 2001, 20. jan. Kennet Alexander Otnes, Larvik, 20 år, øksedrept, partert og lagt i dypfryser av en 18 årig afrikaner.

    26 2001, 27. juli, Hanne Kristine Olsen, Bergen, 29 år, ble kjørt ned og drept av sin palestinske samboer, Yasin Jabr, 40 år. Deres barn ble hardt skadd.

    27 2001, 8. aug. Gunn Sivertsen, Haramsøy, og hennes 3 barn ble mordbrendt av sin chilenske samboer.

    28 2001, Gunn Sivertsens første barn.

    29 2001, Gunn Sivertsens andre barn.

    30 2001, Gunn Sivertsens tredje barn.

    31 2001, 26. aug. Gunn Merete Lode, 32 år, knivdrept av en 42 årig gift trebarns far fra Danmark.

    32 2002, 20. jan. Kristoffer I. Bastesen, 19 år, knivdrept i Kr. Augusts gt, Oslo av sin thailandske kamerat.

    33 2002, 13. apr. Einar T. Rønning, Råde, 23 år, dørvakt på Chez, knivstukket i lysken av 4 muslimer.

    34 2002, 13. apr. Martin Morisse, Jessheim, 26 år, dørvakt på Chez, knivstukket i lysken av 4 muslimer.

    35 2002, 9. okt. Kjell P. Dahlberg, 48 år, knivdrept på Bogerud T-bane i Oslo av en chilensk asylsøker.

    36 2002, 18. okt. Inger Sund, Sognsvn. Oslo, 69 år, ranet og drept i sitt hjem av to asylsøkere som hadde fulgte etter Inger etter at hun hadde vunnet 30.000 på bingo. Drapsmannen, Moez Ben Noureddeine Rouissi, klarte å rømme ut av Norge. Via Tyskland ble drapsmannens identitet oppsporet. Han hadde blitt retunert til Tunisia av tyske myndigheter, der han ble idømt 15 års fengsel for drapet, i 2007.

    37 2002, 3. nov. Johnny Øvergård, Balsfjord, 43 år. Drept av sin somaliske drosjesjåfør på Frogner.

    38 2002, 13. des. Henry Simonsen, Alta, 56 år, drept med øks av sin russiske kone, Elizaveta Georgienna Sytnik.

    39 2003, 17. feb. Audun Bøland, 39 år, bussjåfør, knivdrept på Valdresbussen av en asylsøker fra Etiopia. Etioperen hadde samme dag drept en annen asylsøker på et asylmottak i Valdres.

    40 2003, 15. juni, Anie B. Olsvik, Haugesund, 83 år, drept om natten i sin seng av to innv. fra Libya.

    41 2003, ? des. Cathrine Halvorsen, Kongsvinger, 34 år, drept av en iraker. Azad Ghaleb Ali som er siktet, klarte å rømme. Politiet er derimot sikre på at det er Ghaleb Ali som er gjerningsmannen.

    42 2004, 19. febr. Eli S. Høyland, Stavanger, 49 år, kvalt i sitt hjem av en Tysker, 29 år.

    43 2004, 3. aug. Terje Mjåland, Skien, 23 år, døv, knivdrept på trikk 17 i Oslo av en somalier, 41 år.

    44 2004, 25. aug. Helge Nylund, 34 år, skutt av en sjalu 52 åring fra Afghanistan. Han skjøt seg selv.

    45 2004, 4. sept. Marita Strøm, Namsos, 38 år, skutt i en bil i Irak av sin mann Osman Omar Osman fra Irak.

    46 2004, ? sept. Lise Johanni Johanson, drept på Teisen i Oslo av en mann fra Irak, 23 år.

    47 2004, 28. okt. Hedda Karterudseter, Seljord, 19 år, kvalt i Sogndal av den gifte somalieren Hassan Samriye Hashin, 35 år.

    48 2005, ? jan. Mary Ann Hansen, Bodø, 42 år, knivdrept av en algirer 31 år, mens hun holdt deres felles barn i armene. Algireren fikk første gang avslag på asylsøknaden i nov. 2002, og endelig avslag, med beskjed om å forlate Norge, i mars 2003.

    49 2006, 20. (?) feb. Finn Abelseth, Oslo, opprinnelig fra Ålesund. I begynnelsen av 30-årene. Mandag 20. feb. ble han funnet bevisstløs utenfor boligen sin i Schønings gate 32. Døde senere på sykehus. Han skal ha blitt banket opp av en gjeng pakistanere natt til søndag 19. Dette i følge en kamerat som Abelseth ringte til før han mistet bevisstheten.

    50 2006, 29. mars, Stein Sjaastad, Oslo, lege 58 år, brutalt stukket ned og drept på sitt kontor av asylsøkeren Kamel Mellah 37 år, fra Algerie.

    51 2006, 25. juni, Anne Marit Søgård, Torshov i Oslo, 41 år, skutt og drept i sin leilighet med 6-8 skudd fra håndvåpen av to pakistanere med norsk statsborgerskap, Haidar Hussain 21 år og Ali Ayaz Shafa 19 år. Søgårds kjæreste ble også forsøkt drept, men overlevde. Hussain ble i nov. 2005 dømt til 2 år ubetinget fengsel for flere brudd på narkotikalovgivningen. Begge pakistanerne ble dømt til fengsel i 13 år, 27. mars 2008. En tredje person ble frifunnet.

    52 2007, 31. jan. Arild Lund, Drammen, 56 år, drept av tre litauere i sitt hjem.

    53 2007, 30. april, Anne Grete Vollum, Overhalla i Nord-Trøndelag, 35 år, gravid med tvillinger i 8. måned, drept av sin tidligere mann asylsøkeren Bahadir Mirzaolimov 26 år fra Usbekistan. Mirzaolimov kom til Norge i 2005, men fikk avslag på sin asylsøknad i 2006.

    54 2007, 30. april, Anne Grete Vollums ufødte barn (tvilling).

    55 2007, 30. april, Anne Grete Vollums ufødte barn (tvilling).

    56 2007, 30. april, Cicilie Watnan Lian, Overhalla i Nord-Trøndelag, 7 år og Anne Grete Vollums niese, drept av Bahadir Mirzaolimov. Vollums ti år gammle datter var også i huset. Hun ble bundet fast under ugjerningene. En av småpikene skal også ha blitt voldtatt av asylsøkeren.

    57 2008, 8. desember, Jonas Pedersen, Oslo, 31 år. Drept av to polakker, 48 og 45 år, etter spark mot hodet i basketak på Europarådets plass i Oslo sentrum. Hendelsen skjedde 6. desember, men Pedersen døde av skadene 8. Den ene av de to ble frikjent, samt en tredje polakk, 36 år, som kjørte bilen.

    58 2008, 16. desember, Ann-Mari Solås, Mørkved utenfor Bodø, 32 år og tobarnsmor. Drept med flere knivstikk utenfor sitt hjem av en iraner, 43 år, som kom til Norge i 1991 som asylsøker gjennom FN. Iraneren ble norsk statsborger i 1998.

    Anmerkning – kommentar til ”Frem fra glemselen”

    Denne lista, med 58 drepte nordmenn fram til og med året 2008, er en konsentrat av notater ved R. Halgjern, Odd Lønø, Torfinn Hellandsvik, Agnar Andersen og Bjørnar Røyset. Lista omfatter kun nordmenn og kvinner som er drept i Norge av noen med innvandrer bakgrunn. Derfor er det ikke tatt med utlendinger som er kommet til Norge og blitt drept her av våre innvandrere/ asylsøkere, heller ikke er tatt med nordmenn som drar til andre land og blir drept der.

    Lista viser at i 10-års periode fra og med 1995 – til og med 2004, er 34 norske blitt drept i Norge av innv. utlendinger (i gjennomsnitt 30 stk.). I samme tiårs periode er det registrert 3 (tre) drap på innvandrere i Norge som er begått av nordmenn.

    Denne drapslista gir fullverdig grunnlag for beregning av denne makabre utviklingen (prognoser) i lang tid framover – og hvem som er mest kriminell.

    Innvandrerbefolkningen, ca. 400.000 (i 2005) (inkl. svensker), utgjør bare ca 1/12 del av Norges totale befolkning Allikevel blir altså i gjennomsnitt ca. 10 nordmenn i dag drept for hver innvandrer som blir drept av nordmenn.

    Dersom innvandrerbefolkningen blir like stor som den etnisk norske befolkning om ca. 45 år – uten å endre sin kriminelle tendens – vil altså drapslista vise 12 ganger flere drepte nordmenn – med ca. 360 per 10 år, mens nordmenn vil gjøre seg skyld i 3 drap på innvandrerbefolkningen i samme 10-års periode. Dette fordi antallet etniske nordmenn ikke vil bli høyere enn i dag..

    Dersom man med grunnlag i nevnte tallfakta vil beregne den prosentvise andel av denne kriminaliteten i forhold til størrelsen på dem nevne folkegrupper – for dermed å se hvem som er mest kriminell – har jeg kommet fram til følgende reelle prosentsats:

    Innvandrerne står 99,17 prosent og nordmennene står for 0,83 prosent av alle drepte i denne sammenheng.

    Nevnte prosentsats vil ikke endre seg selv om innvandrerbefolkningen blir like stor eller høyere enn den opprinnelige norske befolkningen omkring år 2045 – slik realistiske antropologer har forutsett. Når det gjelder voldtekt, ran og mishandlinger, er antakelig den prosentvise andel omtrent det samme.

    Ovenstående fakta og prognoser blir den bitre virkelighet dersom utviklingen får fortsette i samme spor som nå. Hvis man vil unngå, eller stoppe utviklingen mot en slik virkelighet om ca. 45 år, – må noe drastisk og effektivt iverksettes – og det straks! Noe å tenke på for våre naive og tafatte politikere!

    Agnar Andersen

The Vulnerability of the Poor & Our Shared Cultural Heritage.

Standard

When I was over in France I came across a horrifying article via Snapchat about English school girls being so broke that they couldn’t afford tampons and pads. In the article it is written that these girls skip school since they can’t afford female hygiene products, this of course made teachers suspicious who were mortified once they found out the cause of their absence.  A charity organisation meant to help African women, now have to aid girls here at home 😮 Shocking. When can the “luxury tax” be lifted? Once the UK is out of the EU. Helping Fellow Europeans In Need.

This is another tragic article about young homeless people being offered housing in exchange for sex. Apparently there are people who think that this is generous. I don’t have words. I hope that I one day can help those who need it the most. Here in the UK it is possible to donate food to the food bank in churches, etc; to help those who cannot afford to feed their children. I’ve mentioned it before that there are many who rely on food parcels in this country. What was that? White privilege?Hmm…… Young & Homeless.

It is of course also important to note that not all beggars in the UK are genuine! I was quite surprised to be informed by a local cab driver that our “local beggars” claim benefits! Making more money than both troubadours and chauffeurs 😮 So much for preying on people’s charitable hearts! Shame on them.

I’ve mentioned it before on my Instagram, but I’ll repeat it here. England is rich in tradition and has a fascinating heritage/culture. Yet it seems like the inhabitants of this island don’t really get how unique their culture is. England is filled with old churches, beautiful in their design, that have to close down or be sold as no one takes care of them. Whether you are devout or without faith matters little – the question is whether we care about preserving historical monuments or not?  Do we as Northern-Europeans believe in protecting parts of our shared and individual identity or do we believe in throwing it all away? This church (look here) needs its roof to be restored. Read about this Norman heirloom featuring two crusader tombs and please let other people know! Please protect our history!

 

As we are mentioning England … these guys are looking for musicians. So if you live in London, play a brass instrument and want to keep traditions alive and well, make sure you join them! There were really good when I heard them. Friendly too. A Charming British Idea.

 

In terms of the general election I have to admit that I haven’t been following it much as of now. I feel strongly that new patriotic leadership is needed all over our continent, to protect European buildings, artefacts and churches from those who want to destroy them. Whether these people are cultural-marxist who believe in removing the old in order to build their new vision or members of “the religion of peace,” remember that our heritage holds no value to them. I’ve written about this extensively. Of course it is important to vote for leadership that care about the entire population, but please remember that this concern is invalid if it is coupled with a total disregard for security. Europe is under serious threat and I hope that this will influence the outcome of the election. Whether it will or not is hard to say as people have a tendency to gravitate towards those who promise a lot. Especially if this involves benefits. I ask what good are trinkets if we lose our cultural inheritance? This is a question I would ask anyone in Western Europe.  

IMG_3261IMG_2035

IMG_3274IMG_3263IMG_3262IMG_3255IMG_1873

IMG_2111IMG_2225IMG_2008

The Degenerate West?

Standard

The long overdue, mandatory, “degeneracy entry.”

I started this post some months ago to ponder Russias’s claim that we are “degenerate,” a sentiment that is echoed all over the internet by those in the west who are embarrassed and worried over where “the west” is heading. This piece of Russian travel “literature” made waves and probably caused quite some giggles around the Kingdom, but if you’ve read stories like these: “Getting Wasted On Cum” how can you not agree with the general criticism?

It does seem like the west is heading towards self annihilation with everything from:

  1. The weight of obesity sinking socialized healthcare. The Cost.
  2.  The normalisation and glorification of the empowering profession of prostitution.
  3. Binge drinking as witnessed by anyone out walking in England on a Saturday night or as described by the mortified Russian lady in the link above.
  4. The sexualization of little children. Which I’ve mentioned in several entries.
  5. The normalisation of all sorts of peculiar identity movements … you know what I mean…. Jordan Peterson et la la nouvelle trahison des clercs
  6. The slaying of free-speech due to the general victory of marginal pressure groups and militant mob movements. As can be seen in these links. (Ah the result of glorious post-modern thought. Thank you!)
  7. The destruction of art.
  8. The crusade against anything Christian in the western world at the hands of alien populations (muslims) aided by the secularists. 500 UK Churches closed with 423 new mosques being built.
  9. The angry women who see the killing of babies as synonymous with freedom and want to forcefully liberate you, promoting lifestyles that are detrimental to female health. Nutcase Feminists, Happy Endings & Funny Videos.The Battle That Can’t Be Won.Micro Aggressions-The problems of a spoiled, entitled, weak culture.
  10. Not to forget the doctors who are amused by the idea of murder…. Abortionists Laugh At Falling ‘Eyeball,’ ‘Pulling Off Legs’
  11. The gluttonous nature of conspicuous consumption in a generally ignorant society that perceives those pointing out the obvious as prophets. Minimalism.
  12. The hate of one’s own country and people. How To Be Evil In 2017.Tears & Self Hate Is The Remedy.
  13. All the instability in western Europe as a result of multiculturalism … mentioned by me in countless entries:

Well….all in all it doesn’t look very promising. Not to forget the increase in surveillance (The New STASI app, sorry FB.HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!) and the support of the police state from a terrified population (and media) willing to give up their civil liberties at the altar of multiculturalism. Maybe it is understandable then that people look to Putin to rescue us from this madness as many in the west, myself included, have put Russia up on a pedestal. I think a great deal of this has to deal with the lack of western leadership and heroes; but maybe that has come to an end?

deus-voltmattis

Yet … those of us who have looked to Kremlin for salvation (as America is far away, without ancient European culture + inhabited by bat-shit crazy far-left SJW wackos)  will be disappointed to watch these videos that I’ve found about Russia:

Russia Is Not Great 1/3

Russia Is Not Great 2/3

Russia Is Not Great 3/3

Yeah I know….seems like the only place of hope is Poland at this point, whose leadership  love Trump and hate Merkel. Immigrants worse than EU Sanctions. It is interesting to note however that this fascination with Russia from conservatives is nothing new: The Return Of Conservative Russophilia.…..yet don’t forget that Russia and Europe are both “delinquents” in terms of “degeneracy.” So … hurray hurray we are all aboard the sinking Titanic together, with the exception of Eastern Europe it seems. Maybe we can seek refuge in Comrade Trudeau’s Canadian Utopia in a future current year if the EU and/or Russia kill the east…..good grief.

crying boy

 

When People Can Not Process What They Are Reading.

Standard

Years ago I remember taking offence to a Serj Tankian song called “The Unthinking Majority” I thought of the title as extremely arrogant and felt it was disappointing that a political artist, or at least an artist with politically motivated work, would express himself in such a way.

I took offence to how The Chimp Paradox. was presented as well as I don’t think of it as a good idea to address the masses like they are mongrels.

I don’t talk to people like they are s-t-u-p-i-d, I have no interest in saying “those people over there.” I’m part of this world just like everyone else, I’m not above the law, I will fail, I will be wrong and just because I’m right about certain things doesn’t mean that I will be right about others. (Depending on how you define what is right or wrong). We are all hiding behind statistics funny enough and drag out surveys like a final piece of evidence. Yet statistics can be misleading, which is why every side has “evidence” to back up whatever claim they might have. Yet once you de-bunk the collection of data, it might not seem as straightforward after all…  someone disagreeing with you politically doesn’t give you the right to dismiss them as unintelligible, unless it has  been clearly debunked time and time again that what they support is inefficient and false. Meaning: that “truth” has been consistently buried and banned on their part so that their “ideology” can prevail well-guarded from justified scrutiny.

” If I disagree with you, you have to be retarded…” is not a particularly well thought out argument. The same goes for name-calling. If you want to pull the “you are an idiot card” you truly need to have a substantial amount of hard evidence, just as if you are going to pull the “you are insane argument.”

Yesterday my brother and I had a very long and interesting conversation as he is currently reading a lot about genes & IQ. This is of course a very controversial topic as the current orthodoxy is that there is only equality. We spoke and agreed about the grandeur of a meritocracy, discussing how evidence shows that the general IQ at universities have increased since “future leaders” are recruited from all aspects of our societies. The general “intelligence” has therefore gone up since education isn’t only reserved for the children of the wealthy. Yet….the dark side of the moon are quotas enforced when politicians decide that they want to lift the “entire population” or 50% of the population up. As amiable as this may sound like it is simply not do-able.

The result will be a collection of educated people, with official papers for jobs that they cannot really do. This might seem un-fair, but it is actually true. (feel free to read up on all of this, there’s lots of information.)

As horrid as it might be, 50% of the population will not be geniuses. If you drown people with knowledge this will not change as their brains just cannot process the information. This is of course very depressing if you fundamentally believe in “giving everyone a fair chance” by raising the population up, stretching towards national greatness. I take it that this is why those who “headhunt” for the best have to look internationally, to poach “the best people” for their projects.

Yet among the best you also have some cases of those who over think to such an extent that they almost think themselves into idiocy. That’s when  degenerate social constructs are presented to the world, as it might make sense logically if you disregard the human factor or if your brilliance is restricted to one field. There are also those who use elaborate sentences, spending an enormous amount of time on research only to be biased or completely off the hook in terms of their conclusions. The mind is a tricky beast.

Different groups of people have different trait frequencies. There is a plethora of information regarding this. I’m currently reading articles that would certainly come across as “controversial” to all of those who subscribe to the notion that ” we are all created equal.” That said, just because we are “all created differently” doesn’t mean that civil liberties should only be reserved for a small group. I suspect that the furore against “admitting that genuine diversity exists” reminiscent of mass hysteria happens, because people don’t want the idea of “this group being better than that group” gaining ground once again. My point is that “supremacy” or feelings of superiority will emerge regardless, as people will always “find something” to make them “stand out,” even if it is not “legitimate.”

Whether it is a financial situation making someone feel superior to those who are destitute or whether destitution raises ones victim status to such heights as to make someone morally superior. Grievances can be perceived as legitimate and worthy of punishment by the state directed towards those guilty of wealth. The rich person might feel superior but the poor will too, as their struggle makes them superior morally speaking. Rich = mean, poor = good. In terms of appearance it is “all about personality” since slim and/or pretty = mean while fat and/or ugly = nice. A person who looks good and uses this as an asset might feel that this is the “ace up their sleeve,” but just as this can create a sense of “I’m better than you” the traditionally unattractive can relish in their misery by again being seen as the “victim” or “challenging traditional standards of beauty.” Someone who is good at school/academics and/or good in any other field such as sports, music, business you name it, will feel that this is their “ace” whereas those who aren’t good at anything at all can take pride in being morally virtuous since they are unambitious. They are nice because they will not make anyone else “feel bad” by beating them in a competitive sense.

Being honest about “diversity” is not the same as treating people horribly. It means being honest and aware of the challenges a nation faces, both internally and internationally. How can one create the best school system for example if people are in denial? Maybe it is a good idea to focus more on practical training than merely theory designed for the brainy? Maybe a division at an earlier age would be an idea, so that those who hate reading could thrive by learning “how to be handy?” Maybe segregating the genders, so that boys can be approached like boys without being reprimanded for not being like the girls could benefit boys who are falling behind in the effeminate education system?  What will result from such a religious devotion to modern orthodoxies as we have today is the firing of any academics who dare to uphold “the truth,” which brings to mind the popular representation of “the dark ages.”

It seems like our enlightenment has gradually brought us closer to darkness since any truths violating the  “feelings” of a group, regardless of how marginal the group is, are discarded or left in obscurity. Writing about democracy, in fact mentioning and addressing in-depth any of the issues mentioned above could result in volumes upon volumes of material, which is what we supposedly have academics for. They are not there to be fired if their findings collide with the “values” of our modern “dictatorship of goodness,” it is their job to find the truth or to seek to find the truth through empirical evidence.

To demonstrate how frustrating it is with people who cannot process information that isn’t even particularly complex, I’ve included a series of screen shots below. This is how democracy looks like in practice, this is why it is easy for critical thinkers, obsessed with “truth” to fall into the unforgiving, melancholic, grip of misanthropy.

On Friday, the 24th of March 2017, these three individuals were trending on FB…

Trending on FB

Katie Hopkins was making waves online due to her commentary about the terrorist attack in Westminster. People were raging because she had the audacity to suggest that England has a cultural problem and that the UK is weak in spirit. Her commentary pretty much addressed what I had been addressing in one of my own blog entries, so I was of course puzzled by the negative reactions she experienced as what she had written seemed spot on. (Unless one chooses to be in denial). While I was scrolling around the timeline connected with the “Hopkins topic” I came across a guy in the USA. I agreed with his entry and shared it on my personal FB.

Online Democracy 1

What followed was a public online argument where the guy who had authored what you see above had to defend himself from people who clearly didn’t understand his original post at all. It is not hard to comprehend what he is saying. An interesting thing to note is that he didn’t know that his post was set to “public….”

Online Democracy 2

Obviously I’m trying to protect the identity of these people, as one does…You can see that one individual agrees, then one is clearly disgruntled about Hopkins, someone else agrees, but then enters a very typical argument: “rather __________, than racist.” This is a slogan that has been advocated by Swedish Feminists in particular.

Racist Clear.

What you see next is a very typical argument…”the guy was British.” Well…to be fair no he was not…This was a muslim man of foreign descent, who happened to have a British passport and citizenship…in this day and age that is not really the same as being from that particular nation. A woman of absolute muslim descent, walking around in full traditional, muslim dress, is not Norwegian just because she happens to have a Norwegian passport. She is a citizen yes, and is lucky to live in a western country, where you can enjoy the full benefit of citizenship regardless of where you originally come from. The lady (note how these individuals are women) clearly does not understand the argument from the American man. Her conclusion is that he is “racist clear” whatever that may mean…..

Enters a proper Racist.

Then enters a proper Racist. This clearly illustrates what I’ve been addressing on my blog in so many of my entries. The guy who initially started this discussion has up to this point engaged in arguments protecting himself from the false accusation that he is racist, then enters a real racist, who generalizes and is completely unapologetic in his views. An argument then ensues between the “accused-non-racist” and the “I’m-proud-to-be-racist-racist.” The leftists have succeeded in destroying the meaning of the word “racist” just as they’ve dismantled the word “hate” as used in “hate speech.” False accusations of people being “brown shirts” have taken away the severity of “you are a Nazi” since everyone who at this point questions the left in any way is labeled “literally Hitler.” The unavoidable result is that people will just get nauseated whenever the WW2 argument is brought up, and not for the “right” reasons…..people might even start saying “yeah…what did we really fight for? Maybe the Nazis should have won?” these type of sentiments will probably become more widespread as a result of the left’s way of arguing, rather than an explosion of pro-Nazi sentiments. In other words, if you poke someone long enough they’ll get sick and tired of your bullshit.

Exit Nazi & Permission to share posts

A certain somebody asks for permission to use this discussion in a blog entry….the racist from the previous frame, admits that he is proud to be what he is.

Enters random guy.

Another character enters claiming the “he was British argument” before the classical “IRA argument” is brought up. In fact this whole thread illustrates all the common narratives in the current political climate. Note how the “new arrival” in this thread uses the “fake news” narrative. The American who accidentally ended up in a public discussion, that ended up highlighting all of his points due to the contribution by those who are hating on him, is becoming tired….as can be understood by his posting below…

the IRA argument

Argument continues

The American who started the thread tries to conclude the discussion, at this point he also adds one of his comments in the thread into his original post, in order for people to see where he is coming from. The lady with the “IRA argument” clearly can not let it go, so another discussion then ensues with an evidently tired American, baffled by the inability to process basic information displayed by those attacking him….

Arguing Online.jpg

The thread, as it looked like at that point, ends with this:

Conclusion

This discussion alone prove the points I addressed above. It would have been one thing if these screenshots were my only evidence…..but no…hold on… I got more……

The argument below is more sophisticated in nature due to how the participants express themselves. Regardless of this the topic is the same; I’m calling this sequence ” The Oxford Argument.”

OA1

The post attracted one individual who decided to express his dissent….this was counter-attacked by a guy who was clearly interested in commencing a discussion.

OA2

OA3

OA4

OA5

” I read that paragraph but I just hear racism.” Again that same old card is used in an incorrect manner. Also note how these individuals perceive Muslims as the victims and any precautions on the part of “the west” as unjustified racism. The argument is made from “the dissenter” that concerns about Muslim supremacists are justified, especially when seen from a historical perspective. This of course clashes with the current orthodoxy or the false enlightenment claim, that all men are created equal. By admitting that there is an enemy you are merely engaging in discrimination. Even when “the dissenter” specified “NOT ALL muslims” it was still concluded that he was a racist and “good riddance.”

My last example before I conclude my entry stems from my very own Twitter. Yes you’ve read that right. I launched this blog a couple of years ago at the request of my fans, not really knowing what my blog would be about.  I’m not a “pink blogger” I like to read, and enjoy to think, discuss and write about what I’ve read. I’m a virtuoso musician and would classify myself as pretty geeky. My blog entries where I’ve written about personal matters have proven very popular and overall I’ve certainly seen that people adore entertainment while abhorring intellectual discussions. I’ve shared my blog entries on my Twitter and in my entries I usually provide people with links to the articles and/or YouTube videos that inspired me to write that specific blog entry, so that people can see my “sources.”

This year I received a request to do an interview about my entries for the very first time. I was asked about the content on my blog regarding Islamism mainly, since it seemed like the interviewer was obsessed with ‘the terror threat.” I replied to the best of my ability and said among other things this:

“It’s obvious that there are some who are just born with a “complaining gene.” We are spoilt in our part of the world. I don’t think there’s ever been a point in history where people had it better. There is healthcare for everyone, there is so much food that the poor are obese, everyone has access to some sort of education, pollution levels are much better than they were under the industrial revolution for example, you will not be imprisoned or chemically castrated just because of your sexual orientation, women can get an education, work their way up into the system. You can come from a minority background and become the leader of a nation or go into important government positions in a country that you weren’t even born in. We’ve come as close as we can get to Utopia and should just be happy, but no. Then you get people complaining about trans-gender bath room issues, micro-aggressions, sexist snow-removal and pronouns. There is no end to the stupidity. I believe in equality when it comes to the starting point and opportunity, but it has now been brought to my attention that those who talk about egalitarianism usually advocate equality when it comes to outcome. Which doesn’t make any sense to me.”

I also said this:

“Yes, there are plenty of disturbing videos of this, I’ve posted some of them on my blog. You got angry young Muslim men shouting and then you got angry young white men shouting. Looks like a mess, especially if tensions escalate.”

Then you got this:

“I assume that the majority are afraid, because people like to conform and don’t want to be ostracised. They see what happens to those conservatives and classical liberals who speak out and decide to stay quiet, whereas those who shout the loudest are those who hate immigration because they actually are real racists and real nazis.”

…and this:

“What it is that we want immigrants to “integrate into” for example is a question nobody is asking. We keep on mentioning vague values, that apparently are “our shared values,” but it can easily seem that we don’t really have a cultural identity anymore. It is not strange that foreigners should be horrified at the fractured families of the West or the unintelligible mainstream entertainment we have that produce nothing but icons of degeneracy and vulgarity. High culture of beauty and excellence is something we have sacrificed on the altar of modernity. Spirituality and faith has been crushed and is routinely mocked. Masculinity is actively worked against in the school system. It is understandable that people would be reluctant to “integrate” into this. Let’s not forget that. After all, why should anyone respect a culture that doesn’t even respect itself?”

If you read through these segments you will understand that this is not a racist talking, but someone who is concerned, especially if you read the whole interview. What I say is critical of militant Islam and the effects of “the change” that has been imposed on Europe. When asked about: “What about Islamism in Scandinavia? Have you been back to Norway recently? What do you see happening there?” I replied in an honest way; describing a country where immigration has become stricter but where certain specific changes were observed by me during some visits back home:

“1-Norway has changed to such an extent that my father and I were the only white people at a supermarket up in the mountains, deep into the fjord land.
2-I’ve had elevator rides where I was the only white person and the only woman not wearing a burqa.
3-I’m not even Norwegian anymore, I’m an ethnic-Norwegian apparently.
4- I visited my grandmother some years back and there was a terror warning on the news “today the terror alert has been raised to severe.” That, in particular is ridiculous. Why are we supposed to accept this as a new reality?”

First of all it is important to specify that Norway is not America. If you live in the USA and you get surprised by encountering an Afro-American or a Native-American, well then you got issues. America has always been a diverse “nation,” there was diversity among the caucasian population, there was diversity due to slavery and the “original population.” Norway is not America. We got Norwegians and then we got Samis, who are nomads living up in the North, moving around between Northern countries with their reindeer, etc; It is just and right to question the changes that have been imposed on Scandinavia, as these are neither natural nor justifiable IF they result in demographic displacement or gradual demographic replacement. It is racist, to support this type of activity and the fact that these type of measures are supported and initiated by ethnic Europeans is nothing but extraordinary. (Obviously I have to specify that there is a major difference between some immigrants here and there, and demographic displacement/replacement. I hope that people can comprehend that….) It cannot be justified in any way, that English people should all of a sudden find themselves becoming minorities in certain parts of their country, nor can it be justified that there are “no-go-zones” in Sweden, but an interesting thing to note, and this is important, is that I highlight that the worst of these changes is the terror threat, that we are supposed to treat as “normal.” 

So far so good, one should hope, but no. Even though it should be ridiculously easy to follow what I’m writing above, I received this tweet after the release of the interview:

evil CIC 2

Curious I decided to check out this individual and saw this:

CIC evil1

First of all I said in the interview that I don’t live in Norway anymore. I also said that “my father and I were the only white people at a supermarket up in the mountains, deep into the fjord land.” This describes a supermarket. I also describe being in an elevator as the only woman not wearing a burqa. I’m clearly describing a country undergoing radical fundamental changes. But I’m not describing an entire town, and seen from a European perspective it all makes sense, if you’ve followed what I wrote above. In the interview I can be quoted as saying ” I’m not even Norwegian anymore, I’m an ethnic-Norwegian apparently.” Again this goes to demonstrate a “core change” within a Nation. I’m not even Norwegian anymore.” So you see a change of word-use in terms of how an ethnic group is being addressed and labeled. This is not minor. Obviously this is not hillbilly talk, as a hillbilly would probably behave like this:

Enters a proper Racist.

Some months later I received another Tweet from a different individual as a response to a blog entry I had published on January the 30th, 2017.

twitter argument.jpg

These are some quotes from the blog entry that he was referring to:

“We need to make sure that we advance into the future “with baby steps” so that we can successfully integrate the new-Europeans into the fabric of our societies, without losing ourselves.”

We are reaching a tipping point & the only sensible course of action would be to do everything in our power to prevent escalated chaos within our continent.”

“….then why not keep those who like it here & have integrated well, while sending out those who do not?”

“If “refugees” thrive at the expense of the original European population, it will create anger and resentment within the ethnic populace and rather than directing this anger towards government figures, we run the risk of this sentiment being directed towards innocent muslims.”

These things are clearly not written by someone who hates ALL Muslims. This is obviously written by someone who is concerned about EVERYONE. And someone who is critical towards Militant Islam. No wonder that people give up, when those who are “moderates” or tempered in their assessment, are accused of being “racist.” I did the dumbest thing and decided to engage with this man in a short Twitter argument as I obviously assume that my fellow human beings “can understand what I write.” I’ve made the mistake of expecting people to be reasonable. Which brings us back to the very beginning of my very long entry…. Here are the Tweets:

T1

t14

T2

T3

t10

t11

t12

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

Again, I’m obviously not racist, but then comes the kicker:

t9

At this point I realised that what I was engaging in was pointless….When I then saw the thread further up in this entry later that month I realised that I had to write a blog entry. It is a serious issue that so many cannot comprehend the information that they are presented with. Sure, it is tough to read science papers, especially if written in an academic language, it is difficult to read ancient literature, of course this is hard, but none of what I shared on here today is. None of it. None.

This is why politicians talk “down to people” this is why there are PR agencies that are commissioned to create and manufacture easy slogans and “perfect” official personas. People who never say anything that contradicts or challenges the orthodoxy, even when they are aware of how bad things are, such as Podesta. This is how corporations get away with blood on their hands, because they are good at marketing and making their products “human.” How healthy is this for a society and how healthy is it for the west? Not particularly, which I’ll address in my next entry, where I’ll discuss an article I read some days ago about “Politics vs. Emotionalism.”