Trump’s UK Visit.

Standard

After influencers have been agitating for months, urging people to go out in the streets to show their hate for the US President, we now see the result! Thank you so much for putting a strain on our law enforcement personnel while advocating for total unrest all over the country. *Insert Sarcasm * I urge any person who might read my blog and follow me to stay safe. I send out my love to the British police today, who are constantly given impossible and difficult tasks to deal with.

This is how they will be accommodated as they try to protect those who protest: Terrible treatment of the UK Police.

The U.S. Embassy is telling Americans to keep a low profile during Trump’s visit. Stay Safe!

 

Some Interesting Articles To Read.

Standard

“Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, 57, told an interviewer from Milan’s Il Giornale last week that “the phenomenon of so-called “immigration” represents an orchestrated and long-prepared plan by international powers to radically change the Christian and national identities of the European peoples.” (READ THE ARTICLE HERE)

This is the conclusion I’ve reached as well by simply looking at the placement of certain population groups within all of Europe’s Nations. It is obvious that it is a long term de-stabilisation plan by people who hate us to no end. 

I will let other people compile potential enemy lists over who could possibly be guilty… It’s not like people aren’t compiling these kind of lists already….

…some theories are more popular than others…..and will continue to gain ground by the hour I’m sure…….

(I’m personally not a big fan of conspiracy theories. I find a great number of them troubling, for the simple reason that it might make sense, but then it doesn’t if the accused group stand to lose. All I see are people who will lose in the end when reading or hearing of popular narratives of conspiracy. What would make sense would be to think broader, or maybe I overestimate people. In fact I’m suspecting that that might be the case. If I’m guilty of over-thinking then Europe & America are standing face to face with a threat that is shooting itself in the foot.)

With the current culture war and student movements on both sides of the Atlantic, not to forget the underground “scene” of self-taught individuals on the opposite political spectrum who openly blog or hack while being in “stealth mode,” I’m sure that boats will be rocked and alignments change, whether it is for the better or for the worst.

Loyalties might swiftly change and old narratives of friendship might suddenly be forgotten.

Leaders such as Sebastian Kurz & Matteo Salvini, not to forget “freedom fighters” such as the imprisoned Tommy Robinson are the kind of types that will salvage the mothership that is Europe. If they fail we will see the uprising of what their critics accuse them of being, “the great evil” that the mainstream media think they see in U.S. President Donald J.Trump. If the U.S.A. and Europe are not salvaged politically, there will be an attempt to do so from the bottom up. That is a given. There will always be those who refuse to give up. I predict that the situation in America will become especially dire in the years to come, unless the culture issue and the demographic issue is solved. 

So where does this strange self-destructive attitude we can observe in The Western World come from? Is it possible to manufacture Ethno-masochism? Well apparently yes…

Don’t expect that these type of initiatives won’t backfire though.

They do and they will. If your people win a fight, whether culturally, demographically or out on the battlefield, then you ought to remember how you won, because your enemies surely will!

And those who are clever will study closely, h-o-w y-o-u w-o-n!

The problem with Western culture today, is that we are neither equipped to deal with victory nor defeat. Or that is the aim of political correctness. The aim is clearly to pacify people and ensure that the fight or the battle is lost before it even starts.

The goal is obviously to have a Nation caving in on itself, self-annihilating, with the one institution falling after the other like domino bricks, and an angry populace wondering what the heck is going on, eventually resulting in violence in the streets and disorder, so that enemy elements placed within the Nation can initiate their part while their partners come in from the outside.

You have to be mean (by today standards) to win. People are inherently mean and people will be mean, even those who normally aren’t, the question is rather, can you be mean in a clever fashion without your operation backfiring either on you or your children?

That is the question and that is a good one indeed, all things considered.

From Africa Digest

 

I don’t really follow “trade wars” or “tariff wars” and find this quote to be interesting:

“The Commerce Department is currently investigating whether foreign auto imports pose a risk to national security.”

You can read more here: Germany Willing To Cut Tariffs.

Here is a genuine Russia collusion. I remember reading somewhere, sometime, somehow, about Russia providing energy to Eastern European Nations and using this politically, funny enough I didn’t catch that Western European Nations were in on it too… Maybe they should get their power from Norway instead 😛 Funny how everyone is spinning the Russia narrative as far as the U.S. is concerned when Europeans are blatantly dealing massively with the official “eternal-bad-guy-Putin.” Remember; everything is always Russia’s fault. Hilarious. I also recall that I read in a French newspaper, somewhere, sometime, somehow, that the then French President had lots of interests (or maybe it was France Inc.) in Iraq due to business dealings with Saddam, so their opposition to the war was not so much humanitarian as it was money related. Funny enough this story was confirmed when I read something else concerning the Iraq war….It is always interesting to figure out what drives people’s “official concern.” Lately I’ve been wondering why American celebrities don’t starve themselves for all of those kids who’ve been separated from their parents in inner-city America, but then again, I guess you have to come from anywhere but America for Hollywood to bother…..

Whether you dislike or like the current U.S. President I strongly recommend reading this: “Trump – The Art Of The Deal” by Donald J.Trump & Tony Schwartz.

Here is a most intriguing article from The New York Times: The New York Times Praising Donald J.Trump – before he ran for office.

Here are some selected quotes from the article, published in 1984….

“Donald J. Trump is the man of the hour.” – The New York Times.

“He deserves full credit for his success,’ says another builder.”

“Mayor Koch says that, indeed, what is good for Donald Trump is often good for New York.”

“To others, the notion that Mr. Trump seems to be able to do just about anything he sets his mind to is terrifying.”

“Roy M. Cohn, Mr. Trump’s friend and attorney, adds: ‘He has an uncanny sense of knowing that something is a good deal when it looks dismal to everyone else.”

“That Mr. Trump was able to obtain the location, when every real-estate developer in the world would have done just about anything to get it, is testimony to Donald Trump’s persistence and to his skills as a negotiator.” (my highlighting).

“He is an almost unbelievable negotiator,’ says Irving Fischer of HRH Construction. ‘I don’t worship at the shrine of Donald Trump,’ he says, ‘but our company has given up trying to negotiate costs with him. We just say: ‘Tell us what you want, you’re going to get it anyway.”

“He says that his concern for nuclear holocaust is not one that popped into his mind during any recent made-of-television movie. He says that it has been troubling him since his uncle, a nuclear physicist, began talking to him about it 15 years ago.”

“When he finally speaks up, he says hat he is on the commission because the young men who went to Vietnam got a bad deal – which, about the worst thing that can happen to anyone.”

“The day before he has sent $3,000 to an unfortunate family he has red about in the newspaper, something he does frequently, according to Mrs. Foerderer.”

“That Mr. Trump builds shops and apartments for the world’s wealthiest people makes him that much more prone to attack.”

“If you go with Donald to see an art collection, he’s not that interested. He’d rather look out the windows at building.”

“His wife describes him as an all-American boy who likes country music best and prefers a steak and aked potato to anything called cuisine.”

“Mrs. Trump says they like to attend Broadway openings an that they frequent the ballet and opera. Mrs. Trump is active in support of the United Cerebral Palsy Fund and other charities, as well as the New York City Opera. She is also an active supporter of Ronald Reagan.”

“He has dificulty now figuring out who his real friends are, as billionaires will.”

The White House Chief of Staff made waves online after untangling an American flag: “Once A Marine, Always A Marine.”

I enjoyed this article written by Steve Hilton until he wrote this:

“But we have to recognize that the melting pot is cracking. Years of uncontrolled immigration – and a creeping acceptance of separatism, boosted by identity politics – risk importing the disastrous doctrine of “multiculturalism” that is prevalent in Europe.”

The U.S.A. has been a multi-racial construct, arguably since the very beginning, with absolute “separatism,” before the federal government made segregation “illegal.” I say illegal, since people now self-segregate, which roughly means that the “melting-pot” never really worked on a street level. What I recognise in Europe is imported American multiculturalism, so I’m not sure which planet Hilton is living on… I find it annoying to see such lies in digital “print.”

Radical “multiculturalism” is a relatively new phenomenon in Europe. There is a reason as to why Europe never became Muslim and there is also a reason as to why we are so very pale……One foreigner now and then doesn’t really make much of a difference, but importing hordes of people will ruin the peace and comprise the integrity of your Nation.

It is especially dangerous if you mass import young men, who are in their “peak aggression” age.

Multiculturalism never really works, regardless of where in the world people try it, it always results in “separatism” and can only be held together by a rough, police state. It always results in fragmentation. Mixing on a large-scale only happens as a result of unhinged violence, where the men of one tribe are killed off and their women raped.

Inter-Ethnic diversity is a challenge great enough.

Anyone who welcomes anything else is culturally and demographically suicidal. Nothing less.

People = culture.

People = behaviour patterns on average.

There is no such thing as “magic soil.” Period.

If you mass import people from Uganda into Norway, then you’ll get Uganda in Norway.

If you mass import Arabs into France, then you’ll get an Arab Nation in the middle of Europe.

If you mass import Chinese people into Canada, you’ll get China Inc. in Canada.

If you mass import people from Latino countries into the U.S.A, then the culture, the practises, the voting patterns and whatnot will be coloured by this.

Apparently it is very difficult to follow this kind of logic………

Any person who does not understand demographics should be banned from public service.  It is that dangerous to play around with. An increase in violence and division is a given….

 

America’s Cultural Legacy, Division in the U.S.A., Morality vs. Strategy & Dumb White People.

Standard

Today I started off my day by reading celebrity statements from angry American stars, obviously yearning for some sort of revolution over in the U.S.A.

None of these characters ever formulate what they imagine will happen if total collapse ensues in said country. Which is something one certainly should think about if promoting and crying for war and destabilisation. Nor does it seem to me that they contemplate the possible source of America’s tremendous internal division. Nor do they suggest ways in which to fix it….

I’ve seen  for myself the fragmentation and tribalism across the pond and this is a most worrying issue. America depends on its citizens to leave their old alliances behind and literally pledge allegiance to their new country of residency if America is to work! America cannot afford to have separate population groups singing their own National Anthems, or population groups advocating solely and exclusively for their own group. America cannot afford ancestry worship in the long run, since they need Americans to see themselves as Americans 1st, which means that Americans have to mentally separate themselves from their country and culture of origin.

I think the main issue is that American values; (the constitution, the founding fathers, the American flag, the American Anthem, etc,) are seen as White-American values, rather than America being seen as an Anglo-Saxon construct where a hand has been stretched out to other tribes and where doors have been opened to facilitate racial integration and unity. 

This is a great shame because it means that unity can only happen if one “sells out” or that unity can only happen if “the old order” is destroyed, since America as we’ve come to know it signifies oppression in the eyes of enough people. This means that there are forces at work who want to topple the whole thing and who will never be interested in walking through the doors that have been left open, nor to shake that hand which has been left outstretched.

While America has its share of internal political and cultural problems, they cannot afford large hordes of people settling in who don’t even bother to learn English, unless Afro-Americans, Euro-Americans, (and once again) Native-Americans want to see themselves squeezed out and marginalised, much like whites originally marginalised Native tribes in order to win the territory that we today refer to as America………..

Racial anxiety will probably shoot through the roof when the baby-boomers all of a sudden vanish. That will probably be the moment when a great deal of White Americans (and Afro-Americans) start freaking out big time since their birth rates, (much like European birth rates), aren’t that great. This drop, that is already becoming noticeable in certain States, is being widely celebrated by liberal Whites who cannot wait to be in a minority position. Apparently they assume that they will be respected if the tables are completely turned. Nobody ever really mention how Afro-Americans are being squeezed out in some areas as well, nor does anyone bother to contemplate whether some of their gang-culture has to do with protection and retaliation towards other gangs and groups infringing upon “their territory” and “their interests”….*cough**cough* Latino gangs anyone?

If people are serious about Afro-American communities in the U.S.A. there are certain changes that has to happen. I remember how elderly Afro-Americans were very much upset about the cultural glorification of the gang-culture in Urban America. Not only were they embarrassed at how Afro-Americans were being portrayed, they were also upset about the potential influence on young people. In this they are very right. It is an outrage that “gangsta-culture” is promoted to such an extent rather than focusing on successful Afro-American individuals, who’ve made a life for themselves, without selling drugs on the streets to other Afro-Americans. It is particularly macabre, when taking into consideration that those who suffer the most at the hands of Afro-American gang crime are other Afro-Americans. Peddling false narratives, lying to young Afro-Americans in order to continue race-hostilities doesn’t help matters either. How can you ever get any bridges built if young Afro-Americans are led to believe that White Americans invented slavery out of nowhere and jumped out of the woodwork in Africa to enslave the Black Man, since they were envious of their Wakanda and technological superiority?

There have been African empires, Ethiopia is one example, but the narrative that is being sold, is not one where African tribes sold other African tribes to the white man, nor are the Arabs ever mentioned, nor is African Ethnic Diversity mentioned. No. Sub-Saharan Africans were actually the Egyptians, and the White Man just came to Africa one day, and destroyed Egypt, that apparently is located in Sub-Sahara Africa, so that the White Man could finally settle his envy, and teach the snotty Black Man some sort of lesson…..

You don’t believe me? Well then go ahead and expose yourself to this kind of nonsense yourself.

Of course, not all, that would be a false thing to suggest, a false one indeed, but you don’t need all Afro-Americans to believe in these things for them to have a negative, cultural effect!

Slavery existed long before the TransAtlantic Slave Trade. For all I know maybe I have a slave as my ancestor somewhere since the Vikings took prisoners and engaged in the trading of slaves. Something that I didn’t know of until I made my “Viking Video,” which can be seen on my YouTube.

In fact, European tribes have been enslaved in the past by other European tribes, due to war, the same can be said of Africa, the Middle East and I’m assuming Asia as well (why would they be the exception to the rule?).

Whenever there are victorious Nations, there will obviously be losers. Norway as a Nation has been a loser. In fact I don’t understand why Afro-Americans have to water the plant of falsehood in order to feel better about themselves. Focus on what you can do as an individual and look at other successful individuals, from your own tribe and from other tribes. There is no need to steal and culturally appropriate other Nation’s success stories.

There is a time for grief and there is a time to move on.

And the time to move on is now if Americans are truly concerned about their Union!!!!!!  

If there are forces out there who feel clever about the ghettos and no-go-zones in America, then they will find themselves disappointed, as the crime in these areas spread and expand. Eventually you will not be safe regardless of where you might find yourself, which is why these issues have to be solved. 

What is interesting to note, when observing America’s angry celebrities, is that none of these eloquent soldiers of chaos are outspoken supporters of American Heritage, History and/or culture. What were their thoughts during the statue debate? Have any of these characters used their platform and star-power to promote America’s cultural legacy? Even though it would naturally pale to Europe’s due to America’s very young age, they are still old enough to have buildings, statues and sites of historical importance and value. They also have their share of writers, modern composers, and have been especially influential in terms of “the Golden age of Hollywood” and/or musicals (just think Disney). American culture exists, even though Europeans might not agree because it isn’t old or classic enough….

If American culture exists, which it does, it ought to be protected, and who can possibly be better advocates for American cultural legacy than its performers and artists?

Apparently they have no interest in such things, probably because a great deal of American celebrities aren’t technically equipped to handle even the most basic musical repertoire….

There. I said it.

They evidently have no concern nor “skin in the game” when it comes to American culture, nor is their modern contribution that spectacular (in most cases). In other words, a great number of these American stars aren’t really that great. What makes them great is their fame and that’s about it.

When looking at the academia, the student movements, the celebrities and the media it wouldn’t surprise me at all if we are to witness a Winter Palace moment in the U.S.A. It is wrong to believe that a majority is needed for a revolution to take place. You need the right people and you need patronage, something that the American opposition has since establishment politicians and advocacy groups openly endorse and promote the hostilities.

The boosting of the economy and the creation of jobs might help, but America’s challenges are deep, and cultural as well. 

Morality vs. Strategy.

Just like the distinction between street level diversity vs. elitist diversity is never mentioned by those who govern at all, they also fail to address the complex balance of morality and strategic interest…

A good and easy example is this:

If you are a Christian you are supposed to help your brothers and sisters in Christ. These brothers and sisters could be anyone, living anywhere in the world. Christians are widely persecuted so it makes sense that they should receive support from fellow Christians.

But a dilemma naturally presents itself…

1- “I’ll get involved with charity in Africa. I will do my best to use my energy on collecting goods for African Christians. I will not raise money for the unfortunate in my own territory, I will help African tribes instead, sending them medication and money if I’m wealthy enough. They believe in God, I strongly dislike our degenerate society, so I will side with those who have healthy and strong values. Take that silly Europe!

2- Over population becomes an issue in Africa. People start moving North in order to go where all the goods came from. They are now great in numbers due to Northern charity efforts and start pushing into your territory, compromising the safety and integrity of your own habitat. Crime levels explode, integration fails, and suddenly you find yourself a stranger in your own territory.

Which one would you choose: your fellow country men and neighbours or people of the faith regardless of where they might come from?

Or simply put: what comes first to you and what is most important? Race or faith/ideology?

You do not need a more complex example than this. Sadly we have leaders in our part of the world who never really take the time to explain the battle between what is good in  the moment and what might be better in the long run.

It might be an idea to address this and explain this to the population since it could reduce some of the hatred directed towards politicians and decision makers.

Retarded White People.

So today I saw this in my Twitter feed:

BBC being silly

Needless to say I commented on this.

If you want to eradicate Whites then this type of argument is sensible. I just happen to be white and live in Europe, which is the only territory that rightfully belongs to the so-called “Evil White Man” because this is where the “Evil White Man” comes from … the idea that we should have no borders while having no children is nothing short of insane.

I wasn’t really aware of how bad our situation is until last year when I was ill and had plenty of time on my hands to read and think.

Nobody ever sat me down and explained to me the National importance of marriage and children, quite on the contrary I was told to do my own thing and have a career.

When I was a tween the Defence Department in the country where I lived decided to use little girls magazines to recruit young girls to go out and fight, rather than to promote children and family life.

Ever since I started receiving mainstream exposure for my work as an artist I’ve been hailed as a fabulous female role model, since I’m a shred/virtuoso guitarist and since I initially started out in the male-dominated realm of heavy metal, contributing to the genre as a creative artist and kicking ass technically.

If young women in the U.S.A., Russia and/or Europe follow my example there will be no future for any of those territories since I’ve never been married and have no kids.

I’m still a fantastic role-model though apparently, or maybe not anymore, since I’ve realised how dangerous our culture actually is.

I guess that makes me a douchebag instead. Yeah probably.

 

A Cool Video From The G7.

Standard

This is a very interesting  watch, especially when considering how the U.S.A is constantly being portrayed as the villainous hegemon. I started to doubt this narrative when I saw how much the U.S.A was struggling internally for myself, which is of course something that a lot of European critics will never see. It is interesting to note how opinionated people can be about a country they’ve never even been to … likewise it is interesting to listen to real witness accounts from people who’ve actually worked in Africa, Asia and the Middle East rather than experts who glorify cultures and situations they know nothing about….

I’m extremely happy to see that there is a real Renaissance effort in place because the U.S.A. sorely needs it. Hopefully it will inspire Europe to follow suit. One can hope. I saw a tweet yesterday from a fellow show-biz character who said that Norway needs a trip to the garage, my reply was that the whole west needs it asap. I don’t see isolated issues, I see a continental issue over here and an overall degenerate culture-war that is equally damaging for the U.S.A. as it is for countries and nations over here.

Last year when I decided to actually cast my vote for the first time, out of desperation quite frankly due to how things are changing in Europe, I decided to read a little and figure out what I was casting my vote for. It opened my eyes a bit to the complexity and magnitude of what needs to be addressed when engaged in National management… Migration is quite frankly just one piece in a giant tapestry of issues, but it is the issue that is the most visible to the general population due to exposure and due to brands, magazines and entertainment companies moving together in a synchronised fashion to popularise new values and a new Europe. If you hate and loathe the change, you’ll be given new reasons to be upset every single day. It makes me happy to see that the U.S.A. at least are getting back on their feet, now I’m wondering when Hollywood will follow suit and create patriotic content that can lift the American spirit rather than working against the re-construction. (A cool article to check out).

Having A Raison D’être & An End Game – The Impression One Can Get.

Standard

When reading about the Iraq war last year I was stunned to see the willingness to sacrifice the integrity of Europe on the altar of momentary territorial access needed in order to get into Iraq.

“Plan Of Attack” by Bob Woodward.

“Decision Points” by George W. Bush.

I was further mystified by the fact that 4-star Army General (ret.) Colin Powell came across as the one lone voice of reason, since he tried to raise awareness of tribalism and ethnic diversity in the targeted area.

The reading certainly gave me the impression that humans are simply being seen as replaceable cogs in the machinery by the establishment.

Culture and ethnicity simply doesn’t matter, it is all about momentary victory, without any overarching solid narrative selling a clearly defined End Game, that will be reached by many separate actions all serving the same underlying objective.

This is a startling realisation.

When reading “The Art Of War” I was surprised about what sort of advice it contained. Prolonged warfare with no end in sight is depicted as one of the worst projects that a Nation can ever engage in. A group that engages in warfare also have to ensure that they have access to an efficient supply line, taking advantage of whatever resources the group can get their hands on as they expand into a territory. A war effort should be swift and precise, without too much meddling from sovereigns located far away. The people who are on the ground need to be able to do what is necessary to reach their goal in a completely mobilised way, to the extent that this is possible.

All of this certainly made me question the sort of warfare that people my age have grown accustomed to. All of our Nations’ war efforts seem concentrated in “alien territories,” fighting and training “aliens” that might turn on the West later, and all of our Nations’ major war efforts seemingly drag out for ever…

No proper end game that logically makes sense is ever presented to the public and when getting an insight into the world of those who run these things, it doesn’t really seem like these characters know what the deal is either (unless a battle ground is simply needed in order to train soldiers and test new equipment).

Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

A parallel can be drawn to hacker activists, who don’t seem too concerned with allies. They’ll attack an enemy of the West one day only to target Western political and military structures the next, potentially jeopardising the integrity and safety of a Nation State or its military operations.

When reading about community organisers you see this pattern of behaviour once again.  A lot of left-wing activism simply cancels itself out, since the only common denominator seems to be emotionalism. Due to this you’ll get contradicting agitation and advocacy that will leave someone like myself slightly confused, as there is no End Game in sight anywhere.

If you look at Islamic agitation in Europe it is very easy to understand what their End Game and overarching goal is. They engage in demographic expansionism into Europe, which gradually gives them a political advantage. Wealthy Muslim power-players buy themselves into Western Corporations which gives them cultural influence and leverage. Street-level Muslims carve out their own territories and then defend these. Mosques are erected further cementing a claim to a specific territory boosting confidence, while a romanticized fantasy of Islamic Imperialism, appealing to people’s sense of identity and innate penchant for ancestry-worship, is promoted. Of course, as always, not all. But you don’t need every member of a specific group to behave in this particular fashion for it to have its desired effect. My impression of European Islamification is that there is a long-term vision, coupled with a willingness to commit to certain behaviours, in order to eventually reach a clearly defined outcome: Nation States that become compatible in their policies and in their cultures with the Muslim faith, preferably paving the way for a new “Golden-Age.” Of course it is of importance to point out the ethnic and racial diversity within Islam, and that there are numerous conflicting denominations within the faith as well. As an example: we can now clearly observe, imported tribal disagreements and feuds, in Europe, in addition to all of our own inter-ethnic issues that we had from before….

Inter-ethnic dissonance is very prevalent in Africa; which is generally referred to as the most diverse continent on the surface of the earth.

So what can be said of the West? What is our End Game? What can be observed and what conclusions can be drawn? 

What would make sense, instinctively,  would be to have common ancestry as the glue holding Europe together. Race has become way more inclusive than what it used to be, since we now largely see Race as something observable, while ethnic groups give us what has become our European Nation States, with its specific cultures and characteristics.  Back in the day these used to be chopped up into various tribes that probably displayed a lot of similar traits to one another, hence our generalisation regarding population groups contained within the boundaries of the modern Nation State: an extended family sharing common ancestry and a similar distribution of genetic traits on average.

It would make sense if our Nation States in Europe concerned themselves with the protection of our shared and individual cultural heritage, doing everything to ensure the survival and majority status of white children (and mixed whites) in the only territory that actually belongs a 100% to whites, protecting our continent’s borders and integrity.

A strong unified Europe and more broadly speaking, a strong unified West with the more multi-racial configurations found within territories conquered by whites, would in theory make sense.

Is this an End Game for what is collectively known as The West though? No.

This would be a racist objective. It would insinuate that Ethnic-Europeans have a natural claim to a specific territory and that conquest is a legitimate way to establish a Nation, which is what a white presence in all other territories other than Europe is a result of. (To my knowledge … It certainly looks that way when observing strange geographic settlements by Whites and the presence of dark-skinned indigenous groups).

The prevalent mythos championed in the West is this:

  1. that all other groups are minorities, even if Europe looks very small when compared to other continents, and we are outnumbered globally speaking.
  2. That the magic soil theory is truth, meaning that you’ll automatically become  Swedish by simply breathing the air in Sweden.
  3. That all human beings are born equal due to a blank slate, and that genetics simply don’t exist.
  4. That talking about genetics and genuine diversity is dangerous because that will instantly turn you into Hitler and result in a new Holocaust.
  5. That it makes sense to celebrate white ethnic groups becoming minorities, after years of civil-rights battles in the U.S.A. to ensure equal opportunity regardless of skin colour, and after years of Whites trying to do good towards previously marginalised and abused non-white minority groups within their domains. Not to forget: the constant focus on the challenges faced by so-called (and genuine) minorities within traditionally White-majority constructs. None of this paints minority-status in an appealing light … yet we should do everything in our power to lay the groundwork for our own marginalisation…. which is particularly interesting when reading about the merciless brutality in other parts of the world perpetrated by non-white majorities…
  6. That previous white expansionism will just be forgotten, since Whites have decided to “play nice,” which means that we no longer have any enemies and don’t really need any borders….
  7. That only white ethnic groups can be guilty of racism and imperialistic activity.
  8. That white ethnic groups are not under any circumstance “indigenous” and that there will at no point be any need to give any white demographic the status of “protected group.”
  9. That race and/or ethnicity is only real and only counts if/when dealing with “indigenous people,” who can under no circumstance be white. These “indigenous” groups are also the only ones entitled to certain territories that have to be protected in order to ensure their survival.
  10. That charity is only needed in the 3rd world as it is probably your own fault if you are poor and hungry in the superior, egalitarian, socialist inspired constructs that make up the Western World.
  11. That you have to import workers from Africa and The Middle East, rather than employing individuals from territories closer to your own, or within your own continent.
  12. That mixing on a massive scale is always peaceful and not the result of violent demographic change or militant conquest.
  13. That re-writing history and engaging in gas-lighting on a National and/or Continental level is perfectly alright in order to salvage vanity projects initiated by international organisations, that might look good on paper and in theory; until inserting the human factor into the equation actually implementing the idea.

Ok. So this doesn’t look too promising. Then what about Christianity? This is multi-racial, multiethnic and global. It is way more inclusive and has been used as a unifying factor in Europe before…

The West has continuously acted as an enemy to Christian groups in the Middle East, facilitating genocidal persecution of genuine Christian minority tribes. Western governments not only promote the build-down of Christianity within Europe and all other territories under White influence, they actively side with Nations and regimes known for violent Christian persecution.

What about human-rights, enlightenment ideas, world peace and the “human race”?

Western governments have repeatedly sided with regimes guilty of outrageous human rights abuses, making themselves guilty of gross hypocrisy since human rights and the protection of humanity as a whole has become the main narrative and general raison d’être of Western groups.

Portraying oneself as a defender of the human race also becomes tricky as you cannot possible go out there and claim that population group A needs more protection and privileges than population group B as this would be racist and undermine universal rights. And how on earth can you even say population group A and B when race/ethnicity isn’t even real? You cannot say that religious group A is more guilty of persecution than religious group B, because why would religious group B be more righteous or in need of more protection than the other? Are you a bigot or what?

Who are you to say that Terrorists don’t have rights or don’t have a point, when you claim to be a defender of all of humanity? And how on earth do you even define a “War on Terror” or “Terrorists”? Any person or group could fall into this category when nothing is specified.

These kind of points can be spinned indefinitely putting The West in a situation where none of its actions can be seen as righteous and/or legitimate.

It opens up the door for a potential legal, moral and PR nightmare where The West and its natural inhabitants never win.

It also puts Western Nation states in a situation where an enemy cannot be clearly defined, at least not in public, due to important exotic alliances and potential diplomatic disasters. By relying on exotic alliances for abstract military operations, the West paints  itself into a corner, where they cannot kick out subversive elements within their own nations if these stem from their good “friends and allies.”

The West is forced into a position where it cannot really look after the interests of its own inhabitants, nor enforce the heritage and integrity of itself.

Not to forget that The West is put into an incredibly awkward situation when Western leaders cannot clearly formulate anything, if interested in maintaining good international relationships.

This results in cringe worthy narratives that leaves all of those who don’t just parrot our “modern shared values” confused and puzzled. What are we all about really? Does anyone know?

What about Capitalism then? A support for this must surely be a constant factor from The Americans at least? 

No. Think again. The U.S.A. is willing to tolerate oppressive communist regimes that in the long run pose a threat to the American experiment and their global influence, as long as the U.S.A. can gain from such an alliance in the short run.

So what is The End Game of The West? 

Strangely and worryingly enough there doesn’t seem to be one……(but I might be very wrong, after all, who knows what goes on behind the scenes…).

At best it can be argued that there are forces within The West championing stability trough whatever means by expanding the police state and surveillance of their own citizens. This though is worked against by leaders who don’t want to acknowledge the effects of demographic change. In addition it facilitates the very form of governance that Western Nations are outspokenly against, not to forget that the identity destruction currently happening in The Western world work against any conservation efforts intended to protect our cultural and ethnic inheritance, while simultaneously compromising stability and security; in short, all of it compromises the survival of those people who occupy the territories that we collectively refer to as The West.

 

“Trump – The Art Of The Deal” by Donald J.Trump & Tony Schwartz.

Standard

If there is one thing I never really read it is business books, in fact this is the 1st one I’ve ever completed.

The work was recommended to me by my mother who studied economics and is a life-long Trump fan. She had previously read “The Art Of The Deal” many years ago ( it was published in 1987) and bought it again after Trump’s election victory over in the U.S.A.

The work is very easy to read, but not in a dumb or condescending fashion. If you have a curious mind it will keep you occupied into the early morning hours. I finished the book in less than a day. Those who are searching for bigotry will find themselves disappointed as Trump mentions how he likes to hire women since they are so efficient and competent (to paraphrase), among other myth-busting statements. It is also highlighted that part of Trump Tower’s success is that they did not engage in “discrimination” towards potential buyers. Getting hold of an apartment in New York is described as being rather difficult, since you as a person have to be assessed before you’re allowed into “the club.”

The work is off to a strong, but overwhelmingly energetic start, following a typical work-week in Trump’s busy business life. His network is nothing short of impressive and is the first thing that stands out. He lifts up the phone and seem capable of reaching any decision maker in any multi million/billion dollar industry whenever he likes.

What he is depicted as doing comes across as very complex for sure, as he seems to be everywhere and involved with everything at any give time. It certainly sounds like a more cerebral activity than just repeating and focusing on one activity over and over, which is what artists and athletes do.

He displays great “cunning” in his autobiography which would have scored him lots of points with the Vikings or the Greeks. It is nothing short of staggering what one person can accomplish during a lifetime. Donald Trump’s legacy will ring out through the ages I’m sure, after first establishing a business empire, leaving many buildings after himself (in his name), even becoming president of the U.S.A. Movies will be made in due time, probably statues as well.

When talking about his childhood he describes a privileged background in comparison to most. He was groomed for the property business working along his father. It is also mentioned that his grandfather came from Sweden, which instantly made me wonder what Trump’s impression would be if he went over there and saw “Swedish conditions” for himself. A funny story is shared of how Trump built skyscrapers with Lego as a child.

It is of great interest that Trump the adult is depicted as brushing shoulders with the same sort of people who have now all of a sudden thrown him under the bus. My guess is that everybody wanted his money back then and to pose next to a successful, glamorous developer. Trump used to be pop (and still is with his supporters and fans), but was all of a sudden somewhat disowned by an entertainment industry and a media establishment now depicting him as retarded and evil. I’ve previously credited this to him simply being politically conservative.

Questioning the mental capacity of someone who’ve built a business empire, branding him as a “buffoon-reality-show-President,” is nothing short of hilarious. You cannot be an idiot and become successful in the line of work where Trump has made his name. His critics must see him as a threat (he criticises corruption  within the political establishment in New York in his book), he gets back at his haters (before Twitter-Trump, there was letter-writing-Trump), he was able to get back on his feet after bankruptcy, he has always (by judging from this book) called a spade a spade, he comes across as a real-life monopoly player with an unblemished background after numerous bureaucratic assessments and in addition he is the definition of a capitalist, and I guess that is the issue more than anything else. 

More worryingly for his enemies: he is described as engaging in economic “sieges,” certainly adding a militaristic flair to the Trump phenomenon. The business environment is obviously described as competitive and filled with jealousy, so you have that element as well. Maybe there are other businessmen out there who wish they had run for office themselves … there are probably many money-makers out there who wish they were Trump……

In the book he constantly talks about “the market;” it is because of his ability to read “the market” and see “the market,” that he wins. This of course clashes with people from proper old-money, or those who are more elitist in their taste and feel that the “masses” are dull, stupid, uninteresting, you name it. Donald J.Trump is all about understanding what and how to sell. That seldom goes along with arrogance or an outright refusal to “sell out.” He shares his admiration for other people who also cater to whatever “market” that is relevant for the line of work that they are in.

He describes how an artist friend of his makes lots of money by simply pouring paint over a canvass, making a mess, selling it as modern art;  which is a con-trick I’ve come across myself when I was introduced to an Asian female painter with three studios around the world who made her money by pouring paint unto canvasses, and folding and unfolding said canvasses. This was how she made her money, with eager buyers psychoanalyzing the emotional meaning behind her work…..

This “market” obsession is what a lot of “true” (or much better written: TRVE) artists and musicians turn away from in total disgust. If you choose to do proper classical crossover for example, there will be an understanding that this doesn’t hang as high as catering to the niche, elitist, market of “proper classical music.” Crossover acts sell more records, but that doesn’t really matter….

I also posses a certain snobbish flair when it comes to food and art (which I attribute to being European), but this is something that is only good in certain doses. I have myself turned down certain TV offers in the past, because I felt that appearing on such shows would hurt my brand; like it would taint me somehow. Such behaviour cannot be a constant factor though as you’ll never crossover into the mainstream in any sort of way, which I’ve thankfully done by being visible on some of the most mainstream TV-shows in my country of origin, yet even when I said yes to these things, I knew that there was a certain sense of “selling-out,” yet the opportunities seemed too fun and too good to turn down, and I was very right about that. I love doing TV.

I do know that great art a lot of times isn’t supported by “the market” but need “patronage” in order to survive. History proves this to be the case. People who really have “the attitude” though would scoff at “circus-entertainment,” or anything catering to the so-called “masses” such as a U.S. President eating burgers from McDonald’s. Capitalists such as Trump win financially because they seemingly don’t care about the snobs; offering apartments for sale in New York without discrimination, is a very good example, making a reality-show is another not to forget; bothering about the ordeals of so-called “commoners” like Annabel Hill; which paints the picture of a capitalist with a heart. And what can possibly beat strong leadership combined with compassion?

Even the story of Trump trying to kick out tenants who were paying ridiculously low rent as a result of “rent-control,” is an interesting case study, as these individuals who got a bargain and took advantage of the “system,” felt that they were being harassed when Trump’s people tried to run the building in accordance with the low rent they collected. This was seen as an act of harassment by the tenants. To quote Trump:

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the rich, it’s that they have a very low threshold for even the mildest discomfort.”

“It happens to be very easy to vacate a building if, like so many landlords, you don’t mind being a bad guy. When these landlords buy buildings they intend to vacate, they use corporate names that are difficult to trace. Then they hire thugs to come in with sledgehammers and smash up the boiler, rip out the stairways, and create floods by cutting holes in pipes. They import truckloads of junkies, prostitutes, and thieves and move them into vacant apartments to terrorize holdout tenants. That’s what I call harassment.” (This clearly illustrates “people used as weapons.” Which      can be compared to how migration is handled by some).

The scenario described illustrates once again how a privileged few, convinced other people not as fortunate as themselves, to gang up together to fight a common enemy whose defeat ultimately would have profited the tenants who had the biggest flats the most. Trump’s dislike of wealthy people taking advantage of rent-controlled apartments can also be a reason as to why some people strongly dislike the current President, since people aren’t too keen on separating with their perks. Many celebrities taking advantage of “rent-control” are mentioned within the book….

Trump ends up fantasizing about offering the homeless his vacant apartments in said condominium, so that snobbish New Yorkers can share their living space with the less-fortunate. He backs down from this idea after his lawyers warn that it will become almost impossible to remove rough sleepers to prepare the building for demolition if he first initiates such an endeavour.

I’m suspecting that I’ve hit the nail somewhat on its head when it comes to why show-biz people have turned their backs so violently on the current U.S.President. Messy, absent-minded, artsy types seem to have an innate disgust towards suit-wearing money-makers like the ones Trump describes in his book. I wonder if the mentality goes both ways as the world described by someone like Donald J. Trump starkly contrasts any music industry related book. There is a personality contrast (on average) I’m suspecting, which is probably why artists have a tendency of being outspokenly anti-corporate, even if benefitting from major corporations and patronage from such people. This “night and day” contrast with deadline averse, unorganised artists on one side, and a no bullshit, no time to waste, mentality on the opposite spectrum, might illustrate my point. Artists would ironically enough be able to relate to business guys struggling to get financing for unique and new ideas, but I guess there is no interest in finding common ground if you as an artist hate and fight “the system,” while business people (might) think of artists as annoying, ungrateful, weirdos, with a strange dress-sense.

There are a great number of artists out there who are openly communist and would cringe at the idea of having their music placed in an ad, for example. Rather than seeing this as a golden opportunity, there would be many who would be opposed to such a thing. Licensing music for use in commercials should be the dream of any musician; I personally do not understand the official anti-business stance of a lot of show-biz characters since you are starting a business anyway the moment that you are selling a service or a product. You can might as well think big and aim high.

The greatest comedy in entertainment is when radical artists are in the receiving end of proper corporate backing and feel clever since they feel like they are fighting the machine from within, using capitalist tools. The capitalists also feel clever since they are making a profit off approved opposition and dissent, getting rich off anti-establishment punks, who actually enrich the very institutions that they criticise… This sort of oddity can to a certain degree be witnessed by anti-gun celebrities who’ve made their names by being gun-wielding action heroes, or #MeToo male feminists in show-biz unmasked as sexual predators. A box that Donald J. Trump’s critics have tried their best to place him in. The second that “locker-room” talk from the current President could be used as a tool to remove him from the 2016 election, his critics edited out what they needed and jumped at the opportunity to use it, only to see him win in the end anyway. It is particularly telling that the ace up their sleeve now come in the form of a certain lame storm that passed many, many, years ago.

There is a Russia-link funny enough on pages. 26-27 and on page 364 … This book however was published in 1987 and I’m guessing that Trump travelling to the Soviet Union to scout for potential prospects with his first wife doesn’t count… I’m willing to bet that Trump’s critics haven’t bothered to read his book. They should. Maybe they’ll turn around.

When you read “The Art Of The Deal” you get an insight into those who run the world; in other words: those who know how to handle money, make good business deals and don’t want to waste time on bullshit. Trump even meets with a Cardinal.

Politics and the world of real estate are closely linked and certainly puts into question the myth of property-rights in the Western world. I’ve previously mentioned in my entry: “An Insight Into The State of A European Nation – Election in Norway/Valg i Norge 2017.,” how easily rights gets compromised when red-tape and bureaucracy infringes on what a person can do with his/her property. It contradicts freedom and liberty to have politicians interfere with how or what  you build on a piece of land that you’ve purchased, unless there is a concern for buildings of a historical value. If we are to have rights in the Western world, it would be good if these could be respected, if not they are merely a mirage….

Politicians are depicted as fishy weather-wanes in Trump’s book, obsessed with their own vanity, living in fear over any bad publicity since this can cost them votes. They are depicted as largely incompetent and untrustworthy.

I particularly enjoyed reading about “value engineering” and “quality control.” I’ve had a ridiculous amount of different addresses in my short life and know how sneaky landlords can be. They paint over blemishes and pretend like nothing, which is why it is crucial to hire a nosy “inspector” if you ever intended to rent, and especially buy something. More often than not you’ll find “fire traps” and/or “hazardous materials.” I would recommend people to smell the walls of their flats and/or houses, in order to detect any mould that has been painted over or any potential rot. It might make you look crazy, but at least you’ll know if someone is trying to be clever…

My favourite chapter was the one about the rebuilding of the Wollman Ice Rink in Central Park.

After reading Donald J. Trump’s book I’m sure that he is thrilled over bureaucrats and feet-dragging within the political establishment that he now finds himself in…

A future President and world-leader can be seen when Trump says: “…I felt there was a bigger issue at stake. I’ve come to believe Ed Koch is so incompetent and destructive to New York that someone has to stand up and say so, publicly.

Nowhere can this President-in-the-making be sensed clearer than in the “What’s Next” section of the work: “ But what I admire most are people who put themselves directly on the line. I’ve never been terribly interested in why people give, because their motivation is rarely what it seems to be, and it’s almost never pure altruism. To me, what matters is the doing, and giving time is far more valuable than giving money. In my life, there are two things I’ve found I’m very good at: overcoming obstacles and motivating good people to do their best work. One of the challenges ahead is how to use those skills as successfully in the service of others as I’ve done, up to now, on my own behalf.

Conclusion: Donald J. Trump comes across as a very likeable guy, sharp, not someone you could easily fool, interested in the whereabouts of real people and what actually happens in the real-world. He comes across as someone critical of a political establishment only interested in enriching itself, and at odds with New York snobbery. He comes across as a successful “man-of-the-people,” in love with everything HUGE and beautiful. Those looking for anything Hitleresque will find themselves disappointed. Read this book whether you like President Trump or not.

More relating to the Trump administration & the US Presidency:

Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

Link to An Interview With The White House Chief of Staff.

Amusing Articles From The Political Correctness Police …

“Decision Points” by George W. Bush.

A Crash Course In Politics. (What It Is And What It Is Not).

4 Things I really like and agree with from “The Art Of The Deal”

  1. It doesn’t matter if you own something a 100% if what you own is worthless.
  2. It doesn’t matter if you have a stellar product if no one ever hears about it.
  3. There are lots of people out there with unfulfilled potential because they were never put in a setting where they could properly bloom.
  4.  Leading a meritocratic operation will get out the best in people.

Selected Quotes from “The Art Of The Deal”

” … politicians don’t care too much about what things cost. It’s not their money.”

“You can’t  be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you’ve got too much structure.”

“… if you’re right, you’ve got to take a stand, or people will walk all over you.”

“The way I see it, critics get to say what they want to about my work, so why shouldn’t I be able to say what I want about theirs?” – after writing a letter to a critic who ” …was knocking a design he hadn’t even looked at yet.”

“That experience taught me a few things. One is to listen to your gut, no matter how good something sounds on paper. The second is that you’re generally better off sticking with what you know. And the third is that sometimes your best investments are the ones you don’t make.”

“The worst things you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it.”

“It pays to trust your instincts.”

“The state official who cross-examined Hefner said afterward that several commissioners hadn’t liked Hefner’s demeanour and style on the witness stand.” On why some get licenses from the bureaucracy and why some don’t.

“There is nothing to compare with family if they happen to be competent, because you can trust family in a way you can never trust anyone else.”

“To this day not many people or companies are willing to go through the nightmare of licensing in New Jersey, which gives Nevada a big advantage in attracting new investors.”

Trump on the business of Sport: ” Porter bluntly outlined a multipart plan for declaring total war on our league, by employing numerous anti-competitive strategies. His two-and-a-half-hour presentation was divided into sections such as “Offensive Strategies,” “Guerrilla Warfare,” and “The Art of War – China 500 B.C.”

Trump on politicians: ” It’s fortunate for those city officials that they chose to go into city government rather than business. The deal they were suggesting was far worse for the city than the one I’d originally offered. I wasn’t about to fight them at my  own expense.”

“…raise the possibility of bad press, even in an obscure publication, and most politicians will jump.”

“It irritates me that critics, who’ve neither designed nor built anything themselves, are given carte blanche to express their views in the pages of major publications, whereas the targets of their criticism are almost never offered space to respond.”

Trump on celebrity buyers of his apartments: ” Obviously, we were a natural choice for people connected with show business, in the sense that we’d created something very glamorous.”

“The truth is that we never hired anyone to do public relations, and every star who bought an apartment – Johnny Carson, Steven Spielberg, Paul Anka, Liberace – and many others – came to us.”

 

 

 

“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 seized 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” know 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.