The Bushes
Are Not America’s Friends
A lesson
from two George Bushes: Never give the elite the
benefit of the doubt
By Michael
Scheuer
–“And thus the community
perpetually retains a supreme power of
saving themselves from the attempts and
designs of anybody, even of their
legislators, whenever they shall be so
foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and
carry on designs against the liberties
and properties of the subject.”
John Locke, Second Treatise,
Chapter 13 (1)
–“General revolts and
rebellions of a whole people never were
encouraged now or at any time. They were
always provoked.”
Edmund Burke, 1777 (2)
Sentiment is human weakness that always is an
obstacle to clear thinking, or at least it
always is in my case. I have always given
George H.W. Bush and and George W. Bush the
benefit of the doubt because I thought both were
patriots and decent men. The former flew more
than 50 combat missions during World War II, and
the latter seemed sadly trapped in, and
manipulated by, a nest of Neoconservative and
Israel-First cretins. Since early in 2016,
however, I have come to see how stupid and
blinding it is to let sentiment hide the clearly
visible truth that the Bushes are not America’s
friends.
The
elder Bush was a disaster for America, his only
accomplishment being that he kept the White
House from the Democrats for a 4-year term. He
is the author and first implementer of the
totalitarian idea of a “New World Order”, which
began what is now nearly 30 years of constant
war for the United States. He laid the ground
work for the current confrontation with Russia
by greatly expanding NATO and unleashing Western
greed to suck anything economically worth having
out of the former USSR; he added countries to
NATO that are irrelevant to U.S. security but
sit right on Russia’s border; he squandered most
of what President Reagan had accomplished; he
fought an unnecessary, half-fought, unwon, and
Islamist-benefiting war against Iraq; and he ran
a reelection campaign against the whore-loving
buffoon Bill Clinton that looked like it should
have been in one of the lesser Marx Brothers
movies. Finally, during the 2016 presidential
campaign, Bush refused to endorse Trump, and his
closest confidants suggested he preferred
Hillary Clinton. Revalidating the McCain Rule
that great physical courage does not connote
even moderate brainpower or commonsense, it was
all downhill for George H.W. Bush after the
second Great War ended. Sadly, that decline
ended up by delivering the United States to the
malevolent hands and minds of Clinton and Obama,
as well as to those of his son.
George
W. Bush outdid his Dad in terms of negative
accomplishments, his only accomplishment being
that he kept the White House from the Democrats
for eight years, and even that success was
minimal as his performance allowed the
presidency of the execrable Obama. The younger
Bush picked up his father’s interventionist
mantle and waged a effeminate war against
al-Qaeda, a genuine enemy of the United States,
and a half-witted, small-footprint, losing, and
utterly unnecessary war in Iraq, a war whose
negative impact on U.S. interests has yet to be
fully seen. Then, after his silence during
Obama’s eight years of military and cultural
interventionism, pathological lying and racism,
and Constitution-shredding, he joins his Dad,
and his clueless yet extraordinarily arrogant
bother Jeb, to publicly and clandestinely oppose
Trump as Republican presidential contender,
Republican candidate, president-elect, and
president. Most recently, George W. Bush has
been out hawking a book of his paintings and
hobnobbing with Michelle Obama and other such
mindless, virago-like Democratic women and
celebrities, and mindlessly basking in the
praise of these racist and authoritarian Amazons
who would gladly spit on his grave.
As if
this long record of Bush anti-Americanism was
not enough, George W. Bush this week took the
time to instruct President Trump to avoid
adopting an “isolationist tendency” because it
would be “dangerous to national security.” By
avoiding unnecessary interventions and wars and
minding its own business, Bush said, the United
States creates a vacuum that “is generally
filled with people who don’t share the ideology,
the same sense of human rights and human dignity
and freedom that we do.” (3)
Well,
God bless George the Younger. In his reliably
bumbling way, he has allowed Americans to see —
in the 30 words quoted above — that the intent
of post-1945 U.S. foreign policy has not been to
defend them and their republic but to use the
taxes and children of American workers to
endlessly intervene abroad to rid the world of
people and governments that “don’t share our
ideology” and who do not have the same “sense …
[of] freedom we do.” Bush is not referring here
to the ideology and sense of freedom possessed
by Americans, but rather to those that the
internationalist/globalist/interventionist
elites, like the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, most
European leaders, Bill Gates, George Soros, and
untold numbers of other rich and highly educated
people, want to impose on all peoples —
including Americans — so they can rule people as
they see fit and without the possibility popular
resistance.
Coincidentally, as this piece was being
completed, the younger Bush’s war buddy, Tony
Blair, published a piece in the New York
Times which calls on “centrist
progressives” to hold their ground and defeat
the populists and nationalists. “Today,” the
Globalist-shill Blair wrote,
a
distinction that often matters more than
traditional right and left is open
vs. closed. The
open-minded see globalization as an opportunity
but one with challenges that should be
mitigated; the closed-minded see the
outside world as a threat. This
distinction crosses traditional party lines and
thus has no organizing base, no natural channel
for representation in electoral politics. ..
So
this leaves a big space in the center. For the
progressive wing of politics, the correct
strategy is to make the case for building a new
coalition out from the center. To do so,
progressives need to acknowledge
the genuine cultural
anxieties of those voters who have deserted the
cause of social progress: on immigration, the
threat of radical Islamism and the difference
between being progressive and appearing
obsessive on issues like gender identity.
The center needs to develop a new
policy agenda that shows people they will get
support to help them through the change that’s
happening around them.
At the heart of this has to be an
alliance between those driving the technological
revolution, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, and
those responsible for public policy in
government. At present, there is a
chasm of understanding between the two. There
will inevitably continue to be a negative impact
on jobs from artificial intelligence and big
data, but the opportunities to change lives for
the better through technology are enormous.
Any new
agenda has to focus on these
opportunities for radical change in the way that
government and services like health care serve
people. This must include
how we educate, skill and
equip our work forces for the future;
how we reform tax and welfare systems to
encourage more fair distribution of wealth;
and how we replenish our nations’
infrastructures and invest in the communities
most harmed by trade and technology. (4)
I added
the italics to Blair’s words to make the point
that the Western and global elites have not a
clue about what is going on all around them, and
what is increasingly likely to happen to them.
For Blair, there is not a mortal divide between
those who believe progressive government is the
answer, and those who know that progressive
government, if fully developed and entrenched,
will be the greatest slave master in history.
No, Blair sees the divide as being between the
“open-minded” progressives and the
“close-minded” hay seeds who “have deserted the
cause of social progress” and cannot understand
that progressives know what is best for them, a
prescription that includes unlimited
immigration; suppression of religion,
nation-states, and nationalism; more intrusive
government control of their lives through
improved “government services”; and, naturally,
larger taxes and welfare payments to ensure a
“more fair distribution of wealth,” which, as
always, means more money given to groups that
are generally composed of the scum of the earth
and will always vote for those that pledge to
keep them forever on the dole.
|
Break
Free From The Matrix
|
Throughout
history, watching the demise of those who speak
about and treat the great mass of people as if
they are inferior human beings, and who are then
utterly shocked when they find the inferiors’
bayonets in their bellies, always has been a
most enjoyable experience. Blair, the Bushes,
the Clintons, the Obamas, the Gates-Soros-Davos
billionaires, and the rest of the Globalist
clique are blithely and arrogantly striding down
a path marked “Pointy Ended Road”, their trip
having been blessed, ironically, by the
applause-craving and hell-on-earth-creating
Bishop of Rome. They will arrive at that road’s
dead end, hopefully soon, to find that the great
unwashed understand all too well that
progressives intend to impose a global tyranny
on formerly free peoples, and they will be
shocked to find themselves in a fight to their
well-merited deaths. No cavalry will come to
their aid, of course, because such forces always
are composed of the children of the people they
mean to rob of their wages and property, and
then enslave.
Michael
F. Scheuer (born 1952) is a former CIA
intelligence officer, American blogger, author,
foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He
is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown
University's Center for Peace and Security
Studies.http://non-intervention.com
