Is the 'Conservative Media' Really Retarded?

My Commentary on Conor Friedersdorf's ATLANTIC magazine piece on the delusions of the 'conservative media'.

This is an interesting piece and well-worth reading but ultimately more a tirade than a honest investigation of what wrong's with the conservative media. While Conor Friedersdorf is right about the shortcomings--to say the least--of conservative journalism and punditry, he fails out to spell out the real reasons for the problems due to lack of courage, honesty, or knowledge. As he works in journalism, I doubt if it's lack of knowledge.

Yes, the conservative media suffered from what might be called the Obama Derangement Syndrome, akin to the Bush Derangement Syndrome among liberals from 2000 to 2008. Back then, liberals were hysterical about the looming 'fascist' state run by Christian Theocrats. They embraced the trashy Michael Moore as truth-teller. They were so sure of Kerry's victory in 2004 and itching to celebrate. And so on.  In a way, the Bush Derangement Syndrome was all the more surprising since there was so much open criticism and denouncement of Bush's policies, both domestic and foreign. Though the media went soft on Bush after 9/11 for reasons for patriotism and unity--and this fatally played a role in the path to the Iraq War--, once the war began to go badly, the media rolled up their sleeves and did the job of reporting the truth on Bush's abuses. This was especially true after his re-election and Hurricane Katrina disaster. Given the opposition against Bush from the academia, media, Hollywood, musical celebrities, TV comedians, and etc., there was really no need for the Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush's power was watched, investigated, and checked. Consider the whole Valerie Plame scandal. And much of the media loathed Karl Rove, Cheney, and others, and did their job in digging up dirt on them.

The problem with Obama is the media have been uncritically with him from day one. While Birthers may be on a wild sheep chase, the whole phenomenon was the result of the media's refusal to dig deeply and honestly into Obama's past. During the Democratic primaries, the media even covered up John Edwards' sex scandal in order to split the white Democratic vote between Hillary and Edwards to benefit Obama. When Sarah Palin's VP candidacy was announced, a huge crew of MSM went snooping all over Wasilla, Alaska to dig up all the dirt on Palin. But the media were mostly busy building up the cult of personality of Obama as 'black jesus' or 'the one'. It was as if the media became part of the Democratic Party in Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood tradition. Instead of doing their job of investigating a presidential candidate's past, they mostly tried to shield him from criticism, refused to ask him tough questions, and favored him in the overall coverage. The media didn't cover but covered up for him. The media promoted and hyped him. They were part of his marketing and advertising campaign. And many words written about him by journalists had a 'spiritualist' tinge, as if he could walk on water or something.

It wasn't the MSM that uncovered the fact of Obama's long, close ties with the vicious Jeremiah Wright. Indeed, had the media revealed that earlier--along with Edwards' sex scandal--, Hillary might have had winning chance in the 2008 primaries. But the media were in Obama's pocket and vice versa. When the Wright scandal finally became news, MSM reported it as objectively and coldly as possible WITHOUT judgement. Now, suppose McCain had been found to have been associated with a deranged nut for 20 yrs and lied about never having heard the man's crazy rants.
Obama had known all about the Wright but called him his spiritual guide and mentor(mainly of course to gain street cred among black voters in the Chicago South Side). But he was able to ride out the storm because the media provided him with an umbrella. He was mostly evasive about the subject, and the media refused to judge him, and then dropped the story because it was said to have 'no traction'. But whether a story has traction or not is dependent on the mainstream media. After all, the Don Imus 'nappy headed ho' story would have had no traction if the media hadn't jumped all over him for weeks on end. And Buchanan's convention speech in 1992 was considered a success... until the media jumped all over him with judgmental fury.

This refusal to be tough on Obama--as on the other candidates--is what made so many American distrustful of the whole Obama narrative, and this is what gave birth to Birthers and other conspiracy theories. Though I never cared for Birtherism, it is funny that the most hyped politician in American history is also the most secretive and protected. Obama's DREAMS FROM MY FATHER is mostly a self-created myth with little substance, and much of Obama's records have been kept sealed and hidden. Why? It's almost like the secrets in THE DAVINCI CODE. If Obama has nothing to hide, why has so much been hidden about him? Why are the media giving us the myth and not the real man? I think because there isn't much to the real man, just like there isn't much to the real person behind the Hollywood actor. Now, it's the role of Hollywood and marketing to put forth the myth than the man. But it is the role of journalism to ferret out the man from the myth. Have the media done that with Obama? Indeed, the Obama Derangement Syndrome is actually bigger among liberals than among conservatives, albeit in a pro- than con- way.
Some liberals were fainting and foaming at the mouth at the mere sight of him. They were describing him akin to a god. Chris Matthews said he had tingles going up his legs and compared Obama's Wright speech with those of Lincoln. He even thanked the devastating hurricane for coming to Obama's aid in the election. In other words, Obama's victory is more important than all the flood damage and people freezing in the cold. Newsweek ran covers of Obama as something like 'gay jesus'. This is journalism?
It is no wonder then that some on the Right decided to fantasize the worst possible scenarios about Obama. The funniest is Obama being a secret Muslim out to destroy Israel. Ridiculous since no politician in recent memory has been more controlled and owned by Jews. And favored by Jews.
But, it was not wrong for many conservatives to try to do the job that liberals refused to do. Especially since liberals make up over 90% of MSM and since the media are supposed to serve as a check on the powers-that-be, there is something seriously wrong when the media refuse to do their job with the 'most powerful man in the world'. Even leftists like Glenn Greenwald have written about the failure of the media to look into Obama's real record and deeds.

What Friedersdorf refused to discuss is the power of Jews in all this. The problem with the media is not so much liberal domination as JEWISH liberal and neocon domination. Not all liberals are the same, not all conservatives are the same. Some liberal groups are far more powerful than others. On the Democratic side, Jews followed by gays are by far the most powerful and influential. Polish-American liberals and Arab-American liberals don't have anything like the power of Jewish liberals and even gay liberals. Since Jews are so powerful on the liberal side, one would think the American Right would be the bastion of forces critical of Jewish power. When Wasps were the dominant elites in America, Jews called out on Wasp power, privilege, connections, and influence. Since Jews are the new elites of America, naturally we expect there to be criticism of Jewish power, privilege, connections, and influence. And since most Jews are liberal, we would expect this criticism tto come from the Right. But there isn't any. So-called 'conservative media' is really neoconservative media.  Though there are non-Jewish conservative voices all over the so-called 'conservative media', they all got their gigs with the blessing of the Jewish neocon establishment. They must be mindlessly uncritical in their support of Israel. They must be foam at the mouth about the 'Muslim Threat' to please their neocon bosses. They must be for 'diversity', which is what neocon Jews want, indeed no less than liberal Jews. The reasons for the Jewish love of 'diversity' is simple. It serves Jewish elite power. Just like the diversity of India allowed the small British elite to rule for two centuries by resorting to 'divide and rule' among diverse groups, Jewish elites seek to increase non-white diversity in order to play gentiles against one another. (Of course, Jews don't want diversity in Israel where they are the majority.) And it worked this time, with Jews using blacks and browns to ensure that white majority can no longer elect the candidate they want. But of course, Romney is no less owned by Jews, namely the neocons.
What with up to 60% of Democratic funds and 40% of Republican funds coming from Jews, Jews pretty much control both parties. And with Jewish oligarchs owning most of the media--and with Jews serving as managers in most media companies--, both the liberal and conservative media are really about serving Jewish power and interests. Indeed, liberal MSM has over the yrs favored neocons as the voice of American conservatism, and, as a result, much of the political discussion has turned into liberal Jews and their goy puppets bickering with neocon Jews and their goy puppets. And both sides have been purging people they don't like. Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas were purged from  liberal media for daring to speak out about Jewish power and privilege. And so-called 'paleocons' and 'Arabist realists' have been purged from GOP ranks.
The fact is there is a great disconnect between so-called 'mainstream conservatism' whose script is written by cynical neocons(whose main objective is to use to Christian Right dummies to serve Zionist interests) and other conservatives who've come to hold most 'conservative leaders' in contempt as shills for Zionist and Wall Street interests. The main reason why most conservatives lost interest in the Tea Party was because it was co-opted by Wall Street neocons. Tea Party originally began as an attack on Wall Street/Big Government collusion--aka crony capitalism--, but neocons and their puppet hacks like Sarah Palin turned it into mindless support for Israel and Wall Street. It was this disconnect that discouraged so many white voters who chose to stay home this time around. Most people I know who supported Ron Paul refused to vote, so disgusted were they by how Romney was cherry-picked by the neocon establishment. This simmering disgust with neocon Zionists among conservative is the great untold story of this election. We hear nothing of it because both the MSM--which really should be called the liberal Jewish media--and the 'conservative media'--which really should be called the neocon Jewish media--suppress stories about Jewish power and influence. For many real conservatives, Romney is just another shill of Wars for Israel and Wall Street Zionist-globalist financiers. The real story of this election isn't who voted for Obama or who voted for Romney but who DIDN'T vote for Romney and why? Many conservatives saw Romney as the product of neocon cheating in the primaries. But the liberal Jewish media colluded with neocons. Because of Ron Paul's critical views of Israel, the MSM did all it could to bury coverage of him and his arguments. In some debates, he wasn't even asked any questions. Though Paul was polling well in the early rounds, the scripted grand narrative was he was a 'fringe candidate'. The real problem of American politics is that both liberal Jews and neocon Jews are not enemies. They see eye to eye on most issues. Neocons are essentially socially liberal Jews working in the guise of 'conservatives' to win conservative support for Israel. Also, neocon presence in the GOP serve to dampen any possible criticism of Jewish power from the Right. Since American conservatives are so grateful to have some Jews on their side, they go the extra-mile not to do or say anything that might offend Jews. And if something conservatives do or say may offend Jews, conservatives go out of their way to praise Jews, memorialize the Holocaust, and support Zionist dispossession of Palestinians in order to show they don't have an 'antisemitic' bone in their bodies.

Why was the neoconservative media so deluded? They cherry-picked the 'conservative' candidate that most conservatives didn't trust or like. They got so swept in trying to fool people that Romney was a true blue--or red bled as the case may be--conservative that they were not only disconnected from political reality but from conservative reality: the fact that many conservatives didn't like Romney at all. While many conservatives did vote for Romney out of hatred for Obama, many hated Romney too much to bother going to the pols, which is why so many white voters chose not to vote.

American Conservative magazine is a good barometer of how a lot of conservatives really felt about Romney. Neocons are a small part of conservatism, but they hog most of the elite positions in the GOP and 'conservative media'. And even non-Jewish conservatives working in the media and government are so careful as to not offend neocons in any way. Though the Jews are the natural enemies of white gentile interests in America, white conservatives have this fatal alliance with neocons that prevents them from taking on Jewish power. When Jews rose to power, they attacked Wasp power and privilege with full force. But this is not allowed with Jewish power, and this is the most dangerous reality in America. Consider. Wall Street is dominated by Jews. Media are dominated by Jews. Elite academia is dominated by Jews. Upper echelons of government is dominated by Jews. Top law firms are dominated by Jews. Foreign policy is dominated by Jews. We have Jewish power-networking that goes beyond anything Wasp networking in the past. Wasps also never hid their power. They admitted their power and were even self-critical to settle for reforms. But Jews, though the most powerful people in America, have used the Holocaust card to play the Eternal Victims of history. So, even though Jewish Wall Street played a significant role in the economic debacle and neocon Jews played a key role in the Iraq War, the Jewish-controlled media and Jewish-controlled courts allowed Jews who were responsible to get off scott free. In 2008, Wall Street put their money on Obama. Obama served Wall Street by filling up his economic team with Wall Street insiders. Few Wall Streeters had to face any kind of justice. If anything, they got huge 'bail outs'. Now, where were the media on this? They made some noise, but they let it pass because Jewish oligarchs who own the media are friends with Jewish oligarchs who run Wall Street. And Jewish controlled Hollywood made only tepidly critical movies about financial wrongdoings. Jewish Hollywood would rather make movies about all those 'crazy terrorist Muslims'--superhero war porn movies set in the Middle East where US blows up all those swarthy 'muzzies--and the remake of RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn. Or the remake of STRAW DOGS where a white woman is raped by rednecks when the real problem of rape--indeed the real war on women--involve astronomically high black rape rates.
And consider both the liberal Jewish media and neocon media's coverage of Iran and Israel. Israel has 300 illegal nukes and crushes Palestinians on a daily basis. Iran has no nukes and has passed every international inspection. Yet, Israel is showered in billions in aid while Jewish-controlled US uses its muscle to economically strangulate Iran to death. Even so-called liberal Jews support the economical strangulation of an innocent people to serve Zionist interests. And though the president of Iran never said, "Israel will be wiped off the map", that trope was allowed to fester in the media forever.

There can't be an honest conservative media until conservatives break out of the stranglehold of neocons on the GOP and conservative think tanks. But then, the liberal Jewish media have always favored neocons as the Voice of Conservatism. Liberal Jewish newspapers mostly choose neocon columnists, and liberal TV channels invite mostly neocons to speak for conservatism. Yes, there are lots of dumb conservatives regardless of neocon domination, but it's the neocon domination that makes American conservatism obsess mainly over the interests of globalist Wall Street and the Jewish Zionist Apartheid State of Israel. But then, liberal Jews want to keep things this way because if American conservatism was reclaimed by real conservatism, there may finally be a power that speaks truth to Jewish power that happens to be overwhelmingly liberal, globalist, and anti-white. (Jews are more anti-white working class and anti-white middle class than anti-white elite class. Jews shower white elites with all sorts of rewards as long as the latter play to Jewish demands like 'gay marriage'. And 'affirmative action' is geared to favor smarter/richer whites and Jews over poorer white gentiles, and so both Jews and affluent white liberals have little to fear from 'affirmative action'. It's white poor and white working class who bear the burden of affirmative action.)

Friedersdorf writes:

"In conservative fantasy-land, Richard Nixon was a champion of ideological conservatism, tax cuts are the only way to raise revenue, adding neoconservatives to a foreign-policy team reassures American voters, Benghazi was a winning campaign issue, Clint Eastwood's convention speech was a brilliant triumph, and Obama's America is a place where black kids can beat up white kids with impunity. Most conservative pundits know better than this nonsense -- not that they speak up against it. They see criticizing their own side as a sign of disloyalty. I see a coalition that has lost all perspective, partly because there's no cost to broadcasting or publishing inane bullshit. In fact, it's often very profitable. A lot of cynical people have gotten rich broadcasting and publishing red meat for movement conservative consumption."


Here, he's mostly wrong. Richard Nixon has never been seen as the champion of ideological conservatism by most conservatives. If anything, conservatives have been bashing him over the years as a traitor in just about everything. He came to be loathed by much by conservatives as by liberals.
'Adding neoconservatives to foreign-policy team' is a NEOCONSERVATIVE fantasy because neoconservatives dominate American 'conservatism. I mean duh. Friedersdorf got it backwards. He seems to think conservatives cooked up this neocon fantasy. No, neocons eventually took over the GOP and 'conservative' think tanks, and they cooked up the fantasy of neocon foreign interventionism as the cornerstone of conservatism. Most conservatives don't want war with Iran and want to bring the boys home.
As for Benghazi, it was indeed a great issue for conservatives, and liberal media's actions prove it. If it was not damaging to Obama, why did the media go along with his lies and help him cover up the truth of what happened? Here, I'm afraid, it's Friedersdorf who's playing the partisan hack. Obama lied about Benghazi, and if the media had covered it honestly, it could have been fatal to his re-election. That is why the media made sure it didn't get any 'traction'.

As for black kids beating up white kids, this isn't just something that happens in Obama's America but something that's been going on for some time. Maybe Friedersdorf is one of those affluent white liberals who lives in gentrified or gentrically cleansed 'Europeanized' American cities with relatively few blacks. The fact is most racial crime in this country is black on white. Blacks are physically tougher, stronger, and more aggressive. Just like most sexual violence is mostly male on female, most racial crime is black on white. And it's not about poverty since most white victims are poor whites attacked by stronger black thugs. But there's also lots of black crime on Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, and gays--most of it suppressed by the media unless the victims happen to be Jewish or gay, the two most favored groups in America. Blacks know they are tougher; blacks know that non-blacks are afraid of them. Indeed, we can see this in blue states. How many white liberals live in Detroit? Property is cheap, but white liberals stay away out of fear of black violence. And Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and etc--though they are all blue Democratic cities--are divided along racial lines. NYers elected Giuliani to deal with black crime. NY is one of the main practitioners of racial profiling, and most NYers support the policy because of fear of black crime. This is where Friedersdorf shows his true colors of politically correct lies and deception. But he can afford the fantasy of wonderful relations between blue state whites and blue state blacks since he probably lives in one of those urban places that underwent gentric cleansing. Affluent white liberals and Jews have reclaimed the choicest parts of big cities by hiking real estate prices and shipping dangerous blacks to suburbs or small towns where poorer whites will be prey to black crime. We all know about this dirty secret. It's the Parisian model where the metropolitan areas are kept white while blacks are relocated in the suburbs. White urban liberals are following the same model. If blue states are so friendly and welcoming to blacks, why are blue cities getting whiter via gentric cleansing and why are blacks being driven out to small towns and suburbs by section 8 housing programs? Why are so many blue state blacks leaving for red states to look for jobs? What have white liberals in Michigan done for people in Detroit? How come blacks in Chicago keep losing jobs and housing in the city? Why is Chicago being 'Europeanized' through gentric cleaning under liberal Democratic rule?

Friedersdorf makes some important points, but he fails to go all the way because he's too politically correct, too afraid, and too partisan. He too is just another hack, and for that reason, he fails to see the looming defeat of liberalism as well as conservatism in the coming future. While the GOP may well be dead as a national party, it was the existence of the GOP that held the Democratic coalition together, just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan kept the alliance among USSR, UK, China, and the US. Once the Axis fell, those powers all eventually became enemies. The Democratic coalition of rich Jews and privileged gays, affluent white feminists and angry black welfare mothers, Hispanics and Asians, and etc and etc cannot hold once the GOP throws in the towel. Indeed, go to any blue city, and you can see how divided it is along racial lines. In NY, Jews occupy the upper echelons. Asians tend to do well, along with gays. Most Hispanics work at menial jobs while many blacks sit in jail or work in government that is fast running out of money. Without the GOP, no way this alliance can hold together.

As for Glenn Beck, yes, he's a self-promoting lunatic, but his form of hysteria is quite common among leftist academics, intellectuals, and media people who see 'racism', 'fascism', 'nazism', and 'antisemitism' everywhere. Just go to any college campus and take any course on all those 'evil white males'. Or consider how opposing 'gay marriage' makes one a 'homophobe'. It used to be that gays were thought to be mentally ill. Today, hysterical liberals say you're clinically sick in the head if you don't like the idea of fecal penetration among men as the basis for marriage.

The Law of Compensation Regarding Conservatives and Zionism.

You cannot gain national power in this country without the approval or consent of Jewish power. You’re best off if the Jews fully support you. But, if the Jews don’t like you or your views, you must at least win their consent or mild approval. And for conservatives the only way to win this approval is by supporting Zionism 100%. Doing so the conservative candidate will win support from conservative Jews, who though outnumbered by liberal Jews, are very rich and influential. He will also face less hostility from liberal Jews who, though opposed to conservative values and policies, are pro-Zionist and would know that the conservative goy politician at least knows how to kiss Jewish ass. Liberal Jews may be more critical of Israel than conservative Jews are, but liberal Jews range from the likes of Alan Dershawitz, an ardent Israel Hawk, to the Nation magazine which, despite its harsh criticism of Israel, believes in the ‘right of Israel to exist’(which means no ‘right of return’ for displaced Palestinians and no right for Palestine to exist on the land which Israel now occupies).

Anyway, the point is gaining national power is impossible without either the support or some degree of approval of the Jews. Since most Jews(oligarches of the media and academia)are opposed to conservative values and policies, how may conservatives reduces the hostility from the vastly powerful Jewish community? Zionism is the only answer. Since even liberal Jews love Zionism, conservatives can make themselves acceptable, if not exactly appealing, to the Jewish power brokers who pull the purse strings and run much of the academia/media.

The Law of Compensation says THE MORE CONSERVATIVE A CANDIDATE IS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, THE MORE ZIONIST HE MUST BE ON THE ISSUE OF ISRAEL. The more a candidate opposes stuff like ‘gay marriage’, open door immigration policy, affirmative discrimination, miscegenation(or miscegenocide of the white race), gun restrictions, and multiculturalism, the more he must embrace Israel dearly and nearly and early and curly. That is the nature of the bargain in current politics. If you oppose the social or political policies that Jews favor in America, you must compensate by supporting Israel 100%, 200%, or 300%.

Even among ‘conservative’ Jews, a good many support GOP mainly for the reason that it happens to be more pro-Zionist than the Democratic Party. If Zionism were to go away as an issue, I suspect half the Jewish Republicans would join the Democratic Party. So, even though 18% of Jews voted for McCain in 2008, if the issue of Zionism were taken off the table, it probably would have been 90%. Jews are 2-3% of the US population, but 60% of donations to the Democratic Party come from Jews, and 35% of donations to the Republican Party comes from Jews. Even though Republicans receive less from Jews than do Democrats, Jews are still the biggest donor group for the GOP. If Jews are 2% of the US population, then conservative Jews are .4% of the US population. Yet, 35% of the donation to McCain’s campaign came from Jews. So, both parties are beholden to Jewish money and power. People think Mitt Romney is a rich guy, but he only made $250 million, which is laughable chump change to Jews who make up over 48% of all the billionaires in this country.

So, sucking up to Jews is an absolute necessity in this country. Meritocracy is a good thing, but it doesn’t just favor the most qualified individuals; it favors certain groups over others because certain groups have more individuals possessed of certain talents. For example, meritocracy in sports had led to domination by blacks. And, meritocracy in academics and business had led to the domination of Jews. Yes, individual blacks and Jews succeeded above the rest–and there are plenty of blacks who failed in sports and plenty of Jews who never grew rich. But, the fact is certain sectors do become dominated by individuals who share a common background, common race or ethnicity. Since people of the same ethnicity or race tend to share similar values, assumptions, and ideas, the end result of meritocracy is not the triumph of individualism but the triumph of certain groups over others. Sports is about triumph of black power over non-black power. As such, blacks are worshiped by white boys and white girls as the alpha-male race. White men have become sheepish white boys groveling before the big tough cool black dudes, and white girls wanna put out to black studs and give birth to little Obamas.
Business world has seen the triumph of Jewish power. Jews get to own and control business, come up with financial tricks, and make billions; when the system collapses due to their financial crookedness, they use the government to bail them out. Since media operations require lots of talent and brain power–and lots of money–, Jews were bound to gobble up all the media as well. Some say there’s Fox TV and point out that Murdoch isn’t Jewish, but the cultural department of Fox Inc. has been headed by a liberal Jew. Also, Fox has been as corrupting as Hollywood with little in the way of conservative values. Also, Sean Hannity and those Talk Show conservatives are a bunch of blowhard idiots who suck up to Israel night and day. They are all a bunch of slaves to Jewish power just the same.

This is why Ayn Rand-ism is worthless to the white gentile race. It doesn’t help us. In sports and pop culture(which has become a kind of pornographic gladiator sports), blacks rule totally thanks to meritocratism. In business, Jews rule. There’s nothing left in it for us. In Ayn Rand fantasies, the great titans are usually tall, handsome goy men, but look at our society, look at reality. The titans of culture and business are funny looking Jews. And, though they make their fortunes through the cutthroat Ayn Rand way, they hold and push leftist or liberal views that empower them even further.

Their leftism is opportunistic, tribal, and idealistic. It’s opportunistic because bigger government is simply another means for rich folks and their kids to rule society politically as well as economically. It’s tribal because it’s in the Jewish interest to make US more diverse so that Jews can play different groups against one another like Jerry Springer plays white and black trash guests on his show. (This is why Mel Gibson said, "Jews start all wars"). . Also, it’s in the Jewish interest to castrate white men into white boys and to divide white women and white men. Destroy the cultural, sexual, and historical unity of white men and white women, and the white race is finished. This is the REAL aim of feminism. It’s not about women power. It’s about brainwashing white women to side with Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, and other ‘victim’ groups against the Evil White Male. Notice that feminists go easy on instances of non-white male oppression of women. Indeed, feminists get more worked up about white conservative males who believe in full freedom for women than against Muslim males who treat their women like property or against black males who treat their women like whores.

Anyway, the Law of Compensation is something we must be aware of because it has poisoned the well of conservative politics. And, no one was a bigger poster boy of the danger of this rule than George W. Bush. We know that Bush’s social policies were detested by the Jewish community. I didn’t like some of them myself as the Christian Right is pretty stupid. Anyway, the fact is Bush’s social policies were very conservative in certain areas. Jews in this country are mainly interested in social and domestic issues, even more so than in Israel. Jews want us to accept ‘gay marriage’, open borders(and illegal ‘immigration’), multiculturalism which blames white people for all the problem of the world(Jews excepted of course), radical feminism(which divides white man and white woman), gun restrictions, and interracism(whereby white women are goaded and encouraged to give birth to black babies). Many white conservatives are opposed to these Jewish policies. As such, the Jews denounce white conservatives as ‘racists’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘homophobes’, ‘sexists’, and other stupid slurs they pulled out of their hairy arses. Since Jews are so powerful, how can conservatives hope to succeed on the national political stage against the might of the Jewish controlled liberal media? The only way is to woo the Jew is by being even more Zionist than the Jews themselves. And that was the essence of Bush’s foreign policy.

Jews hated Bush, but they tolerated him because he was a foreign policy puppet of Neocon Zionists. Though neocons and liberal Jews don’t see eye to eye on many issues, there is a Jewish camaraderie between the two groups. And, both sides agree mostly if not 100% on Israel. Though liberal Jews at NY Times, CNN, ABC News, New Republic, Time, and Newsweek will insist that they were duped into supporting the Iraq War because the Bush administration lied about intelligence reports, they really supported Bush’s war because they thought it would be good for Israel. Neocons and Jewish liberals came together to support Bush’s war in the hope of re-making the Middle East so that Israel will be safer. And if Iraq War had turned out well, liberal Jews would not be complaining that no WMD were found. They would be happy that the Middle East had been made safe for Israel. They would have lauded Bush on the war. Of course, they would still hate Bush on social issues and look for some other reason than the war to unseat him. But, the fact is Bush won some degree of Jewish consent if not support when his foreign policy turned out to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel.

And, we see this over and over among nearly all national conservative politicians. The more they espouse conservative social values and policies, the louder they scream about how Israel is dear to us, precious to us, close to us, and blah blah. You’d think they care more for Israel than for the US. This is why Ron Paul never had a chance. Whatever his faults and merits, he stood for policies at odds with the Jewish community and had the guts to criticize Israel. He violated the Law of Compensation. So did Pat Buchanan. If you’re gonna go against the Jews on social policy, you MUST compensate by groveling before the Jews on the issue of Israel. Ron Paul and Buchanan violated the Law.
Problem with Bush is he took this too far and embarrassed the Jews. He was such an ass-kisser of the Jews on the issue of Israel that more and more people around the world began to think, "JEWS REALLY DO CONTROL AMERICA." People on both the Right and Left all over the world saw Bush as a toady of Israel and American Jews. They saw Bush’s strings pulled by Neocon Jews.

Jews are always hungry for more power in reality, but they want to appear powerless in public. They want to own billions but want to act like they just walked out of a shtetl or a Nazi death camp. But, Bush’s slavishness to Jews on foreign policy made Jews look very powerful. A book like "Israel Lobby" would have been dismissed at any other time, but it received a degree of positive attention because it became obvious who holds the REAL power and wealth in America during the Bush era.
It must be said the ‘Israel Lobby’ is a misnomer. It should be called the USrael lobby as there is no distinct barrier between Israel and the US. Jews go back and forth from NY, LA, or Washington DC to Israel. Israel is more powerful in Washington DC than all the other countries combined. It is more powerful and influential than any of the 50 American states. This is not because US is under Israeli occupation but because it’s under Jewish-American occupation. Israel is powerful in the US because Jewish Americans are powerful. If US had no Jews, Israel would have no power over us. But, American Jews hold the media, academia, and the purse strings.
They’ve been telling us over and over that Israel is special to us. We didn’t decide this on our own. No, Israel’s importance to us was fed to us by the Jewish media and academia. We’ve told that we love Israel because Israel is a democracy like ours, Israel was founded much like the US was, Israel has been a staunch ally during the Cold War, etc. These are not OUR thoughts and sentiments. No, they are thoughts and feeling dictated to us by the Jewish media. Following the logic and reasons given by Jews as to why we love Israel, we can make a counter-argument on the same grounds. If US was founded upon rebellion against oppressive authority, we could just as well side with Palestinians who could be compared to American colonialists and minutemen. If democracy is so dear to us, we can say Palestinians are fighting for equal rights, equal dignity, and equal claim to their ancestral land. If the issue of Cold War allegiance is what makes Israel dear to us, then let us remember that NO GROUP in the US did more to spy for the USSR, aid and abet radical leftist groups, stir up black rage and hatred against whites, supported Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and undermine our efforts in Vietnam than Jewish-Americans. Jews were the biggest thorn on our side during the Cold War era. Jews were by far the most radical, most anti-American, the most communist-sympathizing group in America. So, the reasons that are given as to why we love Israel are not our own reasons; they are reasons foisted upon us by the Jewish media. If we need to understand anything, it’s that we must stop allowing Jews to think for us. We must think on our own according to what’s good for OUR interests. Jews in America and Israel are not good for our interests.

Anyway, Bush went overboard with the Law of Compensation. Jews want politicians to support Jewish interests but don’t want them to look beholden to Jews. That would mean that Jews are indeed powerful. Bush made Jews look all-powerful. Much of the Bush hatred around the world had an element of distrust, resentment, and even hatred of Jewish-American power. Many Europeans envy and hate Hollywood and American pop culture’s control over the world. Their criticism of American policies is often really an attack on Jewish-American power. But, as Jews are linked to the Holocaust and due to Europe’s long history of antisemitism, Europeans would rather not say it so openly. Europeans did notice that Bush was 200% pro-Israel and his foreign policy seemed guided and controlled by neocon Jews. Also, the world wondered why liberal Jewish institutions supported the war. Why did NY Times and New Republic give their thumbs up and fan the war fever? Why was much of the liberal Jewish media coverage of the war so favorable(in the early stages)? We know why. The Jews thought the war would stabilize the Middle East and that it would be good for Israel. Jews, both neocons and liberals, wanted to show the world how an America-guided-by-Jewish-power could fix the world’s problems. But, the war went very badly. The world began to say ‘we told you so’ and started to blame America for its arrogance and hubris. This is when liberal Jews all jumped ship and tried to put all the blame on Bush. They acted all innocent and said they’d been duped by Bush the liar. The neocons couldn’t jump ship so easily as they had positioned themselves within the GOP power structure. But, even neocons who had been behind the war found various excuses to support Obama in 2008. Yep, it’s the Jewish way. No principles, no loyalty. Just their conniving self-interest.

Iraq War or no Iraq War(and its political fallout), the Jews would have supported Obama anyway. Obama is their boy. He’s the child of black male/white female sexual union. He is the template of what Jews want to happen to all of white America. Jews want white males to be emasculated into metrosexual quasi-homos and white females to open throw themselves at black men. This will destroy white power forever, and Jews will be All-Powerful forever. Jews want to control a black guy who would morally and spiritually lord over a bunch of pussified, sappy, dorky, and self-loathing white boys and jungle-feverish girls. Jews also want to remake the black community. Jews want blacks as moral allies–Jews, victims of Holocaust, linked with blacks, victims of slavery(both victims of white racial oppression). But, too many blacks resent Jewish success and blame Jews for a lot of black problems. Many blacks also side with Palestinians against Israel. So, it was in the interest of Jews to prop up a clean-cut black guy who would challenge the crazy styles of Al Sharpton and his ilk who are hostile to Jews. But, Jews were careful to make sure that Obama didn’t appear totally pro-Jewish as that would make Obama seem like a puppet of Jews. So, Obama has been allowed to associate with some Palestinian-Americans and dilly-dally with the likes of Wright and Nation of Islam followers. This would give cover to Obama’s dependence on the Jews.

Obama is useful to the Jews because it gives the false impression that US is no longer presided by a Jewish puppet–Bush. Many idiots actually think Obama is his own man when he’s really beholden to Jews even more than Bush ever was. Bush was beholden only to neocon Jews whereas Obama is beholden to both neocon and liberal Jews. And, record amount of Jewish money went to supporting Obama. And the Jew-run media gave Obama favorable cult-like coverage like you wouldn’t believe. Now, some people will say that many Obama supporters in the media are non-Jews, but as Jews own all those media outlets, Jews have hired mostly liberal pro-Jewish gentiles over the yrs. So, even gentiles in the media were handpicked by the Jews. (And, as a disproportionate number of "conservatives" on TV and radio are Jews, even they will never ever criticize Jewish power. Jewish conservatives will rail against the Left, but never against the Jewish Left–despite the fact that Jews pretty much define and control the Left. Jewish conservatives will specifically go after Mexican power, Chinese power, Saudi power, or Muslim power, but they’ll never attack Jewish power–despite the fact that Left in this country is largely Jewish, especially at the top.)

Obama is also useful to Jews because Bush’s aggressive Zionism has failed. Bush ended up destabilizing the Middle East and only increased the ire of many Muslims who came to see US as a totally Jew-controlled nation. Though Bush was 200% pro-Israel, this backfired on the Jews. It made it seem as though Bush was doing EVERYTHING for Israel. So, the cunning Jews decided to go with Obama, supposedly a fair-minded person because of his multi-racial and multi-religious background. But, it is all a sham. The only thing about Obama that isn’t pro-Jewish is his ideology of black identity. There is indeed an element of Black Power-ism in Obama, but Obama the sly fox is as cunning as the Jews. He knows that Jews have all the money and power in the US. He always knew that he had to play along to Jewish interests and power. So, Obama has suppressed his black power side of his ideology.
Other than black power ideology, Obama’s influences are all Jewish. He came under the influence of Marxism, a Jewish theory. He went to Ivy League schools and hung around radicals, a good many of them Jews. And, his spiritual mentor was Saul Alinsky, another dirty left-wing Jew. His professors were Jewish. His associates were Jewish. His big money men have been Jewish.

But, Jews don’t want Obama to act totally beholden to the Jews. Bush did that, and it actually made it worse for the Jews because world came to see who has the real power in America. So, Obama is supposed to act like he is independent, is his own man, a brilliant thinker of staggering intellect(though Jews do all the thinking for him), and fairminded to all peoples. And, so many people have fallen for this crap, which goes to show how stupid the world is.
But, even foreign people who see through this charade like the fact that Obama is president because they want US to be humiliated. The idea of a black guy becoming president means, for many people around the world, that the evil whites are losing grip of their country. Whites are now ruled by a black man who belongs to the race that had once served as slaves in America; whites have now become the spiritual and moral slaves of blacks(and financial and political slaves of Jews).

Another reason why Obama doesn’t have to be slavish to Jewish interests(at least publicly) is that he supports the social policies that Jews want. Deep down inside, Obama is for ‘gay marriage’, open borders for illegal invasion, taking guns away from whites, multiculturalism which blames whites for all the problems in the world, global welfare, radical feminism which divides and weakens the white race(as only white males are routinely attacked by feminism while non-white men still qualify as ‘victims’ under the ‘people of color’ banner). Since Obama is for all the social policies that Jews want to push on us, the Law of Compensation doesn’t apply to him. The Law only applies to conservatives because they must make up for angering Jews on social issues. Again, the only way conservatives can make up for pissing off the Jews on issues like ‘gay marriage’ is by supporting Zionism 100%. Bush took this to the logical limit, and Jews got burned because it made Jews look too powerful(which they really are). These are things we must understand if we are to confront Jewish power and see it for what it.