[Alex Linder]

[Dan Roodt, The Scourge of the ANC - a crucial source for understanding the 'transformation' of formerly civilized South Africa]

Compare Bush and de Klerk. As their wars went south, they retreated into their own private heavens. Here’s The Scourge of the ANC’s Dan Roodt:

FW de Klerk is a consummate liar who has by now shifted his position so many times that no-one remembers the details from ten years ago anymore. However, he and Roelf Meyer sold out their own people, the Afrikaners, as well as their own electorate and former allies such as the homeland leaders and the Inkatha, for the sake of “good publicity” in the foreign media.

De Klerk had so totally lost contact with reality that he had thought that not only could he and Meyer outwit the sharp-minded leftist lawyers in ANC ranks during the negotiations, but that by drawing his belly in a bit, the ace matador could outmanoeuvre the raging black bull he had bred and fattened himself. Both NP leaders were increasingly given to phantasms: shortly before the elections, De Klerk seriously enquired from his intelligence service “whether the ANC would accept electoral defeat by the National Party.

Not too different from Republicans thinking they’re going to win elections in a third-world nation, and making their main pitch to coloreds, and rejecting the proud White, such as Glenn Miller.

Continuing with Roodt:

Perhaps it was hubris, or maybe it was the excess testosterone generated by his extra-marital affair with Elita, but he regarded himself as infallible, running the risk of wiping out 350 years of history and setting South Africa upon an uncertain path under a radical black nationalist government driven by the familiar passions that had laid waste most African countries in the post-colonial period. His former wife Marike, who has since been strangely and brutally murdered in a Cape Town flag, made a fool of herself two weeks before the 1994 elections by seriously confiding to a group of German diplomats that she was not moving out of Tuynhuys as her husband “had told her that the National Party was going to win the elections.” Obviously, the Germans laughed in her face, to her acute embarrassment. The value of such anecdotes is that they demonstrate De Klerk’s utter lack of judgment, his almost childish belief in his own political powers and equally infantile need to be loved by the foreign media. Those foreign journalists who lavished praise on him for surrendering to the ANC are today reporting in Iraq and elsewhere, and have since abandoned South Africa to her increasingly anarchic, bloody fate.

Compare with Bush and Iraq, from The American Conservative, “Declare Victory and Stay: Bush has yet to join the reality-based community” (January 16, 2006):

Months before Bush invaded Iraq, a White House senior advisor told reporter Ron Suskind that he (Suskind) was part of “what we call the reality-based community” but “that’s not the way the world really works anymore.” “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities. … We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

That was what they said before the war. How goes it today?

Several weeks ago, Insight published a report claiming that Bush was increasingly isolated, estranged from Karl Rove, angry at his father as a result of Brent Scowcroft’s interview in The New Yorker and no longer speaking to him except on family occasions. His circle of consultation had shrunk down to Condi Rice, his mom, Karen Hughes, and wife Laura. Perhaps the report was exaggerated or even mistaken. But then several weeks later, Seymour Hersh…reported that Bush had become more detached, leaving more issues to Rove and Cheney. “They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,” said Hersh’s informant. His appearances are increasingly limited to audiences that are guaranteed to be non-critical. Lyndon Johnson was similarly constrained when the public turned against the Vietnam War, but the difference…was that “Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House, but Bush has no idea.”

Interesting point here by McConnell, regarding Bushy terminology:

As for content [of Bush speech at Naval academy], might it have been a nod to reality to acknowledge that the enemy is comprised of Saddamists, terrorists, and the White House neologism, “rejectionists”? The latter coinage refers to ethnic Sunnis moved to revolt because they don’t like foreigners invading their country. Bush had never before admitted that any faction of the Iraqi resistance could be motivated by normal human emotions, but apparently the fact that U.S. Army commanders are reaching out to the Sunni population, even supporting the resistance, has penetrated the Bush bubble.

From his terms to his terrorism, Bushy is jewy, not least because he’s operated by jews, from his use of terms for the enemy, to his terror campaigns against them, to the manufactured judeo-Christianity he snorts. Itz less a matter of penetrating the bubble than through physical resistance forcing the enemy to acknowledge existence. Whites, like Iraqis, will earn rhetorical respect when they kill the jews dictating to our land. Until then they’ll be ‘haters,’ fit only as receptacles for the brainwashed to empty their stupidity and socially-approved, uh, hatred.