Bush should "empty Iraq of Arabs" and declare himself President for Life

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Author: Philip Atkinson

Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Date: August 3, 2007

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at rpa@ourcivilisation.com.

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/26858/Think_Tank...sident_For_Life

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Surely satirical...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Surely satirical...

This article was re-posted on a conservative message board (Free Republic) on Aug 17 2007. The comments from forum readers at that time are interesting. It appears that a Family Security Matters author did write this article, and not in satire. However, FSM pulled it from their website shortly after. I just went to the FSM site and Mr. Atkinson is not listed as one of their authors. I assume they shitcanned him.

Here are some of the Free Republic reader comments, from Aug 2007:

*****

I can see why they took his piece down. Some of his views are a wee bit off the right edge. He actually espouses some of the extreme measures that the extremists on the far left enjoy falsly accusing President Bush of plotting.

*****

Is this along the lines of “A modest proposal”, or does this idiot really think America should be an autocracy? I’m sure the Left would love it if their fantasy of “Imperial America” were to come true, not because of what such an entity might mean, but because it would make them “right”, just like defeat in Iraq would. They’d love to be able to say “we told you so”. While the author is correct in that such a move would allow America to defeat terrorism in a way it currently cannot, it would be at the cost of America’s existence. Then you get “we had to destroy the village to save it” on a national scale. The end result, whether accomplished by the terrorists, or by imperial collapse, is the same: no more America.

*****

Surely this was done tongue-in-cheek?

Surely nobody on the right could be such a whackjob as to seriously promote this???

*****

The difference between a democracy and a monarchy is that in a monarchy you only have to put up with one idiot.

*****

There don't seem to be anything on the page to indicate that this is anything but deadly serious. Philip Atkinson needs mental help.

*****

Democracies do indeed have serious drawbacks.

Our constitutionally-limited republic, however, works well for me.

*****

to sum up, the author says that President Bush should pretty much nuke the entire middle east and declare himself President for life. No, I’m not exaggerating.

*****

Whoa....this guy needs to put down his ICBM Bong.

*****

Wacko navelgazer.

*****

Wow, I don’t like democracy (voting away liberty for security, subsidy, “equality”, or other idiocy), but that is some pretty repugnant spew.

*****

What exactly is crazy about what Mr. Atkinson is suggesting? He's actually framing a very common-sense principal: If democracy is destroying America then democracy needs to go.

And, personally, there are very few of us here on FR who wouldn't like to see the lands of Allah turned into a glass parking lot. In fact, I'm saving a bottle of non-alcoholic champagne for when it happens.

*****

I’m not crazy about Bush as president right now, so I’ll take a pass on Bush as emperor. Besides, I don’t want to give Hildebeast any ideas.

*****

Both of you make the mistake of assuming we still live in a constitutionally-limited republic, though! If the Supreme Court hadn’t ROBBED the States of their right to outlaw abortion, those babies would be alive! But it is an interesting idea—I wonder, even more, where the cause and the effect really are?

If those 40 million babies had lived, there wouldn’t be so many jobs for illegals to steal from Americans!

In the absence of an illegal-friendly government, the borders are more secure, and more terrorists are thwarted. E.G., consider those “students” studying (the real face of) “Islam” as well as how to fly (but not land) planes???

If not for liberalism/socialism/communism and its total hedonism that has controlled culture in this country for the past 50 years, many MORE babies would have been born in the first place.

That could be as many 100 million total more strong, red-blooded Americans who would be willing to fight for their rights, vs. tyrants like the Supreme(ly Stupid) Court, the islamofascists, the NAACP crybabies, the criminal COMMUNISTS of the ACLU, the gays, Hollywood liberals, the illegals, the Dumbocrats, and all the other forces that have never stopped trying to push this proud country down into the dirt! In other words, EXACTLY the forces that would make otherwise rational people think the only solution is a dictatorship!

Makes you think...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Say what???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Surely satirical...

This article was re-posted on a conservative message board (Free Republic) on Aug 17 2007. The comments from forum readers at that time are interesting. It appears that a Family Security Matters author did write this article, and not in satire. However, FSM pulled it from their website shortly after. I just went to the FSM site and Mr. Atkinson is not listed as one of their authors. I assume they shitcanned him.

Here are some of the Free Republic reader comments, from Aug 2007:

*****

I can see why they took his piece down. Some of his views are a wee bit off the right edge. He actually espouses some of the extreme measures that the extremists on the far left enjoy falsly accusing President Bush of plotting.

*****

Is this along the lines of “A modest proposalâ€, or does this idiot really think America should be an autocracy? I’m sure the Left would love it if their fantasy of “Imperial America†were to come true, not because of what such an entity might mean, but because it would make them “rightâ€, just like defeat in Iraq would. They’d love to be able to say “we told you soâ€. While the author is correct in that such a move would allow America to defeat terrorism in a way it currently cannot, it would be at the cost of America’s existence. Then you get “we had to destroy the village to save it†on a national scale. The end result, whether accomplished by the terrorists, or by imperial collapse, is the same: no more America.

*****

Surely this was done tongue-in-cheek?

Surely nobody on the right could be such a whackjob as to seriously promote this???

*****

The difference between a democracy and a monarchy is that in a monarchy you only have to put up with one idiot.

*****

There don't seem to be anything on the page to indicate that this is anything but deadly serious. Philip Atkinson needs mental help.

*****

Democracies do indeed have serious drawbacks.

Our constitutionally-limited republic, however, works well for me.

*****

to sum up, the author says that President Bush should pretty much nuke the entire middle east and declare himself President for life. No, I’m not exaggerating.

*****

Whoa....this guy needs to put down his ICBM Bong.

*****

Wacko navelgazer.

*****

Wow, I don’t like democracy (voting away liberty for security, subsidy, “equalityâ€, or other idiocy), but that is some pretty repugnant spew.

*****

What exactly is crazy about what Mr. Atkinson is suggesting? He's actually framing a very common-sense principal: If democracy is destroying America then democracy needs to go.

And, personally, there are very few of us here on FR who wouldn't like to see the lands of Allah turned into a glass parking lot. In fact, I'm saving a bottle of non-alcoholic champagne for when it happens.

*****

I’m not crazy about Bush as president right now, so I’ll take a pass on Bush as emperor. Besides, I don’t want to give Hildebeast any ideas.

*****

Both of you make the mistake of assuming we still live in a constitutionally-limited republic, though! If the Supreme Court hadn’t ROBBED the States of their right to outlaw abortion, those babies would be alive! But it is an interesting idea—I wonder, even more, where the cause and the effect really are?

If those 40 million babies had lived, there wouldn’t be so many jobs for illegals to steal from Americans!

In the absence of an illegal-friendly government, the borders are more secure, and more terrorists are thwarted. E.G., consider those “students†studying (the real face of) “Islam†as well as how to fly (but not land) planes???

If not for liberalism/socialism/communism and its total hedonism that has controlled culture in this country for the past 50 years, many MORE babies would have been born in the first place.

That could be as many 100 million total more strong, red-blooded Americans who would be willing to fight for their rights, vs. tyrants like the Supreme(ly Stupid) Court, the islamofascists, the NAACP crybabies, the criminal COMMUNISTS of the ACLU, the gays, Hollywood liberals, the illegals, the Dumbocrats, and all the other forces that have never stopped trying to push this proud country down into the dirt! In other words, EXACTLY the forces that would make otherwise rational people think the only solution is a dictatorship!

Makes you think...

Its no secret that the US is extremely polarised when it comes to things political and it has more than its fair share of nuts. I'm not really surprised that there are people who (apparently) took this article at face value. Either there's some not so great satire (or brilliant satire) at work depending on your point of view (I mean - there were people who cheered at that "may George Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child of Iraq" speech in Borat); or perhaps the author is really is deluded and crazy.

In this country its often hard to tell one from the other - given some of the fundamentalist craziness you see even in the mainstream media...

Edited July 21, 2008 by Number 6