Certain moments in US history were inevitabilities, like the 1984 Presidential Election when Ronald Reagan was expected to thump Walter Mondale. Certain races were very close, like Gerald Ford vs Jimmy Carter, but the result was accepted and uncontested. The 2000 election was, in contrast, marred by controversy. Al Gore won the popular vote but lost Florida by a hair’s breadth. He contested the results, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court that decided 5 to 4 in Bush’s favor. Republicans were relieved but knew a dark cloud of suspicion would loom over the presidency. (Of course, Democrats in 2020, despite far more compromised circumstances, maintained that electoral fraud is just a myth, a conspiracy theory.)
At any rate, the 2000 election could easily have been Gore’s if not for the ‘chads’, confused elderly Jews voting for Pat Buchanan by mistake, and Ralph Nader(which goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished in American Politics where idealism for Third Party candidates always favors the bigger enemy).
If the 21st century had been mostly stable and marked by few crises, it wouldn’t matter much who really won in 2000, but the first two decades have been among the most contentious and consequential both at home and abroad. The dot.com crash that closed the 1990s was a bad way to start the new millennium, but who would have thought 2001 would see the biggest attack on the US, the lone superpower thought to be unchallenged in the world?
Since 9/11, the US has continually been at war in the Middle East, and the ‘End of History’ didn’t lead to the triumph of Western Liberal Democracy but the transformation of the West into an illiberal and degenerate Jewish gangster paradise(that props up the homo-ass, tranny’s fake vagina, and the Negro’s stinky feet, to be washed by guilt-ridden white hands, as the holiest relics of the New Order), making it less likely for much of the world to admire, respect, and emulate the West.
Those who’d criticized Francis Fukuyama’s End of History triumphalism as overly optimistic, even Panglossian, especially in regards to China and Russia, were either disingenuous or foolish. A key reason for the rise of men like Viktor Orban has less to do with resistance against liberalism than the betrayal of true liberalism in the West itself, indeed in utter debasement to Jewish gangsterism, globohomo degeneracy, and Negro thuggery as the three pillars of the New Cult. A truly secular and liberal society shouldn’t be promoting idols(especially degenerate and/or false ones), be hamstrung by taboos, and/or be repressive of dissenting views, but that’s where the current West is at.
If the World chose tyranny over liberty, that would be most unfortunate, but when the only choice is between Jugromo(Jewish-Negro-Homo) tyranny and national autocracy(that allows for some sovereignty as bulwark against ‘moralized’ degeneracy that now so pervades the West), of course any sane people will opt for the latter.
Actually, the current ‘Western’ threat is worse than degenerate; it is satanic because it has sacralized degeneracy into holiness, so much so that cuck-christian churches, lacking in spiritual vigor and moral conviction, feel they must seek justification or redemption via the higher holies, such as the homo’s fecal orifice, tranny’s putrid fake ‘vagina’, and Negro’s stinky feet. There is a hierarchy to everything, and the Old Religions are now deemed inferior in sanctity, meaning, depth, and beauty to the new idols. If in the past homos and blacks felt they must humble themselves before God and Jesus(just like normal white Christians did), they now feel that the churches and temples of all religions must bow down at their feet. It’s a matter of who/whom. Who must serve whom, who must revolve around whom, who must revere whom. No longer must Negroes and homos check their megalomania and narcissism at the church door to feel the grace of God and Jesus because they now feel, goaded by Christianity-hating Jews, that they are bigger than god and jesus. (John Lennon sure was onto something when he said “Beatles are bigger than Jesus.”)
During the Cold War, there was much about the West that was sordid and distasteful, but such weren’t lionized as matters of pride and prestige. Rather, it was argued that the West, in choosing liberty, had no choice but to tolerate much that wasn’t ideal as the price of freedom. It’s like modern industry causes pollution but as the price of productivity than a matter of pride. (And even reform China understood this, as when Deng Xiaoping said some flies will enter when you open the window. Few pests are worth the price of fresh air and sunshine.)
But in our time, degeneracy isn’t something to be tolerated in a free society but to be promoted, hyped, and even mandated as objects of adoration, reverence, and worship. It went from tolerance of vulgarity as the price of freedom to celebration of vice as the highest value of ‘democracy’. ‘Demon-cracy’ is more like it. It’s like satan worshiped as god. Given what has become of the demon-infested West, we can only hope that much of the World does everything in its power to keep this filth at bay, this Anality of Evil.
Over the years, more people have grown cynical about politics and the law, focusing instead on the ‘deep state’(or the ‘swamp’ or the ‘beast’) than on official organs of the government. The machinations of the ‘deep state’ have become more visible over the years, especially during the Trump presidency when the dirty tricks became more hysterical and blatant, so full of spite and arrogance.
Ideally, any deep state apparatus would prefer to smoothly operate in the dark; it would rather not show its hand. But when Trump characterized the establishment as the ‘swamp’, many in the Deep State took it personally and circled the wagons as a matter of professional pride. And when they discovered their gangster tactics were being lauded and lionized by Big Media, their attitude went from one of nervous trepidation to boastful pride. They began to feel as ‘made men’ who can get away with anything as Jewish Supremacists, Democrats, and Cuck-Republicans control just about everything that matters.
Even though most Deep Staters are Democratic or globalist(and despised George W. Bush), it was well-understood during his presidency that Establishment GOP would never ever challenge the Deep State but rather call on its services and ‘expertise’ to keep the empire running and expanding. And as Jews took over the institutions and industries that matter most(and they also control the gods and the sacraments of the New Order), it was understood that the ultimate purpose of the Deep State and the US government is to appease and indulge the Jews and their Sorosian vision of globalism.
Perhaps, Donald Trump’s rhetoric in 2016 was mostly bluster, and he didn’t really mean to attack the Deep State or derail the neo-imperialist globalist plan, i.e. he was just playing the populist card with the crowd, a kind of Reality-TV politics. Well, it seems MAGA folks and the Deep State have one thing in common: They took Trump’s words seriously, if only on the emotional level.
Instead of sticking with the usual GOP talking points(about ‘lower taxes’ and the like), Trump kept hammering on issues that had a real triggering effect on the Deep State(and of course the Jews who are allergic to pitchfork passions, rather like Leo Frank). In effect, Trump’s criticism of foreign policy in war and trade was, except for fealty to Israel and swipes at Iran, a scathing indictment of the Deep State’s management of world affairs since the end of the Cold War. Even if Trump was exaggerating for political expediency, it became a matter of pride for members of the Deep State to teach him a lesson, not least because the rise of homos among their ranks made the Club bitchier and more hissy. And of course, the megalomaniacal Jewish elements and the snotty Wasp elements in the Deep State wanted to teach him a lesson as well, leading to the triple whammy of Covid hysteria, George Floyd riots, and Election rigging on an industrial scale.
In our time, paradoxically enough, extreme cynicism co-exists side by side with extreme sincerity. It makes sense because, in order for extremely cynical people to have things go their way, extremely naive people must fall for their BS. It’s like a Televangelist Crook needs an army of suckers. For a man as cynical as Donald Trump to stir up the crowd, he needed suckers hoping for a savior. And in order for Jewish Supremacists to hold onto their power, there must be suckers who believe the greatest threat to ‘our democracy’ is ‘nazis’ and ‘white supremacists’. And in order for the elites to keep their wealth and privileges, it sure helps to convince a lot of ‘well-educated’ fools that there is nothing higher than Sodomania, which is to the ‘sophristicates’ what Beatlemania was to the teeny-boppers in the Sixties. The fuc*ers need the suckers, and the more the fuc*ers fuc*, the more the suckers must suck.
Thus, we have both increasing cynicism and sincerity in our politics. Take the Covid-Mania, pushed by the most cynical power-mongers in the world, and so many people took the bait. Or the nonsensical cult of George Floyd. Jewish supremacists and the Democratic Party exploited his death for political gain, but there was no shortage of idiots to revere the dead moron as a saint(and would love to wash his feet and suck his you-know-what if he were alive or incarnated in the form of a thug-angel).
But then, even the minions fall into two categories, those who believe themselves to be wink-wink-in-the-know and those who swallow the BS whole hog. Many so-called ‘progressives’ know stuff like Covid Hysteria and Floyd Circus were overhyped and politically exploited, BUT they believed them to be useful and ‘necessary’ narratives for the higher good or for power’s sake. Even if they themselves have hardly any power or privilege on the personal level, the meaning of their lives derives from being ‘team-players’ on the right side of history or power. It’s like many globalists know the simpleminded Ukraine Narrative is largely bogus, but they either worship Globo-Homo or believe Jews-and-homos to be the rightful rulers of the world, and therefore ANYTHING is justified to undermine Neo-Traditionalist Russia that refuses to bend over to the Jewish-Homo Pud.
Even though most ‘well-educated’ globalists are nowhere near the power, they flatter themselves to be in-the-game by the virtue of their ‘education’ and partiality to stuff like NPR and The New Yorker that cater to the ‘better’ or ‘fancier’ kind of people. (Oh, we are so very impressed!)
As for the true-believing suckers(aka NPCs), they are so dumb that they can be made to swallow just about anything. For dummies, what matters most is having something to feel enraged or righteous about. It’s all about the feeling, and new doses of faddish hysterics keep them feeling up-and-down as justice-junkies. Incapable of logic and lacking in integrity, they usually bend with the prevailing wind in the manner of “Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.”
It’s no wonder so much of current ‘democratic’ politics is symbolic than substantive. As both parties have either lost or betrayed their traditional economic base and/or ideological principles, politics has become a game of distractions whereby people’s emotions are enraptured or made ecstatic over triviality or nonsense. Thomas Frank wrote a book called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” that queried why so many lower-income conservatives vote for the GOP that, beholden to the power of big money, didn’t have their economic interests in mind, but similar questions could be asked along the lines of “What’s the Matter with Massachusetts?” when the Democratic Party mostly abandoned the Working Class and liberalism-as-principle and now caters to Big Money, once associated with the GOP.
Snubbed by Big Money in preference for the New Democrats, one would think the GOP would seek greener pastures elsewhere, but the Party elites, rightly or wrongly, view most of the Republican base as dullards, mediocrities, and fools lacking the talent and energy to run modern politics. So, they long for the return of Big Money to the GOP camp, which is turning out to be a hopeless double whammy: Big Money doesn’t want to be associated with ‘conservatism’(regarded as either retrograde or craven and second-rate people), and GOP’s cucking to Big Money is proving to be as pointless as its dream of winning over Jews, the ultimate prize bull. At the same time, GOP establishment angers the base that feels neglected and treated with contempt by Party leaders who really only care about themselves. Wealth, power, influence, and prestige were more spread out geographically in the American Past. Christian Churches were powerful in their own right, Labor Unions mattered, ethnic blocs held their own, every region had its local hegemony, and there was the balance of the city and the small town. But free trade destroyed Big Labor, Old Religions lost their prestige, ethnic groups melded into a bland thing called ‘whiteness’, generations of small-towners moved to the city, electronic mass media homogenized culture all across ‘the fruited plains’, the rise of shameless vice turned the culture into an open sewage, and PC indoctrination(followed by ‘wokeness’) made all the ‘educated’ folks chant the same mantras & worship the same gods, especially the ‘rainbow’-colored homo anus. The end result is the hyper-concentration of most of the power, wealth, influence, and prestige in key Jewish-heavy urban areas, the only places that matter. On that note, it’s understandable why GOP only looks to Big Money and the donor class. There is nothing else left of any substance in the game of power.
One would think Democrats would be happy, and of course, the power-democrats and Jewish supremacists are thankful for the Great Triangulation brought about by Slick Willy, or Bill Clinton. Tricky(Dick Nixon) and Slicky(Billy Boy Clinton) proved to be highly consequential presidents through the art/science of ‘triangulation’. Tricky, along with Henry Kissinger, cast aside ideological consistency and broke the ice with Red China against Red Russia, laying the groundwork for the massive geo-political realignments in years to come. If Truman ‘lost China’, Nixon started the process of ‘winning’ it to use against the Soviet Union. It angered many staunch anti-communists who insisted the US stand by Taiwan, but Nixon and Kissinger opted for ‘realogy’ over ideology.
Slick Willy Clinton’s biggest achievement was at home, but it also involved triangulation, fatally undermining the GOP by leading the Democratic Party to betray the working class(like Nixon sidestepped Taiwan) and forging an alliance with Big Money and Free Trade. Drop the traditional Democratic Party base(as a bunch of ‘losers’) and go with the real money and the ‘winners’, especially as the rising boomer capitalists were more ‘liberal’ than their historical antecedents.
In the cases of both Tricky and Slicky, there was much confusion as so many Liberals were convinced that Nixon was a rigid anti-communist and so many Conservatives were convinced that Clinton was a hardcore 60s radical. It’s somewhat fitting that Clinton gave a heartfelt eulogy at Nixon’s funeral as they shared a savvy streak, and furthermore, their grand designs involved China, first as a key factor in the Cold War and later in ‘free trade’ globalism(that undermined the working class Democratic base and enriched the urban elites).
However, all that money and power were bound to have a deleterious impact on Democratic Party politics and Liberal principles. The Party of the People turned into the Party of the elites & court-freaks and lost were the liberal principles of rule of law, free speech, critical thinking & rationalism, and civil liberties, all in favor of the ‘gods’, or idols and icons, favored by Jewish Supremacists for their own benefit.
With no real principles or idealism left, the Democratic Party appeals to its voters(most of whom are not doing so great) with symbolism and conceit of being ‘progressive’ or ‘woke’. A saner and more mature population would see right through it, but generations of Americans were weaned on Pop Culture and addicted to Celebrity Cult as their main social compass and signposts, and the results are truly appalling. So, just like the GOP once exploited the have-lesses with the symbolism about ‘family values’, the Democratic Party exploits its counterpart with the conceit of being more ‘progressive’, which is to weep over George Floyd myth & BLM lies, that is when not cheering for Globo-Homo celebration of the rainbow-colored bung as the ultimate culmination of human civilization. Yes, Jews are smart and goyim are dumb, and Jews toy with the goy.
At any rate, how might history have been different if Al Gore been president in 2000? The American Presidency, despite its limitations, still represents the most powerful position in the world. The office matters if not always the man. We would like to believe the president’s limited power owes to the Constitution and an elegant system of checks-and-balances, but the fact that a true Constitutionalist like Ron Paul remained at the margins of Washington Politics suggests otherwise. Presidential power is checked more by the Deep State(or the Beast), special interests, entrenched institutions, oligarchs & big money, and the ‘gods’(angels & demons that enforce the sacraments and taboos of society). Just consider the treatment of Antifa & BLM rioters and 1/6 protesters. Where is the legal consistency?
Of course, if the President’s agenda happens to be aligned with that of the most powerful institutions and groups(that also, via media and academia, shape the minds of the elites and the masses), he may indeed consider himself very powerful. It’d be like sailing with the winds or rowing down the river. If the President doesn’t particularly care for the Agenda but goes along nonetheless, he would be a weak figure. But what if he genuinely agrees with it and goes along. Is he being powerful or merely in tune with the power?
The president is like a hamster in a maze. Despite his freedom of movement, he can only move along the walls of the maze; those who place the walls guide the movement, much like the TV executives over the character in TRUMAN SHOW. The walls could be legal obstructions, deep state machinations, media pressure, mass rage(fueled by the media of course), elite disapproval, and the ‘gods’(or what are deemed ‘holy’ by society, e.g. conservative politicians dare not step on the third rail of the Globo-Homo issue because Jewish power in media and lawfare has convinced so many people, especially among the elites, that few things are as emblematic of what the West is about as the cult-worship of Globo-Homo; indeed, many people today are aghast that anyone would oppose ‘gay marriage’, which goes to show the kind of satanic inversion that Jewish Power has brought about in the West, so full of weak-souled and weak-willed whites and other goyim).
So, those who get to erect the walls and arrange the maze have more power than any hamster-leader scurrying about inside it. For all his ‘freedom of movement’ and ‘individual agency’, he has no choice but to navigate within the set pattern, much like Jack Torrance is manipulated by ‘higher’ powers in THE SHINING. Donald Trump was one big fat hamster who liked to do things his own way, but he had no control over the walls within the Washington Maze. He spoke of building walls to keep the illegals out, but walls were erected around him by the deep state, the swamp, the beast. These were invisible walls but severely limited what he could order and execute.
Given such limitations of the presidency, could Al Gore really have made a difference? Surely, not all US presidents were puppets, or at least total puppets, like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. It surely made some difference that JFK won in 1960 and that Nixon won in 1968. Reagan was certainly different from Carter.
Still, their presidencies were all examples of maneuvering within walls set up, maintained, and shifted by other powers. Sometimes, a certain cause or agenda is derailed because a politician fails to win. Other times, it is hastened precisely because the winner who opposes it is discredited, severely damaging, fairly or unfairly, not only his own reputation but policies and agendas associated with him. George W. Bush most certainly did great harm to Conservatism with his ineptitude and stupidity, especially where the younger generation was concerned.
In economic policies and trends, Al Gore’s presidency wouldn’t have been much different from Bush’s. Indeed, throughout the 90s, it was Bill Clinton who completed the elite-preferred transformation of the US economy into a thoroughly globalized one based on ‘free trade’ formulations, and Al Gore was right by his side, siding even with Republicans against a maverick like Ross Perot. Even as far back as 1992, it seems there were far fewer differences between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton on matters of economics.
Most likely, the fix was in, and Democratic elites and politicians knew the last vestiges of the New Deal(and its idea of National Economy) would be scrapped for good. But given the traditional Democratic base of Big Labor, some Party members had to make noise about opposing ‘free trade’ to protect American jobs and the like. But it was understood that the great majority of Republican votes and some Democratic votes would be sufficient to bring about the transformation. Once the victory was assured behind closed doors, enough Democrats could vote against it(as a futile gesture) for the sake of plausible deniability, i.e. even though Democratic elites wanted it just as much as the Republican ones, they could point their finger and say ‘GOP really done it’. The only candidate who might have changed the course of US history in 1992 was Ross Perot, but his erratic behavior, triggered by what he called ‘Republican dirty tricks’, and the perennial weakness of Third Party politics doomed him at the polls. And by 2000, globalism was such a done deal that there was hardly any difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Indeed, if Pat Buchanan’s proto-populism and Ralph Nader’s anti-corporatism struck a chord with certain segments of the American public, it was because the contest might as well have been between George Gore and Al Bush.
The real big question, that is if Al Gore had gained the presidency in 2000, comes down to “Would 9/11 have happened?” The first obvious question is, “Would Al Gore’s team have been more vigilant against such attacks?” Post-9/11, some commentators, even among Liberals, placed some blame on Bill Clinton for not having been sufficiently aggressive against terrorism. Based on such an assumption, one could argue Al Gore wouldn’t have been any different than his predecessor. Or maybe not. Perhaps, less distracted(with stuff like the Lewinsky Scandal), his mind would have been more on the ball.
The question becomes more complicated on the suspicion that the Bush regime had something to do with 9/11, directly or indirectly. If so, then Al Gore’s presidency would have greatly reduced the chance of 9/11, that is unless it too would have included individuals, many of them arch-Zionists, in contact with the conspirators.
After all, there had been plenty of war game scenarios during Bill Clinton’s administration on possible invasions and regime change operations in Iraq and other Middle East states. As we’ve observed over the years, there isn’t much difference between Jewish Neocons and Jewish Neolibs as both camps are first and foremost all about “Is it good for Jews?” and “Is it great for Israel?” Madeleine Albright would have been perfectly at home with Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, and Neocon stooge John McCain was 99% aligned with Jewish Democrats on foreign policy.
At this point, even though 9/11 attacks were carried out by Muslim terrorists, it’s incontestable that Israeli operatives knew something was up and that key figures in the US intelligence willfully obstructed necessary measures that might have exposed and prevented the attacks. Did the conspiracy move into action upon the presidency of George W. Bush or had it been in the works for some time during the Clinton years. Of course, we’re talking of rogue elements, and neither Clinton nor Bush most probably had any hand in it, not because they are decent men but the idea would have been too crazy and outrageous even to imagine. (Come of think of it, the ultimate ‘failure of imagination’ was to overlook the depth of Jewish Supremacist evil and what it is willing to do for more power.) Yet, when the attack happened, Clinton and Bush were surely asking themselves, “What REALLY happened?” Work long enough in politics, and you hear things and you know things. Muslim Terrorists did it, but who paved the way? Given what Clinton and Bush know about politics and power, they surely suspected the Jewish Hand, but they also knew they couldn’t say anything about it. If Jewish Power in the Sixties was such that no one dared to seek the truth on USS Liberty, imagine what it was in 2001. Difference between a 4 month tiger cub and a full grown one.
If I had to guess, the plan was in the works by ‘rogue’ elements — but then, roguish behavior by Jews or those amenable to Jewish interests have been the New Normal in US government, what with Jonathan Pollard now living in Israel and giving a big fat middle finger to Gentile America that sheepishly looks away in utter humiliation — during Clinton’s administration, and it would have been carried out whether Bush or Gore was in the White House. To make the attack happen, Jewish supremacist elements merely needed to snoop on the terrorists and nudge-nudge them(in Cass Sunstein fashion) toward fulfilling their goal. And the conspirators didn’t need Bush and hardcore Neocons in the White House as US intelligence agencies had already been filled with Zionists and goy-cuck-collaborators at every level. One bunch of conspirators nudge-nudge and guide the terrorists toward the Big Day, and other bunch of conspirators sabotage the intelligence from within so that the operation will progress without much hindrance from vigilant, principled, and patriotic officers.
So, if I had to wager, 9/11 would have happened regardless of who became president in 2000. But, what of the reactions and consequences? Like Bush, Al Gore would most certainly have invaded Afghanistan, especially as the Jewish-controlled Media immediately blasted 24/7, “OSAMA BIN LADEN DONE IT! HE’S THE ONE! HE’S HIDING IN AFGHANISTAN!” And just like most Democrats supported the Afghan War, most Republicans would have gotten behind Gore against Afghanistan because the whole country called for revenge. (The whole Afghan-Osama thing seems to have been pre-scripted and ready-to-go as it was all over the news right after the attacks.)
The big question is whether the Iraq War would have happened with Gore at the helm, and I think yes. It was more likely with Dubya as commander-in-chief, but again, Jewish Neolibs and Jewish Neocons are two sides of the same coin. (During the Clinton Years, Madeleine Albright was hankering for more wars, and it was elements in the US military that restrained her.) Furthermore, the goyim in both parties are equally obeisant to whatever Jews want to push next. The inner circle during the Clinton Years was already discussing various options on Iraq, and several scenarios involved invasion and regime-change. And the fact that so many Democrats supported the Iraq War(despite all the obvious lies) is proof enough that Jewish powerbrokers in both parties wanted the war.
For sure, much of the so-called ‘liberal media’ also got behind Bush and willfully peddled the lies of the regime. While the men around Gore might have been a bit less hawkish(though Democrats have become more hawkish over the years than the biggest hawks during the Cold War), they also would have been ardent Zionists and looking to maximize the opportunities made possible by 9/11 for the sake of Israeli and Jewish-supremacist hegemonic interests, i.e. ‘Never let a crisis go to waste’. (Indeed, so-called ‘anti-war’ Obama who took the presidency in 2008 ended up expanding wars in the Middle East, totally destroying Libya and wrecking much of Syria. He also did the bidding of Jews to cause havoc in Yemen and Ukraine. It goes to show Obama’s anti-Iraq-War stance as Senator wasn’t principled but tactical. Surely, Jewish advisors were playing good cop and bad cop with the goyim. Hillary and many others were advised to be pro-war, whereas Obama was advised to be anti-war, so that, were the war to go badly, he could step in as the sensible person in the room. He also posed as a critic of capitalism, especially timely following the 2008 financial meltdown, but what did he do once in office? Bail out Wall Street and expand the wars in the Middle East. He was nothing but a toy goy of the Jews, and Al Gore as president wouldn’t have been any different.)
Would the Iraq War have turned into a mess under Gore? Almost certainly, just like neither Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon could fix the mess in Vietnam. However, the media might have gone somewhat softer on Gore for obvious partisan reasons. Remember that the Jewish elites both wanted to use Bush II and abuse him. Stoke his ‘Churchillian’ vanity and encourage him to invade Iraq and make sure Hussein’s regime is ground into dust but also make sure that he doesn’t succeed too much as it will advantage the GOP and its ‘Christo-fascist’ base. Make Bush II destroy the Arabs but then destroy Bush II as an incompetent. And if the war goes truly badly, pretend that the Jewish ‘Liberal’ media were misled by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the like.
For the Jewish war-mongers, Gore would have been more useful for the Iraq War. There were massive protests in the US and EU, but they were less anti-war than anti-Bush, especially as so many so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ were convinced that Bush II was a Christo-Fascist effecting the theocratic takeover of government. The attitude and behavior of the same crowd during the Obama years exposed how phony their anti-war stance was. Wars were okay if Obama the black guy or The One did it. And during the Trump years, the very same people were hostile toward Trump for trying to make peace with North Korea, withdraw from Syria, and end the war in Afghanistan. Unlike the Sixties anti-war protestors who objected to both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon’s conducts of the war in Vietnam-Cambodia, the new ‘progressive’ movement is totally opportunistic and partisan, lacking in principles and ethical consistency. The big lesson for the so-called Liberals since 1968 was “never choose principle over power because power decides everything”. Principled Liberals and Radicals in 68 caused havoc for the Democrats, leading to Richard Nixon’s victory. So, the wink-wink understanding is to go into Anti-War mode only when it hurts the Republicans, but then, Trumpism made it less likely that American Conservatives will be mindlessly supporting any future war(unless the US is attacked).
A Gore-led war in Iraq would likely have caused less furor in the US and EU. Globalists certainly gave Obama a pass in his wars(and even supported them), and they were more than willing to hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton, arguably even more war-mongering(for Jewish interests) than George W. Bush. This is why the Deep State or Creep State prefers Democratic leaders whose ‘progressive’ sheen serves to deflect criticism and opposition from the most vocal, organized, militant, and/or hysterical elements of the West.
Even when conservatives oppose a war, they usually don’t protest or make trouble(and always ‘support the troops’), whereas the so-called ‘left’ often goes batshit crazy, especially in big cities where they dominate. So, a war led by a Republican president could be problematic for the warmongers in the Creep State as it’s more likely to trigger and agitate the ‘radical’ types. But if the war is presided over by a Democrat, ‘anti-war’ voices are likely to self-mute, especially as the US military has been remade into a crusading force of BLM Negrolatry and the glories of Globo-Homo ‘Pride’(or Poo-Ride); the current US military has become for the Proglodytes what the Western Imperialist forces were to the Christians with their “Onward Christian Soldiers” mentality, and it accounts for much of the animus against Russia among the ‘globniks’, a people so deracinated, de-moralized, and despiritualized that they think a drag queen twerking in front of their kids is akin to a secular angel(and worth forcing on other nations at the point of a bayonet).
At any rate, had Gore gone into Iraq, the end-result would have been much the same, a total fiasco. Of course, the opposition from the Neocon-infested GOP would have been about Gore not being tough enough than about the foolishness, not to mention the immorality, of the war in the first place. Anti-war position became semi-legitimate among Republicans only with the rise of Donald Trump, and it’s no wonder Neocons hated him so much as their principal(or sole) purpose for the GOP was to serve as the hawkish hammer of Zionist globalist policy. That said, the war might not have affected Gore’s chance at re-election in 2004 as it’s been noted that the Iraq War, for all its setbacks, might have secured Bush a second term because Americans generally don’t like to change leaders during wartime.
Still, Gore would have been less likely to venture into Iraq, and one wonders how history might have played out if the US avoided what many at the time called the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history. Hussein regime would have continued to serve as a bulwark between Syria and Iran, the nation that especially benefited from Hussein’s removal and the ascendancy of Shiites in Iraq, whereupon Iraq came to serve as a bridge between Iran and Syria. No doubt this factor made the Neolib Zionists surrounding Obama escalate tensions in the Middle East, leading to the ravages by ISIS and ‘moderate rebels’ armed by US and its proxy allies. If there had been no Iraq War, there might have been no Syria War, and World Jewry might be a bit less panic-stricken about Iran as the rising counter-hegemon to Israel. And whereas Israel has working relations with Arab countries purely on the basis of mutual interests(as there’s no love lost between Jews and Arabs), Iran’s relations with Shia Arabs in Iraq and Syrians seem to be genuine, based on something more than political calculations. That is precisely what Jews fear most about Iran.
From a certain angle, one could argue that the Iraq War was spectacularly successful for the Jews. Iraq to this day remains fractured and divided, led by weak governments. Despite its close relations with Iran, it is still under the thumb of the US military. Also, even though regime change failed in Syria, the country is in ruins, a total wreck, and Iran paid dearly in lives and material to support their ally, especially difficult given the sanctions regimen by the JeWest. It’s been said it will take decades for Syria to recover. And as part of ‘Arab Spring’, the West managed to destroy Libya as well and steal its gold and oil.
On the other hand, the Syrian War drew Iran and Syria closer and even came to involve Russia that finally realized it could not trust the West, which is run by Jewish supremacists and spineless white weaklings. It was the true dawning of Russia’s iron resolve to defy the West beyond its own national borders. And the conduct of US and NATO foreign policy alerted China that the West is totally ruled by pathological gangsters of the Zionic Tribe. And even US allies, proxies, and partners felt burned by the Syrian affair. They’d joined in the war against Assad with assurance of regime change from Washington, but when Russia moved to save Syria, the West didn’t go all in. As a result, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and UAE ended up with eggs on their faces. With the Assad regime having survived, they must somehow come to terms with it and shamefacedly hide or minimize their role in one of the most despicable behaviors by Arabs-Turks-Muslims.
One thing for sure, had Gore won re-election in 2004, Obama(or Hillary for that matter) certainly wouldn’t have been president in 2008, at which point the US economy would have been in deep recession as the result of the bursting of the housing bubble, which was baked into the pie of US economics as both political parties had gone all-in on the optimism of the ‘ownership society’. And if Gore had gone into Iraq, the war would have been as bad for him at the end of his two terms as it was for Bush in his final years. And Hurricane Katrina fiasco would have happened just the same, though it’s possible Gore’s administration might have reacted somewhat more competently(and the Democratic-dominated media would have covered for him, just like they covered for the ‘mostly peaceful protests’ that wrecked cities in 2020).
With Gore and Democrats being blamed for so much bad stuff in 2008, the Republicans most likely would have taken the White House. John the bomb-bomb-Iran McCain could have been president, and GOP dominance might have slowed down the march of Globo-Homo. On the other hand, GOP is cucked to Jewish Power, and the iron rule of American Politics is “Don’t Make the Jewish Elites Angry”, and there would have been no real pushback against garbage like ‘gay marriage’ because most Republicans shake in their boots and wet their pants at the mere thought of Jewish displeasure. Jews sent out a message loud and clear to all politicians, “This ‘gay’ stuff is OUR baby, and we will be very very upset with anyone who opposes it.” So, instead of pro-homo vs anti-homo forces, it was pro-homo and muted silence. When ‘gay marriage’ became law of the land, not a single Republican denounced it as infamy, let alone infamy made possible by Jewish supremacist globalists. Sensible people back then knew what a disaster it would be, and look around now where ‘pride’ is now synonymous with homosexuality and where sodomy & tranny-genital mutilation are the greatest wonders of the West. When something as fundamentally important as marriage was debased and corrupted to appease the sick vanity of homos and greed of Jewish Supremacists, it was bound to lead to more horrors. And now, US institutions are controlled by the Drag Cartel. Just like garbage loans were sold as AAA derivates around the world and sunk the global economy, ‘gay’ garbage is packaged as the New Normal in morality & spirituality and poisoning souls everywhere. But deracinated whites are pathetically weak of heart and mind.
George W. Bush’s presidency was especially damaging to the American Right because the man was so stupid, inept, and buffoonish. He couldn’t even string simple words together into sentences as if he was brain-damaged or something. The key Millennial demographic turned anti-right in large part due to Bush’s presidency though there are other key factors as well, especially the increasing politicization of just about everything, from sitcoms to TV commercials to kindergarten classrooms. If you couldn’t get away from the Stalin Cult in the Soviet Union of the 1930s and 40s(and if National Socialist symbols were everywhere under Hitler’s reign), you increasingly couldn’t get away from Jewish-Supremacist-proxy-messaging, especially about holy homos and sacred blacks. Even a freaking cereal box might be telling your kids to celebrate sodomy.
Still, when the faces of leadership of the American Right were that of a dufus like George W. Bush and a total scumbag like Dick Cheney, the younger generation was going to sour on Conservatism, and its utter failure in war, crisis, and economy paved the way for the Hope Campaign of Obama, aka The One. Of course, objectively speaking, Obama’s reign has been even more disastrous. In foreign policy, wars spread like wildfire in the Middle East, Ukraine was subverted from one horror to the next, and China & Russia began the serious process of consolidation against the increasingly cuckoo US.
Domestically, the government under Obama went all-in on globo-homo and paved the way to the current utter collapse of morality, culture, and basic sanity. Besides, what does Obama himself represent? ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The fact that all those white people made such a man ‘the most powerful man in the world’ goes to show how worthlessly cucky-wucked the West has become, what with 80% of Europeans cheering him on as the Savior.
Furthermore, Obama started the ruinous trend of endless money-printing instead of taking serious measures to suck out the poison from the economy. But then, he was nothing but a pet monkey of Jewish oligarchs who also put Globo-Homo on steroids, leading to the total degradation of US culture and values. To shore up his black brotha cred after ho-de-do-ing to Jews and Homos, the stupid fool pushed BLM that, along with Antifa, became a festering wound on the US.
Under Bill Clinton, Jewish Boomers finalized the process of taking over the US. Under George W. Bush, Jewish Neocons had their turn at the wheel to steer the US as the gigantic Aircraft Carrier for Israel. Under Obama, Jews gained absolute power not only as the dominant partner but total master over goyim, and they lost all restraints in pushing their gross and putrid agenda.
If there was one silver lining to Bush II’s disastrous presidency, which did so much to discredit the Right, it was to awaken a new kind of populist conservatism(the kind that Patrick Buchanan had campaigned for) that emphasized the working class & middle class and resented being used as cannon fodder for Jews, most of whom(Republican or Democratic) are globalists and Israel-Firsters with utter contempt for masses of white goyim. It led to the rise of Donald Trump who ran a rather inspired campaign but unfortunately proved to be unserious or clueless about the forces arrayed against him, especially as he drew from the very Swamp to fill up his administration.
Anyway, I don’t believe a Gore Presidency would have made much difference in the overall trajectory of the US leading the world to the precipice of global disaster.