For those of us who thought the world would be safer without bush, the presidential election result was a disappointment. By any measure of political prognosis, george bush should never have won the election. The american economy had been faltering with millions losing their jobs. Petrol prices had risen threefold. Bush had pushed up the federal deficit to $1 trillion making an utter mockery of traditional conservative beliefs in small government, balanced budgets, and fiscal responsibility. He’d been comprehensively exposed as a serial liar over his rationales for the war against iraq. His conduct of the war had been marred by the most appalling mistakes, incompetence, and corruption. In order to foist democracy upon iraq, the american invaders slaughtered an estimated 100,000 innocent iraqis and devastated large parts of the country’s infrastructure. "In other words, the invaders may have managed to kill up to a third as many Iraqis in a year-and-a-half as President Saddam Hussein did in his 24-year dictatorial rule. This comparison led the Riyadh-based, pro-government Saudi Gazette to ask rhetorically, "If this is a war on terror, then who are the terrorists and who are the terrorized?"" (Dilip Hiro ‘No Carrots, All Stick. Blinkered Bush Set to Blunder Again in Iraq ­ and Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=3936 November 8th 2004). But iraqis weren’t fooled about bush’s plans for democracy, and the more the american military cracked down on those opposed to the invasion, the greater iraqi resistance became. The war had become a nightmare of bad news and setbacks with a steady stream of american soldiers losing their lives.

The democrats spent more time suppressing ralph nader’s presidential campaign than they did trying to mobilize their base supporters, "The Republicans played, on the ground, to the bedrock members of their party, and got them to the polls. The Kerry campaign conducted an air war from 30,000 feet, bombarding the population with vague alarums and somehow thinking that ABB (Anyone But Bush) would pull them through. There was indeed a lot of popular animosity towards Bush but the Democrats could never capitalize on it. The crucial machinery of any political party is organization, its capacity to rally its supporters on the big day. In this crucial area the Democratic Party is in an advanced state of disrepair. The SEIU wasted $70 million of its members' dues money attacking Ralph Nader. A grotesque amount of energy went into trying to suppress the Nader vote. They did suppress it and this achievement gained them nothing, except, perhaps, the destruction of the Green Party." (Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey st. Clair ‘Democrats in End Time’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11032004.html November 3, 2004); "That is because the only fighting anyone saw the Democrats doing in the 2004 campaign was not against George W. Bush. Instead, they went after Nader the way Rove went after Kerry, with a zeal and ruthlessness not seen since the days of Robert Kennedy." (David Vest ‘Don't That Road Look Rough and Rocky’ http://www.counterpunch.org/vest11052004.html November 5, 2004). So, once again, nader was responsible for the democrats losing the presidential election!

It seems to have become commonly accepted that christians won the election for bush. "Phil Burress, the veteran Christian conservative organizer who headed the effort to pass the measure (a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage), said his campaign registered tens of thousands of voters, distributed 2.5 million church bulletin inserts and passed out 20,000 yard signs. His group called 2.9 million homes, he said, identifying 850,000 strong supporters whom it called again on Monday as a reminder to go to the polls. "The president rode our coattails," Mr. Burress said." (David D Kirkpatrick ‘Some Bush Supporters Say They Anticipate a 'Revolution' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04conserve.html?pagewanted=print&position= November 4, 2004). According to Mr. Viguerie, "Make no mistake - conservative Christians and 'values voters' won this election for George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress."

Christians supported bush because they regarded him as one of them ­ a born again christian. Their religious ideology has become so important that their main voting priority was not the state of the economy or the justice of launching a war against iraq but christian values. In other words, they were more concerned about voting ideologically than they were about voting for their own self, class, or national, interests. The people living in america’s rural villages, towns, and cities, have a variety of occupations, and may even come from different ethnic groups, but the dominant christian culture of these areas encourages them to vote conservative. In rural areas, christians and non-christians from every social class and every ethnic group tend to vote republican because of the influence of their local religious culture. "As the post-election analyses begin to trickle in, the overriding consensus seems to be that it was the conservative Christian vote that turned the tide toward Bush. These folks, many of them from what demographers like to call the working poor, voted against their economic interests because of their concerns about abortion and same-sex marriage. Sure, there were voting machine "irregularities" and it is quite possible that these irregularities actually represent genuine cheating, but the fact remains that these folks voted against their class interests. So, it's not the mere fact of their Christianity that is the problem, it's the brand of Christianity that they practice." (Ron Jacobs ‘Leaps of Faith The Arrow on the Doorpost’ http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs11062004.html November 6 / 7, 2004).

The most committed, and thus the most extreme, christians are the christian evangelists. They regard religious ideology as being more significant than science. They believe in creationism rather than evolution. They oppose stem cell research. They dismiss the scientific case for environmentalism and global burning. Many evangelists have no knowledge of the health effects of the food they eat (hence their appalling obesity). They have virtually no knowledge of the world beyond their own rural communities let alone beyond their own country. They know little about history other than christian fables. They know virtually nothing about recent politics - a substantial proportion of them still believe that bush’s lies about the invasion of iraq are true, "Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W. Bush still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programs to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to a survey released Thursday." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush Backers Steadfast on Saddam, WMD’ October 22, 2004).

The nastiness of bush’s campaign against kerry was reinforced by the even greater nastiness of the campaigns launched by the republicans’ 527 committees. It was further reinforced by the still greater nastiness of right wing christian ‘shock jocks’ who, day after day, pour out the most dreadful bigotry. "Bush's conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country. Show hosts, who advertise themselves as truth-tellers in a no-spin zone, quickly figured out that success depends upon constantly confronting listeners with bogeymen to be exposed and denounced: war protesters and America-bashers, the French, marrying homosexuals, the liberal media, turncoats, Democrats, and the ACLU." David brock (author of The Republican Noise Machine ) .. "makes a credible case that today's conservatives are driven by ideology, not by fact. He argues that their stock in trade is denunciation, not debate. Conservatives don't assess opponents' arguments, they demonize opponents. Truth and falsity are out of the picture; the criteria are: who's good, who's evil, who's patriotic, who's unpatriotic."" (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Brownshirting of America’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=3798 October 16th 2004).

The most critical point about christian evangelists is that they are not christians. Zionists have helped to encourage the growth of the evangelical movement because it has more to do with zionism than christianity. Christians have been converted, without their appreciating it, into crypto-zionists. The christian god is unambiguously loving and forgiving ­ he gave his only son to the world. The christian message is that the meek shall inherit the Earth. On the other hand, the zionist god is wrathful and vengeful. These days most christian evangelist preachers do not talk about a christian god but a god with zionist characteristics - the god of death and destruction. "Distinguished Christian scholars across the U.S. have come together to sign an important new document titled, "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence." This statement takes a stand against the "theology of war" that has infected Christianity. It should be read aloud in every church in the nation ­ including and especially those in which congregations were told to vote for George Bush and to support his wars." (Dr. Teresa Whitehurst ‘The 'Christian Nation' Bombs Again’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/whitehurst.php?articleid=3950 November 10, 2004).

To argue that the 2004 presidential election shows that america has, once again, shifted to the right, is inadequate. For many decades, america has been a christian nation because a majority of its citizens have been christians. But, for the first time in american history, christians were primarily responsible for electing the president. As a consequence, american politics could become dominated by religious, rather than by secular, values. "America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11. The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate." (Garry Wills November 4th 2004).

In britain, urbanites provide vast subsidies to enable rural people to continue living in their rural idylls. Ruralites are not in the slightest bit grateful to their urban benefactors for these subsidies. On the contrary, they resent urbanites with a profound hatred that makes class conflict a minor irritation. The fact that ruralites are far more religious than urbanites, most of whom have little interest in religion, simply reinforces ruralites’ hatred for them. In contrast, urbanites do not appreciate the vast subsidies they are providing for ruralites and thus have little interest in rural people or rural affairs. They just dismiss rural outbursts of anger against urbanites as being irrational, rural stroppiness. If they understood they were subsidizing this animosity they would adopt a different attitude. But they don’t because it is in the vested interests of the rural land-owning elite, and the rural retards who support them, to avoid all discussion of the vast subsidies that urbanites are giving to rural people.

Ron jacobs believes the left will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to change the minds of right wing christians, especially christian evangelists. However, he counsels against "belittling religion". "The left cannot change the minds of those who have already made the leap of faith required to become an evangelical Christian. Nor should they stop supporting equal rights for all, including gays and lesbians. They must continue fighting against imperial war and the installation of a police state. They must also continue to address the growing economic inequity and the destruction of the world's environment. We shouldn't ignore or belittle religion, but should educate ourselves as to how it works. We can't argue rationally with those who base their beliefs on faith, but we can reach out to those who have no faith in anything - the system or religion. Whether it's done with arguments based on economics or arguments based on moral witness, this organizing must be done. A Christian theocracy would not be a shining beacon for the world; it would be a pall of darkness deeper and danker than that found in the depths of JRR Tolkien's Mordor." (Ron Jacobs ‘Leaps of Faith The Arrow on the Doorpost’ http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs11062004.html November 6 / 7, 2004). This is an unduly timid, kerry-like, response to the nastiness of the christian evangelists. There is no point in debating with them but the zionist corruption of their ideas does need to be ridiculed, denounced, and condemned.

By far and away the most important tactic which radicals ought to pursue is undermining the power base of christian evangelists in rural areas ­ which might nullify the zionists who feed off them. This could be done in two ways. Firstly, ending the subsidies which urbanites give to rural people. Secular urbanites have got to stop funding belligerent, rural ideologues before the poison of ruralites’ religious beliefs destroys the world and the Earth. Secondly, drastically reducing the rural population by encouraging high tech pharming. As surprising as it might seem given the ‘green’ propaganda of the last fifteen years, the biggest contributor to global burning is not the fossil fuel industry but the pharming industry ­ small scale/organic pharmers being just as much to blame as capital-intensive pharmers. Since the pharming industry has converted large areas of virtually all countries into pharmland, the best way of reducing further environmental damage is to ensure that pharming is carried out by as few pharmers as possible. The more pharmers there are, the more environmental damage they will inflict on rural areas. The more rural people who can be encouraged to leave rural areas and live in urban areas where their ecological impact on the environment is minimal, the better for the environment, the better the chances of combating global burning, and the more likely they are to start adopting urban values.

In the run up to the presidential elections the anti-war movement had a clear-cut choice between on the one hand, continuing anti-war protests and voting for a sincere anti-war candidate such as nader or, on the other hand, abandoning all protests and voting for the pro-war candidate john kerry. There are doubtlessly many reasons why the overwhelming majority of those in the anti-war movement choose the latter. In my opinion this was such a catastrophically bad decision that it suggests they are incapable of making sound political judgements. One thing is for sure: if the morons in the anti-war movement continue to ignore the Elephants sitting in the corner of the room the best thing they ought to do is stay out of politics because they’re just making things worse. Anti-war activists might bemoan the fantasy world of christian evangelists but most of them are so divorced from reality they have become the exact counterparts to these religious freaks. Christian evangelists have been indoctrinated by zionist ideology and have given up on christianity to become out and out zionists. Anti-war activists have been indoctrinated by zionist ideology and either refuse to talk about the israeli infiltration into the bush administration or pretend that zionism has nothing to do with american foreign policy. Both groups are living in a self-destructive, fantasy land and are as morally degenerate as each other.