Radio Show
      Listen Host Guests Archive
On The Side

View the Latest Action Alerts and Stay informed!

Read our current Commentaries for indepth analysis into hot issues!

 

 

 




August 2002   
 
American Genocide; It's Happening Now By Alan Stang

American Genocide ; It's Happening Now

Is the Bush Administration contemplating genocide? Not in the Balkans, not in some country halfway around the world, whose name we can't pronounce; but here, in the United States, where we Americans would be the victims. Many incisive commentators have covered the disaster on our borders and the tidal wave of immigration, both legal and illegal. Maybe we missed it, but we are not aware that anyone has nailed the problem with the name it deserves. At the beginning of the seventh century B.C., Sargon deported the children of Israel and sent hordes of other peoples to take their place. Thus, he ended the Northern Kingdom for all time, because the Israelites who remained intermarried with the interlopers, creating the people who became known as Samaritans. The missing ten tribes didn't just disappear; they bred themselves out of existence. Down south, in Judah, the remaining Jews had such contempt for the Samaritans, because they were "half-breeds," that in traveling between Judah and Galilee, up north, they took the long way around through the Decapolis across the Jordan rather than pass through Samaria. But in 586 B.C., the bell tolled for Judah as well. Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem and carted thousands of Jews off to Babylon; hence, the Babylonian Captivity. Cyrus, the Persian conqueror, graciously let them return, but most did not. The few who did eventually rebuilt the temple and preserved the Judaism we know today. Population replacement since has been a favored weapon of dictatorship. Hitler did it. The Jews again were the victims, and what he did is known as the Holocaust. Stalin did it. In the 1930s, he deported hundreds of thousands of kulaks, small farmers, from Ukraine. He deliberately starved millions to death. In the Baltic nations, he deported the populations, and sent Soviet families to replace them. Mass rape is another aspect of the process. Curiously, the Communist UN has labeled such government policies "genocide." Look it up. Any Communists who have blundered in here today and happen to be reading this should therefore agree with your Intrepid Correspondent's condemnation, because the United Nations was conceived, founded and has always been run by Communists for Communist purposes. But surely you don't mean to say that the Bush Administration is doing anything like that! What is the Bush Administration doing? Notice first that, despite 9/11, immigration into this country continues unabated. I'm not just talking about illegal immigration. For the purpose of this discussion, there is no difference between legal and illegal. However these people get here, they are here. Our borders are totally out of control, nothing more than meaningless lines drawn on a map. A country without borders is no longer a country. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the United States these days is a dumping ground, a wide spot in the road. Not only that, Bush is still admitting hordes of young men who claim to be "students" from hostile nations with whom we are supposed to be at war. Washington is talking about still another "one-time" amnesty. Thousands of immigrants are coming from the most primitive nations on earth. What happens when you import too many people at one time who have never seen a flush toilet? One of the effects would certainly be a dilution of your culture. A nation's culture is the totality of what its people believe. In our country, we enjoy enormous diversity of belief, but that diversity works because all of us have shared a generally unspoken mother lode of belief, without which that diversity would be impossible. Notice that we are not talking about race or color here, but about ideas. Diluting and eventually replacing the population of a target nation would eventually eliminate those ideas, a relatively painless means of conquest. Yes, yes, I know our country is a "nation of immigrants," but those original immigrants shared that bedrock of belief, and they did not come in sufficient waves to overwhelm us. There was time to assimilate them. When they came, they became unhyphenated Americans. Today, they are encouraged not to do that; encouraged to form their own separate enclaves on what used to be American soil. To see where that leads, merely look at the Balkans. We see the beginning of that process in the many, little, ethnic fiefdoms springing up like toadstools around the country, where many inmates don't have the foggiest notion of what the Founding Fathers did, and others are outright enemy agents. I am reminded that when independence came to the central African nations in the 1960s, many of the liberated victims believed "independence" was a physical object that came in a box. Bush's answer to all this is to fight the "war on terror." But notice that everything he does here is pointed in, not out. Instead of closing the borders (remember, we are supposed to be at "war"), he is working to suppress the American people. The present reorganization would just about complete the centralization of all police power in his hands, exactly what the Founding Fathers labored so long to prevent. No doubt one of the worst things you can do here these days, especially at an airport, is "profile," but the flying schools are still matriculating many soi-disant pilots with beards. The entire thrust of Administration policy is to control the people rather than the terrorists we are supposed to be fighting. Yes, Bush has backed up on his plan, known as TIPS, to turn us into spies on each other, as in Hitler's Berlin and Castro's Havana, but you can be sure the world government conspirators typically will implement it piecemeal. Maybe so, but your theory comes apart. Nobody has said anything about deporting Americans or even moving them around. Please consider the following scenario. Again, the foundation for the total dictatorship is now being laid. Because normal people consider Clinton a puke, he could not have gotten away with it. Bush can, because every night he is where he's supposed to be. At the same time, we have been warned repeatedly for months to expect another massive attack on American soil. We're not sure who will attack; as in George Orwell's classic 1984, we're not even sure who the enemy is, but it doesn't matter. The intelligence agencies say it will come, and they say it will be much worse than the mere destruction of a couple of skyscrapers in New York. Now, here's my scenario. How realistic is this? Assume that the reorganization of our government is complete. Now, instead of the bickering, divided, incompetent weakling the Founding Fathers intended, it is a lean, mean, totalitarian machine. The President can wield all the police power; he can even use the military as police. He can implement the Executive Orders that would give him more power than Mao Tse-tung and Hitler at their craziest. And he's just waiting for an excuse to use it. Now, suppose the next attack hits. Suppose itís nuclear, biological, or chemical; suppose it hits the water supply. Almost every day, the intelligence people warn us that Saddam has the hardware to do those things. Suppose it's fire. It doesn't matter, as long as it affects not just a couple of buildings, but an entire region of this vast nation. Desperate people in that region naturally turn for help to (whom else!) the federal government, because they have been trained to do so for decades. The federal government has FEMA and it has the funds. In many disasters (fire or flood, for instance), the police and the firemen tell the people to leave, and they do so. When the disaster is over they return. In the disaster we are talking about now, the augmented federal government will ask them to leave, for their own good and protection from whatever contamination the terrorists have caused. Will they do so? Yes, because they have been trained for many decades in the public school dumps to trust, even revere, the federal government. Often, a local disaster, a flood, for instance, needs a few days to clean up. During that time, the people stay in the high school or the church. Great outfits like the Red Cross send in help. The disaster we're talking about now will take much longer, and the federal government will do much better. The victims will be sent to camps the government maintains for the purpose. Needless to say, the government will request that, in the name of safety, the people leave their firearms at home. Those who acquiesce will be treated very well, at first. As Communist George Bernard Shaw put it in An Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism, they would live well and be treated well; if they refuse to conform, they would be shot. Suppose the region we are talking about is contaminated permanently, at least for a long time. Wouldn't the federal government have to resettle the victims? The victims couldn't do it themselves, because doing so might mess up the ecology or offend a paramecium in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and because by now their grandparents have been programmed in the public schools to go to Washington with every problem from acne to zits. Resettled by Washington, they would be wards of the government and would have to obey the government's rules. Would the people go for it? Well, would a population that is mostly on the dole, either with "Socialism for the rich," via tax breaks, farm allotments, etc., or "welfare" via WIC, food stamps, etc., and so on, would such a population eagerly accept another handout? The next few months contain the answer. I can't wait to celebrate being totally wrong. Copyright © 2002 by Alan Stang