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!




September 2002   Alan Stang
World Government Frenzy, A Century Of War By Alan Stang

World Government Frenzy

A Century of War

As this issue of goes to press, President Bush is getting ready to tell the Communist UN why the United States must invade Iraq. Many Americans still believe that invasion will begin the war; in fact, we have been waging war, however lukewarm, against that country for many years. The invasion merely represents the next, more intense phase of that continuing instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Another thing most Americans still believe is that Washington's goal in war is victory. It was General Douglas Macarthur who said that in war there is no substitute for victory. On the contrary, since World War II, Washington's policy in war has been to keep us in war; to "manage" war for purposes never explained to the people who pay for it in blood, toil, sweat and tears. That is why Washington's wars last so long. Just as the purpose of government medicine is to treat, not to cure, so the purpose of Washington's wars is to fight, not to win; the purpose is always proper "management," not victory. Despite its cosmetic deference to "peace," Washington's policy is perpetual war, in which the U.S. government runs both sides. Washington not only helps our enemies, when necessary it creates an enemy to fight. As Shakespeare had Henry IV tell his son, "Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels." The result has been a century of almost endless conflict. There is a single, overriding reason for all this. From the beginning, the maniacal purpose of the billionaire totalitarian socialist conspirators who rule us has always been to use war as a means to submerge the United States in a world government. Many Americans still don't want to believe that. I don't want to believe it. But, if you don't understand it, you will never understand what is happening; you will keep letting Washington steal your property and kill your sons. It is important to remember that if you are for world government, you are against our government. If you want to erect world government, you also want to abolish the U.S. government, for the obvious reason that you can't have the two things at the same time. You can have one or the other, not both. What we propose to do here is to put the present war in context, by looking at the century of almost endless, managed conflict before it. Let's begin with Iraq and then go back to the beginning. How and when did the war with Iraq start? It started under the imprimatur of Father Bush, so it has endured for about eleven years. Remember? Washington righteously started the war because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The question immediately arises: What does that have to do with us? The answer of course is nothing (unless us is a major, international oil company). Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Why did he think he could get away with it? Remember a lady named April Glaspie? April was our ambassador there, and she told Saddam that Washington would not be disturbed at all were he to invade Kuwait. Taking her at her word, he did so. Again, it is no business of ours when one country half way around the world invades another; we're sorry about it, but it's none of our business, and Washington has no grant of power from the people to do anything about it. But now that Saddam had been suckered aboard and committed himself, Washington was furious. So, you could say that Saddam was tricked into war. Had April Glaspie told him in advance that her boss would be furious, would Saddam have thought better of invading Kuwait? The man who ran the show was Father Bush, a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The purpose of both these outfits is to impose world government. A Marxist founded the CFR. For many years, the Rockefeller family ran them both. Their members are the wealthiest, most powerful people in this country and the world, who have infiltrated, and for many years have controlled, our institutions. They certainly control the U.S. government. Even before World War II, they had seized the State Department. They belong to both political parties, so it doesn't matter who wins the "elections." Members of these groups always run the show. They control the mainstream media, so you don't hear about them there. Wouldn't you think that if the Salvation Army, or the American Legion, or some other group controlled the U.S. government for half a century and more, you should be hearing about it every evening on the network news? For just one example, look at Condoleeza Rice. She's black, she's beautiful, she's brilliant, and she comes to us from the Council on Foreign Relations, to implement its policies. If you want to read about these people in considerably more detail than we have room for here, you could browse through The Actor, The True Story of John Foster Dulles, by yours truly, which you should be able to find in your library. Father Bush pretended to quit the CFR and the Trilateral Commission a couple of weeks before he launched his campaign for the presidency in 1988. That way, if someone in the media were stupid enough to ask him about those groups, he could say "honestly" he wasn't a member. Why would someone pretend to "quit" if there was nothing wrong? Soon after she started the war, April Glaspie was whisked back to Washington. She appeared briefly before a committee of Congress to forestall charges of cover-up, answered a couple of cosmetic questions, and then, as far as I know, disappeared. Maybe she's running a talk show somewhere, or is ambassador to Kookistan, but I for one have not heard a hint about her since her historic bout with fame, so we can't ask her about the war. April, are they holding you hostage? Can you get word out? In 1979, Iranian "fundamentalists" seized the U.S. embassy in Teheran and kept the personnel hostage until Ronald Reagan became President. Why were they able to do that? They were able to do it because Washington had overthrown our ally, the Shah, and had installed our enemy, the ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah had encouraged the creation of a modern nation, in which women enjoyed all the rights they do here, but Khomeini, with Washington's help, reduced them to breeding animals who wore black. Somewhere along in here, Saddam went to war with Iran. At that time, Saddam wasn't "another Hitler," another "madman" threatening the world with NBC weapons. No, he was our loyal ally, so of course we had to send him supplies. Or was he our enemy? Confused? You were meant to be. That is why George Washington, for whom the monster is named, warned our fledgling nation to beware foreign entanglements. During the Gulf War, Father Bush often spoke gleefully of what he called "the new world order," to which the war would lead. How much clearer could he have made it? After a while, he abruptly shut up, which could mean that his fellow conspirators warned him of the danger of spilling the frijoles too soon. Since then, we have imposed an embargo on Iraq. We have bombed that country routinely. A couple of weeks ago, according to news dispatches, we launched a raid involving about 100 aircraft. Iraqi aircraft are forbidden to fly over about half their own country. Those that do risk being shot down. Again, we have been at war with Iraq for many years. Every Iraqi knows that. Few Americans know it: the billionaire totalitarian socialist conspirators who rule us; the U.S. female military personnel captured by Iraq and raped in the first phase, whose stories have never been told; and U.S. Navy pilot Mike Speicher, who is still there. The coming invasion will make all of us aware. A theory floating through the media these days has it that Son Bush is making war on Iraq to "finish the job" left undone by Father Bush. This is utterly preposterous. Father Bush left the job "undone" to perpetuate the division the world government totalitarians always want. The men running the show now are motivated by the same thing that motivates Father Bush: the goal of world government. Turning the country into a police state to "protect" us from terrorism is part of the process, in which criticism can be quelled by calling it disloyalty. Some good people protest. "George W. is so charming, so simpatico. Doesn't he go home every night to his wife? Doesn't he constantly parade his Christianity?" Yes, that's all true. My answer is: "By their fruit ye shall know them." Or as someone put it in a modern version: "He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk?" Next week, we shall go back to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and see that the plan was to trick our country into war on the way to world government; we'll follow that plan through all the major wars leading to the present one. Be with your Intrepid Correspondent then. Copyright 2002 by Alan Stang