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!

 

 

 




February 2003   Alan Stang
 
The Conspiracy's Tactics, Don't Get Bushwacked By Alan Stang

THE CONSPIRACY'S TACTICS DON'T GET BUSHWHACKED

By: Alan Stang

As this commentary goes to press, the billionaire totalitarian Socialist conspirators who rule us are within a few weeks, maybe a few days, of launching the illegal war (illegal because there is no Declaration) they have been planning against Iraq and its Soviet-sponsored dictator. They have embroiled us in needless wars for a century, all in pursuit of their goal of a totalitarian Socialist world government, so now is a good time to take another look at some of the history and tactics of the Conspiracy. Those tactics still work because even at this late date they have not been sufficiently exposed.

After World War II, a congressional committee investigating foundations sent a lawyer named Kathryn Casey to New York, to look through the archives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. What she found was so shocking that the lady suffered a nervous breakdown. In the archives for the years 1908-1910, she found at least one discussion among Endowment leaders who were looking for the best way to destroy American independence and submerge our country in a world government they would run. They decided that the best way to do that would be to embroil the United States in war, and that is why we have been in almost perpetual war ever since.

It is no surprise that around the same time Miss Casey was making this discovery and having her nervous breakdown, the man who ran the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was former top State Department official Alger Hiss, who later would go to prison for committing perjury when he testified that he had not been a Soviet spy. Hiss of course was the first Secretary-General of the Communist United Nations.

One of the Conspiracyís tactics from the very beginning has been to seize control of both major political parties at the top, so that whoever is nominated and therefore whoever wins will be one of their men. Colonel Edward M. House, Woodrow Wilsonís "alter ego," who lived with Wilson in the White House, described the scheme in his anonymous political novel, Philip Dru, Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, which you really should take a look at.

In the kind of politics the Conspiracy imposes, there is no real contest between ideologies, even between policies. The only real politics it permits is a contest between conspiratorial flunkies about which of them can better implement the Conspiracyís strategies on the way to world government. Hence, the utterly superficial "difference" between Clinton and Bush. With regard to the last century of war, the only difference between the two parties seems to be that the Democrats trick us in, and then the Republicans keep us in.

In every war, the peopleís minds must be prepared, and so it is in this one. The conspirators typically are using what I call the tactic of False Alternatives for the purpose, in which neither of the two alternatives they offer is the right one. For instance, look at the anti-war side of the issue. In the streets there are the usual Communist demonstrations led by revolutionaries who descend from the Sixties. In Congress, the Democrats have made themselves look even more ludicrous, even farther left, by naming totalitarian Socialist Nancy Pelosi, from Sodom by the sea, their leader.

Some observers ask, "Donít the Democrats want to get elected? Whatís wrong with them? Are they stupid?" Yes, the Democrats are political criminals; yes, they are totalitarians; yes, their hero exudes a stench that makes sewer slime smell like gardenias. But the last thing you can call them is stupid. There has to be another reason for their stupidity. Well, what is the effect of it? Doesnít it make the other side, the War Party, the Republican Party, look good? Doesnít it make Bush look good?

For instance, nobody with any sense wants to get involved with Susan "The Strumpet" Sarandon, who spouts off at length without provocation about how we should live, but who doesnít have enough sense to marry the pinhead she cohabits with. In the same category are Hillaroid, the nationís leading cause of lower back pain, and congressional supporters of baby dismemberment.

Because all this is so putrid, the natural response is to yearn for the other side. There we find utterly blind support for the war, blind support for a man who has gotten away with things Clinton would have been dragged into the street for. Again, it looks good because, in contrast, the other side looks so bad. Is this an accident? Remember that traitor Franklin Roosevelt said there are no accidents in politics. If it happens, said the man who engineered Pearl Harbor, you can bet it was planned that way. The result is that many people back the war policy despite their discomfort with it, simply because the other side is so repulsive. They have been booby-trapped aboard.

Because the people on the left say something, there is a natural tendency to want to say the opposite. The people on the left say Bushís real motive is oil, so the natural tendency of someone who is not on the left is to say it is not. Could it be that Bushís fellow Socialists are trying to discredit the idea? Everything must be independently evaluated. When they accidentally say something that is true, it may not be an accident.

I find it helpful to evaluate developments by asking a question you may find helpful too. The question is: If Clinton did this, what would I think? If Clinton did what Bush has done, what would I think? If Clinton had used the Iraqi farce to increase the size, cost and power of government as much as Bush has, what would I think? If Clinton had increased federal spending of your paycheck by the enormous amounts Bush has, what would I think? If Clinton had done as much to cancel the Bill of Rights and totalitarianize our system as Bush has, what would I think?

It is fair to say that if Clinton had done the same things, even much less of them, many of the Americans who are presently aboard the Bush juggernaut for war, would have fought him and stopped him. Remember the two best proofs that this war is an utter fraud. First, there is Cuba, where longtime Communist dictator Fidel Castro has done everything Saddam Hussein is accused of and then some.

Saddam is accused of brutalizing his own people. So has Castro. Saddam is accused of harboring WMD, weapons of mass destruction. So has Castro. Saddam is accused of being a threat to the United States. If that is true, is Castro, only 90 miles away, a threat to the United States? Why do we always, always, go to war half way around the world, the hardest place for us to supply, rather than in Cuba, 90 miles away, the easiest place for us to supply?

Indeed, Castro is worse than Hussein, because Castro is an international drug racketeer, who smuggles enormous amounts of illegal drugs into the United States to destroy our people, which Saddam Hussein has not even been accused of; Castro is also conspiring right now with Hugo Chavez, Communist President of Venezuela, to nail Communism down on that country, just as he conspired with Salvador Allende to do the same thing to Chile. Thank God that General Augusto Pinochet and the other generals intervened in time. Castro is actively pursuing his goal to communize all of Latin America. He is collaborating for that purpose with the new president of Brazil.

Saddam Hussein is doing none of that. So who is more dangerous to the United States: Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro? The fact that Bush is making all this noise about the former, but hasnít said a word about the latter, is all the proof one needs to conclude that the present war is a farce. Remember that the United States installed Castro in power in the first place and then kept him in power by protecting him from free Cubans at the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban missile crisis.

But there is also the question of immigration. The last war we tried to win was World War II. What would you have said had we admitted tens of thousands of Germans and Japanese during that war? Crazy, right? Maybe more treason? But thatís exactly what we are doing now. Indeed, Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that we need to admit more Muslims to live in this country. More Muslims in the middle of a war with a Muslim country?

It is only a small exaggeration to say that our borders no longer exist. Border Patrol agents tell us that they arrest illegals from Middle Eastern countries on our border and take them downtown. The agents say that their superiors in the Border Patrol, acting on policy from Washington, issue orders that those illegals be released, with the result that those Middle Eastern males, presumably Muslims, disappear into the United States and we donít even know their names.

I have already made the points in these commentaries that if you donít know youíre in a war, you will lose; if you donít know whom you are fighting, you will lose. A third grim reality is that if you donít know where the war is, you will lose. The real war we are fighting is not in Iraq. The real war is here, in the United States. Our country is the real target, not Iraq. Question: What will happen when shooting war breaks out here, and our military is in Bosnia and the Middle East?

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Alan Stang can be reached at: stangfeedback@hotmail.com