WHO'S WHOSE WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
By: Alan Stang
Karl Marx drew considerable inspiration from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the German philosopher who devised the so-called "dialectic," in which a thesis confronts an antithesis, producing a synthesis that becomes a new thesis. Marx and Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet dictator, added "materialism," and the billionaire totalitarian Socialist conspirators who rule us have used "dialectical materialism" as a tool of "scientific Socialism" ever since.
Needless to say, there is nothing scientific about Socialism. The term "scientific Socialism" is more of an oxymoron than "conservative Republican." The juxtaposition of the two words is mere public relations poppycock. But the world government conspirators are coldly realistic. They know that as they approach their goal, they will face opposition they canít ignore, more and more the closer they come. They know they canít wish it away. So, they use dialectical materialism to confront it. They do two things: (1) They create their own opposition and (2) they infiltrate the genuine opposition and pervert it. No other opposition is permitted. All opposition that begins as genuine is diverted into one of those two avenues. By this means, the conspirators control the opposition. The opposition becomes part of the dialectical process. Theses keep confronting antitheses yielding syntheses that become new theses until the arrival of totalitarian world government - Communism - where the process stops.
For instance, this is why they have kept alive the "Nazi threat" all these years with movies about it and reminders of the Holocaust. If you stand in their way, if you oppose them, they will call you a Nazi and accuse you of "anti-Semitism." The fact that Arabs are also Semites makes the term meaningless today, but the conspirators have used it with great success. Applying techniques devised by Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist party, they have infiltrated and perverted the entire U.S. government.
And they are using dialectical materialism in the present fraud in Iraq. On one side they give us the people who "hate America" and oppose the war. That side includes longtime Communist organizers and the "useful idiots" (Leninís phrase) they manipulate, idiots like Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and well-meaning mothers who want peace. On the other, they give us the war party, devised for people who see the Communist hands in the demonstrations and want no part of them.
The ideology of the war party is concocted by a new kind of "conservative" called a "neoconservative," known as a "neocon" for short. The "neocon" wants to abolish limited, small government. He wants to replace it with total government, totalitarian government. He hates American independence. He wants to replace it with American Empire. He loves war, war in which otherís sons will fight, perpetual war to impose that Empire, perpetual war for the perpetual peace of totalitarian world government. In other words, the "neocon" is nothing but an old-fashioned Socialist wearing new clothes.
Yes, we are perfectly aware that individual differences in people can make this division wavy, but in the present, public debate in the so-called "mainstream," those are the only two sides we hear about. No other side is allowed. There is no room for traditional American independence in which we mind our own international business and the only thing the government does is protect the nation from invasion and the people from crime. If you believe in those things, if you question our participation in the war, if your only loyalty is to our own country, the chances are good that you will be called an "anti-Semite." In short, this is dialectical materialism in action.
Look at the national radio talk shows. Hillaroid, the nationís leading cause of lower back pain, says they are the headquarters of the "vast right wing conspiracy." But notice that every one of them - every one - supports our illegal intervention in Iraq. If there is an exception, we havenít heard about it. Limbaugh is supposed to be tough. Savage is supposed to be a jungle creature, but in fact they are pussy cats who obediently disseminate the war party line as if it were Gospel. Your Intrepid Correspondent, a talk show host before anyone ever heard of them, could chew them up and clean his teeth with their bones, but they are on the air; I am not.
The fact that Bush sabotaged a real investigation into Nine Eleven isnít mentioned. The fact that Daddy Bush, along with Dick Cheney and others created the Saddam monster while Baby George was still a drunk, isnít mentioned. The fact that both Bush Administrations were and are completely controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission isnít mentioned. The fact that Bush, like Clinton, is supervising the invasion of our country designed to submerge it in world government isnít mentioned. And more and more and more.
How does all this apply to the conduct of the war? Years ago, I said that we shouldnít have gone to Vietnam in the first place, but - once we were there - the only sane, American policy was to do whatever was required to win and get out; to do whatever was required to protect our men. Had we bombed Hanoi, had we turned the enemy capital into a hole in the ground, we would have saved the lives of tens of thousands of our men, and of even more Vietnamese killed by other Vietnamese forced into Communist ranks. Of course, Washington didnít do that because its main purpose in the war was to humiliate the United States, despite which our incomparable military won. Washington defeated it.
Before the present invasion, Washington was talking about "shock and awe." We would launch an aerial blitzkrieg unlike anything seen outside Star Wars. Saddam Hussein would be so impressed he would surrender and present himself for trial. Cheering Baghdadians, eager to partake of American largesse and become another American colony, would welcome Cheney, Halliburton and the Bush Carlyle Group.
But it hasnít turned out that way. Many more Iraqis unaccountably are loyal to Saddam than Washington expected. "Shock and awe" was a mere public relations gimmick designed to intimidate Saddam Insane. In 1991, Iraq immediately went belly up. Today, we shall have to fight for Baghdad. One military expert I saw on the tube said if we have to fight house-to-house, which is likely, we should expect 30% casualties. Thirty per cent!
In other words, what this boils down to is that George W. Bush must decide whom to kill. Now that he has gotten us into this, he must kill someone to get out. Who will it be? The only way to protect our own people is to kill the enemy, to kill Iraqis, just as we killed Germans and Japanese. If Saddam is the Hitler the neocons constantly say he is, then the people who serve him must be Nazis. If it is easier on the conscience to believe that, then believe it and do it. The only way to protect our own people is to do to Baghdad what we should have done to Hanoi - destroy it - not with a public relations gimmick, but with B-52s.
But Bush wonít do that. Because he is a traitor, because his true purpose is to impose world government under a cloak of smarmy "humanitarianism," he will elect to kill Americans and go house-to-house. Americans are expendable, you see. Everyone else is not. Americans are expendable because they are guilty (of everything). In 1968, in the Tet Offensive, it took a few weeks to clear the Communists out of a few blocks of downtown Hue. How many houses are there in a city of almost six million people?
A couple of clues already emerge. The U.S. soldier accused of "fragging" his own officers in a combat zone and killing two is Asan Akbar, an adherent of Bushís "religion of peace." George Patton would have shot him between the eyes where he stood. Instead, he will not only enjoy the luxury of a trial, he will get off. Mr. Akbar has the advantage of being black, so we already are hearing about his unhappy childhood.
In northern Iraq are the Kurds, a people without a country, Kurds without a Kurdistan. I know only one thing about the Kurds, but itís the most important thing. They hate Saddam and his henchmen with a towering passion. They would love nothing better than to attack him. Why not let them do so? Why not let them go house-to-house in Baghdad? Why not tell them it would be the only way to get their own homeland in the north? Of course that wonít happen because it would save Americans.
Bush has continued the most important Clinton policies. Because he genuflects before the Communist UN, he did not reinstate Michael New, the hero who refused to wear UN insignia. He did not repeal Clintonís policy of putting women as close to combat as possible, another symptom of the corruption and impending collapse of our culture. In Gulf War I, the Iraqis captured a female U.S. officer who was an advocate of women in combat. In a classic case of poetic injustice, she was gang raped. What else would you expect? Imagine what full disclosure of her experience would do to female enlistment. Now, more American women are in enemy hands.
Robert Mugabe, the Communist dictator Washington installed in Zimbabwe, recently called himself "Hitler times ten." Yes, that is what the man said. After we finish off Saddam, the Hitler of Baghdad, will we go after him? Maybe if we stopped installing these people, we wouldnít need to go back to finish them off.
"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 is also a member of the Distinguished Board of Advisors to The Welch Foundation and Welch Report radio program.