CONSPIRACY GOODBYE TO SOLZHENITSYN
By: Alan Stang
The old labels no longer seem to work. In the past we all remember, ideological contestants were either left or right, liberal or conservative. It was easy to tell who was who. All you had to do was measure a man against a generally accepted standard. Today, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been deliberately fudged to such an extent that they mean little if anything at all.
In the 19th century, a liberal was someone who wanted to restrain the government. In the 20th century, the totalitarians stole that attractive word, and now it means just the opposite: someone who uses the government to restrain the people. In the 20th century, a conservative was what a 19th century liberal had been: someone who wanted to restrain the government. In the 21st century, the totalitarians are trying to steal that attractive word. Again commentators who want to restrain the government are being cast adrift, with nothing to call themselves. If you donít know what to call yourself, you have lost your identity; you donít know what you are. You are wandering ineffectually in an ideological wasteland.
A Trotskyite is a follower of Leon Trotsky, who founded the Soviet Army, contested with Josef Stalin for control of the Soviet Union, and lost. In 1940, in Mexico, Stalin had him killed. There is no difference between a Trotskyite and a Stalinist. Those names merely represent competing Communist gangs, like the gangs in Caponeís Chicago. One is just as much a Communist as the other.
A while back, a gaggle of Trotskyite Communists and other totalitarians began the process of stealing the label "conservative." They began to call themselves "neo-conservatives," or "neo-cons" for short. They didnít change what they were, just what they were called. They still wanted the government to run everything, as in Mother Russia.
Typically, their purpose was to drive the true conservatives out of conservatism as they had driven them out of true liberalism; their purpose was to make liberty lovers homeless and ineffectual again. So, they began to say that if you donít believe what they believe - if you arenít a "neo-conservative" - you arenít a conservative at all; youíre disloyal. A "neo-conservative" is an advocate of totalitarian world government.
But something they havenít thought of seems to be happening. Todayís liberty lovers appear to be more sophisticated, more aware of their tactics. Commentators on the Internet are nailing them for what they are, to such an extent that the neo-cons may be backing off. Is your Intrepid Correspondent wrong in thinking that the neo-cons are starting to reject the very label they invented and boasted about, starting to deny that they are neo-cons?
Indeed, now the neo-cons are complaining that if you call someone a "neo-con" you are a covert anti-Semite; and this is exciting because in this day and age, here in the United States, if you have to call someone an anti-Semite, you are out of ideas. You are desperate. Are the neo-cons in full retreat?
Does anyone recall that the neo-cons are generally the same people who used to warn us about "labeling?" The problem is that labeling is thinking; labeling is calling things what they are. A label is the name of a thing. If what you are is no good - if you are a traitor, for instance - you wonít want to be called the name for it. You will want to confuse people by making terminology vague.
The cause of this deliberate confusion is a conspiracy, in this case a conspiracy for world government. The members of this conspiracy - the conspirators - hate the very word with an overwhelming passion. They inflict their worst opprobrium on whoever dares use it. If you dare call it a conspiracy, you are a "right-wing extremist," you are "insane," you are a "racist," a "sexist," even the most horrifying thing a human being can be, an "anti-Semite." Notice that, when it suits their purposes, the conspirators can use labels very well.
So, why is it so important to call it a conspiracy? What do the conspirators know that most Americans donít? It is impossible to overdo the need to explain the difference. Suppose I tell you that you lost your job because of "economic trends." Your wife ran off to "find herself" because "women are crazy." Your kid believes in government, not God, because thereís "something in the air." We are always at war because of "historic cycles." Sodomy is epidemic because we must "be fair." Illegal aliens, now called "undocumented immigrants," are overwhelming the country because America is "such a great place to live."
What would you do? Well, what could you do about economic trends? What could you do if women are crazy, if there is something in the air? What could you do about historic cycles? Not much, right? Not anything. You certainly wouldnít want to be unfair. And the illegal aliens are right. This is a great place to live. All you could do is throw up your hands and mutter. Iím reminded of the humorous phrase about trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. Everything is too vague to do anything about.
But now suppose instead I tell you that all the things I mentioned, and many more like them, are the effects of a plan; that a few men concocted the plan; that their purpose is to destroy you. Suppose I explain their various techniques and show you, for instance, the sodomite plan. Suppose I prove that these men deliberately drove your wife from the house in order to destroy the family and bring you to your knees. Suppose I name the men who have done this - the conspirators - and tell you where to find them. What do you do now?
Now you are motivated. Now you go into action. You donít need a pointy-headed commentator like your obedient servant to tell you what to do. You saddle up, grab the Tennessee long rifle and ride. You know where you are going.
Itís as simple a matter as adding two and two. If you lose your money, there is nothing you can do. If you know who stole it, there is. Itís as simple as knowing that for every effect, thereís a cause. You may not immediately know the cause, but you know one is out there, waiting to be discovered.
One of the arguments the conspirators have used to deny their existence - just as the neo-cons are denying their existence now - is to say that conspiratologists hopelessly oversimplify. They accuse us of attributing everything to one cause: some nameless conspiracy. They say we completely ignore the infinite complexity of human motivation.
Typically, just the opposite is true. In the impossible "just happens" world they try to impose, everything decisive happens for just one reason, or, rather, for no reason. It "just happens." That is the explanation they offer for every one of the sample disasters I mentioned above. All of them, and so many more like them, "just happen." The only things you can do about them are say, "Duh," and scratch your head.
On the contrary, once you understand that a conspiracy is at work, the complexity starts. Because the conspirators are master dissemblers, considerable research is required to learn who they are, where they are, how they work, what they want and where they are going. Why do they do it? What is their reward? We are talking here about what can be a lifelong study, involving almost infinite permutations.
Certainly, one of the most important aspects of the conspiracy is its tactics. The conspirators are eminently practical. They know they will face opposition; they know they canít wish it away. So they always try to control both sides of an issue. They do that either by infiltrating the opposition, perverting it and subtly taking control - exactly as the neo-cons have done - or they create and operate their own opposition, which they have done in the case of media celebrities like William F. Buckley, Jr., for instance.
Look at people like Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh and OíReilly, for instance. Am I saying that these people have Conspiracy membership cards in their wallets, attend Conspiracy meetings and get paychecks from The Conspiracy, Inc.? Of course not! Such an analysis would be the typical caricature the conspirators claim we conspiratologists believe. The prima facie reason it doesnít work that way is the fact that men as supremely brilliant as the conspirators for world government would never take into their confidence a boob as overwhelmingly stupid as Sean Hannity, for instance.
No, what they do instead is simply promote a man who says without prompting what they want him to say. They donít even need to tell such a flunky he is working for them. As long as he stays with the program, he advances. If he steps out of line he is canned. A good example of the process is Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Remember him? Few Americans probably do.
The Prostitute National Press used to mention him every day. He wasnít a conspirator. Not at all! But what he was saying at the moment - exposing the Soviet gulag - accidentally coincided with the Conspiracyís purpose at the time. Then he made the famous speech at Harvard, in which he exposed the spiritual paucity of the West and explained what is wrong here - and this world famous novelist disappeared from our media instantly and completely, proving our point. Alexander who?
The most important thing we need to know about todayís events can be put into one short sentence: Our country and our civilization are being destroyed by a world government conspiracy.
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: email@example.com