Who is Alan Stang? That was the title of the thread on a web site that was new to me. Most of you probably figure you know who I am. You know that I am not I AM, not even John Galt. You know that for most of my half century in journalism and literature, the minions of the conspiracy for world government have scornfully dismissed me as a “right-wing extremist.” But your obedient servant utterly mystifies the good folks at myspinzone.net. Here are their comments:
_____________________________________________
I was doing some research on something and came up on some papers by Alan Stang. He has a website here: http://www.stangbooks.com/
He has a problem with everyone. You can’t pigeon-hole him to any side left, right, or indifferent. He has something “conspiracy-wise” to say about everything Americana. I’m not sure where this guy stands.
Anybody have any clue about this guy?
_____________________________________________
I only skimmed a few of his articles on the site, but I was unable to find anything that fit the mold of “right, or indifferent”… Those I saw were all “left” but perhaps I messed some. Can you point me in the direction of some of his more “right, or indifferent” works?
_____________________________________________
I can’t figure him out. I did a Google of “who is Alan Stang” and couldn’t get any left or right guys saying, “he’s a no good guy from the other side”. He disses Clinton and Carter and all the Reps. Plus he disses the tax system and all the other government agencies. He’s worse than Chomsky, I think.
_____________________________________________
That Stang is very bitter and cynical. Even with any of the facts he presents you can tell by the way he changes words the way he really feels [e.g. Democons and Republicons and “Hillaroid, the nation’s leading cause of lower back pain”]. Whoa! Calm down my little red-faced, high blood pressured, heart-attack waiting to happen! This guy could be mad in an insane sort of way…..
_____________________________________________
I was puzzled at first, amused and puzzled. I have spent so many years on the front lines; how could anyone spend serious time wondering who I am? Notice the reference to Chomsky. That would be Noam Chomsky, the M.I.T. linguist, who is generally understood to be a far leftist. Yet, I turn out to be even “worse” than Chomsky, presumably even farther left. But if I am that far left, why do I attack the Democruds? Indeed, I attack everyone, so, again, who is Alan Stang?
The people who post at myspinzone.net appear to be of superior intelligence; hence, from whence cometh their confusion? A moment’s reflection (maybe two) reveals that it originates in the conspiracy for world government’s calculated destruction of the traditional labels we used to explain things.
Remember that labels are essential to thought. Label making is thought. You nail something for what it is by naming it. The first thing a child learns is nouns, names, labels. Front men for the conspiracy for world government used to complain about labeling, for the obvious reason that they don’t want you to know what they are.
Remember that in Orwell’s 1984, the labels are all messed up. “War is Peace,” and so on. In Ayn Rand’s Anthem, there is no way to say “I.” The word “gay” means happy, carefree, full of frolic and delight. The sodomites have tried to make it mean the opposite, the name of their death style.
The totalitarian socialists have tried to steal the appealing term “free trade.” That is what they call the hundreds of pages of government regulations that regulate their fascist exchanges. They have stolen the word “liberal,” which used to mean an advocate of getting the government out of business, education, out of everything except the suppression of force, fraud and invasion.
And what is the result when labels are deliberately destroyed? The confusion experienced by our colleagues at myspinzone.net; the confusion I am trying to dispel, in which the conspiracy for world government uses its preeminent technique of dialectical materialism in an attempt to destroy legitimate alternatives to their totalitarian program.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte planted the seed of dialectical materialism. Hegel watered it. Marx pruned it. Lenin and Stalin harvested it. And the conspiracy for world government uses it. The conspirators are eminently practical. They know they will face opposition they cannot wish away. They know that as they approach their goal, what they are doing will become ever more obvious.
So, they control their own opposition. Either they infiltrate real opposition, permeate it, and neutralize it—which they prefer to do because it is easier—or, if necessary, they create their own opposition, neutered from the start. Then they guide their opposition into those emasculate, controlled channels. Bouncing back and forth between the two sides that pretend to be in conflict, the slaughterhouse victims are propelled down the chute, to the place where the man with the mallet hits them in the head.
How does that apply here? We have the Democruds and their allies, the Communist Broadcasting System, the Communist News Network, etc., the sodomite New York Times. Their candidates are Communist world government traitors like Skull & Bonesman John Kerry. They are the left-wing communists.
We have the Republicruds and their allies, Limbaugh (talent on loan from the Republicrud National Committee), Shallow Sean, arguably the stupidest man in network talk radio, who never saw a White House Press release he didn’t think was scripture, etc. Their candidates are Communist world government traitors like Skull & Bonesman George W. Smirk. These are the right wing communists.
The two sides are constantly squabbling. They appear to be mortal enemies. Where you and I stand, on the ground, the legs of this bug seem to be very far apart. But when we follow them to the top, we discover that they are both legs on the same bug. The conflict is a charade designed to bamboozle us boobs. The differences between them are merely cosmetic differences in style.
Clinton drops his pants and asks for sex. Bush does not. How refreshing! When Clinton is in office, there are intern knee prints on the Oval Office carpet. When Bush is in office, there are not. Clinton rapes and perjures. Smirk does not. These differences in style are nothing more than that, irrelevant; both sides want the same thing. They have made “liberal” and “conservative” meaningless.
They both want total government, totalitarian government. They both want to submerge and dissolve our government in a socialist world dictatorship. They want chipping, registration federal driver licenses, federal education, federal medicine, federal sodomy, federal control, federal land and housing, endless war, and on and on. Your papers are not in order!
They both want the present invasion of our country by criminal aliens across the Mexican border. They both call the Minutemen “vigilantes.” Notice how the right wing Communist media discuss that invasion. They inveigh at length that we must regain control of our borders; that we must change present policy, but they never mention where that policy comes from, as if it were a meteorite that fell to earth in Nogales, as if no one decreed the policy; it just appeared and implemented itself!.
Isn’t Smirk conducting that invasion? How long could it continue if Smirk were to pick up the phone and say, “Do whatever is necessary to stop it at once!” Because he does not pick up the phone and say that, the only reasonable conclusion is that he endorses what is happening and that the present policy is his. He tries to take our minds off that by saying we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan so we don’t need to fight here—but we are fighting here.
They help each other and cover for each other. Smirk could have prosecuted Clinton’s many crimes. He did not. Now, the Bushes and Clintons are in bed together. The senior Bushes call Clinton their “son.” Clinton committed treason with Red China. Smirk is committing the same treason. So, both of these sides are on the same side. And don’t Illinois Democrud Turban Durbin’s treasonous comments about our military elicit sympathy for Bush, evoking the principle of backlash?
Now, here comes carefree Alan Stang, the literary Scarlet Pimpernel, scandalously witty, consummately urbane, who is leading a campaign to Take Back the Words. What does Alan Stang say? He is destroying their programming. He says there is another, suppressed alternative, another side, a side the communist government schools and media, along with the District of Criminals, are desperately trying to suppress.
That side is what the Founding Fathers bequeathed us, extremely limited government, in which the Constitution allows the federal government to do only a few specified things, government in which the states are truly sovereign, not mere federal administrative zones; where there is private property, no more socialism for the rich or anyone else, no more foreign entanglements that always lead to war, where you can leave home without your papers.
Break out. Take Back the Words. Rescue the ideas. Chuck Chomsky! Spread the word about Alan Stang!
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”