Posted on 08/02/2002 4:25:02 AM PDT by Gopblond
Mr. Stang, I was actually quite surprised that you would take the time and effort to author a provocative critique of my column, "A Radicalized Ether Zone". However, "A Trojan Horse Attacks Ether Zone", definitely warrants a response. Certainly, I'm not going to permit you, or anyone else for that matter, to define who I am, and what I believe. Over the course of the past few days I was able to conduct some research on the John Birch Society, and their writings. I don't mind acknowledging that I was somewhat fascinated by the teachings of the organization. But, I must also point out that the JBS perceives the world through a very peculiar, skewed prism.
Do I believe that conspiracies and cabals exist? Of course I do. But I feel confident in saying that conspiratorial activities are not typically the modus operandi of the global movers and shakers. Unfortunately, you and other fringe adherents often confuse the notion of "agenda" with "conspiracy", using them interchangeably, which they are not. Agencies, bureaucracies, organization, and individuals that you specifically link with so-called "conspiracies", "cabals", and clandestine schemers, often demonstrate agendas that are quite evident, in fact manifest to any intelligent observer that follows world events. It's more accurate to conceptualize the world in terms of competing agendas rather that all this conspiratorial nonsense.
According to Webster's New World Dictionary, "conspiracy" is "planning and acting together secretly", and "cabal" is "a small group of persons joined in a secret, often political intrigue, or plot". In contrast, the definition of "agenda" is "a program of things to be done or accomplished". History is replete with all types of political agendas. There is no question that throughout the course of world history there have been those powers that have sought to establish empires and world-wide domination such as the former Soviet Union, the Axis nations of WWII, the British Empire, and the old Roman Empire (that sought control over the "known" world). In fact, each of the aforesaid were notorious for their overarching agenda. And of course there are those nations that have sought regional hegemony in the geopolitical sphere such as China. But I'm sorry, I can't agree with you that the Soviet Union still exists, that it still poses a threat as a communist totalitarian state. In some ways, I almost wish it did exist! The Soviet Union, although vast, ruled with an iron fist, and was able to successfully suppress the inter-tribal warfare associated with identity politics, and involving subgroups within nations as seen in various locales such as the former Yugoslavia. Russia undoubtedly continues to be problematic, but by virtue of its various alignments with Middle Eastern nations such as Iraq and Iran and other Islam regimes.
Here's an appalling statement for your consideration, as enunciated by the Clinton administration's Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot: "All countries are basically social arrangements. Within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete. All states will recognize a single global authority." Of course this is pure gobbledegook, and dare I say patriotic Americans even in the next century will categorically reject such nightmarish sentiments. Clearly, the Clinton administration was largely comprised of an anti-nationalist, pro-globalist crowd. But conspiracy? Hardly. As usual the agenda was always there for the citizenry to see. Mr. Stang, please don't underestimate the American people, they are pretty savvy and are largely cognizant of the political terrain .
Does the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and elements within our own State Department have an agenda for global governance? Sure they do. Do these, and some other international forums seek to erode and assault US sovereignty and the US Constitution? Absolutely, I think its pretty clear-cut. Currently, the Bush administration is diligently fighting off the UN International Court, a world body that is initially intent on imposing jurisdiction over our troops, but will most certainly extend its auspices, its malevolent tentacles, over all American citizens if it ever gets the opportunity. And it's a sure bet that any prosecutions would be politically motivated, given the United Nation's history of anti-Americanism. President Bush has addressed these menacing circumstances in speeches, and from all indications, the American people comprehend the message.
The Bilderberg Group merits particular mention as a so-called secret society of the "powerful global elite" that ostensibly conspires to systematically orchestrate a "one world government". Their yearly meetings are said to be primarily attended by leaders from the political and military arenas (with special focus on NATO), in addition to bigwigs from transnational corporations and global media. All is said to be shrouded in secrecy. The funny thing is, the Internet provides myriad information regarding this purportedly "stealth" organization, including the annual meeting attendees, the conference venues since 1954, and the nature of the discussions. It's even possible to find out "who" said "what". Let's view this is perspective. Naturally, a bunch of international businessmen have a "global village" outlook, given the worldwide nature of financial and business markets today. But, this supposed "conspiracy" is just a bunch of trumped-up hogwash. Nothing much seems to be clandestine in nature here. Please note that I'm not doubting that there are many "internationalists" in attendance at these meetings. And the Bilderberg Group may indeed have an agenda that is damaging to the interests of US sovereignty. But so what? It's our job as American citizens and patriots to fight any policies that would diminish America in any manner.
In effect, by focusing upon "conspiracy" and "cabal", you are playing to a select audience, exploiting some people's fears and prejudices, feeding their paranoia. This notion of widespread conspiracy is over-the-top, and only tends to distort and hype the issues at hand, rather than clarifying. The various beliefs of the JBS, and other organizations that underscore nefarious globalists, plotters and schemers among the "internationalists", don't sufficiently take into account the ineptness of bureaucracies (UN, CIA, Federal Reserve System, etc.), and the relevance of serendipity and unforeseen circumstances. Despite what the JBS is inclined to believe, its very difficult to move and orchestrate with any type of certitude in an increasingly volatile world.
Moreover, Mr. Stang, the fact that the JBS has consistently spewed forth tremendous negativity and venom over the years toward many good Republicans and Conservatives does not reflect favorably on you or your former organization. Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagan, the Bush presidents (both father and son), Rush Limbaugh, and William F. Buckley, among many others, have been the targets of your notable wrath and disdain. OK, so you have complemented one or two politicos and ex-Presidents here and there, such as Calvin Coolidge. It still doesn't negate your incredibly inflexible, noxious attitude, which only serves to make you, and others of a similar mind-set, look like a bunch of chronic malcontents.
It's sad, but true, that the prevalence of Paranoid Personality Disorder (not to be confused with Paranoid Schizophrenia, a psychosis) is approximately one to two percent of the population. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, individuals with this personality disorder "may be perceived as fanatics and form tightly knit cults or groups with others who share their paranoid belief systems". They are often described as "rigid" and "critical of others", with "hostile, stubborn, and sarcastic expressions predominating". And, like it or not, a fringe organization such as the John Birch Society tends to attract these type of people. By your own admission, the JBS had less than 15,000 dues-paying members in 1997, and I doubt that the cited number has changed significantly in the past five years. The JBS does not have a wide appeal among the populace; certainly this is something of significance that you ought to think about. And you're kidding yourself if you believe that only a superior mentality or enlightened psyche would ever aspire to membership, even in past times when you were more sanguine about the leadership at the JBS.
As to Mr. Buckley, who has been particularly single out by the JBS, little can be said at this juncture that is going to sway people one way or the other. He has been on the public scene for approximately forty years, had a PBS program for thirty years, holds views that are pretty well known to the public, and is associated with a ground breaking publication, National Review, that maintains its popularity. In other words, people are very familiar with Buckley and there is virtually nothing that you could say or do that would make a difference in the public's perception of him. The worst that can be said is that he has Libertarian leanings on some social issues such as drug legalization; But, indeed, he continues to be very acceptable to mainstream conservatives. Just because Buckley has had connections with the CFR doesn't make him satanic; maybe he was attempting to influence them for the better? Besides, it's part of the American culture to eschew "guilt by association". I reviewed the various JBS criticisms of Buckley, and quite frankly it all amounts to pure get-evenism, retaliation since he systematically shut the JBS out-of-the-loop of the emerging conservative movement in the 1960's. And smartly so, since Buckley was well aware of the JBS's extremist orientation, and propensity to hurl wild allegations and conspiratorial rhetoric. Buckley was cognizant that if conservatism was ever going to have a chance as a viable and widespread political movement, it was going to have to disassociate itself assiduously from radical right-wing fringe.
Lastly, stop obsessing about the one line that references the "bug up your butt". It was one mildly risque line in an article that was lengthy (over 1000 words), well reasoned and well written. Your reaction says a lot more about you, than it says about me. And if you're intent on believing that I'm a "salty sailor", so be it.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Mail this article to a friend(s) in two clicks!
The JBS guy was a cheerless, suspicious-of-everything type ,who insisted on presenting me with a copy of: "None Dare Call It Treason " ; and , a few days later, pressing me to join.
Some of the ideas presented were interesting, but the overall conclusions were too far-fetched for me ; and the book was returned to its donor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.