| Stanton Friedman is a Nut - Roswell NM is Nothing But a Wart on the Map of America |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 July 2007 May 2007 April 2007 January 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 June 2006 May 2006 February 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January My Links EWTN Dayton Right to Life Org. Just the Facts.Org My Yahoo Group Toys for Tots 2004 tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Stanton Friedman's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Stanton's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. Stanton's companions perpetuate myths that glorify hedonism simply because they think it's fun. In view of that, it is not surprising that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Stanton's gestapo quite adamantly claim that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could contend such a thing, but then again, Stanton attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality charcteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Stanton says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he say such things? Whatever the answer, honest people will admit that he must have known that his offhand remarks would cause high levels of outrage and would generate many letters in response (like this one). Concerned people are not afraid to tell Stanton what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. And sensible people know that Stanton is totally mistaken if he believes that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented put-downs. Take it from me: Behind Stanton's mask of benevolence stands a complete plan for world government, world power, world conquest, and the promotion of dishonest ageism. To cap that off, the deep-seated, unbridled hatred that Stanton's advocates have for us is visceral and inculcated from cradle to grave. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How can Stanton reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result? A clue might be that while we do nothing, those who abridge our basic civil liberties are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we help people see his doctrinaire, two-faced complaints for what they are.
Oh, and one more thing. I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Stanton for trying to reduce us to acute penury. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, given the amount of misinformation that Stanton is circulating, I must undeniably point out that he says it is within his legal right to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, Stanton's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of careerism and you'll see a frightful kleptomaniac hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of adversarialism in an obstreperous attempt to create an atmosphere of mistrust, in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Stanton's sermons reek of pessimism. I use the word "reek" because the objection may still be raised that without Stanton's superior guidance, we will go nowhere. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: I would be grateful if Stanton would take a little time from his rigorous schedule to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that if we don't remove the Stanton Friedman threat now, it will bite us in our backside in a lustrum or two. His musings were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, Stanton wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because in order to convince us that he acts in the name of equality and social justice, Stanton often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Shame on Stanton for thinking that people like you and me are inerudite! In public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations.
By the way, Stanton says that he is entitled to construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. You know, he can lie as much as he wants but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd surely prevent anyone from hearing that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Stanton's illiberal stances, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to throw down the gauntlet and challenge his emissaries to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values.) On the surface, it would seem merely that he is willing -- even eager -- to jettison his scruples in order to stay ahead of the pack. But the truth is that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to deplete the ozone layer faster than you can say "premisrepresentation". This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the first response to this from Stanton's adulators is perhaps that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: If you can go more than a minute without hearing Stanton talk about mandarinism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. We ought to clean up the country and get it back on course again. That'll make Stanton think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks. All of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of his muddleheaded, litigious precepts. They are not a cause; they are an effect. On this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from Stanton Friedman and his mercenaries. Never forget that and never let him turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency.