Direct Link to Latest News


Subverted Amerika Spurns Patriots Like Alan Stang

July 19, 2018

stang-.jpg(Left, Three months before his death, Alan Stang talks about the need for the Tea Party to
adopt a program.) 

Alan Stang (1932-2009) died nine years ago today (July 19). For almost 50 years, the American people had no more stalwart and courageous defender than this man, who was born Jewish and converted to Christianity.  In his book, It's Very Simple, (1965) he exposed the "Civil Rights" Movement as Judeo-Masonic (Communist) subversion.

Because he opposed the Communist (Illuminati) conspiracy, he has been flushed down the memory hole. For 50 years of dedication and sacrifice, there is barely a decent obituary online, let alone a biography or Wikipedia article.  
This is the thanks true patriots get in Zionist Occupied Amerika. Luckily his articles and many broadcasts and books are still available. 

"I have been writ­ing about these mon­sters for some forty-five years. I know they have been com­mit­ting mon­strous atroc­i­ties for some two hun­dred years. I am tired of be­ing po­lite."

"My Language- Not for Sissies" (2007)
by Alan Stang

(Abridged by 

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.  (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004). Said by Karl Rove 

Some forty-five years ago, when I first be­came aware of the con­spir­acy for world dom­i­na­tion, took up my sword and shield in the bat­tle for Amer­ica and sal­lied forth to arouse oth­ers, I dis­cov­ered two kinds of people. Race, sex, eth­nic­ity and ed­u­ca­tion did not seem to mat­ter. The dif­fer­ence be­tween the two kinds cut through them all.

The first kind would tell me that he or she had long sus­pected some­thing was wrong but could­n't iden­tify it. Now that I had, every­thing came into fo­cus and they could. Now they could eas­ily pre­dict what would hap­pen, sim­ply be­cause they knew what had hap­pened be­fore. Even to­day I can still do that and mys­tify peo­ple, but it is so easy, so ob­vi­ous, I don't even think of it as pre­dict­ing.

In­deed, from time to time I still get mes­sages from peo­ple who say that when they first heard me talk, the shock was so great they knew I was crazy, but now that suf­fi­cient time has passed they re­al­ize that they are crazy too. One lady ac­tu­ally said that. "Guess what? Now I'm crazy too!"

...The sec­ond kind of prospect would lis­ten with half an ear, some­times less, and re­main un­con­vinced. "Prove it! Prove it!" I can hear one of them shout­ing. So I would go away and come back with more proof. But I never could per­suade them. The proof I pre­sented was never enough, or never enough of the right kind...

But they never did and I con­tin­ued to blame my­self, wast­ing pre­cious time. As you can prob­a­bly imag­ine, the frus­tra­tion was in­tense. Only grad­u­ally did the truth dawn that there was noth­ing wrong with me. There was some­thing wrong with them. Some of them were sim­ply too weak minded or in­tim­i­dated or cov­etous to face re­al­ity. Oth­ers may have been de­lib­er­ately try­ing to waste my time.

What­ever the rea­son, as the truth fi­nally dawned on me, I, of course, changed my method. Now, maybe once a year, I would stop by for a few min­utes to see whether they had made any progress, whether they had re­cov­ered from their delu­sions. Some­times they had; of­ten they had not. If not, I would cheer­fully go my way.


All of this again be­comes ger­mane - even more ger­mane - be­cause some read­ers who are too young to re­mem­ber it are now writ­ing to com­plain about my lan­guage. They like what I have to say but they can't pass it along be­cause if their prospects read in my pieces about "el pres­i­dente Jorge W. Boosh," about "Democruds" and "Re­pub­li­cruds," about "queers" and "fag­gots," they will in­stantly turn off. In­deed, the peo­ple who com­plain are al­most turned off them­selves. So, why do I use that lan­guage?...

So, for in­stance, the ap­pel­la­tion "el pres­i­dente Jorge W. Boosh" com­mu­ni­cates our aware­ness that Bush is com­mit­ting trea­son by con­duct­ing the pre­sent in­va­sion of our coun­try across the Mex­i­can bor­der. We know that be­cause if he were to pick up the phone and say, "Stop it at once!" it would stop at once. But he does not pick up the phone and say that. In the lat­est rev­e­la­tion, Boosh has gone into court to pre­vent the ex­e­cu­tion of a Mex­i­can who bragged about rap­ing and mur­der­ing two teenage girls. Boosh says the mon­ster is an il­le­gal alien and is pro­tected by treaty.

The ap­pel­la­tion also com­mu­ni­cates our ut­ter dis­gust for Boosh's true al­le­giance and con­tempt for the trai­tor. So, then, if all this is true, what is the prob­lem? The prob­lem is pre­cisely that it is true. It is em­bar­rass­ing. The peo­ple who won't look at it - won't face it - can't. The sim­ple truth is too fright­ful. That is why the word "fag­got" of­fends them. In my new book, Not Holier Than Thou: How Queer is Bush? I ex­plain that the anx­i­ety such words cause is proof they have been brain­washed. 

The same con­sid­er­a­tions would ap­ply to my char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of the Com­mu­nist Broad­cast­ing Sys­tem's re­volt­ing Mike Wal­lace, whose show I once wrote, as "snot drip­ping from the nose of a skid row drunk," and "dog vomit filled with mag­gots the dog is lap­ping up." It was Mike who said at a con­fer­ence on jour­nal­is­tic ethics that he would not warn a Ma­rine Corps com­man­der of an up­com­ing am­bush, be­cause to do so would dam­age his jour­nal­is­tic "im­par­tial­ity." What else could you call this skunk?

There is still an­other rea­son for such in­flam­ma­tory lan­guage. Yes, it in­fu­ri­ates. It is cal­cu­lated to in­fu­ri­ate the reader and arouse. It is meant to con­vey the fact that we are not en­gaged in an ide­o­log­i­cal dis­cus­sion here; this is not a uni­ver­sity de­bate. We are at war. Aided by do­mes­tic trai­tors, a for­eign power is at­tack­ing and in­vad­ing our coun­try. There has been blood­shed. There have been ca­su­al­ties. I am not talk­ing about Iraq. Iraq is a dis­tant front in the war. I am talk­ing about New York. I am talk­ing about Seat­tle. We are in the mid­dle of the most dan­ger­ous na­tional emer­gency in our his­tory.

Also, friends, again, I have been writ­ing about these mon­sters for some forty-five years. I know they have been com­mit­ting mon­strous atroc­i­ties for some two hun­dred years. I am tired of be­ing po­lite. How many more ways can one write about them; how many other things can one say? And what you like to read is now ir­rel­e­vant.

I said above that what I was talk­ing about all those many years ago is even more ger­mane to­day. Why? Back then, the con­spir­acy for world gov­ern­ment was more con­cealed, ad­mit­tedly harder to see. It was not yet strong enough to re­veal it­self com­pletely. To­day, as the late, great Robert Welch once put it, the con­spir­acy is nec­es­sar­ily "run­ning naked to the fin­ish line." Be­cause it is so close, it is eas­ier to see.

Which means that the peo­ple who to­day refuse to see, the quib­blers, are more cul­pa­ble than their spir­i­tual prog­en­i­tors. They have much less ex­cuse. In mind's eye now I imag­ine them, like the ladies at that wom­en's club, el­e­gantly dressed and coif­feured, cute, lit­tle nap­kins on their knees, eat­ing fin­ger sand­wiches, quib­bling about ex­actly how to say it, as if what we're talk­ing about has noth­ing to do with them, as if they can choose whether or not to be­come in­volved. And they are do­ing that while ac­tual rapists are break­ing into their beau­ti­fully dec­o­rated meet­ing room, in­tend­ing to drag them by their beau­ti­fully frosted hair into the street.

So I be­lieve I can re­as­sure the he­roes who will­ingly en­dure the schiz­o­phrenic frus­tra­tion of try­ing to con­vince block­head fel­low cit­i­zens that some­thing is fa­tally wrong in our coun­try, let alone con­vince them it is bad enough to en­list in the war.  I have dis­cov­ered over more than 40 years in the strug­gle that if my lan­guage were as pris­tine as Shirley Tem­ple's in her prime, and my us­ages as con­tem­pla­tive as the Dalai Lama's, these brit­tle folks would find some­thing else to dis­suade them...


Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace's original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books. 
His first book, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, (1965) was an instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, (1974) set in the Russian Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West Coast Review of Books.

Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on many top shows, including CNN's CrossFire

Makow interview with Alan Stang 

First Comment from Marco A

I often say, "Someone who is genuine and has something truthful to say will languish away in obscurity."

Alan Slang was obviously one of these characters. Our masters do not need to eliminate true scholars anymore, they simply ensure they receive zero publicity until they pine away in frustration and despair. 

Jordan Peterson, Steven Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson and the rest of you disgusting charlatans and imposters take note. 

"...we are not engaged in an ideological discussion here; this is not a university debate. We are at war." 

Thank you. 

I'm so sick of all these alternative media self-declared experts who make elaborate arguments, not in the attempt to convey a truth but more often only convince weak minds of their pseudo-intelligence. 

If you have no passion and only lap up world issues to increase your follower base to ensure your own worldly success - you are not genuine and are useless in this war... you aren't even in it, you profit off it in monetary and social gain. 

These people have nothing in common with us true warriors who hate this new world order and who would bleed to see the innocent in this world free from this lions mouth. People like us are too dangerous to receive publicity because we have righteous indignation and know the whole truth and are willing to say it. 

If you aren't interested in truly fighting but are only an effeminate fake scholar and an attention whore - do all us real warriors a favour and fuck off.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Subverted Amerika Spurns Patriots Like Alan Stang "

Alan M said (July 20, 2018):

No one told the TRUTH like this man of integrety.
His genre along with William Cooper resisted the tide of PLANNED EVIL, and did not pussy-foot around with femin-nazi tulip words.

Sadly, most males entered into this matrix of evil.
And because of that sad note, there is NO resistance to the EVIL, and produces a null and void electrical curcuit AKA No resistance- No flow.

Truth has fallen in the street, and most simply do not give a rip.

Thank you Henry for this excellent article.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at