Book Review – We Chose Life: Why You Should Too, by Anthony Horvath

Book Review by Mary Ann Kreitzer

It’s a parent’s worst nightmare — hearing the words, “You have a very sick child.” For a dad, it’s particularly difficult because his job, besides providing materially for his family, is to protect his loved ones from harm. But when illness strikes a child, a dad often stands helpless to “fix it.” Decisions about dealing with a critical illness in an already born child are difficult enough, but when that illness occurs in utero, parents are faced with another issue. The question is inevitable – “Will you keep it?” Since Roe v. Wade made abortion-on-demand legal in all 50 states at any time during pregnancy, vulnerable families faced with a sick little one are often given the bad news and immediately invited to consider abortion. How will they respond to the challenge? Anthony Horvath, in his book “We Chose Life: Why You Should Too,” shares his story, his faith, and the reasons he believes others should “choose life” as he and his wife did. Those who find themselves in similar circumstances with a seriously ill unborn child would do well to put their panic on hold and read his story.

In December 2006, after two normal pregnancies that filled their home with three boys including a set of twins, the Horvath’s were thrilled to learn during a routine ultrasound that they were expecting a little girl. Then the shoe dropped. The ultrasound showed something else. “The doctor came in. She wasn’t smiling. Her expression was grim … she went right to the point. Our new baby girl had a lot of fluid in her skull, a condition called hydrocephalus. The doctor told us that it could be just hydrocephalus, or, worst case scenario, it could mean that she had spina bifida (SB)” [spina bifida is a general term for a group of a neural tube defects where a segment of the spinal column fails to close resulting in a buildup of fluid in the brain.]

A second ultrasound showed that the baby had the most severe form of the disease, myelomenigocele spina bifida. While there was no way to know the severity of the outcome, the baby could end up mentally and physically handicapped, catheterized, and permanently unable to walk – or not. “Here was the brutal reality,” Horvath says, “There was no way of knowing the future.”

Continue reading »

Book review: Edmund Burke by Dennis O’Keeffe

Edmund Burke by Dennis O’Keeffe

Continuum, New York and London 2010


Edited by John Meadowcroft,

In this eminently readable, intellectually stimulating and compact volume Professor Dennis O’Keeffe does an excellent job of introducing us to Edmund Burke, his life and family, the essence of his most notable works, his parliamentary career and manifesto writing and how apparent contradictions in his own life and philosophy are reconciled in his intellectual and political development.

“No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends.” wrote Winston Churchill another Conservative who took his own Burkean internal conflicts (between landed conservatism and the power of the Empire on the one hand which he sought to preserve and individual emancipation and free trade which he promoted) to the point of twice “crossing the floor” in party allegiance.

In the case of Edmund Burke there were the additional conflicts of an Irish Catholic origin (although his father had converted to Anglicanism some 9 years before Edmund’s birth) and his protests at the demands by the protestant Irish Parliament of Irish Catholics on the one hand and on the other his Quaker education from the age of 12, his attendance at the Protestant Trinity College Dublin and his life long Anglicanism and admiration of the English Protestant polity based on the 1689 settlement and the preservation of the British Empire. The latter however never prevented him from espousing (for their time) radical views about slavery, economic corruption in India, discriminatory legislation in Ireland and sympathy for American Colonists whose freedom-loving independence of nature he identified as being too similar to their cousins in Britain for conflict to be a wise course of action.

Like most solidly based intellectual Conservatives Burke began his political life with an interest in radical thought, testing and probing the foundations of a social and economic structure which he would ultimately help to reform and defend – dissecting in Burke’s case the advances of the Enlightenment into the welcome principles of freedom of thought while rejecting the arid abstractions of excessive rationalism. Like my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman who saw “scientific” Marxism as a “self delusion beyond repair” and became a leading creator of the classical liberal Conservatism of the Thatcher Government so Burke saw that the hubris of de haut en bas French Enlightenment philosophes had led not only to the bloody excesses of the French Revolution but would, as he predicted, lead to the rise of tyrants and bloody revolutions on a vaster international scale in future centuries.

As Sherman ended his political journey fusing classical liberal thought with Conservative principles (a set of principles which even the Labour Government did not dare overtly to unravel) so Burke – having started by editing at Trinity College “The Reformer” and in 1756 writing A Vindication of Natural Society containing ideas hostile to the Church and the political order of the day – ultimately became a philosophical and political pillar of the growing British Empire.

Even at his most critical Burke always sought political balance, seeking to reform and preserve rather than to petulantly tear down for he saw in a just “natural development” of power in proportion to responsibility that social and economic progress which the totalitarian revolutionaries would for ever exclude as they swept aside not only religious and aristocratic leadership but religious and social foundations. With his cousin William Burke he wrote in 1757 “An Account of the European Settlements in America” in which he praised the “independence” of the “ordinary sort”, the free trade which allowed them to flourish and their aristocratic leadership – all ensuing, Burke thought, from the 1689 Settlement which provided a healthy balance between Government, Monarchy and Parliament whose sole justification was its accountability to the people. How Burke would have condemned those 20th century British Parliamentarians who bypassed the true sovereigns in European Treaty Law to undermine their Parliament and nation!

It was in that vein that he wrote in 1770 (having previously formed the “New Whigs” from both Tory and Whig dissidents and writing their manifesto) “Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents” opposing George III’s Royal encroachment on Government. We must note how that Crown Prerogative has nowadays been usurped by successive British Governments under Treaty Law to sign away the voters sovereign rights. “The Commons answered to the People and not the King”, was the essence of Burke’s attack then – just as today the democratic nationists seek to re-assert the power of the true sovereigns (the people) over an out of control political class which delegated powers to alien control and foreign jurisdiction. Burke wrote:

“The House of Commons can never be a control on other parts of             Government unless they are controlled themselves by their constituents and unless these constituents possess some right in the choice of that Housewhich it is not in the power of that house to take away.”

Since the late 1960s the elected representatives of the British people have conspired to do just that. They have usurped the power of the people as represented in Parliament and transferred most decision making to a different legislature and judiciary through confusing, covert and unconstitutional means: Crown prerogative power, treaty law, administrative law, delegated powers and statutory instruments – all designed to bypass the representatives of the people. And how successful they have been! Burke who predicted the Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins of future centuries would have immediately grasped the more covert and insidious revolutionary aims of Heath, Clarke and Howe, Mitterand, Kohl and Delors as they sacrificed the stability of nationhood on the altar of the corporatist Euro-State!

Burke would I think also have instinctively understood the nature of corporatism – that socialist form of capitalism which underpins both the supranational collective of the Euro-State and the philosophy of “World Government”. When we consider his radical attacks on corporate corruption in India, the encroachment on religious freedom in Ireland by the State and the taxation of the American colonists we see an instinctive rejection of State/corporate power but a defence of nationhood – albeit overseen (in his day) by a benign imperial power. O’Keeffe points out that Burke totally rejected all appeals to Jacobinism or Napoleonism to rectify any injustices. He would have been perhaps most supportive of the more modern idea of “imperial trusteeship” or the idea (if not the reality) of the modern British Commonwealth.

Burke is best know for his 1790 work Reflections on the Revolution in France and his critique of the rootless rationalism of many Enlightenment philosophers which underpinned, as he saw it, the extreme dismissal of the past and hence the inevitable extreme and bloody consequences. By rejecting the whole in revolutionary fervour the French, said Burke:

“chose to act as if you had never been moulded into civil society and had everything to begin anew… despising everything that belonged to you.”

In effect they engaged not just in destruction but in self-destruction, kicking away the historical platform on which the reformer would base his reforms. O’Keeffe contrasts the optimism of the Liberal Benjamin Constant (who sought to look beyond the excesses of the revolution to an idealistic legacy) with Burke who saw only an orgy of destruction which would feed on its own irrationality and have a permanent deleterious effect on political discourse and ideas.

For Burke the irrational blood letting was ironically caused by an arid rationality. He condemned Voltaire’s anti Christian form of Enlightenment and especially Rousseau’s “general will” and the implicit consent of individuals to a governed society.

“We are not the converts of Rousseau. We are not the disciples of Voltaire……. Atheists are not our preachers: madmen are not our lawgivers”

Burke was right to foresee the fruits of the supposed “reason” of the French Revolution transformed into further brutalities. For 19th century Marxism, as O’Keeffe notes, added “science” to their “rational” certainties and forged a more efficient killing machine. We must be thankful for the resurgence of a new (however tenuous) liberal order to blow away the “scientism” (Hayek) of Marx’s children and establish a philosophy of an Open Society (Popper) for what prosperity and democratic freedoms we now enjoy.

Burke was equally suspicious of “new money” and the industrial and financial worlds which were taking over from landed wealth but O’Keeffe rightly surmises that in time Burke would surely, as a life long reformer, have recognised the advances afforded by industrial development – not least I suggest in employing the landed poor (as the agricultural revolution made their labour redundant) and the slaves for whose freedom Burke had himself campaigned. He would also have appreciated the at least partly successful modern attempts to combine the fruits of Conservative morality and property rights with the liberal virtues of individualism, entrepreneurship and free trade in the 1980s and 1990s.

Burke’s admiration of all things English arose out of his appreciation of the Rule of Law, its gradual Constitutional development (without the equivalent of a French revolution) the balance of powers between nobles, monarchy and Commons, an aristocracy constrained by constitution, the possibility of upward social mobility and the Empire (“Without Freedom it would not be the British Empire” he said.) Burke opposed “any abstract plan of Government or of freedom” – so he would undoubtedly have seen the modern concentration on “human rights” (which unlike freedoms are defined by the rulers, always imperfectly and incompletely and those who define can also take away!) and he would not have been surprised to see that the old Soviet tyranny had no end of stipulated “rights” nor that the builders of “Europe” have used human “rights” and an artificial “citizenship” to undermine the freedom of and freedoms within the nation states.

This excellent volume concludes with a series of summaries of how Burke would have seen and judged the modern political world. “Under Burkean Eyes: Burke and Our present blessings and woes” both seeks to bring Burke up to date and uses practical examples to illustrate his overall philosophy. This part of the book is of course partly surmise and extrapolation and is open to critique but it is a most stimulating provocation to Burkean thought.

O’Keeffe seeks to apply Burke’s “clear feet on the ground reasonableness” to inter alia the crudity of modern political discourse, the West’s triumphalism, the superiority of capitalist economics, the new rise of India, the fatalism of Islam and socialism, Rousseauian Green Movements and man made global warming and the attack on the family – an excellent introduction (as is the entire volume) to the modern relevance of Edmund Burke.

Rodney Atkinson

February 2010

Rodney Atkinson is a political economist and businessman, a former Merchant Banker, Academic and adviser to Ministers in the Thatcher Government. He is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and the author of, inter alia,  Europe’s Full Circle and The Emancipated Society which proposed a fusion of Conservative and Classical Liberal thought on the basis of emancipated versus dependent societies.

Slave or Human, Republic or Empire

I have found a new hero, historical author Jürgen Elsässer.


“And this world supervision or world government requires the prior destruction of the nation states and the republics, of course.”

Please read this essay, all of it. If you’re short on time, print it up and read it over your lunch hour. Read it often. Every Westerner, American, Brit, Australian, German, everyone who still yearns to be free, MUST read his essay “Human or Slave, Republic or Empire.”

It’s that important.

I found the original German text on line at and cleaned up the translation a bit to make it easier and more enjoyable for you to read.

But when you’re done, please just hit on the link to give the site “Current Concerns” the much deserved credit for finding and posting this absolutely wonderful essay. (You can also tell them they are welcome to my edited version. It may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction).

Don Hank

Human or Slave, Republic or Empire?

From the Holy Roman Empire to the “Brave New World Order”

by Jürgen Elsässer

To paraphrase a familiar saying, the Swiss are from Venus, the rest of the Europeans are from Mars. Venus, the planet of love. And this takes me to the story of the Swiss jurist who said, “oh yes, we also have conflicts in Switzerland.” And then she spoke of the last big conflict, the Sonderbundskrieg, eighteen hundred something, with one hundred casualties. Well, says one from the rest of Europe, like me, what a wonderful world this Switzerland! A good planet to move to.

Party capital Berlin

I cannot report from Switzerland now, but I will report from the empire. Maybe not directly from the heart of the beast, as Che Guevara said, but rather from the rectum of the empire, Berlin, the party capital of Europe, as our mayor put it, who likes to tout the city with the slogan “poor but sexy.” This Berlin is indeed one of the big laboratories of the new world order where they are about to produce what one might be tempted to call the “new man”. What we can watch developing in Berlin full-size is the collapse of a society and the loss of humanity in society.
By contrast, Switzerland is a functioning society with mutual respect and feelings where people meet at eye level. But Berlin is a quagmire for humanity. There are also historic reasons for this development. As a city, Berlin has grown much too fast. Other capitals in Europe took centuries to grow. Berlin has been thrown into the imperialist era since the time of Bismarck and then became the capital of the Nazi horror in a very short time. And all this, of course, created a certain mentality, long before the New World Order. Maybe you know this joke, from the olden days: A Berliner is in Vienna. He is looking for the Prater Ferris wheel and he asks a local harshly, without greeting: “Hey, where is the Prater?” And the Viennese answers: “Come on, can’t you be a bit more polite?” Snaps the Berliner: “I’d rather get lost!”
So this has been Berlin mentality for a long time. The most friendly people in Berlin are the Turks, maybe not all of them, but at least if you visit Turkish shops. But the standard Berliners, they simply shoot down everything; their tongue is a machine-gun. And this rough mentality that was already in place now gets sucked up into the crowd psychology maelstrom of the new world order. This maelstrom is hyper-individualism. Party capital of the continent. People no longer work in Berlin. There is no industry left. Berlin’s main income is the party industry. That is, via Easy Jet and similar companies, hedonistic youths from Spain or maybe Greece fly to Berlin for a night or a weekend club hopping and leave behind a trail of destruction in town. This is one of the main sources of income for Berlin.
The ideology that shapes the city is worship of the unbridled individual. In contrast, any form of collectivity or humanity is held to contempt. Take the family: Family is considered an institution of coercion, family is out. Family is the nucleus of fascism. Then there are associations: the shooting associations breed the killing frenzy. Men meeting regularly over a beer are fascist groups. The church and religion: really bad, just think of the witch burnings, inquisition and all that. And nations or ethnicities? Here we have the equation: Nation = nationalism = fascism; they are all the same. Any Berlin college student can recite this in one breath.
All these forms of collectivity are disparaged or generally suspected of fascism. Against this dark backdrop we have the shining individual who must realize his full potential in every way. The perspective of this trend is an individual as an atom, surrounded by the total market. Isolated, because all forms of community and social coherence will have been destroyed. And the isolated individual’s only remaining partner will be the computer via the internet. This is where you get entertainment, this is where you get sex, this is where you get information. And on the other side of the screen there is Big Brother supplying all your needs.

Huxley’s “Brave New World”

It was seventy or eighty years ago, I think, that Aldous Huxley described this development very well in his book “Brave New World”. And I have drawn from it, integrating it into my book “Nationalstaat und Globalisierung” (The Nation State and Globalization). There I wrote about Huxley’s “Brave New World”:
“The new order brought peace. Abolishment of parliamentarianism and democracy, introduction of genetic breeding of humans, impulse standardization through sleep hypnosis, luxury and affluence for the alphas and betas in charge, full employment and contentedness for the hard-working deltas and epsilons, free sex, movies with real feelings and comforting soma-ecstasy for all. Those who grow old die the gentle death of euthanasia.
In Huxley’s words: “The world is in equilibrium now. People are happy. They get what they want and they desire nothing they cannot get. They are well. They are secure, always healthy, have no fear of death. Passion and age are unknown to these happy people. They are no longer attached to mothers and fathers, have neither wife nor child nor lover for which they might have strong feelings. Their very standardization is so that they can hardly behave other than they should behave.”
So much for “Brave New World” in Aldous Huxley’s prophecy. How did we get to this point then, this “Brave New World”? The world had been shaken by a huge economic crisis, by terror attacks through anthrax and a Nine-Years’ War afterwards. Huxley writes: “The Nine-Years’ War, the great economic collapse, there was only a choice between world supervision and destruction. Liberalism was killed by anthrax.” In Huxley’s utopia this world supervision, world government, is the preliminary stage to this general standardization of man. And this world supervision or world government requires the prior destruction of the nation states and the republics, of course. This is a very important point when talking about destruction of humanity and other forms of community or social life: For the protagonists of the new world order, the main target is the nation state, because the nation state provides an institutional framework for the minor forms of humanity. The nation state protects the family and fosters marriage and family. The nation state looks to an education of the people, provides for children from all classes to be educated together, at least for a few years, secures that the language is cherished, that a certain form of sexuality is cultivated. Thus, the nation state fosters a development where human beings are not alone, but where we can develop in mutual exchange – and this is how human abilities and human emotions can grow.
But this nation state is in danger all around the world, especially since September 11, 2001 when a terror attack like that in Huxley’s book shook the world – not with anthrax but by other terroristic means. And now we have the economic crisis and we have this discussion about whether to abolish all these little republics with all their nationalisms and atavisms and replace them with supervision by the “Greats” through “good governance”, instead of by us citizens.

Fugger, Death and Devil

This development is driven by international financial capital. When I speak with people today and say that the development of the EU might result in a “Fourth Reich,” and when people shake their heads in disbelief and say: “You don’t really mean that there will be something like the ‘Third Reich’ again, do you?”, I reply: “When I speak of a ‘Fourth Reich’, I am not thinking of the ‘Third Reich’, but of the first one, the medieval German Reich.
What we currently see is a regression into the Middle Ages. The original German Reich, the so-called “Holy Roman Empire”, was not a centralized power, brought into line like the Nazi state where the SS was in charge from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals. That’s how it was in the “Third Reich.” In contrast to this, the First Reich, the “Holy Roman Empire” was a completely amorphous entity reaching from the Baltic Sea to Sicily, at least in the best of times, but it was in no way unified, even lacking a capital. You cannot even call it an Empire of the “German Nation” because it was actually a multiethnic state, torn between the various ethnic groups speaking different languages, in various dynasties, with constantly fluctuating power structures and frontlines inside it.
The First Reich did not work too badly at first. There was some progress in the 10th, 11th, 12th, maybe also in the 13th century, and some even speak of the Golden Middle Ages. But this structure entered into a crisis about the 15th and 16th century with the rising of financial capital. This is where things got out of control.
The financial capital in the “Holy Roman Empire” was centered around the Fugger Trust: the Fuggers, originally from Augsburg, originally textile manufacturers, textile merchants, textile producers, succeeded in rising to the level of a financial trust by virtue of the merchant superpower Venice and their good relations with the Vatican. The first step was the colonization of Tyrol, the occupation of Tyrolean natural resources and precious metals, and then they were off to Hungary. And these natural resources are used by the Fuggers to erect a minting monopoly and to deal in monetary policy and use this base to finance the German emperors. The emperors of the time, especially Maximilian I and Karl V, came to power exclusively through the billions in support from the house of Fugger. The Fuggers bought the emperors. And then we have the expansion of the German Empire, ruled by Habsburg at the time, towards Spain. And matrimonial politics created the Habsburg-Spain axis. And the need for more credits or to pay back loans to the Fuggers forced the emperor to go to the other continent, South America. This is the moment when the German Kaiser says: “The sun will never set on my empire”. This leads to one of the worst chapters of humanity, the looting of Latin America. We are told that the Spanish are responsible for this blood bath. But the Fuggers participate behind the scenes. The Spanish had to raise the money for the Habsburg Emperors, so that they could pay off the Fuggers. Thus, the driving force of this expansion is the seizure of power with financial capital in the Roman Empire of that time.

Pirates and Confederates

Finally, even the Reformation and the wars associated with it can be seen as a consequence of this development. What forces actually drove Luther to start the Reformation? There were reformers before who were less successful. But what increased the number of Luther’s followers enormously was the grassroots outrage regarding the practice of indulgences: a monk, Tetzel, sent by the pope to preach in towns and sell indulgences allowing people to buy forgiveness from sins, even those not yet committed, by giving money to the Pope. But who organized this? It was the Fugger investment bank. It was an ingenious business idea of the Fuggers. And this business idea threw the whole Reich into turmoil. And it contributed to the wars associated with the Reformation.
Getting back to the exploitation of Latin America, the slaughter of the Incas and Aztecs: The captured gold was brought to Spain. Then a new rival enters the game: the rising sea power England starts raiding the Spanish corvettes full of gold. Today we see movies like “Pirates of the Caribbean” with Johnny Depp and we think these were adventure stories with wild swashbucklers. These pirates, however, were no small criminals but rather instruments of the English striving for global power. Sir Francis Drake, Her Majesty’s pirate, raided Spanish ships in royal missions, without Parliament’s knowledge. The gold meant for the Fuggers thus ended up in London. In this process, the Spanish empire and the Fugger empire collapse and the rise of the new global power England, later Great Britain, begins. The first thing this power uses its money, its capital, its raided gold for is to expand the scope of business: More ships are outfitted and business is shifted to a new footing, less primitive than with the Spanish, with the entry into slave trading. Slaves in great numbers are bought in Africa, dragged onto ships and taken to South America, to the colonies – for the benefit of England and with huge profits.

And at this time when we have the contrast between Habsburg plus the Spanish plus the Vatican, the Catholic powers on the one hand and the new rising power of England on the other hand, we have the worst wars in Europe, the religious wars. The Thirty Years’ War in Germany, which killed off one third of the population; the wars in England, Anglican kings against the Catholic Scots and Irish; all the campaigns in France. All these were religious wars only on the surface. In the background we find the rival forces of financial capital.

In these bloody times, when the Golden Middle Ages were giving way to the Dark Middle Ages, Switzerland fights for its independence and founds a democratic republic. This is a historic landmark. And what we see at that moment is an attempt to roll this back. A regression to the Middle Ages subjecting the whole continent again to the power of the financial capital. What was special at the time was that the German Empire was disintegrating as a whole, because not only Switzerland was seceding, but the Netherlands were also becoming independent of Spanish-Habsburg rule. But the latter became independent only to plunge into imperialism themselves. Only Switzerland succeeded in shaking off feudalism without becoming imperialistic. This development is so unique it deserves much more attention.

The Monster Banks

The upshot of all this history – Fugger, Karl V, Latin America’s gold, Sir Francis Drake – is: The gold of the Incas and Aztecs is in London and the Bank of England is based on this foundation. This is the prototype of a very dangerous type of bank which still exists today: a national bank owned by private individuals, but functioning as a state bank which lends money to the state. This means that the state always has to approach this Bank of England, this private bank, to borrow money and that it is a perpetual debtor to these private owners of the bank bearing the respectable name Bank of England.
Exactly in this style – nominally a national bank, de facto a private bank – the US Federal Reserve Bank was founded on the eve of World War I. And to this date, both the Bank of England and the Fed are the institutions that have taken possession of an entire monetary system which gives them the power to create and lend money without public control.
I could go on forever about the development of financial capital. But this is why people write books. [2] So I will only tell you the end of the story. We see the end of the story after September 11, 2001, when the US Federal Reserve proceeded to prodigiously inflate the money supply. Between September 11, 2001 and 2005 it issued more additional dollars than in the previous 200 years of American economic history. That was only until 2005 – at this point the publication of the money supply trend was discontinued by the Bush administration.
According to unofficial estimates, debts of private households, companies, private banks and the State – that is the total debt of all branches of the economy – grew from US$ 50 trillion to 60 trillion. So we have a total US debt of US$ 60 trillion of which 10 trillion was added during the last 15 months. US$ 60 trillion are 60,000 billion. These debts were paid by paper money or electronic money without any real backing, created by these private bank monsters. Actually, this increase in the money supply is so inflationary it is surprising that this currency, the dollar, is still accepted for payment any­where.
It seems crazy, but there is a plausible reason: The US government can, unlike the government of any other debtor state, promise the dollar investors to use military force against anyone at any time at any place to press him to accept the worthless paper snippets with “Dollar” printed on them as payment for goods. Their credit ratings on the international capital market increased when they managed to get a country like Iraq, which probably owns the second larges oil reserves in the world, under their control. On the other hand, the more unstable the situation in Iraq, the more nervous the reaction of the dollar creditors is. A US sinking deeper and deeper in debt with the paper money hoax becoming more and more obvious will cause them to compensate even more desperately for their economic problems through military successes. And the more we will see a tendency to break up the still existing and intact nation states like Switzerland to suck out the last resources and to throw them into the debt cycle to close gaps. In other words, the greater the deficit in this cycle becomes, the greater the tendency for war and the risk of a regression into the Middle Ages.

1 Speech held at the conference “Mut zur Ethik” on the topic “Sovereignty of the people or imperialism – what is true democracy?”, 4 to 6 September 2009 in Feldkirch/Austria
2 The speech has been inspired by the speaker’s latest books:  J. Elsässer (editor), “Gegen Finanzdiktatur. Die Volksinitiative – Grundsätze, Konzepte, Ziele” (Kai Homilius, July 2009),
J. Elsässer, “Nationalstaat und Globalisierung” (Manuscript, April 2009)

Weapons of Freedom

We are honored to carry another article by Olavo De Carvalho. Laigle’s Forum is the venue of this its English language debut.

Don Hank


Weapons of Freedom

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), December 17, 2009

Translated by Alessandro Cota

The most obvious thing about the analysis of history and society is that when a situation changes considerably, you can no longer describe it with the same concepts as before: in order to account for unheard-of facts, not classifiable under known categories, you have to create new concepts or perfect the old ones through criticism.

With the stage of world government implementation already in full swing, it is pathetic to notice that political analysts, whether in academia or in the media, continue to offer the public analyses based on the old concepts of “national state,” “national power,” “international relations,” “free trade,” “democracy,” “imperialism,” “class struggle,” “ethnic conflicts,” etc.,  when it is clear that none of those bear much relation to the facts of today’s world.

The most basic events of the last fifty years are: first, the rise of the globalist élites, detached from any identifiable national interest and engrossed in the building not only of a world state, but a unified and entirely artificial planetary pseudo-civilization, conceived not as an expression of society, but as an instrument for the control of society by the state; second, the fabulous advancements of the human sciences, which have placed in the hands of those élites means of social domination never dreamed of by tyrants of other times. 

As early as several decades ago, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), the creator of General Systems Theory, aware that his contribution to science was being used for undue purposes, warned, “It is perhaps the greatest danger of the systems of modern totalitarianism that they are so alarmingly up-to-date not only in physical and biological, but also in psychological technology. The methods of mass suggestion, of the release of the instincts of the human beast, of conditioning and thought control are developed to highest efficacy; just because modern totalitarianism is so terrifically scientific, it makes the absolutism of former periods appear a dilettantish and comparatively harmless makeshift.”

In his 1998 book, L’Empire Écologique: La Subversion de l’Écologie par le Mondialisme (The Ecological Empire: the Subversion of Ecology by Globalism), Pascal Bernardin explained in detail how the General Systems Theory has been used as a basis for the construction of a world totalitarian system, which in the last ten years has definitively gone from blueprint to patent reality — a reality which is clear to all but those who do not want to see. Von Bertalanffy, however, was not referring only to his own theory. He speaks of “methods” in the plural, and ordinary citizens of democracies cannot have any idea of the plethora of scientific resources now at the disposal of the new lords of the world. If von Bertalanffy had to mention names, he would not have omitted Kurt Levin, perhaps the greatest social psychologist of all times, whose Tavistock Institute, in London, was founded by the global élite itself in 1947 for the sole purpose of creating means of social control capable of reconciling the permanence of formal legal democracy with the total domination of the state over society.

Just to give you an idea of how far all this goes, the educational programs of almost all nations of the world — which have been in force for at least twenty years now — are determined by homogeneous rules directly imposed by the United Nations, and calculated not to develop children’s intelligence or conscience, but to make them docile, malleable, morally characterless creatures, ready to adhere enthusiastically and without discussion to any word of command which the global élite may deem useful for its objectives. The means used to achieve this are “non-aversive” control techniques conceived to make their victim not only feel as if he is acting of his own free will when he yields to impositions from authority, but also to develop an immediate reaction of irrational defense to the mere suggestion that he should critically examine the subject in question.

It would be a euphemism to say that mass application of such techniques “bears influence on” public education programs: these techniques are the whole content of current schooling. All disciplines, mathematics and science included, have been reshaped to serve psychological manipulation purposes. Pascal Bernardin himself meticulously described this phenomenon in his 1995 book Machiavel Pédagogue (Machiavelli the Educator). Read it and you will find out why your child cannot solve a quadratic equation or finish a sentence without lapsing into at least three solecisms, even though he comes back from school bossing you around like a people’s commissar, demanding “politically correct” behavior of his parents.     

The quickness with which sudden mutations of mentality — many of which are arbitrary, grotesque, and even absurd — are universally imposed without meeting the least resistance (as though they had emanated from an irrefutable logic and not from despicable Machiavellianism) could be explained by the simple school brainwashing that prepares children to accept new fashions as divine commands.

But obviously, school is not the only agency engrossed in producing such results. Big media, now massively concentrated in the hands of globalist mega-corporations, play a fundamental role in dumbing down the masses. In order to achieve this, one of the most widely employed techniques nowadays is cognitive dissonance, a discovery made by psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-1989). This is how it works. If you read today’s newspapers, you will see that Tiger Woods, the golf champion, one of our most beloved citizens of late, is now under heavy attack by newspapers and TV news shows because the poor man has been found to have mistresses. Scandal! Horror! General indignation threatens to drop half of the adulterer’s sponsorship deals and strike him off of the list of the “beautiful people” who appear on advertisements for sneakers, bubble gums, and miracle diets. But there is a telltale detail: aside from the protests against the sportsman’s immorality, there are fierce attacks on “right-wing extremists” who do not accept abortion, gay marriage, or the inducing of children to premature sexual delight. The two moral codes, mutually contradictory, are simultaneously offered as equally obliging and sacrosanct. Excited and impelled to all kinds of sexual debaucheries, while at the same time threatened with character assassination in case he may practice them even to a modest degree, the anguished citizen reacts through a kind of intellectual breakdown, becoming a servile fool who no longer knows how to orient himself and who begs for a voice of command. The command can be empty and meaningless, as for example “Change!,” but when it is uttered, it always sounds like a relief. 

Blaming scientists for this state of affairs is as idiotic as pinning the blame for murders on weapons. Men like von Bertalanffy, Levin, and Festinger created instruments that can serve both the building up of tyranny and the reconquest of freedom. It is we who have the obligation of taking those weapons out of the hands of their monopolistic owners and learning to use them for the opposite purpose, freeing our spirit instead of allowing it to be enslaved.

Further reading:

Olavo Decarvalho’s site carries quite a few articles in English. Each one is full of fascinating nuggets of vital information you’ll wonder why you someone didn’t tell you before:

This article on Darwinism reveals that it was Darwin himself who invented “Intelligent Design”:


Speaking of changing the subject:

As you read the following, please keep in mind that it is vastly understated due to a deficiency of the English language to plumb the depths of, well, what’s the word…?

On a slightly different but related subject, if you don’t know yet about the gross, miscreant PIG that Obama has chosen as the “safe” school czar and the absolutely, utterly disgusting, pukingly SICK, scummy, slimy subhuman (sorry, none of this comes close to describing it) things this loathsome, despicable, beyond-sick, twisted, incurably, irredeemably mentally ill, perverted DIRTBAG (sorry, this description falls flat) has been propagating in American schools around the country (with the blessings of equally sick and perverted administrators in desperate need of hanging!), and especially if you thought Obama had even an ounce of decency or humanity, then do read the item linked below because you have no idea. None at all. If you have a weak stomach or are allergic to out and out wretched, horrid, nauseating, unspeakable filth, take an Alka-Seltzer and read it anyway. It’s that important for you to know what the LEFT really is and has been all along – it’s worse than you ever dreamed. AND it wants your child and his/her innocence as of yesterday. Friends, America will be lucky to survive this Obaminable administration and I say that with tears in my eyes and the deepest pain in my heart. Oh, Lord, please forgive us:

Communist boot camp in Delaware:

Dave Levine is one of the best equipped commentators to talk about PC on campus. He grew up on a major campus and saw PC when it was in its infancy. It’s gotten more nutty than ever.

Book/DVD list for your April 15 Tea Party

Book/DVD list for your April 15 tea party


By Donald Hank

The local tea party in Lancaster PA seems to have been organized by 2 fine ladies who, on the tea party web site, also recommend a book list for invitees. Good for them. Much of the list, apparently originating with Ron Paul, is made up of the True Liberals, or libertarians, like Ludwig van Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and many others.

I emailed these ladies and thanked them for doing this and then said there were a few other books that Americans ought to read.

I wrote:

For today’s world, the most important information – most of which your school and/or college probably made sure you missed – is the story of the socialist dictators of the 20th century.

An invaluable contribution to your list would be “Harvest of Sorrow” by Robert Conquest, describing the slaughter of millions of Ukrainian farmers, “Son of the Revolution” by Liang Heng and Judith Shapiro, an eye-witness account of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the 3 disk DVD set China, a Century of Revolution, directed by Sue Williams (one of the co-producers was Karma Hinton, my first Chinese teacher). You will immediately see the unmistakable similarity between the Red Guard and ACORN.

Further DVDs: Repentance, a top-notch surrealistic Russian film (RU title: Pokayanie) about a Stalin like figure, Est-Oueste (East-West), an excellent film about a French family that visits the Soviet Union in the early post-WW II years and is trapped there. The Chinese film To Live is also an artistic masterpiece but at the same time, a realistic portrayal of the tragedy of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

Others: A somewhat tedious but trail blazing book “The Black Book of Communism” was written by a group of French communists under Stéphane Courtois who decided to come clean about the death toll of the 20th century, namely, almost 100 million innocents slaughtered throughout the world in the name of “social justice.”

Further, the Russian film Nest of Noblefolk (RU: Dvorjanskoe Gnezdo), an adaptation of the Turgenev story, shows the remarkable similarity between the mid 1800s and our 60s, with the elite classes talking about the same ideas that threw our society into moral and social turmoil. Shot in the Russian countryside, it is a cinema buff’s delight, with gorgeous photography, period-correctness in all aspects, soulful Russian gypsy music, a gripping love story with 2 intertwined love triangles and a surprise ending.

Note, however, that Turgenev’s best description of the early revolutionaries is given in his novel “Fathers and Sons,” which reflects the ideas that we considered revolutionary in our 1960s. In reality, we were a century later than the Russians in introducing ordered chaos, which is why freedom survived so long here. Nothing stands in the way of totalitarianism now – except you. And you know what? I believe in you.


Don Hank