The weakened American soul

Olavo de Carvalho is a respected journalist with a wide following in his native Brazil and an increasingly popular public speaker in this country.  Mr. Carvalho provided Laigle’s Forum readers with an eye-opening article on the CFR and the Forum of Sao Paolo back on May 27, 2006.

Laigle’s Forum is the first to present the following article to the English speaking world.

The weakened American soul

By Olavo de Carvalho

From Diario de Comercio, Jan 14, 2008

The dominant discourse in the mainstream media, show business and universities in the USA today is so frankly anti-American that it is only in details of style – if that – that it can be distinguished from the defamation campaigns undertaken by the USSR in the 50s and 60s.  The American elite boasts of having won the Cold War, but it seems as if it was dominated psychologically by the vanquished enemy and wound up believing everything the enemy said against it.  The posthumous vengeance of the Soviets gleams in the pages of the New York Times, at prime time on CBS, and in the films by Michael Moore and George Clooney with a splendor that not even Willi Muenzenberg, the genius of communist disinformation, would have dared dream of.

Whatever is said against the American government, against the American military, and against American culture, seems to enjoy automatic credibility today, so much so that it can be shouted from the rooftops without the least fear of an exasperated response, to the extent that any pro-American word must be prefaced with politically correct precautions for fear of the inevitable and vociferous retaliation, if not of a lawsuit.  To follow the American debate is to confirm daily the prophetic sense of the verse by William Butler Yeats: “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”  Something has changed radically in the heart of America in the second half of the 20th century, and has changed precisely in the direction in which the country’s bitterest enemies would have wanted it to change.

How was this possible?  The agents of change want us to believe that it was all a spontaneous, natural and inevitable process, lending the course of the transformation the authority of an impersonal historic law that only the small minded reactionary would dare to question.  But many years ago I realized that impersonal laws of history are almost always mere camouflage for human actions that want to pass unperceived so that their effects take on an aura of divine mystery.

The change that weakened the American soul was precipitated by three major disinformation operations that, because they were launched from Washington and not from Moscow, managed to deceive the entire nation and forge a new “common sense” (in the Gramscian sense of the word), whose influence not even the most conservative and patriotic completely escape.  On these three occasions, the lies carefully elaborated by the government itself to cast onto the United States the blame for the malicious actions of its enemies not only became official truth, uniformly repeated today by the media and the education system, but spread around the world, creating the monstrously deformed image that today feeds and legitimizes anti-American hatred everywhere.  It may seem absurd that government officials would choose to participate in the defamation of their own country to avoid problems with the USSR or to save their own electoral image, but that is exactly what three American presidents did, two of which, ironically, are portrayed by leftist rhetoric as exemplary embodiments of anti-communism and “Yankee imperialism.”

The three operations were conceived in the high spheres of the Democratic Party, but at least one of them had intense Republican collaboration.  Three recently published books, one of which I already commented on here and the other I mentioned in passing, finally reveal what happened behind the scenes on these occasions, the incredible machinations of politicians and journalists, who for the sake of short-term gains, unhesitatingly favored the enemy and bequeathed to future generations an increasingly morally weakened country.

The first of these episodes was the operation carried out by the Truman administration — and faithfully pursued by Eisenhower — to deny or cover up the massive presence of Soviet agents in high posts of the American government, particularly in the State Department, and also in technical and administrative functions, where they had access to secret information of a military nature.

This story is told in detail with extensive documentation by M. Stanton Evans in “Black Listed by History.  The Untold Story of Senator Joseph MacCarthy and His Fight against America’s Enemies,” New York, Crown forum 2007.  If you can’t read the book, you can listen to a good resume presented by the author at the Heritage Foundation, with a commentary by Herbert Rommerstein, the one personally responsible for major investigations into Soviet infiltration in the USA (see Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy).

To get an idea of the strategic risks involved in this situation, suffice to say that practically the entire tone of North American policy in China during the communist revolution was set on the basis of reports fabricated by Soviet agents who infiltrated the American diplomatic service in Beijing.  By means of prodigious falsifications, these agents managed to persuade the Washington government to withhold needed aid from their ally Chiang Kai-shek and support the communist troops of Mao Zedong, who without this would never have managed to overthrow the Chinese government and install the bloodiest of genocidal dictatorships the world had ever known.  American Ambassador Patrick Hurley saw through the ruse and warned Washington in time, but his messages were ignored.  Feeling sullied, Hurley asked to be relieved of his post and was replaced by General George Marshall, who believed in these stories as if they had been revealed gospel.  Marshall was not procommunist, obviously, but if his behavior in this case was not a clear-cut example of what Eric Voegelin called “criminal stupidity,” I don’t know what could fit that category.  Following the record genocide of 70 million people, the Chinese government, having accumulated atomic bombs with the money generously supplied by American investors, is today the number one security risk for the USA.

Alerted to these and other innumerable cases of Soviet infiltration, the Truman administration opted to kill the messenger, and did everything it could to give the impression that the only serious danger for America was anti-communism, particularly that of Senator Joe McCarthy, whose demonized image still remains vivid in world memory.  To obtain this result, Harry Truman’s shock troops unhesitatingly covered up the essential documents, which, revealed only now, show that, in essence, all the accusations made by McCarthy were true and even modest in comparison to the real dimensions of the problem.  Besides suppressing evidence and protecting itself behind false testimonies, the Truman administration, instead of dismissing the suspects, preferred to support their careers, enabling them to rise in the hierarchy and continue offering services to the Soviet dictatorship with American taxpayer money.

An entire culture of anti-McCarthyism, supported by textbooks, cinema and journalism, grew out of this enterprise of intentional falsification.  The consequences of this extend to the present day, making Americans, repenting of sins they never committed against communists, sense greater fear of a possible “return to the McCarthy era” than of a joint assault of Chinese generals and Islamic radicals.

I see the second episode of the series when Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.  Not only the White House but also the CIA and the FBI knew that Oswald was a fanatical communist and that his intention in shooting Kennedy was to frustrate any American initiative against Fidel Castro’s dictatorship. Chilled at the prospects of a national outbreak of anti-Communist revolt targeting the Democratic Party and reviving suspicions of the Harry Truman era, President Lyndon Johnson did what he could to turn the attention of the Warren Commission away from this sensitive point, explaining Oswald’s crime not as the result of his ideological convictions but of generic motivations such as emotional instability, family problems, etc.  As unbelievable as it seems, the commission agreed to analyze the most famous political homicide of the 20th century without mentioning politics.  Coming to the president’s aid, the chic media and enlightened intellectuals then produced a copious literature of pseudo-sociological claims that placed the blame for the crime on the “American culture of violence” and other vapid generalities which, in their final conclusion, were laid to the charge of conservatives.  The anti-American discourse of the new left, which was then starting to gain prominence, thus received powerful backing from the very government of Washington at which it directed its hysterical eloquence.  This discourse wound up incorporating itself in “common sense,” to the point that today it is routinely repeated by the mainstream media without anyone noticing anything out of place.  The book that described this enormous psychological mutation that was born in the highest spheres in Washington and spread throughout the American culture is Camelot and the Cultural Revolution.  How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American liberalism, by James Pierson (New York, Encounter Books, 2007).

The biggest irony in all of this is that Lee Oswald, a convert to communism since adolescence, could in no way be considered representative of the reactionary trends supposedly responsible for the “American violence” that would have prompted him to homicide, much less the fanatical Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan, who in 1968, assassinated the ex-president’s brother, Robert Kennedy.  It is not by coincidence that we now know Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority was from head to toe a brainchild of the KGB (, but at the time, this tireless myth factory of the leftist elite was able to make two crimes committed by procommunist agents against two notoriously anti-Communist politicians appear to be the handiwork of the “reactionary right,” and to have this rigorously inverted version of reality embed itself in the American psyche so deeply that it would take many decades to uproot it, if indeed it were at all possible.

The third big lie, also definitively incorporated in the rituals of America’s pseudo-moralistic masochism was also the work of Lyndon Johnson.  After having hampered the action of American troops in Vietnam by all possible means, Johnson drew the logical conclusion from his own strategy, transfiguring the victory into a defeat.  On January 31, 1968, the North Vietnamese army of Ho Chi Minh launched a major offensive against the Americans and South Vietnamese.  The idea was to occupy all at once the cities of South Vietnam, starting with the capital, Saigon, instigating a general uprising with the help of Vietcong fighters.  Militarily, the offensive was a monumental failure.  The Communists lost, in a few days, 50,000 soldiers and all the objectives that they had conquered.  Even the famous attack on the American embassy in Saigon was a failure.  Not a single Vietcong was able to enter the building — they all died at the gate.  Meanwhile, since the American army followed the standard procedure for such occasions, quickly evacuating the civil servants by means of helicopters on the embassy rooftop, the images of the evacuation were shown on American TV as evidence of general panic and a sure sign of the imminent defeat of South Vietnam.  When President Johnson saw these scenes being interpreted this way by veteran TV news commentator Walter Cronkite, he reasoned “if I’ve lost Cronkite I’ve lost the nation.”  The North Vietnamese commander, General Giap, showed how right that was when he admitted that his main weapon against South Vietnam was the American media.  By endorsing the legend of the American defeat, Johnson brought down on his country a humiliation that the elegant media and prattling intellectuals have been celebrating incessantly since then as a just punishment meted out to the reactionary, fanatical and violent people who persecuted innocents in the MacCarthy era and assassinated two Kennedys…

Only now, with the first volume of the book consecrated to the Vietnam War by historian Mark Moyar is the reality of the victory artificially disguised as a defeat beginning to appear.  Read ‘Triumph Forsaken.  The Vietnam War 1954-1964″ (Cambridge University press, 2006).

No other country in the world has had as many traitors per square mile as the USA.  All of the anti-American mythology circulating in the world originated in Washington and New York — with nothing more than initial light shoves him from the KGB. The fact that the USA managed to survive such devastating lies hurled against the country by its own government officials and its most renowned intellectual leaders is something that can be explained only by the residual persistence of the people’s fondness for American traditions.  It is true that we Brazilians need not come to North America to learn about a good people governed by swindlers.  But the nagging question in my mind is whether these swindlers in Brazil would have risen as high as they did without the aid of the swindlers in Washington.

Translated by Donald Hank (

The author, Olavo de Carvalho is a correspondent for various Brazilian newspapers and hosts a Portuguese-language talk show ( on Mondays at 5 p.m. EST. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

To comment or schedule an appearance, contact the author at:

EU still taking down farmers

Laigle’s Forum had already reported that the EU is the new Soviet Union. Communism is not dead, as you may have supposed. However, the Marxists have cleverly desisted from redistributing wealth from rich individuals to poor ones. Instead they redistribute the wealth from rich nations to poor nations. New rules, same game. We have seen how the farmers in Italy, a rich nation, have been forced to forfeit their farms in a clever scheme that was portrayed as an effort to preserve “free market” principles. Thus Sardinian farmers who had received loans at low interest rates were forced to pay rates significantly higher than was stipulated in their bank contracts. As a result the lost their farms and livelihoods through no fault of their own in a politico-economic sleight-of-hand operation. When a Marxist organization sets about to disenfranchise a group, they can always make it look as if it is done in the interest of fairness. Now the sheep farmers in Scottland are targeted for disenfranchisement. Perhaps some day the individual states–once proud nations–will figure out what has happened, namely, that the rules of the game have been changed but the game is still communism. Will it be too late by then? Can they still back out and recover their sovereignty? Look closely, fellow Americans. This is what is in store for the US if we continue down the road to supranational government. We have seen NAFTA, CAFTA, the SPP, and other such organizations and the trick should be obvious by now. Each time, the slick talkers in government told us the US would benefit economically, yet each time the trade balance was upset in the favor of the other partners, perceived to be “poor” nations. But China is no longer poor. Yet they still get favored status. When will we wake up?


08:50 – 05 January 2008
A Tory MEP has branded Europe’s move to impose compulsory electronic tagging on sheep EU-wide a “catastrophic blow to Scotland”.

Struan Stevenson said the decision to have the regime in place from December 2009 would impose huge costs on farmers who with just short of 3million breeding sheep have one of the biggest flocks in Europe.

He added: “This is the latest nail in the coffin for our beleaguered sheep sector which is already reeling from the collapse of prices following the recent foot-and-mouth outbreak.

“With cast ewes making only £2 in the market in Scotland, it stretches credulity to imagine how the council of ministers believes that sheep farmers can afford to fit every animal with expensive microchips and buy costly electronic scanners.”

Mr Stevenson warned that for many the imposition would be too costly and would force them out.

“Soon we will have no industry left and we will rely on imported mutton and lamb from countries outside the EU who pay no attention whatsoever to the rigorous regulations and controls we impose on our own farmers. This is what is so soul-destroying about the whole issue.”

Mr Stevenson has said the UK and Scottish governments should provide financial assistance to sheep farmers to pay for electronic identification, by using funds from their rural development programmes.

The plans have already been attacked by the National Sheep Association which has condemned the speed at which the proposal is being driven through Europe.

Chief executive Peter Morris added: “NSA is sick and tired of continually trying to establish why EU officials feel there is any sensible reason to introduce EID given all the measures we have in place to control animal disease spread and given that the risk of BSE in sheep is no longer present.

“No one can give any specific situations where recording the individual identities of sheep will show a benefit or will be required. All we hear time and time again is that there is a regulation in place and we have to obey it. What is the point when it does not offer benefit to anyone?”

Europe first proposed an EID system in 2003. It said in November that it would be up to industry to pick up the multimillion-pound cost.

The current proposal would be for sheep to have mandatory electronic ear tags or boluses that are in the stomachs of animals.

Not all sheep will require to be tagged. Lambs slaughtered under 12 months and sold only on to domestic markets will be exempt, although their movements will still require to be recorded through the existing batch system in Scotland. The cost to Scotland of EID could potentially run into millions of pounds as more than 4million of the country’s 7.49million sheep may have to be tagged.

Mr Morris argued the sheep industry could not cope with EID, adding: “The extra costs that will be incurred will not be picked up by anyone else in the food chain and, with virtually every sheep farmer already losing money, for many it will be the final straw.

“If the EU is determined to see off, once and for all, the crucial mass of the sheep industry in the UK and all the food, environment and rural infrastructure benefits that the industry brings with it, then it should carry on and make every sheep farmer in the UK have EID.”

Related articles:

New German law to turn up heat on home schoolers

Kristina Köhler, a CDU parliamentarian, is pushing for a new law that would take custody away from parents of children who do not attend school, including those who are home schooled. The CDU is supposedly a conservative party-Christliche Demokratische Union, or Christian Democratic Union. Just as many conservative Americans reflexively vote Republican, most Germans who view themselves as conservative reflexively vote CDU. The same identical situation has emerged there: The “conservative” party has been hijacked by the Left. It happened before Chancellor Angela Merkel came along, but she has accelerated the process, introducing a virulent leftwing feminist ideology into public policies. The idea of removing custody from home schooling parents goes hand in hand with this ideology. In so doing, the German government, while accusing dissenters of trying to create a parallel society (using radical Islam as a pretext), have themselves created one in Europe, where they alone have virtually banned all home schooling efforts on the part of parents. No other country in Europe has taken this radical step. In fact, the EU has tried to pressure Germany into modifying its stance on this.

Now it appears that they are taking it a step further, with Parliamentarian Frau Köhler (an expert on Islamic relations) leading the charge.

Notice in the first text, the emailer omitted the name Hitler, which we supplied in brackets. In Germany today, as in America, it is politically incorrect to compare today’s situation with Hitler’s Germany. In this country, the Left use the convenient excuse that this minimizes the Holocaust. A similar argument is no doubt operative in Germany. This Gramscian psychic cage, imposed on everyone, prevents people from verbally expressing the spontaneous sensation that Germany hasn’t changed. And yet, qualitatively, it hasn’t. The degree of inhumanity to man is less, but the cold, calculated coercion used against dissenters-in today’s case, Christians, Muslims (yes, Muslims too!), home schoolers, and anyone who dares oppose the power of the regime-is absolutely merciless. Many of those who have been hauled into “family” court in America, know that the radical feminist ideology that generally pervades the atmosphere there is much the same. That is because God has been banished. Whether a godless regime calls itself Nazi or communist, it is always the same ruthlessness. Pray for our German home schooling friends. And stand with them. Call or write the German embassy nearest you and express your outrage at this new repressive law.

You read it first at Laigle’s Forum.

Our grateful thanks go to Dana Hanley for supplying this translation of the email body:

To Whom it May Concern:

In the educational bureaucracy, the devil appears to be loose.  The presentiments in my reports seem to continually be confirmed:  A large-scale campaign is being aimed at parents, who are not able to come to terms with the available educational provisions and “exit” seeking the alternative model of home schooling.

The attached document (see koehler-CDU.pdf) from a high ranking politician from Hessen proves that the new law (may be found in its entirety in my new Dossier at will affect all parents, who are convinced of the inadequacy of public education and “make themselves a nuisance.”  Marian (the highly talented boy discriminated against in the attached case) was even named in particular as the cause of the “problem.”  Officially yes, but on the grassroots level, it has to do with the well-being and education of children.  Unofficially, it has to do with the (sometimes after-the-fact) justification of official offenses such as loss of custody via the German Youth Welfare Offices and with the forced attendance of all children in the existing school system.  After all, parents cannot be allowed to start thinking independently about their children’s failure in school and cause a sensation and riot by choosing alternatives to school attendance.  The “interests of the collective” must be upheld, apparently through any means necessary, if necessary by force.  That was how it was rationalized in the time of the [Hitler]…Regime, too.

There is a tremendous scandal going on and no one can stop it?  Who is reporting it?  Who will make the scandal public?  At least international media outlets would be interested if they knew the true background of the new German welfare laws.

With concerned greetings,

J. Edel

Translated by:  Dana Hanley

Below is the email attached to the first one above. Our grateful thanks go to Delbert Blackkette for graciously supplying this translation:

Dear supporting friends of the Free Education Perspective,

As a family with a gifted and talented child, we fled Germany on October 19, 2007 with two suitcases and with the last of our money having been spent on our flight to Iran.   This came about because of an illegitimate decision made by the Family Court of Wiesbaden, with corresponding threats of violent compulsory measures against us. 

Marian has been homeschooled by his mother (a certified biologist) since the summer of 2006, and has been taking two school years at once.  He had multiple private courses such as theater, gifted and talented courses, foreign language courses, gymnastics, horseback riding, and music instruction (paid for by his grandparents) where he was together with other children.

Marian received a certificate from the Children’s College of Rheinland-Pfalz – Gifted and Talented Center on July 16, 2007 – : “Marian integrates very quickly in the groups at the Gifted and Talented Center, and has made some friendships here.  Marian is a friendly, highly motivated child, achieving very good results in the courses.  We are looking forward to Marian participating in our offerings for gifted and talented children in the winter semester”.

Mrs. Thieroff, the director, educated her child by homeschooling, and that child is now studying at a university in England.  She told us at the time that homeschooling was the best instruction and education method for gifted and talented children.

Because the public school authority of Wiesbaden has no suitable schools for a highly gifted and talented child such as our Marian, they, along with Child Protective Services, wanted to force him to attend the Special Education branch Friedrich-von-Schiller School for children with behavioral problems and for low performing children.  This is a school where Marian at age 6 was embarrassed and struck by Social Studies teacher Mrs. Frank-Nagel, with the school director Mrs. Hubl-Stück acting in conjunction with the Wiesbaden Public School Authority to cover this up.  After her lesson Marian complained of a very bad headache and feelings of nausea.  Other boy and girl students in the class told their parents that Mrs. Frank-Nagel struck Marian during the lesson.  A criminal complaint was then filed against Mrs. Frank-Nagel, who was charged by a judge with Willful Aggravated Battery in Office.

Because we resisted the educational poverty, the boredom and the violence in the schools, Child Protective Services moved in Family Court to strip us of custody of our son and place him in a foster home, in an illegitimate trial without our being present or having an opportunity to present the circumstances from our perspective, so that the state could destroy and make pliable the mind of a gifted and talented child who intellectually stood in their way.

Because the Wiesbaden Public School Authority had no suitable school for a gifted and talented child, they together with the Child Protective Services impeded school registration into a normal school – they went so far as to disseminate negative information to private schools (a lengthy written correspondence record is available), aid money from the Hessian Ministry of Education in support of gifted and talented students  is unknown and ignored in the Wiesbaden Public School Authority. In Wiesbaden it is not desirable to engage yourself in the education of your child; this is enforced by the state taking custody away from you and other violent compulsory measures.

Marian’s psychological assessment report and its recommendations from psychologist Mrs. Andrea Brackmann of Frankfurt am Main were completely ignored!  She has written publications on gifted and talented children, and is recommended by the public school authority in Frankfurt am Main for the testing of gifted and talented children.

After we fled, the press politics of Child Protective Services, SPD and CDU began a discriminatory smear campaign and persecution including the most vulgar character assassination. Newspaper articles and press releases from CDU Bundestag member Kristina Köhler may be seen in the attachments.

Our situation in Iran is an emergency situation, because we are living off of support from our parents. Marian suffers from an asthma-like illness, and has health problems due to the extreme air pollution, as well as insurance and medical insurance coverage and other support services not being available here.

Our social benefits in Germany have been completely cut off due to intervention by Child Protective services.  The 75-year old father, sick with heart disease and diabetes, from Frankfurt am Main attempts to pay the rent for our apartment in Wiesbaden, so that all of our belongings are not tossed out into the street. Father has told me that he has received calls that we are being sought for child kidnapping. Child Protective Services with police have supposedly twice entered our apartment. Mr. Vu, who continues to look in on our old father was in our apartment to check on the fish in Marian’s Amazon basin (300 Liter Aquarium) and Platys (60 Liter). The  Amazon fish, among them Marians favorite large diskus fish had long since died, and the apartment had a very bad smell.  We suspect that the central power switch connecting to the pumps, heater, and the automatic feeder had been intentionally switched off by the Wiesbaden authorities, because the smaller hidden aquarium was still in good shape!

Two weeks before we fled we had been taking Marian to the Iranian embassy school in Frankfurt am Main every day because of German obligatory school attendance (80 km each way) (this was the only school which accepted our son), because the Wiesbaden Public School Authority refused to give us a timely assignment to a school.  After we fled the police showed up at the school with the press, to take custody of Marian. But for all of this posturing, he was not allowed into the school!

I come from a Frankfurt civil servant family, and am a certified biologist, while my husband comes from an Iranian family of doctors (civil servants) and is a scientific professional in pharmaceutical security. For this reason Marian and I both hold dual citizenship (Germany/Iran).

From Iran we contacted Mrs. Frau Lohff of the Clonlara Schools.  She helped us locate an experienced attorney, who has already submitted complaints with the OLG Frankfurt. The Child Protective Services is responding with all imaginable lies and primitive thinking.

For our struggle with the German Mandatory School Attendance, and in our case with Child Protective Services of Wiesbaden, we are seeking organizations that can provide moral and financial support. We very much hope that by solidarity and a mutual struggle we can ensure free education for children in Germany, and that the persecution and torture of the affected families can be ended by understanding and awareness, because ensuring children’s rights belongs to the basic Human Rights in the world.

As things stand now, Germany is unworthy of membership in the European Community, or to speak on Human Rights in the international arena.  The shadows of the Third Reich and the ideology of Adolf Hitler  –  if not worse  –  still drift over Germany.

We would be very pleased to hear from you soon.  We can be reached at the following email address for further information:


With friendly greetings,

Mahjoubi Assil Family
Translated by Dana Hanley
I had a telephone conversation yesterday with a functionary of Frau Köhler, a CDU parliamentarian who is pushing for the new law (taking custody away from parents of children who don’t attend school) and she said that they had used this case in their press release, as it was ideologically based. I knew nothing about the case, so I couldn’t say anything about the facts of it. Nevertheless, I tried to make it clear to her that most home educators are doing this out of concern for their children’s needs, even in cases where there seems to be an ideological element and that Germany is starting to make a fool of itself. She said that the cases where the children’s needs were the basis should be decided by the courts (e.g. I had specifically mentioned the Neubronners and told her our story) but I think that with the new law, before that happens, the parents will have lost custody. She also mentioned that up to now, it has only been possible to restrict the parents’ custody (i.e. in matters of schooling and in the choice of the children’s residence) but now the state will be able to take full custody away from the parents when the law was passed (if I understood her correctly). Out of the horse’s mouth!
Regards, Rina
Our thanks to our friends at Netwerk-Bildungsfreiheit for providing this information.

Continue reading

Keep or lose sovereignty? You decide (but read this first)

 The EU honeymoon is over

 European politicians and media have long touted EU membership as a way to boost the economy and overcome annoying trade and currency barriers. American politicians have jumped on the supranational government bandwagon, touting NAFTA, CAFTA, the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership), etc. as instruments of economic trade promotion.

 But now, many years after the wedding, the makeup is wearing off, the blemishes are showing, and more Europeans than ever are openly expressing dissatisfaction with the terms of the European Union’s marriage vows. Farmers in Italy are having their farms and goods confiscated as an eviscerated Italian government looks on helplessly. The Polish government chafes at the loss of trade with neighboring Eastern countries. Loss of sovereignty and self-determination was the price, and it has proven a heavy one.

 There are now groups all over Europe that are earnestly taking up the cudgel to beat back what they see as the despot that has stolen their sovereignty and has left them poorer and with infinitely less power over their own lives than before. The bad news is that there are precious few to fight the battle at this point. The good news is that they are now international and have reached out to like-minded groups around the globe, including Laigle’s Forum.

 We proudly salute these freedom fighters and dedicate this issue of Laigle’s Forum to them. God grant them victory.

 EU members want Mediterranean sub group

 If President Sarkozy has his way, there will soon be a new Mediterranean wing of the EU, which is being sold as a “bridge to the Muslim world.”

 The untold part of this story is that this would almost inevitably lead eventually to an overture toward membership in the EU for nations seen as exporters of terror. Once they are EU members, there will be unlimited visa-free travel for Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians, Turks, and eventually the entire Islamic world, to anywhere in Europe.

 And since the United States already has in place a non-visa travel agreement with the EU, they can then come here too, unrestricted.

 EU farmers paying the price for lost national sovereignty

 Brussels says it is illegal for a region in Sardinia to give special low-interest loans to farmers there. However, the farmers got the aid in good faith back around the time the EU was banning low-interest farm loans. Now the farmers are being punished and losing their farms.

 It used to be illegal worldwide for any bank to renege on a loan. That was just good business sense. But now the banks are being forced by a runaway central government—that an increasing number of Europeans are seeing as illegal—to renege on their loans.

 This is one of the fruits of the supranational government concept. Italy, once a proud nation, is now reduced to a mere cog in a great heartless wheel that crushes the little guy. The nation is now powerless to save its own people from enforced starvation.

 Note that the pretext given by the EU is that this low-interest loan interferes with the free market.

 Yet, that is a hollow pretext, because the real issue is a huge transfer of wealth from the perceived rich countries to the perceived poor countries, and that is hardly a free market policy. It is warmed over communism.

 Stalin shot the farmers. The EU starves them. And for the same reason: wealth redistribution.

 Where have all the greens gone?

 You recall that for years, Europe kept dogging the US to sign on to the Kyoto Accord requiring strict controls on emissions in our country, where, ironically, air pollution is truly at a world minimum?

 Well, now it seems the French and Germans themselves are balking at new EU standards that threaten to strangle the auto industry there.

 What went around came around.

 Schengen visas too pricy for most in Eastern Europe

 The Schengen visa, which is designed to allow free travel within the EU territory, was hailed as a victory when it came out, and politicians like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany, are still busy propagandizing on their behalf.

 But the down side is:

 1-The Schengen visas are almost prohibitively costly for non-EU members;

 2-The visas expire in less than 3 months, a hardship for non-EU citizens at border areas.

 3-Tourist visas can be cancelled if the bearer tries to do business in the EU territory.

 4- All of this puts unfair pressure on outsider nations, desirous of maintaining their sovereignty, to join the EU.
 Previously, visas available from the Polish consulate or embassy, for example, cost a fraction of the new Schengen visa’s price. Visitors from border regions in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine who once traveled virtually unrestricted to the homes of friends and family or to commercial areas in Poland, are now forced to pay several times the cost of the old national visa (no longer available) in order to continue crossing the border. In many cases, they have simply been forced to stop coming. This hurts trade with Poland, primarily a drawback for that nation, but also the non-EU country in question.

 The same situation now exists for Slovenia, a newcomer to the EU, and the neighboring Croatia, where friends and families are divided as a result of the new Schengen border.

 The governments and people of these border nations are not happy about this situation.

Download the pdf file here.
This links to a more concise article.

Sovereignty, the social issue they just don’t get

 Prominent evangelical groups like Wall Builders, for example, say that candidate Mike Huckabee is the only one who is solid on all of the social issues, which are: human life amendment, traditional marriage, gun rights, opposition to gay pride, and moral education.

 Their rating shows that Huck is the only one who is socially conservative on all of these issues.

 Maybe. But the hottest issue today, which heavily impacts all others, is the issue of sovereignty.

 Loss of sovereignty dilutes all other gains on these fronts. If, for example, a Hispanic viewpoint eventually prevails here as a result of amnestying millions or entering into entangling alliances of the EU type (a North American Union), the only issue “Americans” care about will be their own stomachs. Hispanics have always had a relationship with government similar to that of an abused woman toward her hombre: “take care of me, Papito, and you can abuse me all you want.” It’s called paternalism and it’s the antithesis of the American way of life.

 So if we keep our borders open and reward law-breaking “immigrants,” we will eventually have a preponderance of the Hispanic viewpoint here and all voting will hinge on who promises the most social pork. Moral issues will be inconsequential to the vast majority.

 That will be the end of America.

 Abortion will matter, but will not be a major issue. In fact, funny thing about the Hispanic mind: I was reading the Spanish-language newspaper ABC in the book store the other day and saw a great front-page article about a pro-life march in Madrid. The writer was clearly enthusiastic. Ah, a conservative newspaper, I thought.

 But the editorial page carried a commentary on the Clintons in which the author called Bill the “best president” American had ever had (see last link at bottom). For some reason, many “conservative” and religious Europeans and Hispanics cannot quite make the connection between the political Left and the loss of family values. Like the “Christian” Left in this country, these otherwise pro-life and pro-family people seem oblivious to the fact that another Clinton presidency could dash all hopes of a fair and balanced Supreme Court that might eventually recognized the sanctity of unborn life in this country.

 It just doesn’t work to have a one-sided view of the world.

 With all of his good intentions and softness of heart, Huckabee, if elected, may well preside over an America with somewhat less abortion (it already is that). But if he continues to take the viewpoint of his proposed secretary of state, Richard Haass, then America could, within his term, dissolve in a multinational stew of assorted states complete with EU-like parliament and central court, where our notions of sanctity of life, gun rights, traditional marriage, even religious freedom, and the like would be disdained as quaint and antiquated. If you viewed the video linked above regarding the unfortunate Sardinian farmers, you will easily understand that America too would be beholden to a foreign court and laws if we go the supranational route (as we are already with NAFTA, CAFTA, the SPP, LOST and other Bush overtures to the UN). We would be slaves, like every European country today.

 Our continued sovereignty and freedom depend on our ability to comprehend this simple, but vital, issue.

 In that sense, then, sovereignty should be seen as an over-arching social value that must be guarded just as vigorously and vigilantly as all the rest.

See and hear Bill Clinton making his most memorable quote on this this video:

“People should not be allowed to raise questions and erode people’s moral authority in this country.”

Christian Apologetics and Politics: Reflections on Whether Christian Ministries Should Comment on Political Campaigns

What does Christian Apologetics have to do with politics? That’s the question that was recently put to me regarding some posts concerning the 2008 Presidential campaign. This questioner was sympathetic. In previous years, the questioners were not quite so sympathetic. To speak of political issues while engaged in the intellectual defense of Christianity seemed to be a contradiction of terms for, after all, what does the spirit have to do with the flesh?

This is really a Gnostic way of thinking. God is spirit, but he became flesh in Jesus. The creation was created good. Matter is good, though humans fell and subjected creation to the effects of our disobedience. This compartmentalization of Christianity to the ‘spiritual’ is contrary to orthodox Christianity.

Of course, my critics didn’t wholly disagree. Their whole point was that Christian values should be extended in government and by government to care for the poor, the working class, etc, in the manner that liberals proposed. I have reasons for disagreeing, though not because I don’t care for the poor. To discuss that in full is not the purpose of this article. Simply note how when the principles were ones they didn’t agree with the request was that I compartmentalize and when they were principles they did agree with they warmly welcomed their Christian values into the political arena.

Ideas have consequences. Words have meanings. The calamities of the 20th century were all foreshadowed by the ideas that had been kicked around in the 19th century. Today, there is an observed stubbornness to deny the connection between the ideologies of one century and the atrocities of the next. This stubbornness itself is an ideology, and it will have a consequence. Very likely, that consequence will be that the rehashed ideologies of the 19th century will emerge again and- because ideas have consequences- result in another wave of atrocities that must inevitably follow if those ideas are allowed to bear fruit. The corn seed cannot help but produce the corn plant. An apple tree will not produce a pear.

In the Christian worldview you have within it a doctrine which serves as a staunch check on free-wheeling ideology. That doctrine is ‘original sin.’ From a practical point of view, one consequence is that if you believe that people will, by nature, try to get away with whatever they can, you will be careful in centering power and authority and always be sure to enact corresponding checks and balances as you go. One result of this thinking is a constitutional system like our own in the United States. Another result would be seeing the value in national sovereignty, for nations serve as checks and balances against other nations.

Christian apologetics could serve a vital role in persuading people about the true nature of man. As a consequence, future atrocities can be staved off. We should never want to convert people to Christianity simply because we want our political agenda pursued, but we cannot deny the political characteristics that would emerge if Christians with such views were the majority.

Similarly, the Christian worldview logically entails something like the pro-life position. So, we could try to end legalized abortion by passing legislation, or we can try to create more people with the Christian worldview. Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, the matter is returned to the states. Even if every state made it illegal, people would still get abortions. The more Christians there are the less abortions there will be.

Christian apologetics, in persuading people to give their life to the Lord, can cultivate a population that would not allow such things as gulags and concentration camps to emerge, or millions of unborn children to be murdered- not in some distant European or Asian calamity, but right here under our noses in the “Land of the Free.”

Thus, I submit that there is nothing more dangerous to humanity than to say that we should be keeping our religious views separate from our political inclinations. The stakes are incredibly high: we are probably never more than one generation away from horror on a grand scale.

I want to hasten to add that I am not saying that those with the Christian worldview will manage to do everything right all of the time. The previously stated doctrine of ‘original sin’ would prevent such a silly assertion.

I almost wonder if perhaps it is a mistake for our churches and religious organizations even to take advantage of tax exemption status. This status requires religious organizations to keep their nose out of explicitly political issues to a large degree or risk being fined, or worse, taxed. Christians have found other ways to become involved, but the very nature of this structure carries the message that the Church should mind its own business. Not only that, the message is that Church and Government agree that the Church has nothing to say to the Government.

I am pondering such things because I myself am considering incorporating my ministry as a non-profit. I cannot deny that it is tempting to take the tax-exempt status. If someone plunked down two grand to pay for it (about what it would cost) I would be hard pressed to reject it. So, I am not blaming churches or organizations for going that route. When you are faced with the fact that some people simply won’t donate unless they get the write-off, you do what you’ve got to do. I still haven’t made up my mind on this, but to my view, it is worth thinking about.

What do Christian apologetics have to do with politics? What we believe has consequences on how we behave. We know from history that some beliefs have had horrid consequences. Christian apologetics should never be construed as a ‘means’ to justify an end, and always focused on the salvation of individual souls. Yet, some of those individuals may just very well find themselves persuaded when they see how other ideas have played out. It cannot be denied that the salvation of souls today might save the actual lives of millions a generation hence.

Anthony Horvath is the chief apologist at and the author of Fidelis of the Birth Pangs series.

The foreign press, our crystal ball

By Donald Hank
Much of the world press is a mirror of what America will be in the future if left-wing Democrats have their way.  This can only happen if the rest of us let them get away with it.  So far we have been very cooperative.  Already, staunchly “conservative” Newt Gingrich has declared Reaganism dead.  That’s not a hole in the dyke.  It’s an open flood gate.

The first translation below is an ominous sign.  First, it tells us that atheists in Europe are richer and more influential than believers.  Second, it tells us that the “prosperity gospel,” as preached in this country by Joel Osteen, John Hagee, Rick Warren and others, is hogwash.  Christians know that anyway, because Jesus told us the purpose of His message is not to make people prosperous but to save their souls.  There is no middle ground.

The second translation below shows what happens when governments calling themselves democratic allow thugs and hoodlums to steal openly and with their tacit sanction.  Notice how the author of this article refers to Marxist activists as “farmers.”  As we have shown in an earlier article and PowerPoint demonstration, these squatters wantonly destroy private property, threaten human life, rape women and mutilate farm animals.  Farmers don’t behave that way.

Ordinary farmers who look at their own situation may not see any harbinger of this yet. But those living on our southern border know it is coming. They have experienced the burning of farm trucks, the burning of barns, thievery and other destruction of their once peaceful way of life by those “looking for a better way of life.” As in Brazil, the bad news is not the destruction. It’s a government turning a blind eye and even winking at the mischief.

You read it first at Laigle’s Forum.
A translation from the Swedish online newspaper follows:
 Atheists Are Stronger
 Atheists have more resources than the average European and are therefore gaining ground.
 That’s the opinion of Danish religion sociologists.
 Sociologist Peter Lüchau of the University of Copenhagen describes the ascendancy of atheists in his upcoming book “Gudlös” (Godless).  He infers this from a large European attitude study.

 According to statistics, atheists have a higher level of education, are more left-leaning and considerably more politically involved than average.  Because of this profile, they have an advantage in opinion and a potential to find a voice in the media, says Kristelig Dagblad [a Danish newspaper].

 In Denmark, the number of atheists has been growing from a very low proportion to 750 members at present.  In Sweden, there are now about 4,200 humanists, and in Norway, the Human Ethics Association has always been strong, boasting 67,000 members today.  One of Peter Lüchau’s colleagues, Morten Warmind, says the religious debate has become more polarized in just a few years.

 This means we are seeing involvement among people who were once only interested in the subject but were not organized according to their values.  That applies to both sides, he says.

 The following is a Portuguese-English translation from the online newspaper Zero Hora.
 Landless movement (MST) invades Coqueiros Ranch
 Farmers want expropriation of the ranch and settlement of 1000 families

 About 1,200 members of the MST invaded Coqueiros Ranch in Coqueiros do Sul, in the region all of the Rio Grande do Sul this Monday.  According to the military Brigade, the protesters arrived in 20 bosses and three trucks.

 The farmers are demanding the expropriation of the ranch, which is considered strategic to the movement.  They also are demanding the settlement of 1,000 families by April of 2008 – according to them, part of the agreement with the Incra that put an end to the marches of the MST in October of 2007.

 The military brigade is now on site to negotiate the withdrawal of the farmers.  This is the ninth time since 2004 that the ranch has been invaded.
 Coqueiros Ranch is the strategic point for the MST
 The areas belonging to the Guerra family amount to 7000 hectars.  The area is considered by the MST has one of the rare landed estates existing in the north of the state and is strategic because of its vicinity to Annoni and the Natalino crossroads, where the movement started.  The area has been considered productive by the federal government.

Our hurting brothers and sisters around the globe

Our Chinese brothers and sisters 

Right after we ran the article on how the home-schooling Landahl family had narrowly escaped their persecutors in the Youth Office, the Mayor’s Office and the Court in Germany, we got an email from an old email acquaintance, an otherwise Christian conservative, who asked why we bother to write about German home school families. His argument was that the German government has laws against home schooling, so they should honor them. He said that to intervene in this was like writing to the Saudi government to protest the persecution of Christians there.

This attitude is one reason why America is losing the war against the Left.

            We have either forgotten that our allies still look up to us and that we do wield tremendous power as an opinion shaper.

            The Left in Europe is like a bunch of rebellious spoiled children. Deep down they respect the position of America in the world, but they cherish the illusion of independence, so they talk big and swagger and smear us every chance they get. But when it comes down to their military defense, they look to Uncle Sam. Funny thing about that.

            Conservative Americans must understand that Christians are a family, and their members are everywhere, scattered around the world.

            Everyone who has read much of this site knows that we are militantly opposed to world government and stay up late at night worrying about the possibility of a future president signing on to the World Court and giving the UN power over our internal affairs. This kind of treachery has already been perpetrated in the Bush administration, and we have Huckabee poised to do the same but on a more grandiose scale. Almost all of the remaining candidates, except for Paul and Hunter, are CFR members, and as such are likely to give our sovereignty away at the first opportunity.

            But the kind of intervention we recommend in these alerts on foreign persecution of Christians is not governmental. We simply want individuals to stand up to foreign governments and say “inasmuch as ye have done it to one of these ye have done it to me. Now back off.”

            As we also recently said, Laigle’s has a life of its own, with international activists begging us to intervene on their part. There is now never any need to sit around and think about what topic to tackle. The question is: how to handle all the requests.

            A friend of ours in New Zealand has been asking us to talk about the persecuted church in China, something our spineless government wouldn’t think of doing. So now we ask you to kindly take the time to look at the following site:


            Then go to the Take Action link at the top left and, as you are led,

– Pray for these persecuted brother and sisters in China (we often overlook the power of prayer, but without it we truly have nothing!)

– Tell others

– Write to your legislators and Chinese officials (embassies, etc)

– Contribute to this activist group


A New kind of “conservative Christian”


            Christian Newswire recently ran a press release by a “new” kind of Christian on book touting a “new” kind of “conservative Christianity.” His name is Dr. Joel C. Hunter and he is the president elect of the Christian Coalition.

            This “new” conservatism advocates that Christians should be “valuable contributors as citizens of the world.” Excuse us, but wouldn’t that be the repackaged old notion of world government, or, say of “compassionate conservatism”? Marx gave us the idea of world citizens, and the Soviet Union used the slogan “workers of the world unite,” so there is nothing new here, except it poses as Christian, and even that is old hat by now.

            You can package “Christian” Leftism any way you want, but it is still leftism, and that is a concept not compatible with the Christian wing of Christianity.

            I wouldn’t bother mentioning any of this, but these “new” Christians are everywhere, like an army of locusts and they are eating up all the tender shoots of sound scriptural doctrine in their path. That doesn’t leave much there for the “little ones” who need spiritual food.

            The Master said that anyone who harms one of these little ones is better off being thrown into the ocean with a millstone about this neck.

            For those who have not read our articles on the Religious Left in Bible times, be sure to check them out here:

and here


Parallel society, your name is German Government

Good news on German home schooling refugees

By Donald Hank

By now you may have read the news on WND ( about the home schooling family, the Landahls, who, at the behest of the mayor of their city of Altensteig, were forced by a German court to leave their homeland or face losing their children to the child “protection” services.

The German home schooling organization Netwerk Bildungsfreiheit has now informed Laigle’s Forum that this family has successfully moved to another country, whose identity they have asked us not to disclose.

So these kids are safe and with their parents. Please keep the Landahl family and all the persecuted German Christians in your prayers.

Jörg Großelümern, Chairman of Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit, is asking concerned Americans to bombard Mayor Grossman with letters, faxes and emails.

Address (to write the ü on your computer, just hold down the Alt key while typing 0252 on your number pad. To get the ß, hold down Alt and type 0223):

Herr Bürgermeister
Jürgen Großman
Rathausplatz 1
72213 Altensteig
Phone: 0 75 53 / 94 61-117
 Go ahead and write, email or fax, in English if necessary.
Or you can copy the text suggested by Jörg, as follows:

Ich bin besorgt über die Unterdrückung elementarer Freiheits- und Menschenrechte, sowie die völlig maßlose Vorgehensweise gegen verantwortungsvolle und engagierte Eltern wie die Landahls.
(Translation: I am concerned about the suppression of elementary liberty rights and human rights and the quite excessive proceedings against responsible and involved parents like the Landahls)

Or you could borrow my letter as follows:

Ich bin zutiefst erschüttert von der Nachricht, daß die Familie Landahl deshalb zum Verlassen ihrer Heimat gezwungen wird, weil diese christlichen Eltern ihre Kinder selber erziehen wollten. Außer in Deutschland ist die Heimschule nirgends in der zivilisierten Welt verboten. Hierzulande, z.B. (USA), gilt als „Parallelgesellschaft“ vielmehr eine Gesellschaft, die die Menschenrechte verletzen. Ist es möglich, daß die führenden Klassen in Deutschland wirklich eine solche Gesellschaft in Europa gestalten wollen, die die elementaren Menschenrechte und auch das europäische Grundgesetzt auf so wilkürliche Weise verletzt, indem man den Eltern das anderswo unantastbare Recht verweigert, ihre eigenen Kinder so zu erziehen wie es ihnen recht scheint?

Vor fast 300 Jahren wurden die Wiedertäufer aus Deutschland verbannt, weil sie als Andersdenkende galten. Für die intoleranten Mitglieder der damaligen führenden Klasse galten sie auch insofern als Parallelgesellschaft. Sie kamen u.a. nach Amerika und leben noch heute hierzulande, friedlich und ungestört. Es fällt niemandem ein, sie als Parallelgesellschaft zu bezeichnen, und wir versuchen auch nicht, sie womöglich so umzuerziehen bzw. umzugestalten, daß sie uns völlig gleich sind. Für uns sind das Menschen, die als solche ihre Würde haben und das Recht so zu glauben und denken wie sie wollen. Wie langweilig wäre eine homogene Gesellschaft, in der sich alle Menschen ähneln! Man denke nur an die Hitlerzeit oder an Mussolinis Italien. Im übrigen haben viele von meinen Landsleuten Vorfahren, die zur Entweichung der Christenverfolgung in Europa nach Amerika eingewandert sind. Manche davon erziehen ihre Kinder ungestört zu Hause.

Es ist kaum zu fassen, daß in der ehemaligen Heimat dieser friedlichen Leute dieselbe Art von Unmenschlichkeit, die vor 300 Jahren unsere Ahnen des Landes verweisen ließ, noch in der heutigen Zeit durchaus lebendig ist. Sowas geht allen Amerikanern zuwider.

Trotz all der Medien-Propaganda und aller hochtrabenden Gerichtsentscheidungen, die das Volk überzeugen will, daß einige Christen etwa eine gefährliche Parallelgesellschaft einführen wollen, wissen die Landahls daß es eigentlich eine andere, beträchlich gefährlichere Parallelgesellschaft in Deutschland herrscht.

Ihr Name ist Regierung!


[Youre name]

(Translation: I am deeply shaken by the news that the Landahl family is being forced to leave their homeland simply because these Christian parents want to educate their children. With the sole exception of Germany, home schooling is not banned anywhere else in the civilized world. In my country (USA), when we think of a “parallel society,” we think of one that violates human rights. Is it possible that the ruling classes of Germany really want to found a society in Europe that violates the most basic human rights in such an arbitrary manner as to deny parents the right to bring up their children as they see fit?

About 300 years ago, the Anabaptists were exiled from Germany because they were seen as dissenters. They too were thought of as a parallel society. They came to America and live here today, peaceful and undisturbed. It would never occur to us to call them a parallel society or try to force them to be like us. For us they are human beings and as such have the right to think and believe as they see fit. It would be so boring to live in a homogeneous society in which everyone were alike!  Jus think if you will of the Hitler era or Mussolini’s Italy.  Besides, many of us have ancestors who came here to escape religious persecution. Many of them home school their children.

It is hard to imagine that in their former homeland, the same kind of inhumanity that banished our ancestors 300 years ago is still alive and well in Germany today, and that in a Germany that calls itself “progressive.”  This is repulsive to every American.

Despite all the German media propaganda and high-sounding court decisions aimed at convincing people that a few Christians are poised to introduce a dangerous parallel society there, the Landaus know that a true, considerably more dangerous, parallel society prevails in Germany today.

Its name is Government!


[Your name])

Let’s keep the heat on.  And let’s keep praying.