By Donald Hank
The next column, by Olavo de Carvalho, scheduled to appear within a day or two, will need some introduction. First, for those of you who follow the US media, I need to point out that Lula is the president of Brazil. The only thing said about him recently was from a few months ago when President Bush visited Brazil and made nice with Lula, promising him the US would buy a few billions of dollars worth of his ethanol. No, you the fuel buyer did not agree to this. Your nice president agreed for you. You will buy.
What the press didn’t tell you at that time or any time, and what Bush could care less about, is that President Lula, a communist sympathizer, is one of the biggest shysters on the South American continent and has aided and abetted not only Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, mightily helping to get him elected, but also the narcoterrorists and kidnappers of the FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Army) and other criminal organizations on the continent.
Lula did this in part through the Forum of Sao Paolo, which he himself originally denied ever existed, even though he was one of the most influential organizers. Recently, however, as Olavo de Carvalho points out, Lula now not only admits it exists but that he was there and made great efforts to undermine democracy precisely by means of this instrument. Although I trust Mr. Carvalho’s painstaking research, I needed to see this with my own eyes, so I went and checked the official web site publishing Lula’s speech, which admits this. Sure enough. It is all there just as quoted in Mr. de Carvalho’s article (see below).
Now nota bene: President Bush and his fellow neocons also denied the existence of meetings held in Canada to promote the North American Union. He knows we know he was there, because the meetings were reported in the world press. But he denies – or denied (but later admitted) – that there are plans to embark on a North American Union.
Like fellow globalist Lula, Bush will almost certainly some day boast of his success in pulling the wool over the eyes of constituents and subjecting the US to a continental government that will spell the demise of US sovereignty. Globalists are true believers in their cause. Those among them who call themselves Christian point to numerous statements by “Christian” leaders denouncing “nationalism,” based on tenuous interpretations of scripture, failing to point out that by nationalism, what they actually mean is sovereignty, a vital component in the existence of all nations! Thus these pious leaders tell us, or at least imply, that closed borders are un-Christian and the entire Third World has a claim to a piece of our territory and our national product – your income. Thus, for all of their piety, these clerics are traitors.
The globalist pattern described by Mr. de Carvalho below, namely, lying and then admitting one lied, is bound to repeat itself here.
As I have said before, globalism is the new communism.
It may surprise some readers to read that, as mentioned above, President Lula, after carefully concealing the very existence of the leftist Forum of Sao Paolo, would suddenly come out and vaunt his role in it as well as the duplicity of the Forum organizers, thus:
“In this way we could act, together with other countries, with our comrades of the social movement, of those countries’ parties, of the union movement, always using the relationship built in the Sao Paulo Forum so that we could talk without appearing to do so, and so that people would not understand any political interference taking place.”
What struck me is that the initial cover-up displays the same pattern as that of the NAFTA Superhighway, a similar globalist venture, which was at first denied by all those complicit in its planning, but then showed up on a web site maintained by the Canadian government.
Ron Paul quotes the SPP web site as admitting:
“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda.”
But most stunning of all is Bush’s admission, despite constant subsequent denial, at Baylor University, that a union along EU lines is in fact in the works.
Why do leftwing activists, whether the old-fashioned communist, or the post-modern globalist variety, first lie and then admit, nonchalantly, or even boastfully, that they lied?
No explanation is possible for such seemingly irrational behavior, unless, that is, one admits the monstrous hypothesis that the global elite is the new communist elite. In this case, the following excerpt, the concluding chapter of the Communist Manifesto, explains this odd behavior:
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”
Of course, if you set out to subjugate an entire nation to globalist policies, then you must tippy-toe at first. But then when the trap has sprung, as it did in Europe, for example, you lower the boom.
Will the North American Union be achieved by forcible overthrow?
The answer is yes, if we let it happen. Force does not necessarily presuppose violence. Forceful overthrow is the injection of countless willing minions like the McCains, the Kennedy’s, Clintons and the Bushes, into the political process by subterfuge, using polished marketing techniques in the media, independently of the will of the electorate, and then simply watching them do their destructive work. Conspicuously, conservatives have no candidate this fall, and this is by design, not accident.
The media, including the radio talk shows and Fox News, all had a hand in suppressing the truth about the impending North American Union, and the highly suspicious furtiveness of the SPP meetings in Canada.
They sanitized it, marginalizing as dangerous radicals anyone who dared to speak out against it.
That is how you get a job done when you are determined to overthrow the will of the people, whether here or in Brazil.
Once Olavo de Carvalho’s article appears at this site, we will have a better idea of how nations are taken over by the power elites on the Left.
It is up to us as a free nation to resist.
But do we have the will or the wisdom to do so?