Iran, hatred of Jews and the schizophrenic Lula administration. Part 1

Iran, hatred of Jews and the schizophrenic Lula administration. Part 1

Brazilian representatives at the UN condemn evangelicals, but not Hitler’s successor

By Julio Severo

On 20 April 2009, dozens of Western representatives walked out during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s address at the UN-sponsored Durban II conference against racism in Geneva. Even to Westerners, used to tolerating all kinds of prejudice against Israel, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s address of the, at the conference was too much. As usual, he accused Israel of racism and other attributes.

In addition to denying the Holocaust – with about six-million Jews murdered by Nazism -, Ahmadinejad has already said publicly that he desires the destruction of Israel.

Hitler also had similar intentions. Therefore, nations were correct when they isolated the Nazi dictator, who would have never had the opportunity to address a UN conference. Why Ahmadinejad was given such an opportunity is a mystery.

Brazil did not reject Hitler’s successor at the UN

Nor would Hitler ever have had the opportunity to visit the UN or Brazil. The reason Hitler’s ideological successor has received such an opportunity is hard to understand.

Ahmadinejad should be publicly rejected, isolated and condemned for his hate ideas and speeches against the Jews. Otherwise, the UN and the nations – not to mention Brazil – should ask Hitler posthumously to forgive them.

Yet, the withdrawal of the Western representatives from the UN conference was a small, though significant, gesture. Brazilian representatives were also present, but they could not walk out – because they were very busy.

What is behind the state war against “racism” in Brazil

The Brazilian delegation was headed by Racial Equality Minister Edson Santos, successor of Minister Matilde Ribeiro. Even though the Racial Equality Department was supposedly established to fight racial inequality, Ribeiro, the first black to occupy this exotic federal department, revealed its essence, “I think that it is normal for a black not to want to live with Whites.” Later, she was dismissed from her post for abusing taxpayer money.

For Matilde, blacks have the right not to live with Whites, if they so desire, and such a choice brings to blacks no criminal condemnation for discrimination. For her, the racial offense or separation is a crime only when committed by whites, but strangely it turns into rights when committed by blacks. If, for example, apartheid in South Africa were a system in which blacks lived separately from whites by the will of blacks themselves, Matilde would see no problem. In fact, she would see such segregation as a right for blacks, because as she said, “I think that it is normal for a black not to want to live with whites”.

Matilde has never been condemned for her racist statements or her corruption. Doesn’t the Left know how to reward and favor its supporters?

Be that as it may, the Matilde’s successor was there at the UN conference to continue Matilde’s work.

At the UN, Brazilian pai-de-santo condemns Brazil’s evangelicals

Brazilian representatives, who know how to defend reverse discrimination and homosexuality, complained at the UN “anti-racism” conference about racial and cultural “crimes” supposedly happening in Brazil.

This issue was directly addressed by Ivanir dos Santos, a pai-de-santo from Rio de Janeiro. According to the Michaelis Dictionary, a “pai-de-santo” is “a priest of an Afro-Brazilian voodoo cult,” including macumba and candomble. According to the Brazilian press, this pai-de-santo denounced at UN “a new kind of religious persecution in Brazil, which has aimed at temples of candomble and the followers of African religions, in acts provoked by modern Pentecostals.” Brazil, he said, “is the only country preserving religions brought by slaves and these religions should be defended.”

Actually, not only modern Pentecostal churches, but also all sound Christian churches seek to help deliver people from witchcraft practices. Yet, increasingly, these practices have been placed under state protection, and are now considered “culture.” Even the Catholic Church, which is predominant in Brazil, is not spared the attacks sponsored by the Brazilian State. Recently, a book by the Catholic priest Fr. Jonas Abib warning against witchcraft was banned by the Brazilian state of Bahia and now this priest is being prosecuted. The charge? Racism and prejudice.

The truth behind the Afro-Brazilian “culture”

As a son of a former umbanda leader who has accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I see no problem in speaking the truth about witchcraft derived from Africa. In fact, Brazilians remember, when there was still no veil of racial censorship, the periodical scandals reported by media of pai-de-santos involved in a number of child sacrifices.

In his book Porque Deus Condena o Espiritismo (Why God Condemns Spiritualism, CPAD: Rio de Janeiro, 1987, pages 66-68), journalist Jefferson Magno Costa tells of a case:

It was noon when he found little Fernando, a 9-year-old boy, walking along the railroad track near the city of São Roque, in the county of São Paulo. He took the boy home, asked his lover (with whom he had been living for some weeks), Dalva Braga Medeiros, to give the boy food and change his clothes.

Dalva was slow to comply and he took the clothes of one of the woman’s children and put it on Fernando. After drinking blue rum, he took the boy by the hand and went out, saying he was going to buy more rum. Upon his return, Dalva saw blood stains on little Fernando’s clothes. Immediately she understood that the boy had been raped.

Some minutes later, he invited Fernando to go out again, but because the boy refused and showed fear, he decided to call 12 year old Rogério, Dalva’s son, to keep company with the scared and defenseless child, and to “see how a little pig is killed”.

Leading the two boys up to a hilltop, he drew a trident on the floor. Next, as Rogério reportd, he grabbed little Fernando by his neck and jabbed a knife deep into his chest. But, unsatisfied because the boy was slow to die, pai-de-santo Josué Rodrigues de Souza made a four-inch cut on the neck of the small victim, and began to lick his blood.

After committing this abominable, horrendous and devilish act, the pai-de-santo murderer called Dalva, “because she had never seen a sacrifice.” He showed her the dead child covered in blood. He confessed to her that he’d committed the murder under possession of the demon Zé Capoeira, and that he had raped the child before killing him, “because Satan does not accept the soul of pure people” (O Globo newspaper, 13/03/1986). “I had to kill a person and give his blood to Satan. He was demanding it”, were his words when he was seized after the crime. (Veja magazine 19/03/1986, p. 111).

Journalist Jefferson Magno notes,

The atrocious crime committed by pai-de-santo Josué is only one of hundreds of cases involving people that, thinking that they are serving God, are serving Satan… Given the numerous cases of that kind reported by press, it is sad that the outrage of the general populace has no memory. Society forgets things easily. Some years ago, pai-de-santo Waldir Souza Lima was taken into custody in Rio, because he killed, in black magic rituals, six children abducted in different locations in the State of Rio. (Page 73)

You can find out more about Julio Severo at his blog Last Days Watchman:

(To be continued)

Persecuted Brazilian Christian free (for now), needs your help

Read below and contribute to Julio’s emergency fund. Thank you and God bless:


Julio Severo away from Brazil

Open letter to the friends of Blog Julio Severo


Dear Friends

I have arrived at a new place, being now away from Brazil and away from friends. It was not an easy decision. In fact, it was the only alternative.

Because of a 2006 complaint from the Associação da Parada do Orgulho Gay de São Paulo (Gay Pride Parade Association of São Paulo), federal prosecutors have been looking for my location. The complaint is “homophobia”.

Actually, there is no anti-“homophobia” law in Brazil. Even so, federal prosecutors have recently summoned one of my friends to reveal my location. My friend tried, with the assistance of a Jewish attorney, to say that he is not the responsible for the contents of my blog.

However, federal prosecutors did not accept his defense, and kept pressing him with the only objective to get information my location.

Therefore, before this nonsense, I was forced to leave Brazil with my family: a pregnant wife and two little children. We are right now in a completely strange place for us. What choice did we have?

Beside the complaint from the Associação da Parada do Orgulho Gay, other homosexual groups and individuals also filed charges in the office of federal prosecutors against my blog because of “homophobia”.

Read more.

USA persona non grata in Latin America

Shadow diplomacy

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, December 22nd, 2008

“Monroe must be rolling in his grave,” remarked Julia Sweig, director of the Latin-American program of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), upon learning that the USA was locked out of the Latin America State leaders’ summit in Costa do Sauípe, Bahia, Brazil. The famous 1823 doctrine, which placed the continent out of the range of European powers and made it a sphere of influence of the USA, is dead and buried.

This is the inevitable result of President George W. Bush’s policy of trying to seduce the Latin American “moderate left” and make it a containment wall against the avalanche of revolutionary leftism. There was virtually no one in high Washington DC circles, American big media and the CFR itself who would not consider this policy the pinnacle of universal diplomatic wisdom. The Democrats only complained – a bit – that it was not leftist enough. Republicans reacted with contempt and impatience at any attempt to point out its fundamental flaw.

Since I arrived to the USA in May 2005, I have made speeches in several conservative institutions and handed out dozens of articles to politicians and opinion makers, telling them that ignoring the deep unity of the Latin American left, betting on the possibility of pitting one country against the other by means of trading advantages, was an enormous act of stupidity, if not of deliberate treason that the leftists in the Department of State were nourishing and that the right-wing lackeys refused to see.

Celebrated by the left as a display of “independence,” the distancing of the continent from the USA is far from that: it is wholesale and overt submission to the expansionist strategy of the Russians, Chinese and Iranians. In recent years, the Chinese President Hu Jintao spent more time in Latin America than George W. Bush, increasing trading and diplomatic relations with several countries on the continent. Mahmud Ahmadinejad already has an invitation to visit Brazil and Russian warships are sailing merrily about in joint maneuvers with Venezuelan warships in an area where such would have been unthinkable some years ago. It is impossible to gauge Russian and Chinese encroachment in Brazilian business through an infinity of frontmen, but, as a rule of thumb, where you read “Spain” construe that as “Russia.” The reintegration of Cuba in the Latin-American community, with no concessions whatsoever in the human rights area in exchange, was celebrated by President Lula as a chief motivation for the summit, even if nothing else would be settled there.

Lula, of whom George W. Bush had high expectations as an essential instrument of American diplomacy to stop the advance of continental communism, is himself, just as much today as since the foundation of the São Paulo Forum in 1990, the great mastermind of Latin-American subversion, something that this summit made clearer than ever.

If, at the same time, he nourishes market economy and international free trade, he follows in this the same guidelines of the Russians, the Chinese and of all the international communist movement: to postpone sine die the socialization of the production means and use capitalist growth itself as a means to build global leftist political power. What Lenin did in Russia is now being applied on a worldwide scale: seduction of capitalists with smooth talk while the political power of the communist movement is increased to the utmost limits.

Accustomed to making the most accurate analyses and predictions and see them received with scornful grins and affectations of Olympic superiority – a classic emblem of ignorant unpreparedness – I recall that as early as 2005, fifteen years after the founding of the São Paulo Forum, by then the almost absolute lord of continental policy, the most enlightened council of the CFR would refuse to believe in the very existence of this organization. One day, some thirty or forty years from now, we shall know whether this display of blindness was the fruit of genuine stupidity or the clever action of enlightened intellectuals. Politics, of course, is a game of disguises. But one cannot handle disguises if one does not keep away from them, firmly anchored in reality. At the end of the day, those who get accustomed to living from disguises end up contaminating themselves with an abhorrent terror of reality: their vain boasting of realism, maturity and pragmatic wisdom is a grotesque pantomime that conceals its own total incapability of effective action. While granting them the illusory power of manipulating shadows within shadows, it changes them into shadows themselves.

Olavo de Carvalho, b. 1947, is a Brazilian writer and philosopher who has taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana, Brazil, from 2001 to 2005. He currently resides in the U.S., working as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. The author of a dozen books on philosophical and political matters, he is a respected weekly columnist with a wide following in his native Brazil and an increasingly popular public speaker in this country. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

A dictator in the White House

A dictator in the White House

by Olavo de Carvalho

Jornal do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), November 20th, 2008

Since the President of the Republic is a government paid official, it is an inalienable right of any taxpayer to ascertain that the beneficiary of his taxes meets all preconditions to fill the job, which, however, do not end in the electoral victory, but also include constitutional requirements defined two centuries before the elections. As with any civil service entrance examination, the burden of proof lies entirely with the applicant: he is the one who must provide evidence of his qualifications, and it is not the State’s or the taxpayer’s obligation to prove he does not possess these qualifications.
            If some judges have lately been ruling the other way around, it is because the American citizens who are questioning Obama’s election in the courts mistakenly put forth as their main argument suspicions about the President elect’s nationality. Nevertheless, even if Obama were born in the Capitol on July 4th, his would be the obligation to demonstrate it with valid documents. The very refusal to abide by this rule would be enough to testify to the candidate’s disdain for the Constitution, thus automatically disqualifying him for the job of supreme defender of the Constitution itself and of United States laws. By putting the nationality issue and not the lack of documents in center stage, the plaintiffs are taking upon themselves the burden of proof, thereby weakening a claim that otherwise no judge could possibly dismiss. Continue reading

Miracles of the Obamic faith

Folks, if a US-born author had written the following, the Left could write it off as typical ultra-conservative Republican rant. After all, who could possibly predict with any degree of accuracy that, if elected president, the furthest-left of all US senators would actually administer the US in a way that would threaten our security or encroach on our freedoms?

But here is where you must pay attention: Years ago, Brazilian writer Olavo de Carvalho did in fact accurately predict, based on Lula da Silva’s statements and deceptive behavior prior to his election, that, as president, Lula would take Brazil the furthest-left it has ever been in its history and that most of South America would follow suit, posing a major threat to the entire continent.

Back then, the press refused to print the truth about the Sao Paolo Forum, a criminal and terrorist enterprise that Lula had helped found (similar in some ways to ACORN). In fact anyone who dared to suggest that the forum even existed was branded a confused madman.

All of Mr. de Carvalho’s predictions came true. No surprise now in retrospect.

Now the author sees the whole insidious process repeating itself in the most unlikely place in the world: the USA. Again, the media are deliberately covering for a dangerous candidate. Anyone who dares to oppose Obama is labeled a racist and even threatened with physical violence. And Olavo de Carvalho is again sounding the alarm.

Mr. de Carvalho was lucky. He had a place to escape to and now resides in Virginia – safe for the time being. Or is he? Are any of us?

And if his warnings come true this time, where will he – and for that matter, the rest of freedom loving Americans – escape to?

If the election of Lula in Brazil is a gauge of what we can expect here — and I believe it is — an Obama presidency will not be reversible and it will infect the entire world with a grave political, economic and cultural sickness that may well prove incurable for generations to come.

Think long and hard before going to the polls tomorrow. And send a link to this column to a friend who may be undecided.

Obama is one mistake America simply cannot afford!

Donald Hank



Miracles of the Obamic faith


Olavo de Carvalho

Midia Sem Mascara (São Paulo, Brazil), Oct. 31st., 2008-11-02


Note – Last Saturday, my son Pedro and a friend of his were verbally abused and threatened with physical aggression by a group of more than twenty Obamaniacs in downtown Richmond, VA, for the simple reason that my son’s friend wore a McCain-Palin T-shirt. They were able to escape in my son’s car but were chased for several blocks by the group of fanatics. This is change we can believe in. — O.DC


               Nothing like this has ever been seen before in human history.

               At war with revolutionary Islam, the nearly victorious country is preparing to appoint as its commander-in-chief a politician enthusiastically supported by Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muhamar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and by all anti-American, pro-communist and pro-terrorist forces of the world, without any visible exception.

               It is exactly as if, at the height of the Vietnam war, America had elected a Ho-Chi-Minh sweetheart to the White House. Continue reading

So you want to be a useful idiot

Olavo de Carvalho explains, in the column below, the psychological and sociological mechanisms by which people become pawns in the hands of leftwing political activists, who use them to get their man elected and keep him in power.

Donald Hank


Quick lesson in sociology

By Olavo de Carvalho

Emile Durkheim, the founder of sociology, taught that there is a limit to the quota of abnormality which the collective mind is capable of perceiving. This can be given two interpretations, either simultaneously or alternatively:

I — when standards fall below the limit, society automatically adjusts its focus of perception to consider as normal what once appeared abnormal, to accept as normal, commonplace and desirable, what was once feared as weird and scandalous.

II — when the abnormality is excessive, surpassing the limits of the acceptable quota, it tends to pass unperceived or simply to be denied. The intolerable becomes nonexistent.

While it hardly corresponds to measurable quantities, the “Durkheim constant,” as it is usually called, has been found to be an effective analytical tool, particularly at times of historical acceleration, when various changes in standards occur and are put in place within a single generation and can be seen, so to speak, with one’s own eyes.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Robert Bork and Charles Krauthammer used this constant intelligently to explain the dizzying changes in American morality since the 60s. Bork wrote in 1996: “it is highly unlikely that a vigorous economy can be sustained by a weakened hedonistic environment of culture, particularly when this culture distorts incentives, rejecting personal achievement as a criterion for the distribution of rewards.” Twelve years later, the idea that bank loans are not a bargain between responsible parties but rather an indiscriminate universal right guaranteed by the government and by pressure from activist NGOs, has done its dirty work. The fact that the creators of the problem do not feel the least bit responsible for it, preferring to cast the blame precisely on those who did everything to avoid it, illustrates the fall of moral standards that I see accompanying the fall of lending standards.

However, the most interesting thing about this is not the application of the principle for the purposes of explanation but rather its practical use as a political weapon. For over a century, all movements interested in imposing sociocultural modifications against the preferences of the majority have avoided direct confrontation with public opinion. They have tried to deceive it by clever use of the “Durkheim constant,” which every revolutionary activist worth his salt knows by heart.

According to Interpretation I, the principle is applied by means of mild continuous pressure, carefully, slowly, gradually lowering the standards, first in the popular imagination by means of the arts and show business, then in the realm of ideas and educational values, followed by the field of overt activism proclaiming the most aberrant novelties to be sacred rights, and finally in the realm of law, criminalizing adversaries and diehards, assuming that any are left. With almost infallible consistency, we find that self-proclaimed conservatives conform passively — sometimes comfortably — to change without noticing that a new identity has been foisted on them from the outside like a straitjacket by those who hate them the most.

 According to Interpretation II, the Durkheim constant is used to turn society upside down overnight without encountering any resistance by means of lies and bluffs so colossal that the population instinctively refuses to believe that there is anything real behind them. The actual victim of the swindle reacts vehemently to any attempt to expose it, because he feels that admitting the reality of the situation would be a humiliating confession of stupidity. In order not to feel like a fool, the poor devil is willing to be a fool without sensing that he is one, confirming the old Jewish proverb “a fool has no delight in understanding.” This is why the biggest revolutionary organization in the history of Latin America, the Forum of Sao Paolo, was set up there in an environment in which all reports about it were ridiculed as signs of insanity, despite all manner of documentary support and proof of its existence. And it is why the United States of America may soon have a president without any proof of US nationality, financed by thieves and tied by a thousand commitments to terrorist and genocidal groups, while his own biggest opponent proclaims he is “a decent person that you do not have to be scared about.”

Translated by Donald Hank


Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005. He now lives in the U. S. as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website:

Brazil: The invisible revolution



When will the Western world wake up to Brazilian threat to freedom?


Heitor De Paola 

(This is a preview of a larger article that will be published in the near future. Emergency circumstances made this preview mandatory. These circumstances included massive attacks on my site,, with a variety of viruses and Trojan horses that precluded remaining online for more than a day in order to upgrade security levels.)  

In recent years Latin American Countries have been facing a renewed leftist movement that jeopardizes the little remaining individual liberty, freedom of speech and most of all private property rights and free enterprise there. The methods as well as the degree of violence vary from country to country. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia, vociferous and blatant Presidents stridently announce nationalization of oil, gas, and businesses and there are constant threats against free press.

While this situation prevails noisily in those countries, Brazil is deemed as a quiet and peaceful nation that abides by the rule of law and sound capitalism. This is far from the truth. Actually, in 1990, President Lula da Silva was co-founder, together with Fidel Castro, of the huge and powerful communist organization Forum of São Paulo. The center of the subversive leftist movement in Latin America didn’t move from Havana to Caracas as a great number of political analysts say. Instead it moved to Brasilia. Caracas and Chávez are only well designed disguises to conceal the very source of all revolutionary actions in the Continent. The Forum of São Paulo was founded to “restore in Latin America what was lost in Eastern Europe”: communism, no less! And at the same time to save Cuba from the imminent disaster that the island was facing after the Soviet money injection ended. Deception is extremely important to divert attention from Brazil and in this way allow the quiet development of the most dangerous of all revolutions: the invisible revolution. Anyone who dares say Brazil has undergone a quiet yet sustainable journey to become a communist country is immediately certified as psychotic. Supposedly “well informed” analysts, including Mary O’Grady, Montaner and Vargas Llosa, with their theories about the existence of “two lefts” – one “carnivorous” and another “vegetarian” – and using “populism” instead of communism, when referring to Brazil, collaborate a great deal with the concealment. The US Department of State controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations seems to establish its policies toward Latin America based on the same assumptions. I wonder if the Defense Department thinks otherwise in rescheduling the 4th Fleet, but I don’t believe so. Perhaps they are only thinking of threats posed by Venezuelan’s Chávez.

However, anyone who looks attentively at Brazil’s social structure will see unfolding before one’s eyes many details, apparently detached from each other, that when unified reveal a terrible scene. From a Marxist-Leninist influenced education to statism; from attacks on Christian and moral values to invasion of all kinds of private property; from Government support of leftists NGO’s to growing corruption of the Legislative and Judiciary branches together with growing empowerment of the Executive – all converge toward a steady revolutionary trend and to a police state.  

There are many fronts in this war but I must restrict myself in this brief article to a small part of what is going on in the countryside. For example, the MST (“Landless” Movement) is not what it is usually called, a “social” movement of poor farmers, but in fact a very rich guerrilla revolutionary movement – funded by American and European organizations such as Friends of MST and leftist Catholic foundations around the world – which have no interest at all in property for the landless but in destroying productive properties, agribusiness and experiments with genetically modified food. MST combines forces with many other revolutionary movements and is a branch of the powerful international guerrilla Via Campesina that has spread through 56 countries around the world.

However, there are other fronts where inconspicuous movements have been under way for the last thirty years or so. When suspicion is aroused and threatens to make them visible the political police branches start to move in order to prevent these suspicions from surfacing. In this preview I will stress only two points that, when I tried to expose them, motivated two massive attacks on my site in less then four days time: 1- the continuous and renewed attacks against Brazilian Armed Forces, particularly the Army, based on unproved accusations of torture in the past, and 2- the massive anti-rubella vaccination program developed by the Ministry of Health with the strong support of the United Nations through World Health Organization.

* * *

The attacks on the Army are widely announced by the president’s press secretary, a former terrorist and kidnaper of American Ambassador Charles B. Elbrick, and the Chairman of a so-called Special Secretary on Human Rights focused on some officers who participated in home security actions against terrorism or developed military actions against communist guerrillas, such as the one in Araguaia, in the seventies. Such attacks are coordinated on an international level by the United Nations and a myriad of NGO’s among them Amnesty International. Javier Zuniga, CEO of Amnesty, stated recently that ‘there are wounds that still are not healed’. How could they be if an average of 75% of Brazilian population considers the Armed Forces the most trustworthy institutions in the Country? At the same time, politicians of both Houses have an average of no more than 8-9%. Not healed for whom? For something so immaterial as an ‘international community’? Or for former terrorists who now govern many Countries in Latin America?

On the other hand, what moral credentials does Miguel Alfonso Martinez have to criticize Brazilian Army officers if he was nominated to the UN Human Rights Committee by the ‘exemplary defender of human rights’, Fidel Castro himself? Or Jean Ziegler who was nominated to same committee despite the strong protest of more than twenty Countries for being a notorious friend of the most truculent dictators like Robert Mugabe, Muammar Khadafi, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Fidel Castro? Ironically Ziegler created the ‘Muammar Khaddafi Prize for Human Rights’ which Ziegler awarded to himself in 2002! More details here.

The international coordination goes on by sentencing Argentine officers life in prison as well as the arrival in Brazil of Spanish ‘super-judge’ Baltasar Garzón, invited by the same people, who always find reasons to condemn right-side militaries but denied many lawsuits of families of Cuban prisoners against Castro.

* * *

The second sensitive subject addressed by myself and many others is the Ministry of Health program on vaccination against rubella. Denunciations were brought by Argentine scientists of the University of Buenos Aires School of Pharmacy and Biochemistry that confirmed the presence of human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (ß-hCG), a hormone essential for maintaining pregnancy. The administration of ß-hCG in vaccines induces the female organism to create anti-hCG antibodies, which interpret the natural fabrication of hCG occurring in pregnancy as ‘enemies’ that must be eliminated at once, precluding, by this attack, the implantation of the egg cell in the uterus. In brief: if ß-hCG is inoculated in this form it becomes an abortion factor.

Other accusations have come to the fore recently. In 1995 the Philippine Supreme Court halted a vaccination program against tetanus supported by UNICEF due to contamination with ß-hCG.  In 2004 in a Nigeria’s vaccination against poliomyelitis a scientist found sterilizer agents secretly introduced into vaccines. Another accusation came from a different source in Asia.

Although Brazil has almost 200 million inhabitants there were only 17 cases of congenital defects due to Congenital Rubella Syndrome last year (2007). Comparatively, the United Kingdom with less than half that population, had 43 certified cases. Besides, studies developed in the University of Rio de Janeiro Information Center for Travelers (CIVES) suggest that rubella is no more a danger for public health, dropping from 30 thousands certified cases in 1997 to 326 in 2005.

So why such an expensive vaccination program to inoculate adults from 20 to 39 years of age with 70 million doses? Are those vaccines really contaminated with ß-hCG? Is this a monstrous secret abortion program?

So much evidence and suspicions should at least lead to a thorough investigation by the public health authorities. But the only answer until now has been a nondescript one page press release from the Pan American Health Organization that failed to answer any scientific questions. This report is obviously released to reassure the Brazilian Ministry of Health Vaccine Program. It must be said that this Minister is a well known and self-defined pro-abortive activist.

At last I must state that I do not belong to any anti-vaccine activist group. On the contrary, a few years ago I had a strong and harsh discussion defending vaccination programs against some of these groups religiously or ideologically biased against vaccines. I have some articles on the subject from that date. See here and here (in Portuguese). And I still defend vaccination programs due to its efficacy in eradication of smallpox, poliomyelitis, tuberculosis and many others. By I cannot agree with the criminal and secret use of such powerful disease-control instruments used to murder human beings. If so many accusations have been brought, this situation must be thoroughly investigated beyond a doubt.

Olavo de Carvalho on the revolutionary mind

Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind


By Donald Hank

Even the best of observers have trouble figuring out what the Left is, or what the difference between left and right is, or what these concepts even mean any more.

Great strides have been made recently, however, with the recognition, among the most astute observers, that Hitler’s Third Reich is by no means an example of rightwing ideology and policies in action, contrary to current political doctrine.

Many conservative writers have already concluded that Hitler was not a rightwinger, based mostly on his National Socialism.

Indeed Mr. de Carvalho’s (as yet unpublished) lecture “The structure of the revolutionary mind,” cites the recent book “The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia” by Richard Overy, which demonstrates the parallels between Hitler and Stalin.

I had noticed that the compatibility of Hitler’s ideology with today’s European relativism was brilliantly highlighted in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, and most poignantly in the scene in a former Third Reich mental “hospital” where patients deemed to be of no value to society were gassed (I couldn’t help but think of Terri Schiavo). When Stein asked the tour guide at the museum what she would say if she could talk to the perpetrators of that horror, she simply said that was another era and they had their reasons for doing what they did. Thus she clearly would not feel justified in judging these criminals by her standards (assuming she had any). Here was a woman who had certainly been educated in Germany, either the communist East Germany or the socialistic West Germany. Neither system prepared her to condemn Hitler’s actions because these actions were based on the same world view that Germany embraces today, atheistic humanism based on a tenacious belief in Darwinist principles of natural selection, and the correlative notion that man has a moral right and even obligation to support natural selection with his laws under which a race can be culled of inferior elements. Neither socialism nor “national” socialism reject this out of hand. Only Christianity does, and that religion is fading fast in Europe (while here Christianity is being absorbed by the Left. See here, here and here).

All this helps clarify the compatibility between two world views that our education system and mainstream press insist are opposites.

But surprisingly, despite a lot of keen observation, before Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture, no one had yet managed to credibly characterize the Left in all of its main facets.

I have personally grappled with this for many years and had all but despaired of finding an adequate definition. And yet, how can a good American be a good American if he can’t identify the enemy of his way of life? How can he stand athwart history and shout stop if he doesn’t know what it is he must stop?

At the top of the first page of each issue of Izvestia was the slogan “Workers of the world unite!” Thus to people of my era, the Left portrayed itself as a system of social justice that aimed at creating a level playing field between workers and their bosses and attempted to share the wealth equally with a view to building a world free of poverty.

Yet today, we see the Left working hard to make fuel more expensive for the poor, not in any attempt at social justice but rather to “save the planet.” The main area where social “justice” is sought is between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the current thrust is toward legalizing same-sex “marriage” which, if it triumphs, will trivialize traditional marriage, ultimately prompting fewer to marry and bear children, since part of the attractiveness of marriage has been a sacred religious ceremony affirming one’s faith, encouraging people to wait until marriage to enjoy sex, and therefore fostering heterosexual purity based on a biblical world view. None of this is apparent in the “gay” community with its emphasis on promiscuity (broad daylight naked orgies) and its rejection of the biblical view of homosexuality. This focus on discouraging child birth is mightily supported by Planned Parenthood. Thus, ultimately, the leftist vision seems to be a world with more poverty and fewer children born to shoulder the burden of caring for the elderly, for example, by paying into the social services system. The once-proud vision of a world of strong healthy workers receiving equal pay for a better, more prosperous life, is quickly giving way to a vision of a world impoverished for the sake of an impersonal planet to whose riches mankind must increasingly forfeit its claims. We are taught that to consider humanity’s needs is to be selfish, that we must sacrifice our children’s future for the sake of a planet. And yet we are being asked to sever ties to that planet as if our destiny were separate from its.

Thus, obviously, the old left and the new left are different ideologically and many ordinary people are confused (particularly since an astounding percentage of Republican politicians embrace the Left’s policies). Some are confused into thinking that the new Left is more benign. These are the ones who believe the myth that communism is dead.

In fact, communism never died, it merely metamorphosed.

How to explain that the Left can completely substitute its original ideology and still be the Left?

Olavo de Carvalho had wondered the same thing. But he was born into a South American environment where leftism was the air they breathed. It was the worldview in academe and on the street and there was no other box to think outside of. Therefore, as a philosophy student, he was steeped in the literature of the Left, not just Marx and Hegel but the entire pantheon of leftist gods writing the blueprints for society. Thus he had read an enormous amount of this literature and is today one of the few living conservatives-having had his epiphany-who now truly understands the Left, something like David Horowitz, except that de Carvalho had the additional benefit of seeing a much more virulent leftism in action and up close.

Even so, Mr. Carvalho had to read and reread the old (and new) revolutionary literature to find a common thread, and what he found is surprising:

The Left (which he calls the “revolution”) is not a unified ideology or agenda at all, but rather a way of seeing the world, and specifically it is an inversion of what normal people call common sense. And this inversion is the sole unifying factor, the one common thread running through the revolution since the 13th and 14th centuries

According to de Carvalho, revolutionary thought as we know it did not exist before about the 13th century; nor is it a function of chronological age. The myth that the young tend to be revolutionaries arises from the Left itself and serves the purpose of making the Revolution appear to be a natural phenomenon.

Instead, this revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:

1-Inversion of the perception of time.

Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it).

Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it.

One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral.

While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist.

2-The inversion of morality

De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.

The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale.

Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion.

De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority!

To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine).

By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” the American revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts. 

3-Inversion of subject and object

When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.

De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out.

You will be a better American for having read the writings of – a great American.


Olavo de Carvalho is a well-known Brazilian philosopher and writer, many of whose articles have graced the pages of Laigle’s Forum.


The formula for poverty, by Olavo de Carvalho

Want to know the fate of the US in a few years? Just watch Brazil.  The similarity in the trends are astonishing, particularly the way the parties of the “right” grovel before the Left.

Brazilian President Lula has the reputation in the US of being something of a moderate, supporting leftist ideals on the one hand while maintaining the free market on the other. This little sop thrown toward market economics has enabled Lula to fly under the same radar that exposed the antics of the more flamboyant Hugo Chavez.

But behind the Lula mask is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.

On the surface, one might think what is happening in Brazil has nothing to do with us.

One would be dead wrong.

As Olavo de Carvalho has pointed out before on this site, what is happening in Brazil today is a depressing reflection of what can easily happen in the US tomorrow, ie, the loss of the free market – and it will, unless we wake up promptly.

What Mr. de Carvalho has noticed and so many others are missing, is that our nemesis is not the hard Left, but rather the lukewarm right.

Look at the unmistakable similarity between Brazilian and US politics, for example. Quote:

At variance with the general chatter of those who fancy themselves the keepers of public opinion, all research shows the decidedly conservative preferences of the Brazilian people, who, thanks to a gross miscalculation of the parties on the “right,” are excluded from political representation.  The votes of the silent majority are up for grabs for any candidate with the courage to speak on its behalf.  Meanwhile, the politicians who should do this prefer to make like good little boys for the beautiful people on the left, in exchange for nothing more than minimal guarantees for the free market. 

The Brazilians are a dead ringer for us, only just a few years further Left. The only thing that may save us is taking a lesson from what has happened there (and, for that matter, in Europe). But will we? American conservatives are becoming so isolationist that many refuse to pay attention to what is happening elsewhere in the world, in the false belief that the universal laws that govern human behavior will somehow spare us.

To borrow from Ben Stein: is anyone paying attention out there? Anyone? Anyone?

Donald Hank

The formula for poverty

by Olavo de Carvalho

In 2003, Brazil ranked number 58 in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.  In 2008 it ranks 101. The direct relationship between economic freedom and prosperity is the most obvious thing in the world.  Anyone who doubts this need only check out the 10 first and 10 last ranked on the heritage list.  At the top, Japan and Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Australia, United States, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.  At the bottom, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, Burma, Turkmenistan, Iran, Belarus, Bangladesh and Venezuela.  And Brazil is much closer to the latter than to the former, because this scale goes from one to 157 and Brazil has the uneasy distinction of being at the bottom third of the list.  Above Brazil we find Japan, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Taiwan and Spain.  Below us are Bolivia, Angola, Vietnam, Nigeria and Rwanda.  Now I finally understand the slogan of the late Dom Helder Camara, who became the world icon of leftist generosity:  “preferential option for poverty.”  It doesn’t mean helping the poor – it just means staying poor.

The Heritage Foundation Index demonstrates with utmost clarity that the Lula administration is strangling Brazilian capitalism even as it banks on it to finance its social programs and guarantee the good image of the government among international investors.

Meanwhile, in liberal circles, there are still those who swear that the socialist option of the governing party is only a stage prop to placate the “radicals,” and that Lula is at heart a proponent of the market economy.

Obviously, neither Lula nor anyone in the PT (Workers’ Party) is socialist enough to believe in the complete suppression of private ownership of the means of production.  The international Left has long desisted from this idea, one of the most idiotic ever to occur to the human mind.  What the left wants now is direct control of the economy, through taxes and restrictive regulations, and even so, only enough to guarantee the main thing: domination of the public mind, the dictatorship of psychological engineering.  But the Brazilian government has already exceeded this minimum.  On the other hand, the prudence and circumspection with which the cultural controls it wants are slowly, gently, almost imperceptibly imposed is remarkable.

In truth, it does not have to show its hand very much in this area.  The so-called “opposition parties” are surpassing it, imposing, on their own initiative, the politically correct regulations required by leftwing trends.

Depressing example: even before the PT came to power, when “anti-homophobic” policy was still only a faint suggestion in the federal sphere, the governor of São Paulo, Geraldo Alckmin, took the pains to endorse state law No. 10.948 of 2001, which penalizes “offensive or discriminatory action practiced against the homosexual, bisexual or transgendered citizen.”  This law has just been enforced against the citizen Juliano da Silva of the city of Pontal, who called a homosexual with whom he was arguing a “fag.” The law does not stipulate against calling a non-homosexual this, making it clear that the insult will be punished only if it has a foundation in truth.  Thus, before calling someone a “fag,” you had better make sure he’s not one.  Politically correct legislation is transforming the Justice Department into a travesty, catering only to the despotism of activist groups.  The leftist groups that propose these bills know perfectly well that their only objective is to dismantle the system from within, creating the atmosphere of chaos and anarchy necessary for the total takeover of power by one of the factions – to the exclusion of all others – to go unnoticed, and this is exactly what is happening.

The “liberal”[1] opposition takes the bait and winds up serving as a channel to implement these policies, either because it is fool enough to take seriously the moral pretexts adorning them or because it believes political correctness pays off in terms of votes.  In the first case, it is a victim of moral naïveté, but in the second case, it lapses into political stupidity that is hardly excusable in individuals who have any experience with elections.

 In Brazil, gay activism, the abortion platform and things of that kind never garner votes for anyone.  They may guarantee some applause from the media, but who says the media are as influential as they give themselves credit for?  At variance with the general chatter of those who fancy themselves the keepers of public opinion, all research shows the decidedly conservative preferences of the Brazilian people, who, thanks to a gross miscalculation of the parties on the “right,” are excluded from political representation.  The votes of the silent majority are up for grabs for any candidate with the courage to speak on its behalf.  Meanwhile, the politicians who should do this prefer to make like good little boys for the beautiful people on the left, in exchange for nothing more than minimal guarantees for the free market.  It is clear that the more moral and cultural ground they give, the more minimal these guarantees become.  The free market is never a law unto itself.  It depends on cultural, moral and psychological conditions that, once they are annulled in favor of political correctness, provide a left wing government with all the means of bringing capitalism to its knees without the capitalists themselves daring to complain or even figuring out what is happening, namely, cultural hegemony and ultimate control over consciences, especially those of the adversary.  The alacrity with which so-called liberal politicians sign on to the cultural propaganda of the left illustrates the success of the Gramscian strategy of “passive revolution” in Brazil, defined as a dialectic opposition in which “only the thesis develops all of its potentials in the struggle until the supposed representatives of the antithesis are captured”

The furious regulatory activity of the Lula government in the Heritage Foundation’s list points to something the whole world ought to know: when you give up everything in exchange for the free market, you wind up losing the free market as well.

Translated by Donald Hank (

The author, Olavo de Carvalho is a noted correspondent for several major Brazilian newspapers. 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:

[1] The term “liberal” in Brazil is used to mean what in America is referred to as “conservative” or “libertarian.”-Tr.

President Lula, guilty by confession

Olavo de Carvalho is a respected journalist with a wide following in his native Brazil and is 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, followed by several others including one linked by WorldNetDaily, which has been one of our biggest hits ever, garnering 3,400 hits the very first day it ran.

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

In this next article, Mr. Carvalho gives us a perspective of the international intrigue of the Sao Paolo Forum, an arm of the shadow government analogous to the SPP here in its intent to circumvent public input in matters affecting sovereignty.

President Lula, guilty by confession

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, September 26th, 2005

Translated by David Carvalho and Donald Hank

I should be grateful to President Lula. When practically all the national media makes an effort to cover up the activities of the Sao Paulo Forum or even to deny its existence, labeling as a “madman” or “fanatic” anyone who denounces them, cometh the very founder of the entity and does the job, proving by his own words the most depressing suspicions and some even worse.

The presidential speech on July 2, 2005, stated in the fifteen year anniversary of the Forum and reproduced in the government’s official site, is the explicit confession of a conspiracy against the national sovereignty, an infinitely more serious crime than all crimes of corruption perpetrated and covered up by the current government; a crime that, by itself, would justify not only impeachment but also the imprisonment of its perpetrator.

At the distance at which I find myself, I have only now become fully aware of this unique document, and yet the editors-in-chief of the major newspapers and of all the radio and TV news broadcasts in Brazil were there the whole time. Though aware of the speech since the date it was made, they remained silent, proving that their persistent hiding of the facts was not the result of distraction or pure incompetence: it was subservient, Machiavellian complicity with a crime, of which they expected to enjoy profits unknown.

The meaning of these paragraphs, once unearthed from the verbal garbage that wraps it, is crystal clear:

“As a function of the existence of the Sao Paulo Forum, comrade Marco Aurelio has played an extraordinary role in this effort to consolidate what we started in 1990… This was how we, in January 2003, proposed to our comrade, president Chavez, the creation of the Group of Friends to find a peaceful solution that, thank God, took place in Venezuela. And it was only possible thanks to political action between comrades. It was not a political action of either a State with another State, or one president with another president. Some will remember, Chavez attended one of the forums we held in Havana. And thanks to this relationship it was possible for us to build, with many political divergences, the consolidation of what took place in Venezuela, with the referendum that installed Chavez as president of Venezuela.

“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 the President admits in these excerpts is that:

1. The Sao Paulo Forum is a secret or at least undercover entity (“built… so that we could talk without seeming to do so, and so that people would not understand any political interference taking place”).

2. This entity is actively involved in the internal politics of many Latin-American nations, making decisions and determining the course of events, at the fringes of all supervision by government, parliaments, justice and public opinion.

3. The so called “Group of Friends of Venezuela” was but an arm, agency or facade of the Sao Paulo Forum (“as a function of the existence of the Forum… we proposed to our comrade president Chavez.”..).

4. After being elected in 2002, he, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, while having abandoned pro forma his position as president of the Sao Paulo Forum, giving the impression that he was free to rule Brazil without commitments with ill-explained foreign alliances, kept working underground for the Forum, helping, for instance, to produce the results of the Venezuelan referendum of August 15, 2004 (“thanks to this relationship it was possible for us to provide the consolidation of what took place in Venezuela”), without giving his voters the slightest satisfaction for this.

5. The orientation in vital issues of Brazilian foreign policy was decided by Mr. Lula not as President of the Republic at meetings with his ministers, but as an attendee and advisor of underground meetings with foreign political agents (“it was a political action between comrades, not a political action either of one State with another, or of one president with another”). He put loyalty to his “comrades” above his duties as a president.

The President confesses, in short, that he subjected the country to decisions made by foreigners, gathered in conferences of an entity whose actions the Brazilian people would not be made privy to, much less understand.

The active humiliation of the national sovereignty could not be more evident, especially when one realizes that the attending entities of these decision-making meetings include organizations such as the Chilean MIR, kidnapper of Brazilians, and the FARC, Colombian narcoguerilla, responsible, according to its member Fernandinho Beira-Mar, for the annual injection of two hundred tons of cocaine into the national market.

Never before has an elected president of any civilized country showed such complete disdain for the Constitution, the laws, the institutions and the entire electorate, while giving all confidence, all authority, to a conclave swarming with criminals, in tracing the nation’s destiny and its relations with its neighbors behind the people’s backs. Never before in Brazil was there as brazen, complete and cynical traitor as Luis Inacio Lula da Silva.

The greatest proof that he consciously eluded the opinion of the public, keeping them ignorant of the operations of the Sao Paulo Forum, is that, as the elections approached, fearing my constant denunciation of this entity, he told his “advisor for international affairs,” Giancarlo Summa, to appease the newspapers by means of an official note from the Workers Party stating that the Forum was just an innocent debating club, devoid of any political action (see And now he boasts of the “political action of comrades,” performed with resources from the Brazilian government and hidden from Congress, justice and public opinion.

Compared to such an immense crime, what importance can the Mensalao and the like phenomena have but as a means of financing operations that are only part of the overall strategy of transferring national sovereignty to the secret authority of foreigners?

Can there be greater disproportion than between ordinary cases of corruption and this supreme crime for which they served as instruments?

The answer is obvious. But why then did many readily denounce the means while agreeing to keep covering up the ends?

Here the answer is less obvious. It requires presorting. The denouncers are divided into two types: (A) individuals and groups committed to the Sao Paulo Forum’s scheme, but not directly involved in the use of these illicit means in particular; (B) individuals and groups unrelated to both things.

The rationale of the former is simple, to whit: off with the rings, but keep the fingers. Once it has become impossible to keep hiding the use of illicit instruments, they agree to throw their most notorious operators under the bus, in order to keep perpetrating the same crime by other means and agents. The content and even the style of the charges leveled by these people reveal their nature as pure decoys. When they attribute the Workers Party corruption, which started as early as 1990, to settlements with the IMF signed in 2003 on, they show that their need to lie does not shrink even before the plain and simple material impossibility. When they cast the blame on some “group,” hiding the fact that the ramifications of the criminal structure extended from the Presidency of the Republic to the rural town halls, implicating practically the whole party, they prove that they have as much to hide as those who were charged at the time.

More complex are the motivations of group B. In part, it is composed of characters devoid of fiber, physical and moral cowards, who would rather focus on the lesser details for fear of seeing the continental dimensions of the overall crime. There is also the subgroup of the intellectually weak, who stake their bets on the “death of communism” nonsense and now, in order not to contradict themselves, feel obliged to reduce the greatest coup scam in the history of Latin America to the more manageable dimensions of an ordinary corruption scheme, depoliticizing the meaning of the facts and pretending that Lula is nothing more than a  Fernando Collor without a jet ski. There are those who, out of either opportunism or stupidity, collaborated way too much with the rise of the criminal party to power and now feel divided between the impulse to cleanse themselves of the stench of the bad company they kept, and the impulse to lessen the crime to avoid the burden of their complicity in it. There are also the pseudo-wise guys who aided and abetted the enemy, blinded by the insane illusion that it is more viable to defeat him by gnawing at him from the edges than by lunging a death blow in his heart. There are, finally, those who truly understand nothing of what’s going on and, parroting Brazilian speech patterns, just repeat what they hear, in hopes of blending in.

I earnestly ask all the flaming anti-corruption accusers of recent weeks – politicians, media owners, businessmen, journalists, intellectuals, judges, and military – to examine carefully their own consciences, if they have any left, to see into which of these subgroups they fall. Because, aside from those few Brazilians of valor who supported in timely fashion the charges against the Sao Paulo Forum, all the others will inevitably fall into one of them.

It would be absurd to blame only Lula and the Sao Paulo Forum for the Brazilian moral decay, forgetting the contribution they got from these fair-weather moralists, as eager to denounce the parts as they are to hide the whole picture. Nothing could have fueled national self-deceit more than this marvelous network of complicities and omissions born of motivations that, while varied, converge into the same result, namely, the creation of a false impression of transparent investigations, and a facade of normality and lawfulness even as the entire order crumbles, invisibly gnawed away from the inside.

The destruction of order and its replacement by “a new pattern of relationships between State and society,” decided in secret meetings with foreigners – such was Mr. Lula’s confessed objective. This objective, as he said in another part of the same speech, must be attained and consolidated “in a manner such that it can be sustained, regardless of who is governing the country.”

What is perceived from the behavior of Mr. Lula’s critics and accusers is that, in this general objective, he has already emerged victorious, regardless of the success or failure that he may have in the rest of his term. The new order whose name may not be spoken is already in place, and its authority is such that not even the president’s fiercest enemies dare to challenge it. All of them, in one way or another, have already committed themselves at least implicitly to put the Sao Paulo Forum above the Constitution, the laws and the institutions of Brazil. If they complain about looting, embezzlement, vote buying and bribes, it is precisely to avoid complaining about the transfer of national sovereignty to the continental conference of “comrades,” like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, the Colombian narcoguerillas and the Chilean kidnappers. It is like a rape victim protesting the damage to her hairdo, neglecting to mention, even politely, the rape itself.

Perhaps the deeds of Mr. Lula and his wretched Forum would not have wrought such vast damage in Brazil as this total inversion of proportions, complete destruction of moral judgment, and total corruption of the public conscience. Never before has such a profound agreement between accusers and accused been seen that would indulge the crime, denounced with so ado, so as to succeed in the overall objectives “without seeming to do so and so that people would not understand.”

Olavo de Carvalho is a correspondent for various Brazilian newspapers. 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: