Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

Is “gay marriage” a historical imperative?

by Don Hank

According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

My recent response to the court decision by a homosexual judge in California supposedly making any ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional received a deluge of of responses, including some expressing gay rage at my refusal to accept the use of the word “marriage” appied to same-sex relationships. (Check out the comments section under the article “Same-sex marriage? There’s no such thing”).

Some suggested I was a Nazi, others a bigot, still others a hater. It was the same old Gramscian tactics that the Left has used for over 100 years, showing an almost complete lack of reflection and no palpable originality.

In the last comment, a poster, who calls himself a “Christian” and apparently wants to pass as a “conservative,” said:

“Of course, the rest of society has moved on [emphasis added], and we pretty much look at them [anyone opposing ‘gay marriage’] with a mixture of pity and revulsion, but hey, it is their right.”

So the work of a single judge activist is proof that “society has moved on”?

In fact the people of California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, voted for Proposition 8, which makes “gay marriage” illegal. So what is going on?

Let me try to explain.

This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.

Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present. Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact.” “Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”

But do utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?

The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, all reflect the opposite. There, the leaders pursued lifestyles of great opulence, living in palaces and feasting daily as the masses either starved or lived hand to mouth. In the Ukraine, under Stalin, for example, at least 10 million were killed, mostly by starvation. Still more were starved to death in China under Mao.

The closer any country comes to the dreamed-of “Utopia,” the further from equality it gets.

Of course, the above examples are restricted to the hardline communists, who, thanks to the unlimited power they enjoyed, had no need to use victim groups to get votes. But the same principle applies to soft Marxism of the kind that prevails in Europe and the US, where interest groups (like homosexuals) are seen as crucial to acquiring power. You need only look at Michelle Obama’s taxpayer-funded trip to Spain or Nancy Pelosi’s fabulously expensive taxpayer-funded airliner to see that the Western world is destined for an impoverishment of the middle class that may rival — or even exceed — that of hardline communist nations. You will get even poorer and the politically well-placed will get wealthy beyond measure. Our world financial and economic crises are a result of wealth distribution under “soft” Marxism. Yet our elites continue to borrow for ineffective Keynesian “stimulus” programs that transfer the wealth of the middle class to rich bankers, and will continue to do so as long as we close our eyes to the unconstitutionality of this plundering of our resources. (The elites confuse us by reminding that the “conservative” G.W. Bush also promoted such practices as lending to the insolvent and “stimulus” programs. Recruiting false conservatives into the Marxist game plays a key role in the subterfuge. “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron is playing this role in the UK, where he promised voters to hold a referendum on EU membership and then reneged on that promise. And in case you missed it, the “conservative”Ann Coulter has recently taken her place in the ranks of the cultural Marxist campaign, promoting “gay marriage,” thereby ensuring her place in a leftward-evolving GOP).

In other words, the “historical imperative” that the above-quoted homosexual activist alludes to, and his disdain for counter-revolutionary traditionalists like me (regarding conservatives with “pity and revulsion”), are a sign of a great inequality that is to come, one that is cynically expected to be a utopia.

Let me further clarify: The homosexual agenda we see proceeding apace before us is not, on the surface, the kind of economic Marxism we saw (or see) in Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It is something more subtle and insidious but with the same intent – namely, Fabian Marxism, which is a stealth revolution that is intended to eventually usher in economic Marxism later on once power is consolidated in the hands of the Left. Now if this “historical imperative” – the inevitability of the Marxist revolution – were possible, then the question is: why did it not happen a long time ago?

The first known Utopian screed appeared almost 2,500 years ago. It was written by none less than Plato. The first Utopian experiment was in 4th Century Persia and it failed ignominiously for the same reason all such experiments fail: no one wanted to work.

There were utopian movements from the 13th Century on in the Dark Ages and on through the Renaissance and beyond. They played crucial roles in the great wars of the time. All of them failed.

The French Revolution touted égalité, among other things. It follows that today’s France is very accepting of same-sex “marriage.” Yet today, there is scarcely a more economically skewed society, with government employees receiving vastly  more income and perks than workers in the private economy. And, of course, as in all “egalitarian” Utopias, there is a vanishing trend in work performed by this privileged class, while the less-fortunate private-economy workers earn less and less in terms of real wages, corrected for cost of living.

It is quite possible that eventually, the masses will be dumbed-down and propagandized to the point of no return, relinquishing the little freedom that remains, and learn to accept the unacceptable. A quick look at the sociocultural reality of Europe is a glimpse of our future, barring unforeseen circumstances.

But if past revolutions are a viable indicator, then the activists themselves will be the main recipients of the unintended consequences of their own actions.

Already, the first “gay” divorces have been examples of wealth redistribution, with the richer of the 2 being forced to relinquish a significant proportion of their income and property to the other.

It is to be expected that some of these “beneficiaries” of the homosexual revolution will eventually look back longingly at the days of traditional marriage and its defenders.

I for one will be looking at them not with revulsion, but with pity.

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

Victim of leftist regime warns America

I have found that there is no more reliable warning about the Left than that from a country that has been taken over by the Left, and there is no more valuable source of insight about the strategy and tactics of the Left than a former leftist who has been redeemed. I say that as a former leftist who has been redeemed.

Brazil is a country that has fallen into the clutches of the hard Left. There is almost no alternate news source there.

Mr. de Carvalho has repeatedly pointed out that, prior to the last presidential elections, the Brazilian news media had refused to mention that Brazilian President Lula was one of the founders of the far-left, terrorist-ridden Forum of Sao Paolo. In the early years, anyone who even admitted the existence of this forum was considered an insane rightwing hate monger.

Sound familiar?

Phillip Berg’s lawsuit that no one mentions in the media? The L.A. Times videos that will not be shown?  The silence over Obama’s involvement with radical leftist Odinga in Kenya? De Carvalho has already pointed out the eerie similarity between these (and many other) hush-ups and the way the leftwing suppressed the truth in his country before Lula’s election.

Later, after the damage was irreversible, Lula himself not only publicly admitted the Sao Paolo Forum existed, but in fact, spoke proudly of how much he had personally achieved for the Left in South America by participating in it. He even brazenly bragged how he had pulled the wool over the eyes of naïve Brazilian citizens.

Will Barack Obama some day brazenly brag that he has deceived you as well?

There is only one thing standing in the way of that possibility: you.

This coming Tuesday, November 4.

Donald Hank

 

The candidate of fear

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), October 24th, 2008

Called “the Messiah” by radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and “My Jesus” by the college associate editor of a student newspaper, Barack Hussein Obama informs us, “Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.” What if he did not let us know?

Whatever the case, he has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.

It is true that Obama pledges to dismantle the space defense system of the United States, to slow down unilaterally the American program of nuclear research, to turn victory in Iraq into defeat, to ban new oil drilling, and to grant driver’s license and health care to illegal aliens, that patriotic mob which wants to turn Texas and California into Mexican states. But if you insinuate that any of those things is a good reason for Communists and radical Muslims to like him, the media en masse will say that you have “crossed the line” and that you are virtually guilty of a “hate crime.” Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a “new beginning,” and will be fully operational soon. The meaning of those facts is clear, but noticing it is immoral: every decent citizen has to swear that the support coming from the enemies of America is only a mistake on their part, since Obama has never given-oh, no!-the least pretext for them to sympathize with him. To insinuate any convergence of interests is to impute to Obama “guilt by association”- an act of perfidy, obviously, loaded with racial “overtones.”

Besides, any stronger word used against the black candidate is pointed out as proof of racism, and the least suggestion that there is racial blackmail in this is double proof. John McCain himself makes a point of confining the debate to the sphere of “ideas,” emphasizing that his opponent is “a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of.”

This statement is unintentionally ironic. The thing that every American fears most, nowadays, is being suspected of thinking bad things about Barack Hussein Obama. Following the example of their leader, Republican militants are doing their best to show respect and veneration for the person of the adversary. A staffer at the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, California, who posted behind his desk a sign associating Obama with Marx and Hitler was immediately fired. An Ohio citizen, who asked some tougher questions to the Democratic candidate about his tax plan, paid dearly for his boldness. He had his life rummaged through by reporters and was severely criticized for the heinous crimes of working as a plumber without a license and of not having paid a traffic fine he had incurred in Arizona eight years ago. That gives an idea of the exasperated zeal with which the mainstream media protects Barack Obama’s image. Samuel Wurzelbacher, or Joe The Plumber-the nickname by which he has become known nationwide-draws from his experience an unavoidable conclusion, “When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary.”

This fear is not just psychological. Several Republican activists have already reportedly been beaten up by Obama supporters, McCain campaign offices in various states have been broken into and destroyed, and only police action managed to prevent, just in time, hundreds of well-trained Obama agitators, armed with Molotov cocktails, from setting fire to the buses heading to the Republican Convention in St. Paul (even so, the remainder managed to wreak quite some havoc). When a candidate employs terrorist methods, and at the same time the establishment decrees that calling him a terrorist is insanity to the utmost, it is clear that this candidate has unlimited rights. He is allowed to receive 63 million dollars in illegal contributions from abroad, and nothing bad will happen to him. An NGO that patronizes him can flood thirteen states with fraudulent voter registrations, and woe to them who suggest that he bears some guilt in the case. In contrast, McCain was charged with criminal verbal violence for the simple fact of mentioning the widely attested link between Obama and William Ayers. A pro-McCain-Palin march, in New York, was received with every sort of insult and threat. As, on the other hand, no violence could be observed against Obama militants, it was necessary to invent a story that, in a Sarah Palin rally, somebody shouted “Kill him” after hearing Obama’s name mentioned. The police looked carefully into the tapes of the rally and concluded that nobody shouted any such thing at all.

Another intimidating factor is economic superiority. Obama’s campaign collected nothing less than $605 million in contributions. For every McCain ad, four Obama ads come out. Even more overwhelming is the free advertisement provided by the big media for the Democratic candidate.

To this day, the only newspaper of some importance that has reported the lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg against Obama was the Washington Times-nominally Republican-which, nonetheless, categorizes doubts about Obama’s nationality as mere “internet rumors” and, alluding to the lawsuit only in the last lines, as if it were nothing but one more rumor, omit informing that Obama, instead of presenting his birth certificate as requested by the plaintiff, preferred making use of a complex legal argumentation in order to dodge doing so. The second lawsuit on the same issue, filed in the state of Washington, is not even mentioned.

The major newspapers and television companies protect the Democratic candidate not only against his adversaries but against himself. Acts or statements that may show him in an unfavorable light are carefully omitted. In all the American mainstream media one will not find a single word about Obama’s long career as an abortion militant, let alone about the only important activity he undertook on the international level: the campaign set up, with public money, to bring into power in Kenya the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation. Not only did Obama help Odinga with American tax-payers’ money, and introduce him to contacts in the Senate, but spoke in his favor at rallies in Kenya. If there is something that shows the true nature of the international commitments of the Democratic candidate, it is this episode-but even Fox News omits touching upon the subject. 

Here in the United States everybody says that Obama’s victory is certain. It seems to me that, even if Obama loses the election, he will be a winner. The party of his adversaries was already on its knees at the moment that, instead of an authentic conservative, it chose a typical liberal Republican for a candidate, a sure promise, if he is elected, of a weak administration subservient to critics, exactly like George Bush’s. After this first fit of frenzy, there followed a worse one: from the moment when Republicans, instead of filing a thousand lawsuits like that of Philip Berg, accepted as a legitimate and decent electoral adversary a candidate with no ascertained nationality, with a misty biography full of flagrant lies, aided and subsidized by the most heinous enemies of the country, it became clear that they had abdicated all sense of honor and consented to legitimate a farce. If they lose the elections, they will deserve as many tears as those who preferred to allow Lula to win the presidency of Brazil rather than tell what they knew about the São Paulo Forum.

As for Obama’s campaign, its profile is clear. The amalgam of utopian promises, overwhelming advertisement, psychotic beatification of the leader, racial appeal, media control, and systematic intimidations of voters, is identical in the least details with Hitler’s electoral strategy in 1933, but in order to say this in public-or even to become aware of it in a low voice-it takes more courage than one can expect from the average voter nowadays.

 

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Old Cuba without the pink-colored glasses

Short film about Havana, Cuba – In English – in the 1930s
Commentary by Agustin Blazquez

 

For everyone who ignores what Cuba was before 1959 – thanks to the misrepresentation of the mainstream U.S. media and academia – take a look at this short documentary in English about Havana in the 1930s.  Observe how the people look on the streets and how clean and well kept was the city.  As a young republic with barely 30 years of independence from Spain, Cuba was progressing rapidly and did not have the aspect of a poverty-stricken underdeveloped country.  If that the way it was in the 1930s, by 1958 Cuba’s development was even higher.  The average living standard was third in the Americas.

The mainstream media and academia have told Castro’s version of Cuba’s past to deceive the American people and justify his regime.  They have helped and abide a criminal totalitarian regime that killed thousands and sent about three million worldwide to exile.  For example, how many Americans have been informed that since 1961, Castro’s Cuba has been selling the blood of executed political prisoners?

The Organization of American States Human Rights Commission on April 7 1967 reported, “On May 27, 1966, from six in the morning to nightfall political prisoners were executed continuously by firing squad in Havana’s La Cabana prison.  One hundred and sixty-six men were executed that day and each had 5 pints of blood extracted prior to being shot.

“Extracting this amount of blood often produces cerebral anemia and unconsciousness so that many had to be carried to the execution wall on stretchers.  The corpses were then transported by trucks to a mass grave in a cemetery outside the city of Marianao.  On that day, the truck required seven trips to deliver all the corpses.  On 13th Street in Havana’s Vedado district Soviet medical personnel have established a blood bank where this blood is transported and stored.  This blood is sold at fifty U.S. dollars per pint to the Republic of North Viet Nam.”

This blood-for-profit operation was concocted by the brain of another benevolent icon of the mainstream media and academia in the U.S., Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

You can read this and more in Humberto Fontova’s book – ignored of course by the mainstream media and academia – Exposing The Real Che Guevara And The Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, 2007, in the section Cuban Blood for Sale, page 77.

The mainstream media and academia because of their silence, refusal to tell the truth and cooperation with the Castro regime should be held accountable for the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Cuban population.

Take a few minutes and see for yourself what Castro had to work with when he took total control.

Agustin Blazquez, producer/director of the six documentary series COVERING CUBA

Click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEMYLkpYxX8 

 

Change you can fall for

Change you can fall for

By Donald Hank

 

Change is the hallmark of the revolutionary, and it is not change for the sake of some greater cause. Change is the cause.

When the first red revolutionaries slithered out of the sea, their ideology and agenda revolved around the the worker. The first page of the newspaper Izvestia bore the slogan: Workers of the world unite!

The Left seemed to be about social justice for the worker in his struggle against capitalist injustice.

I say “seemed” because the situation of the worker remained grim throughout Soviet history and the government never tackled this problem in earnest, focusing instead on propaganda painting the West as the author of their ills.

In Soviet publications, gallons of ink were spilled over the plight of the international worker, but the plight of the Soviet worker never changed tangibly since 1917. Soviet workers suffered constant shortages of food and housing. Married couples shared small apartments in the most squalid conditions while the elite partied.

I glimpsed this disparity between attitudes and platitudes while studying at the University of Leningrad in the early 70s with a group of American students. Following our studies, we took a side trip by rail to the Estonian capital of Tallinn.  I sat in a car with our Russian language professor and about a half-dozen other students playing guitar and singing folk songs.

After a while, our tour guide came to the door and invited me to join him in another car with an honored guest who was a Communist party member. You’d have thought party members were in short supply.  I told him I was needed as part of our entertainment. I will never forget his response. Smiling condescendingly, he said “That lady is a mere teacher. You have the opportunity to meet a party member.”

Where was the classless society? If she was a nobody because she was a teacher, what about the factory worker, who was supposed to be united with his international comrades in the glorious future revolution?

I understood at that moment that the “change” the Bolsheviks had wrought was hollow and had been from the beginning. Among themselves, they made no pretense of such idealism. And I suppose they assumed there was no point in pretending in front of me either because, as an American capitalist, I could be assumed to share their disdain for the little guy. The social change, i.e., elimination of class barriers that constituted their platform, was clearly only a pretext for grabbing power from the naive. Now they had it and that was the end of the pretense.

What I am driving at is that the Left does not have a central ideology or platform, as much as they would like you to think they do. They are about destroying the existing order, the status quo, and that is all. Once traditional culture is dismantled, they have accomplished their mission and are done pretending to help people.

Take the example of China’s Chairman Mao and Cuba’s Fidel Castro. These two dictators mouthed the world communist ideology of freeing the worker from oppressive capitalism.

Now, note that both Castro and Mao, like the early Soviet communists, disdained homosexuals. Fidel had them arrested.

Today, however, the Left in Europe, North and South America protects homosexual “rights,” advocating “gay” marriage and promoting the homosexual lifestyle, “protecting” homosexuals against “hate,” particularly on the part of Christian pastors, who have been fined and arrested, even threatened with horrendous jail terms for preaching the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality. There is no more talk of workers and their rights to enjoy the fruits of their labors, even though workers everywhere have recently lost as much as half their purchasing power in about a year’s time. So has the Left changed its agenda? I rather think it never had one and never will.

Now I have spoken with sincere Christians who have expressed the view that homosexuals are victims, born with a genetic makeup that causes them to desire the same sex, and that denying them “marriage” is sinful. Senator Obama has expressed this belief. “Christian” Leftists like him helped birth this absurd and anti-biblical notion.

But isn’t it curious that, say, Hugo Chavez and Brazilian President Lula, who promote homosexuality  and advocate laws that “protect” them by criminalizing free speech, nonetheless seem ideologically compatible with Fidel Castro, who openly hated homosexuals during most of his career? Where have you heard that Fidel and any other Latin American leftist have ever feuded over this ostensibly so vital issue? Where was the debate between these intimate allies on an issue that is so profoundly important to the Left in Latin America that legislation is written based on the absurdity that “gays” are a victim group threatened with extinction?

Or what about the Left in Canada, where the Human Rights Commission rounds up and arraigns pastors and others who oppose homosexuality but at the same time, rushes to the aid of Muslims, by far the deadliest enemies of homosexuals, whenever anyone   especially a Christian, opposes that religion?

Where is “workers of the world unite” when we need it most?

So what do you think? Is the Left really unified behind an ideology or agenda or is it unified behind a distorted view of the world that is independent of ideological content?

Olavo de Carvalho, who has studied leftist thought in greater depth than perhaps any other scholar, showed in a recent lecture (unpublished) that Leftism is not an ideology or agenda, but merely a reversal of common sense, a rejection of things normal and natural that rises to the level of a pathology.

The perceived ideologies or agendas they flaunt are nothing but a means to an end, and that end is the end of civilization.

Once they achieve the power they crave, they will no more aid homosexuals or minorities than they now aid the long-forgotten worker.

Contact: zoilandon@msn.com