Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

by Don Hank

A British writer who does not like Donald Trump recently expressed publicly:

 

“Mr Trump’s rallies increasingly attract violence – by his opponents and his supporters.”

In a three-way conversation in which I was included, a mutual friend reminded him that it is not fair to blame a person who is attacked for being attacked. The mutual friend asserted that it is a well-known trick of the left to blame the attackee for being attacked.

 

The Trump detractor, undeterred, then called Trump a mountebank who made “demagogic outbursts.”

 

demagogism, demagoguism, demagogy

the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, 

passions, and prejudices of the people.

 

It must be noted that in Europe, especially the UK, when someone accuses someone else of being a demagogue, the purpose of the accusation is generally not to adhere to a standard definition of the word but rather to stealthily create an association in the mind of the audience between the person thus impugned and Adolf Hitler. The implication is an appeal to emotion intended to stop the discussion before it can get started – often because the accuser lacks the skill and/or the supporting facts to continue the discussion. That may not have been the case in the above-referenced discussion and I don’t intend to imply that. Note, however, that, particularly in Europe, the accusation of demagoguery is in itself a kind of subtle soft demagoguery because it is intended to evoke emotional images of the last war that caused so much suffering in Europe. Good patriots generally bow reflexively to the person who conjures up this image, no matter how irrelevant it may be. While it is true that Trump, like all the other candidates, appeals to emotion and can thus technically be accused of demagoguery, the content and purpose of Trump’s utterances is the diametric opposite of Hitler’s. In fact, I will go so far as to say that, ironically, the Hitler analogy is more applicable to the Establishments in Europe and the US, which oppose Trump.

In the case of Adolf Hitler, the ultimate goal was war, a racist war that would force Germanism on the rest of the world and even eliminate many non-Germans.

During the GOP debates, almost all of Trump’s opponents expressed the idea that Russia was the number one enemy, on the assumption that the American people would reflexively agree with this assessment, forgetting that Russia had never declared jihad on anyone. Some, like Ohio Governor John Kasich, even went so far as to say that if he were president, he would “punch Russia in the nose.” Ohio Governor Chris Christie said he would also do so if the Russians violated a US-imposed no-fly zone, and Carly Fiorina agreed with both demagogues. Hillary, for her part, has compared Putin with Hitler, and her choice of pro-war cabinet members has led a number of scholars to predict that a Hillary presidency would lead to a nuclear war.

Now why do I call this war rhetoric demagoguery? I do so because it is clear that these Neocon warmongers firmly believe that most Americans are still generally imbued with Cold War fervor. Of course, they are wrong, because if that were true, Donald Trump – who bravely said in his campaign, “I think I can get along with Putin” – would not be as popular as he is. In fact, it is safe to say that Americans are inexorably turning against the Neocons whose whole raison d’être is centered around the kind of senseless war that has caused untold suffering throughout the world for over a half-century. The same rejection of the Establishment is being seen in Europe.

Now the demagoguery of both parties’ elites is almost identical with Hitler’s but is potentially more dangerous because we now are looking at the possibility of a nuclear confrontation, and numerous warnings are being issued by officials in relevant positions such as former generals and foreign ministers, eg, here, here, here, here, and that is barely scratching the surface.

Everywhere in the West, the elites have used nothing less than demagoguery to keep the masses in check. Every time a politician, like Angela Merkel, accuses her opponents of being the “far right,” she is in fact attempting to conjure up images of the Third Reich, when in fact, the EU and Establishment regimes are nothing but an extension of that regime, as ably demonstrated by Rodney Atkinson, for example, in this video, and by our colleague Edward Spalton, eg, here.

Yet the demagogues who want war continue to call the peacemakers demagogues.

But the threadbare ruse can only last until the people see through it, and the time is just about up.

Those identified as supporting the Establishment could soon lose all credibility. The good news: it is not to late to adjust one’s message accordingly.

A word to the wise.

News item:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/13/french-policeman-stabbed-death-paris

Looks like these terrorists are trying to get Trump elected. (Yea, I know, they are just stupid!)

Don Hank

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

Supranationalism leads to war

by Don Hank

Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, is still propagating an ancient myth, the house of cards on which the EU’s acceptance by the masses is based. He recently trotted out the old platitude once more:

The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egotism, egotism leads to nationalism and nationalism leads to war.

If Europeans ever see through this thinly veiled propaganda, they will throw off the yoke of the EU – including the failed “Euro Zone” – that binds and gradually impoverishes them. More and more Europeans are waking up to the fact that, at variance with Rompuy’s pronouncement, neither fear nor egotism, nor nationalism lead to war.

Far from egotism, it is in fact a selfless obedience to ideals expressed by ambitious men portraying themselves as solicitous of their subjects that leads young men to put their lives on the line in battle.

Further, it is not fear but rather misplaced trust that leads to war. Neville Chamberlain foolishly trusted Hitler, signing a non-aggression pact and telling his countrymen not to fear Hitler.

And it was trust in the Soviet Union that led Churchill and FDR to entrust the administration of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, in turn leading to the Cold War and the military occupation of those nations and to violent invasions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union had adopted as its slogan: “Proletarians of the world unite!” (they did not say “proletarians of Russia”) and as its anthem the stirring antithesis of a national anthem titled “L’Internationale.”  

American nationalist Ronald Reagan played the key role in ending this warlike foreign domination.

As for nationalism, if the French revolutionaries had been nationalists, they would not have chosen a young Corsican to lead them.

Further, if Bonaparte had been a nationalist, as he was in his youth when he hated the French, it would never have occurred to him to lead that nation. Nor would he have married an Austrian woman. The fact is, the truly nationalistic French were the pre-revolution French whose loyalty was to the Bourbons – a family whom the young Bonaparte hated. It was not until Napoleon saw the French overthrow their nobility that he cast his lot with the revolution and helped them defeat the rest of Europe – not in the name of France but in the name of the revolution, which he saw as an international — and specifically, a supranational — ideal, which had in fact been shaped by not only French but also German, Italian, American and British thinkers.

For the French themselves, it was also this revolutionary idea, a longing for a borderless Europe united by the revolution, that united them around Napoleon and lured them into the most deadly wars mankind had ever known.

Far from causing the Napoleonic wars, the nationalists of the day – the Prussians, the Russians, the Austrians, the Spaniards, the Italians and the British – each individually solicitous of their own individual nations’ safety and welfare – resisted Bonaparte, ended the wars and made Europe safe once more.

Ah, but what about Hitler, you say?

If WW II had been between Hitler on the one hand and the Allies on the other, a case could have been made for nationalism as the primary motive for the war. However, except for Germany, none of the Axis powers or collaborators – from the Japanese to the Mufti and Franco to the Italians – was fighting to further the cause of the Vaterland. None of the nations that sympathized with Hitler (including Russia at the beginning of Hitler’s reign) would ever have agreed to adopt German customs, teach German in their schools and subjugate their people to the German government.

The war Europeans see brewing with Islam on their streets is born of the same old borderless, supranationalist ideology, with EU zealots ramming unlimited immigration down their throats to enforce it. The war that many foresee occurring between Americans and millions of illegal immigrants including a disproportionate number of violent criminals and drug lords, is another example of violence ascribed to the top-down assertion of a supranational ideal that is antithetical to nationalism.

Today’s main enemy is in fact anti-nationalism, or what the Germans teasingly call Multikulti, which is warping our cultures, values and Western civilization itself and bringing Westerners into increasingly violent conflict with their Islamic “guests” who refuse to integrate.

The startling fact of the matter is that, despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary from Western media, universities, churches and schools (and in Europe, from officialdom), nationalism itself has never led to a single major modern war. If the Germans had been more nationalistic, they would never have let an Austrian take over their country. It was a lack of confidence in their true roots in the form of Christianity (the pernicious belief that Christianity causes wars) — that misled Germany. Since the 1800s, German theologians had taught a perverted gospel teaching that Jesus was the bastard son of a German mercenary. Today, there is a pervasive myth that Christianity – which in fact opposed Soviet aggression and Hitler’s violence – causes wars. Anti-Christian propaganda was actually heavily involved in the major conflicts of the 20th century.

Clearly, far from nationalism, the seeds from which the very deadliest of modern wars sprang are the ideology of supranationalism, i.e., the foisting of a one-world government on a grassroots who reject the idea, and the eradication of traditional Christian values and beliefs in favor of Marxist dogma.

The story of modern war is the story of supranationalist tyrants invading the territory of peaceful nationalists. The European grassroots witnessed this history with their own eyes.

When will they learn to interpret it with those same eyes, and not through the eyes of elitist tyrants with an obvious agenda?

This just in from a reader (looks like “Multikulti” is on its way out):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o&feature=player_embedded

And half of UK citizens want out of the EU:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/210804/Why-I-believe-it-is-time-for-Britain-to-get-out-of-the-EU

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/european-court-imposes-immorality-on-russia/1973.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/does-europe-have-a-future/1297.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/uk-elites-want-to-muzzle-christians/1177.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/928.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/nationalists-international/584.htm

Is a Christian nation always a theocracy?

By Don Hank

Many of us – myself included – got our wish when Scott Brown was elected. We thought that would save America from Obamacare. As things turned out, it gave us one more pro-abortion false conservative who now talks more and more like an open-borders amnesty advocate (many voted for him thinking he was pro law and order). Where did we go wrong, Friends?

Well, most conservatives pay a little lip service to the spiritual side of social, economic and political problems.

On the other hand, some conservatives think the spiritual component is not just part of the equation, but is in fact the overarching component without which none of the others is worth a tinker’s darn. On the other hand, a few conservatives and not a few libertarians think God is irrelevant or absent and has no part in the discussion. They often exhibit a certain hypersensitivity to this subject, sometimes bordering on aggressive and offensive, but at any rate, emotional.

Come to think of it, we all get emotional about this regardless of our opinions.

People who insist that America must be a Christian nation are sometimes called Dominionists, and that is taken as pejorative, particularly by libertarians, who spend a lot of time worrying about the specter of a theocracy emerging.

The question is: can America survive as a secularist nation? Can it survive as an atheistic nation? Libertarian Ayn Rand, whose following seems to be growing, thought so. Yet, it is hard to point to a state that has existed in the past or still exists today, that is based on atheistic or secularist libertarianism. Further, atheism has been the hallmark of communism, an ideology the killed over 100 million people. Is that relevant?

This is a timeless topic and the subject of a debate that will not doubt rage on into the next century, unless one or the other side manages to muzzle the other.

What intrigues me is that all totalitarian states, including the Third Reich have strived extremely hard to overcome or even ban, all Christian influences. Look how hard the Left tries in America to erase our Christian heritage.

So, ironically, it is not Christians, but rather their detractors, who have focused on Christianity as a watershed factor in social, economic and political issues.

That is one important reason why spirituality is still a recurring theme.

But there is also something else that some conservatives have not come to terms with:

Having read the history of Christian socialism and heresy, I confess to understanding why people are fearful of religious fanaticism and the specter of a total theocracy.

Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine away the benign influence of Christianity in America.

Cicero opined that the laws of the State should be based on natural law. Likewise, America’s founders spoke of Nature’s law and tied it in with spiritual law, saying our rights were given to us by God.

I happen to agree with them. But even if I didn’t, I can’t imagine being annoyed with people who do and trying to silence them.

If you have an opinion, you are welcome to post it here.

If you choose to post, please, in addition to whatever else you write, let us know where your stand personally and why, using this scale:

1    I believe religion has no place in decisions relating to economic, political and social issues  

2    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life but it plays only a minor role

3    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and it plays a secondary but not dominant role

4    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and ultimately God decides our fate depending on our behavior

5         Other

You can, for example, say “I choose 2” or “I am a 3” or whatever.

At this particular juncture, I see my job not as convincing you one way or another. My job is to help make sure one side never manages to get a muzzle on the other.

Don Hank

PS: Please, if you post, do not tell us about your commercial web page or your wonderful new pharmaceutical product. Also, while I agree that Obama has not adequately proven his natural born status, if you feel really strongly about that, may I suggest you post on the relevant pages already out there. Thank you.

Just say no to civility

Just say no to civility

Commentary by Donald Hank

Note that almost everything you find on Laigle’s Forum is a counter-attack against  the Left, which seeks to destroy all that is good and decent on this planet, including traditional family, truth and knowledge, the free market (our life blood), population and economic growth and freedom of expression. They have dressed up their monstrous, failure-bound platform to make it palatable to the chronically inattentive and are succeeding, not because they are intelligent, but because so few can see a pattern in their behavior.

Now, mainstream Christianity today believes that any person or group devoted to opposing something is not being “civil.” Note, for example, that Rick Warren justified his participation in Obama’s inauguration on the basis of this notion of civility.

But Jesus was never civil. He was an in-your-face provocateur. Even the early Christians never teamed up with the worldly leaders of their day (be not unequally yoked), and were not civil toward sin. Paul bluntly condemned many specific sins, including those indulged in by the rich and powerful.

William Buckley defined conservatives best when he said it was their duty to “stand athwart history yelling stop!”

That is wiser than most suspect. By definition, conservatism may not stand for any one particular goal, because goals presuppose a movement, and conservatism may not be a movement. Rather it must be an anchor. Except in cases where the status quo is ungodly, it must be an essentially non-moving entity, or a non-movement. But to be effective it must stop other movements that oppose it.

Because of its nature, it has been reluctant to do so. It just wants to exist.

But ironically, if it keeps just wanting to exist, it will very soon cease to exist, because the forces of change are upon us and won’t go away without a fight.

But the end thereof are the ways of the Left…

The Left wants you to believe they are for the oppressed and the downtrodden. Yet their ideological brothers killed 100 million innocents in the last century (see the book “The Black Book of Communism” by Stephane Courtois), most of the victims representing the oppressed and downtrodden classes.

It seems the “beloved leader” of North Korea has a policy of jailing, torturing and then killing not only those he perceives as his enemies but also their children and grandchildren.

Kim Jong Il, the most far-left of all modern leaders, has produced a gulag whose cruelty goes far beyond Hitler, Mao and Stalin, and in fact, beyond anything the human imagination can conceive of.

The evidence that, at bottom, the Left is nothing less than a collective of evil people of murderous intent is abundantly clear when you look at any example of a nation in which the Left has had complete control, unopposed. Ironically, it was a group of French communists who tallied up the body count of communism, showing it to be around 100 million in the 20th Century alone, eclipsing all the killing by all wars and other evils perpetrated by any other group.

Yet, incredibly, the Left goes on unabated and almost without resistance, spreading the absolute malarkey that religion is dangerous, while atheism – the essence of the Left – represents enlightenment.

They point to the Crusades and the 30 Years War as if these were the distillate of what Christianity has produced since the beginning, and when confronted by the inconvenient facts of the slaughter of innocents in leftist regimes, they shrug them off, attributing this cruelty to an aberration, to accidents of human personality.[1]

So what do you say when someone tells you that Christianity is no better than leftism because both Christians and leftists have killed people?

It is true that people calling themselves Christians have done wrong, as have leftists.

But the harm attributed to Christians was done in disobedience to God’s commandments.

The harm attributed to the Left was done in perfect obedience to a humanist system in which there is no absolute commandment, nor is there a concept of absolute right or wrong. In fact, leftism is a system based on “change” or in other words, revolution. By definition, such a system cannot be stable or lead to the stable utopia targeted by its proponents.

Thus, in both systems we have humans imperfectly executing commands. But in one, the humans in charge are, all too often, disobeying God. In the other, they are almost invariably obeying the wishes of imperfect humans, including themselves.

Thus when the humanist system fails, it does so because it was not only executed by humans who believe they are the center of the universe but is designed to be executed on the premise that man is the center of the universe. Thus it is designed for failure.

When a godly system fails, it does so due to disobedience – that is, man behaving in a man-centered manner. It is designed to succeed but fails when its executor behaves like a leftist! Thus Leftism fails when executed both by Leftists and by others (G.W. Bush, for example).

So the question that demands an answer is:

Why choose a man-centered (leftist) system that is not only designed by humans but also executed by humans when you can choose a system that is designed by God and, if executed according to design, will ineluctably succeed?

The Left is the quintessential “patient in charge of the asylum,” but the “right” is so splintered and disarrayed, and currently, so steeped in a hopelessly naïve, smarmy, sentimental version of “Christianity” that they perfectly embody the “ripe plum” that Premier Krushchev predicted would soon fall into the lap of the communists.

 


[1] The Left also muddy the waters by portraying Hitler as a right-winger. In fact, Hitler’s system was based on a utopian vision, a hallmark of the Left.  Hitler denied divinity, jailing and even executing many religious leaders. Note also that the European Right shared a vision of monarchic divine right that was quite alien to Hitler’s utopia.

What Obama will do

What Obama will do

 

by Olavo de Carvalho

 

“What can we expect from an Obama government?” is the question of the hour. To answer it, academicians and journalists invariably use a method that is renowned for its inaccuracy: they examine the general tone of campaign speeches and apply it to the objective problems – economic, military, diplomatic – the new head of state will have to face. This method fails for two reasons:

First: the method starts out with the assumption that the institutional framework will remain unaltered and that therefore the new president will carry out, in his own way, substantively the same tasks as his predecessor. Consequently, it does not envisage that in a revolutionary strategy, one of the basic functions of the leader is precisely to redefine these very tasks. Obama learned this lesson since his youth from his guru Saul Alinsky: “All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new” [1].

Second: it always assumes that the head of state represents the national interest and will commit himself to safeguard it in all earnestness, according to the balance he manages to find between the demands of the militancy that elected him, the claims of happenstance allies and the pressures of the objective situation. This assumption, however, loses all significance at a time that defines itself overall as that of the emergence and implementation of world government. Nowadays, the national interest of all countries is being subordinated to worldwide plans imposed by an economic, bureaucratic and intellectual elite whose power transcends that of any particular nation, including the United States. Many presidents and prime-ministers are installed with the help or guidance of this elite, not to protect national interests, but to oppose them based on much broader goals, which, though described more than half a century ago by such first-rate authors as Arnold Toynbee [2] and Carroll Quigley [3], are scarcely taken into account by these academicians and journalists, and for a very simple reason: as David Rockefeller, one of the main leaders of globalism, publicly acknowledged, the fight for the implementation of world government would fail if prematurely disclosed. Therefore, discretion, deceptiveness and disinformation are some of the essential jobs of the mainstream media during the intermediate period [4]. The “anti-democratic means” that Toynbee found indispensable to the implementation of world government include, quite obviously, control of the flow of information sent to the general public. The increasing uniformity of the world press — of which the campaign against the alleged human agents of global warming, the universal anti-Bush outcry or the waves of enthusiasm surging over Lula, Obama and the World Social Forum are eloquent examples — can be easily explained by the rising concentration of media ownership precisely in the hands of the economic groups most interested in world government. The fact that part of the lesser agents in the process complain about this type of concentration, arguing that it is the spontaneous effect of pure mechanics of capitalism, is partly due to a residual ideological automatism, and partly to the cunning desire of these groups and individuals to conceal their own actions under the guise of supposed tendencies or anonymous historical laws, putting the blame for the most disagreeable changes on the previous situation which the current changes purport to suppress.

Since, on the other hand, the media also has the role of laying out “common sense” (in the sociological and Gramscian sense), giving the people a sense of purpose and reassurance as to what is happening, the cultured reader will be forced, sooner or later, to choose between buying into the mainstream opinion or trying to arrive at a more scientific and realistic understanding of the state of affairs. In the first case, he will be rewarded with that comforting sense of confidence that comes with deceiving oneself together with the majority of the people. In the second, he will attain reasonable certainty enabling him to make correct predictions, while seeming weird or irrational to most people. Because my choice was made long ago, the method I apply to answer the kind of questions posed at the outset of this article does not rest on the usual academic and journalistic conventions, but on elementary scientific precautions, which has allowed me to achieve a certain degree of success in anticipating the course of events, the price of which is, naturally, the hatred of those who have failed to do so.

One of these precautions is as follows: at times of swift change, imposed top-down by groups whose line of action remains elusive, it is almost impossible to predict the general course of action of a new government. All we can and must do is abandon general predictions and confine ourselves to those specific, scant but significant, points already determined by the course of the previous action, so that the new government must necessarily proceed with them. Instead of deriving from the general picture the particular actions that the head of state must hypothetically accomplish to deal with it, it is convenient to start with the existing or practically inevitable specific actions and, if possible, to ascend laboriously to the general picture. I say “if possible” precisely because in most cases we can only achieve reasonable certainty regarding the specific lines of action, whereas the general meaning of things remains as far beyond our intellectual reach as it is from that of the head of state himself. Even the most formidable powers are only capable of determining a small fraction of the results of their own actions. Hence any serious statement about the direction of a new government must limit itself to the actions it must bring to bear merely to keep and to expand the power with which it has been invested, especially those actions that fit immediate commitments that were previously agreed upon with the political and economic forces that produced them.

A second equally obvious rule goes along with the first: whatever its proclaimed goals, any scheme of power will always safeguard its own continuity and expansion first and foremost. To act, St. Thomas Aquinas would say, you must first be. The existence and continuity of the scheme are a prior condition of its doing whatever it may want to do. Thus, what we must consider before anything else is what the head of state will necessarily have to do, not to reach this or that goal, nor to face the objective problems that afflict the nation or part of it, but simply to keep – and, in the case of a revolutionary leader, to increase – the power of action it already possesses. Consequently, I don’t know what Obama will do in general terms. Nor does anyone else. But I do know what he’s already doing and will have to keep doing, not to achieve predetermined goals, but just to hold and increase control of the means.

May I mention, by the way, that it was based on the above-describe method that I announced, shortly after Lula’s first election, that he would not take any effective measures against drug dealing, for the very simple reason that he was lifted to power – and could be dethroned – by the international scheme of the Sao Paulo Forum, whose interests are fundamentally akin to the FARC’s, now and then the biggest supplier of cocaine to the Brazilian market [5]. A head of state can do many things, but, barring insanity, can never destroy the means of doing things.

All Obama’s career and his ascent to power were entirely subsidized by notoriously anti-American forces. To claim that they are only anti-Bush and not anti-US proves to be a mere rhetorical twist, unworthy of attention. The essential role the new president will play once in office does not differ much from that which Strobe Talbott recommended to Bill Clinton: “Sell multilateralism …as a means of preserving and enhancing American political leadership in the world” [6]. It purports, in short, to weaken and submit to supranational institutions the national power it pretends to enhance. In his campaign speeches, as well as in his aide’s declarations, Obama promised to reduce the US military budget by up to 25%, to slow down nuclear research and – as amazing as it seems – “to demilitarize space”. This would allegedly make the United States more amicable in the eyes of mankind and would afford it enormous diplomatic leadership in the world. Only giddy schoolgirls – who not coincidentally made up the most critical segment of Obama’s electorate – could believe in such stuff. The efficacy of diplomatic action is, by definition, proportionate to the military power that backs it.

In every political action – and this is the third methodological precaution I recommend – one must distinguish between the final announced goals and the substantiality of the acts performed to achieve them. The latter are a reality, the former a mere hypothesis, if not a smokescreen. Therefore, the meaning of the action reveals itself to a greater extent in the nature of the means employed than in the stated nominal goals. To militarily weaken a nation is … to weaken it militarily. The notion that this could strengthen it diplomatically is a far-flung hypothesis which is much too contrived and contrary to all historical experience. What is more, the supposed connection between the declared goals and the chosen means is based on an assumption that is uniformly that of mainstream anti-American discourse: the United States is hated because of its military force; if it agrees to become less powerful, it will be eternally loved by mankind.

It must be noted that, in this case, what the candidate emphasized in his campaign speech was not the materiality of the means, but the supposed beauty of the aims, under frantic applauses of a crowd of students to whom even the total destruction of the United States would not be an idea devoid of sex appeal. This idea has the exact same power of attraction to all those who have financed Obama’s career since his teen years: Arab millionaires, pro-terrorist agitators, globalist corporations and, last but not least, George Soros. If one thing is right it’s that the purpose of militarily weakening the United States, already tenaciously pursued by the Clinton Administration, will be followed to the letter by Barack Obama, for the simple reason that accomplishing it constitutes one of the main reasons of his existence as a politician. It’s something that he cannot afford not to do, just as, by analogy, Lula could not help sacrificing Brazil’s interests and sovereignty to the higher ends of the Sao Paulo Forum and the globalist scheme that backs it up, as we saw in the case of the Bolivian pressures against Petrobras, and even clearly in the Raposa Serra do Sol issue.

It is indeed curious – and depressing – to find that, at a time when national sovereignties are overtly opposed in the upper spheres of world politics, and their limitation or progressive suppression is even proclaimed as a basic condition for the survival of the human species, analysts claiming to be scientific still hold as an at least implicit premise of their predictions the assumption that leaders always behave according to the national interest, as if they were Renaissance princes committed to breaking down the empire’s integrity and to establish new sovereign unities.

Today a leader can stand against the most vital interests of his nation and be granted, for this very reason, so much support from international opinion that his own people, judging by the most visible appearance rather than the substantiality of the actions involved, end up viewing him as a kind of national hero.

Talbott’s formula was followed to the letter by Bill Clinton, who was consequently one of the world media’s most endorsed American presidents. He reduced the American atomic weapons arsenal knowing that China was enhancing hers; he encouraged American investments in China, while hampering American industry with taxes and restrictive legislation; he blocked probes into Chinese espionage at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory and, in the last days of his government, when the chief Chinese spy involved in the operation was already in prison, pardoned him without any sound justification. Needless to say he was acting all the time against American national interest and conforming to the strictest “multilateralism” by stimulating the transformation of China into a military and economic power, one that intends to become the dominant center in the coming decades. Needless to say as well that the applause thus received from the international media created a huge impression in raising American prestige, making decline seem like an improvement in the eyes of the American people. He was even more enthusiastically cheered for his “humanitarian” intervention in Kosovo, which, under the pretext of punishing a genocide we now know did not exist at all, had the only effective result of turning a Christian region into an Islamic stronghold, and at the further price of the actual genocide perpetrated by Muslim troops trained and subsidized by Bin Laden himself [7].  Once again, the sympathy of the international media was sold to the American people as proof of the great success of the anti-American actions ordered by the president.

When Obama promises to enhance the international “image” of the United States, in exchange for the decrease of its military power, he’s again applying Talbott’s formula: to substitute an image for reality and then to sell that image as reality itself. That he’s going to do this is something that cannot be seriously questioned, because this proposal is the fundamental or even sole explanation for the worldwide support he received, a support that only a perfect idiot would see as stemming from the spontaneous preferences of the people and not from a coordinated effort of the globalist elite who dominates the media organizations all over the planet. If he steps back from this commitment, his political career won’t last one more day.

But Obama wasn’t elected just to repeat what Clinton has already done. In addition to shrinking American power in the international arena, he’ll push for an enormous increase in the American State’s power to control the lives of its citizens and to shape public opinion.

I’m not saying that he “can” do this or either that he “tends” to do this. I’m saying that he will necessarily do this, if he’s not stopped, because it is essential to boost the power of the forces who elected him and also to block, as of now, a potential return of Republicans to both houses of Congress by 2010. To hold and enhance its power is the most basic condition of the very existence of political forces, and these conditions become ever more vital and urgent when a political force has the aim of bringing about profound changes in society. Whatever the substance of these changes, the first one is – and must be – the consolidation of the power of action necessary to enforce them. It was for disregarding this fact that George W. Bush completely failed. Instead of consolidating Republican hegemony by debilitating his opponent, he chose to improvise a suicidal alliance with the latter, forging a semblance of national unity against the external enemy. This unity, when it crashed and smashed into pieces at a speed greater than anticipated (except as seen by the geniuses at the Department of State), carried away the prestige of the presidency and the Republican control over both Houses of Congress [8]. The Democrats do not ordinarily make this mistake. Even now before Obama is sworn in, they’re preparing the revival of the restrictive legislation, ironically termed Fairness Doctrine, whose sole object is to destroy the already poor balance of the American media, by transferring to the Democrats half of the time that republicans hold on the radio, without granting to the latter even the smallest amount of the Democrats’ hegemony in newspapers and TV stations.

Some Republican commentators, and by no means the worst of them, have been wrongly reasoning, in accordance with the second of the above premises, that the rules of the game will remain the same, and thus even believe that Obama’s victory was good for their party, because it will throw onto the new president the responsibility of handling the economic crisis and, since he will most likely fail, it will pave the way for the triumphant comeback of the Republicans in the 2010 legislative elections. This is one of the methodological mistakes I referred to above. In 2010, the rules of the game will be so radically altered that Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, will hardly be capable of making themselves heard by the public. The “change” promised by Obama could begin even before his oath of office: inspired by the victory at the presidential election, democratic senators and representatives can’t wait to rubber stamp the return of the catastrophic and anti-democratic Fairness Doctrine [9].

To this fundamental change, which will give the leftist establishment almost total control of the mass media, Obama intends to add a more complicated one, whose implementation represents an explicit commitment he made with the enragée faction of his militancy, whose support he’ll continue to seek unless he wishes to draw against him the most bold and outspoken part of the American nation, and he won’t fail to do it, short of being insane. I’m referring to the “Civilian National Security Force” [10]. Obama has been working on this idea for many years, in the framework of the “Public Allies” non-profit. The goal is, plainly, to arm the radical militancy and transform it, according to the words of the new president himself, into such a powerful and well subsidized force as the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The resources that will be allocated to this mission have already been calculated by obamist planners and amount to $500 billion annually. Every enlisted volunteer will be paid $1,800 per month, and will be granted scholarships and places at the best universities as well as many other social advantages that, together with the weapons and the military training, will quickly turn those fanatical mobs into a privileged class with a fearful power.

Whom will that power turn against? Is the “civilian force” meant to replace the military in repressing and controlling terrorism? Impossible. The Bush Administration already reduced to zero the number of terrorist attacks in US territory. And it doesn’t make sense to go below zero.

Is the new force meant to combat criminality, to restore public safety and thus promote social peace, the so-long awaited “reconciliation” among the races? Equally impossible. If, on the one hand, eighty percent of the Public Allies militants already comprise black young people, the same proportion will likely prevail in the “civil force,” for where else, if not among his own militancy, would the obamism recruit the volunteers for this task? It’s true, on the other hand, that of all interracial crimes perpetrated in the United States, 85% – almost the same proportion of the Public Allies members – are committed by blacks against whites [11], notwithstanding the politically correct detail that official statistics refuse to treat Hispanics as a separate group and include them among “whites,” thus attributing to white people those crimes committed by illegal Hispanic immigrants against blacks. An immense work of repression of interracial crimes would throw even more blacks into prisons they already overcrowd. This would be dreadful political suicide, which would send Obama against the community whose skin color is one of the strongest reasons for his occupying the presidential seat. (By the way, it is worthy remembering that the usual “racism” explanation for the bigger proportion of black inmates is a complete fraud, for the states where jailed blacks proportionally outnumber jailed whites aren’t in the South, but rather in the North, and they’re not governed by Republicans but, rather by Democrats [12]).

It is equally impossible that the new security force would be meant to control illegal immigration. Obama is already formally committed to the total amnesty project and soon the very concept of “illegal immigrant” will be abolished. Leaving out those three ends, what task remains for a portentous force the same size of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, apart from policing and intimidating religious and political groups the Left views as “suspect”? This goal has already represented the democratic agenda since Madeline Albright, who saw a great threat to national security in the groups made up of religious, conservative and — like half of the American population — armed people. Except that, to repress these groups, the Clinton Administration relied solely on the FBI and the state police forces, where many agents and chief officers would naturally abhor a drastic and comprehensive action against innocent people. The young obamist militancy comes pre-inoculated against that kind of ethical misgivings thanks to massive propaganda.

To weaken the American State abroad and to strengthen it internally are the two pillars of Obama’s politics. He cannot relinquish either of them, not only because they complement themselves, but because they are the chief justifications of his existence as a politician. His entire career has been supported and subsidized by forces that strongly desire both things. When I single them out as fundamental goals to which the Obama government will attach its best talents, I’m just drawing attention to two already ongoing lines of action, that are strongly rooted in the Democrats’ agenda once they come to power, and that have been previously coordinated through the broadest effort of militancy formation ever seen in the United States (for his internet campaigns alone Obama has in place a network of nothing less than four million people, formally committed to continue doing for his government what they did for the candidate). Whatever the general outlook the Obama government may eventually show to the world, these two lines of action will be there and will deeply affect the whole ensemble. That numerous Republicans, Democrats or independent analysts foresee a “moderate” or “centrist” government, is due to the fact that they do not have the analytical tools to understand the situation. “Radical” and “moderate”, are usually terms that better fit the description of rhetorical styles than substantive actions. The leftist “radical” Hugo Chavez was unable to dismantle Venezuelan opposition, while the “moderate” Lula disassembled one by one every pocket of right-wing resistance in Brazil, to the point that nowadays only leftwing opposition remains. Obama could well keep a “moderate” profile at those more visible areas, and, at the same time, discretely undertake these two measures that, per se, can not only irreversibly modify the American political system but also “change the world” as we know it.

It is obvious that Obama can be prevented from carrying out these plans, either by uncontrollable factors, or by the organized action of his opponents. What is certain is that the effort to accomplish them, whether in a spectacular or in a more subtle way, will be one of the unchanging features of his government, and any success he achieves, no matter how incomplete or minimum, will leave a scar on the historical face of the United States and on humankind.

 


[1] Brad O’Leary, “For Obama, All Roads Lead to ACORN and Saul Alinsky”, at http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=2319.

[2] In America and the World Revolution, cit. in Olavo de Carvalho, “Travessia perigosa”, Diário do Comércio, São Paulo, May 12th, 2008 (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/080512dc.html; English translation at http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080601lf_en.html).

[3] V. Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope. A History of the World in Our Time, New York, Macmillan, 1966.

[4] V. Will Banyan, “The proud internationalist”, em http://www.scribd.com/doc/296854/Will-Banyan-The-Proud-Internationalist-The-Globalist-Vision-of-David-Rockefeller#document_metadata.

[5] V. Olavo de Carvalho, “Lula e Lulas”, in O Globo, November 2nd, 2002 (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/02112002globo.htm; v. also http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/16112002globo.htm and http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/030308globo.htm).

[6] Cit. in John Fonte, Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation-State: What Is the Best Regime?”, Bradley Symposium 2008, Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. (http://pcr.hudson.org/files/publications/2008_Bradley_Symposium_Fonte_Essay.pdf).

[7] V. Joseph Farah, “Bill Clinton’s other genocide”, WorldNetDaily, July 26th. 2005, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=31471.

[8] V. Olavo de Carvalho, “Avaliando George W. Bush”, Diário do Comércio, São Paulo, June 18th, 2008, http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/080618dce.html; English translation at http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080618dc_en.html.

[9] Obama personally denies that he intends to apply the Fairness Doctrine, but he knows he won’t need to get his pretty hands dirty, because Congress will do that for him. Besides, his team has a reputable history of intents to silence opponents (v. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79273). Finally, at the obamist circles the name being more considered to head his transition team is that of Henry Rivera, who, during his presidency of the Federal Committee on Communications, was a forceful adept of the Fairness Doctrine (v. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=80424).

[10] V. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305420655186700.

[11] V. http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html.

[12] V. Steve Sailer, “Mapping the unmentionable: Race and crime”, in http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050213_mapping.htm.

 

 

Olavo de Carvalho, b. 1947, is a Brazilian philosopher and writer currently living in the U.S. as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers after having taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana, Brazil, from 2001 to 2005. 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.

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.

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.