So you want to be a useful idiot

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

Donald Hank


Quick lesson in sociology

By Olavo de Carvalho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translated by Donald Hank


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

Don’t fall for the ruse / Muslim stock falling

 America, beware this ruse of the Left:

The Left often uses the ruse of foisting some totally unacceptable and obnoxious demand on us, and then when we resist, agrees to a “compromise,” which actually gives them 100% of what they originally wanted. Soft headed “conservatives” fall for this time and again, like ripe plums in autumn.

The latest developments in the Angels in America saga illustrate this.

Laurie Higgens reports that some of the parents who had reservations about the reading and/or performance of Angels in America, the obscene homosexual play we reported on in a previous issue, suggested just stressing the obscenity in their protest and giving the homosexuality a pass. A keen observer would know that doing so would be falling right into the trap. You see, the Left has no interest in foisting obscene language on children at this early stage in the demoralization of America’s children. The prize they covet is to mainstream homosexuality and make it appear attractive to children.

The acceptance of obscenity and explicit sexual portrayals in literature and the arts is the next step.

But Americans have been taught the insidious lesson of “reaching across the aisle” a la John McCain, and appeasement — compromising with evil for the sake of peace. We need to unlearn this behavior as quickly as possible to survive as a free nation.

Laurie Higgins writes:

A parent who objects to Angels in America suggested that those who object to the play should “downplay” the issue of homosexuality, to which I responded as follows:

“The homosexual piece is downplayed at our great peril. At the Saturday meeting, I think I was the only person who addressed the homosexuality. I will not retreat from this because virtually everyone else is. Almost everyone I talk to says that they don’t care about the homosexuality; it’s the language and sex they care about. I think that’s both a strategic and moral error. If Angels is pulled from the curricula just because of the graphic sex and obscene language, then the faculty is free to continue to introduce resources that normalize homosexuality as long as the resources aren’t graphic and obscene.

If no one stands with me, I will stand alone because, to borrow shamelessly the words of Martin Luther, ‘I can do no other. God help me.’ ”

DOES it take a village?

Click here to get an idea:

Have you checked out yet?

IT IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT to suggest, or print news item that suggests, that Islam is weakening. The Left likes Islam because it opposes Christianity, the arch enemy of the Red Revolution and the immorality they are pedaling. That’s why the left-leaning Dutch government and media try to show the public that Geert Wilders is a trouble maker who should be ignored. But that just made everyone all the more anxious to view the movie Fitna, which was a smashing success, and did not result in the expected violence. Why? I suspect it is because Muslims saw that their violent response to cartoons mocking Islamo-fascism and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, whose film highlighted Islamic violence, backfired. The love of truth and freedom still smolders under the ashes of Western civilization.

Further, the argument started to emerge that if Muslim groups, such as the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), threatened violence or demanded Islam’s critics be silenced, then that was merely more support for Wilders’ thesis that Islam is violent and cruel to the core.

Laigle’s Forum led the charge with that argument and kept the Fitna site (notice the comment by Asif and Laigle Forum’s response) available to readers even after it was pulled by

Some have said that the response to Fitna proves the West is hopelessly cowardly. But the truth is, the lack of violence so far also tells us something of the war against Islamic fascism, and this overshadows the lack of cogent arguments by somnolent Westerners. Muslims are starting to see that strapping on bomb belts isn’t helping their cause. Terrorist recruitment is in fact getting more difficult these days.

Maybe the next article will help explain why.

MUSLIMS leaving Islam in droves

Ex-Muslim Magdi Allam’s very public baptism on Easter Sunday made headlines, but he is just one among legions converting from Islam around the world.

April 3, 2008 – by Andrew Walden

Pope Benedict’s choice to publicly baptize the most prominent Muslim in Italy, Egyptian-born Magdi Allam, highlights a quiet worldwide exodus from Islam. In recent years, millions have moved on. With this high-profile action, Pope Benedict demonstratively blesses this massive conversion from the highest levels of the Church.

Interviewed by al-Jazeera in 2006, Ahmad al-Qataani, leader of the Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, explains the decline:

Read more here


America has 3 leftwing candidates, and many conservatives have fallen into line on the GOP side, resigned to holding their nose and voting for pro-amnesty McCain of McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold fame.

We don’t have to settle for this. Not by a long shot: