Would you believe genocide against homosexuals?

Would you believe genocide against homosexuals?

by Don Hank

Is there a danger that gays in Western countries may soon be exterminated by hordes of dangerous homophobes?

Pretty ridiculous question, isn’t it?

No, gays enjoy special privileges here in the West. In San Francisco they are allowed to roam the streets naked during a pride fest on Folsom Street, performing actual sex acts in public in full view of hapless onlookers, including children, unfortunate enough to stumble onto the scene. (I am not going to link to photos of this perversion but, if you want confirmation, you can Google it with the key words: folsom street gay pride or the like).

Yet many Western governments fret over the “plight” of gays, even as Christians around the globe are losing their right to witness to the healing and redeeming power of God through Jesus Christ. The agenda of these tyrants who rule us by Fabian stealth without our consent is clear to anyone with half a brain: They are eager to put an end to traditional Christian culture — in fact, any decent culture at all that includes traditional marriage, law and order.

Even as the new “democratic” governments in the Middle East slaughter their native Christians, while enjoying the wholehearted support of almost the entire Ruling Class — that oligarchy that wields increasingly dictatorial power thru the mighty media, the universities, the “education” system, and the vast majority of cadres of all professions, our own Ruling Class pretends to care deeply about the persecution of gays.

Soon after the Iraq invasion, Assyrian churches began to be burned and their congregations persecuted, murdered and scattered. Many now live in Sweden. The US government said nothing, pretending the only enemy was “terror,” not Islamist fanaticism. The Copts in Egypt are now suffering a similar fate, thanks in large part to Western collaboration. The military of the new “democratic” government supported by Obama and the leaders of Europe attacked a Coptic monastery shortly after Mubarak was toppled, shooting several monks. The Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Barack Obama, is behind the slaughter and persecution. The Western press is silent as the Sphinx.

But the media and the Oligarchy tell us that it is the gays who are persecuted and sorely need our protection. It is a lie. Gays have not suffered even a fraction of a percent of the persecution of Christians throughout the world. And yet they are the new protected class, and governments like Brazil’s are rushing to their aid as though they had all lived through a tsunami, an earthquake and a nuclear disaster.

In most countries, no one dares mention that their lifestyle causes diseases like AIDS or other STDs. No one may even lend advice and assistance to ex-gays or people with unwanted same-sex attractions. My Brazilian friend Julio Severo was forced to leave his homeland because he was working with men with unwanted same-sex attraction who were eager to overcome this and live safe, healthy, moral lives according to biblical guidelines.

He was offering them valuable assistance. Many had seen their friends die of AIDS. Many were concerned about their lives, their health and safety.

But the far-left leadership of Brazil, starting with former president Lula and now continuing with the even more-virulently anti-Christian Dilma Roussef (who is a a former terrorist involved in the murders of several people including one American), says it is illegal to help homosexuals overcome their lifestyle.

Anyone who is in this lifestyle is practically locked in it for life by law.

Anyone wishing to abandon anal sex, for reasons of safety, faith or morality, or whatever reason it may be, would be well advised to leave that country.

There is no room for decency in Brazil. It has undergone a perfect storm of ultra-Marxist evil and is locked in. The rest of the West is catching up.

And most Americans (and Europeans) are oblivious to the moral tragedy that is unfolding there.

It is time to wake up and get to know the folks we share the hemisphere with. It is time to learn a new vocabulary word: No.

Not with us. Not with my country.

More details on Julio:

Julio made the biggest waves alerting Brazilian churches and society about the gay agenda and about the reversibility of the immoral gay lifestyle, according to biblical guidelines.

He is the author of the book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement), published in 1998 by the Brazilian branch of the Bethany House Publishers, an evangelical publishing house. His book was the first book in Portuguese to expose the intentions of the gay-rights movement.

In 2007, when he helped boost public awareness about an anti-“homophobia” federal bill, gay activists began to threaten Bethany Publishers, which abandoned the book under this pressure.  They also filed charges against Severo. Since then, Brazilian prosecutors have tried to muzzle him and block his writings.

Probably, they can do nothing against him now, because he is away from Brazil. Even so, the largest gay group in Brazil, which was backed by Hillary Clinton to be accredited in the UN system in 2010, is seeking to find his location. This same group, ABGLT, has filed charges against him too.

Julio Severo blog site:

http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/2009/03/julio-severo-away-from-brazil.html

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

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

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

By Julio Severo

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

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

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

Brazil did not reject Hitler’s successor at the UN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth behind the Afro-Brazilian “culture”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalist Jefferson Magno notes,

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

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

http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/

(To be continued)

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

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

http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

 

Julio Severo away from Brazil

Open letter to the friends of Blog Julio Severo

 

Dear Friends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more.

Are conservatives seeing the Keynesian light?

There is now talk of Keynesian economics – in reverent tones, on both sides of the aisle. As a quick review, John Maynard Keynes is the Big Government economist who said that even if the government paid people to dig ditches and fill them back up again, that would stimulate the economy. Obama – along with Bush, McCain and many others who voted for the bank bailout – seems to believe this.

Thus the Left is propagating the story that FDR’s initial attempts to stem the Great Depression failed not because he spent tax money but because he didn’t spend enough. They point to the way WWII stimulated the economy.

What they forget is that back then

1 – America was a huge manufacturing engine. The war primed this engine.

2 – America was on the gold standard. Money spent to stimulate it was real, not the play money we use today

The mainstream media, enamored of Big Government, are saturated with stories about how conservatives are leaving the GOP for the Democratic Party. The narrative is that, now that Bush and McCain have gone down in flames, one-time conservatives have seen the failure of conservative principles, have seen the light and are drifting leftward in droves. Capitalism needs “change.” Pro-life ideas need “change.” And change is spelled: d-e-s-t-r-o-y.

I just got done gagging on one article written in this vein. My response to the author is below.

 

Hello Mike,

Re. your article mjoseph@centredaily.com

You make some good points, but you missed the main story:

Bush did not fail because he was too conservative. He failed because he was too far left.

Look at the evidence:

— overtures toward global governance (SPP, Mexican truck highway, acquiescence on climate control)

— open borders

— attempt to massively pardon invading lawbreakers

— harsh sentence for border patrol agents who fired at fleeing drug dealer, use of this drug dealer’s testimony (with immunity) to convict the agents

— no real advances in the pro-life agenda, with abortion proceeding unabated

— majority of Syrian Christians forced to flee Iraq and now living in Sweden, their churches burned to the ground (they were safer under Saddam!)

— support for creation of a Muslim state in Europe (Kosovo)

— treatment of the far-left Lula in Brazil as a moderate

— support for a trillion dollar bailout bill with no strings attached to the giveaway

— faith-based initiatives providing a means for the State to control major aspects of church policy

— No Child Left Behind greatly expands government, further reverses Constitutional role of the states in education

— acquiescence to the Left’s agenda to strong-arm banks into lending under no-down payment, no-doc policies under the CRA, as aided by ACORN (I have a copy of Bush’s HUD site’s page touting his “Zero-Downpayment Initiative”)

Economically, Bush was a Big Government Republican like Herbert Hoover. The mistakes of this left-leaning politician posing as a conservative have misled some gullible people to believe that conservatism is not viable.

The thing that is not viable, and may never be viable, is the GOP. Their election of moderate Michael Steele as the RNC chair shows they just aren’t smart enough to win any more.

The real story for you to cover is Republicans fleeing to the American Independent Party.

Best,

Don Hank

Editor in Chief

http://laiglesforum.com

USA persona non grata in Latin America

Shadow diplomacy

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, December 22nd, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Brazil: The invisible revolution

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBLE REVOLUTION

 

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

A PREVIEW

Heitor De Paola 

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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