Is Dilma impeachment the result of a US-Soros-led covert operation?

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a covert US-Soros operation?

by Don Hank

The alternate news site counterinformation.com takes a critical view of the Dilma Rousseff impeachment process and its lead-up in Brazil, pointing out that it has all the earmarks of a Washington-led covert action. The cogent analysis they present supports what I have thought from the outset.

I never liked the far-left Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, whose politics are not far from those of Barack Obama. Here is an article I wrote condemning her character and politics: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/terrorist-who-will-be-brazils-next-president-came-to-our-white-house/.

If you read that article, you will see why I condemned her. I still do.

However, now that she is being impeached, a larger issue has emerged, and that is, the meddling of the corrupt leftist Washington government in sovereign governments in a cynical effort to force its will on other peoples.

My reason for opposing this meddling is two-fold:

Firstly, the elites we summarily call the New World Order have attacked a common-sense and morally justified principle that could be called the “Westphalian principle,” described by our friend Bernard Chalumeau here. It is a time-tried principle in international law, which is intended to prevent a country or countries from overpowering other, weaker countries for their own selfish purposes. If we transposed this situation to the school yard and applied it to weaker kids being bullied and having their lunch money stolen by bullies, then no one would argue that the bully must be opposed and defeated.

But in the international arena, the elites know that they can easily pull the wool over the eyes of a public who think foreign affairs are too complicated to study and understand and who are more than willing to turn over the conduct of foreign policy  – including decisions to send our young people to war –  to an elitist government claiming to be “experts” when in fact they have little or no diplomatic skill, little knowledge of the cultures of the regions they deal with (as I pointed out here; see the heading “Culture” about 9 paragraphs from top of the article), and absolutely no moral values whatsoever. Thus they fit the MO of Neoconservatism as described by the founders of that movement, which I summarized here (has no relation at all to true conservatism but millions of duped “conservatives” think it does).

My other reason is the disastrous outcomes of US meddling in other countries, such as Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and others. Washington’s efforts to overthrow governments never result in the replacement of a corrupt government by a stable, viable new government and a viable economy. Entire peoples are ruined as a result. (The Western press refuse en bloc to report on the current genocide in Kosovo. Please see this report).

While my attitude toward Dilma as a president remains unchanged, I want the reader to consider the larger aspect of a corrupt hypocritical Washington government stirring up an uprising against alleged corruption in Brazil (BTW, note that Dilma was not accused of a crime).

Not 5 minutes after I posted this article, one of my researchers sent me this: 

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/brazils-democracy-to-suffer-grievous-blow-today-as-unelectable-corrupt-neoliberal-is-installed/ 

Looks like the impeachment is a done deal and, assuming there was US involvement, Brazil could be added to the growing list of countries ruined by US meddling. I’d hate to be a Brazilian today.

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

The far-left connection to the near-east rebellion

by Don Hank

It is now well known that Obama pals and Marxists Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jody Evans were instrumental in instigating the rebellion in Egypt:

Without this far-left intervention and the blessings of the White House there may well have been no rebellion in Egypt, and a stable (though imperfect) regime would still be in place, friendly to the US and tolerant of Israel.

Since then the rebellion has spread to Libya, and this too is arguably part of the Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution. Indeed there are reportedly at least 100 Egyptian operatives there, as well as US and British commandos.

A reader objected to my latest column critical of the Coalition’s Operation Odyssey Dawn, and this is my response to his objections.

You are free to support with heart, mind, propaganda and even finances whomever you please, but excuse me if I decline to be part of a rebellion instigated by the far left and strongly supported by friends of Islamic terror who deny Israel’s right to exist. Excuse me if I see gross hypocrisy in supporting an all-out attack on a Middle East dictator who has long been cooperative with the West, while turning a blind eye to more egregious dictatorships like China (where a Noble prize winner is now in jail for speaking his mind) and North Korea (where dissidents and their families are routinely jailed and it is a crime to own a radio with unlimited tuning).  You say I want to soft-pedal on Ghadaffi. Yet you are perfectly content to soft pedal on the undemocratic rogue regimes of China and North Korea that also kill their own people at times (eg, Tiananmen Square).

Where were the noble contenders for democracy when China was holding Liu Xiaobao? Oh, that’s right, democracy champion Barack Obama was fêting him at the White House. Further, China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which decided to attack Ghadaffi because he was behaving like a Chinese dictator. As for North Korea, we have sent them free food for years, and China, our “ally,” runs interference for that country. Apparently, the Koreans don’t need democracy.

But isn’t Iran also a dictatorship that suppresses democracy? Should we be soft pedaling on Iran? Well, judging by the silent consent of Western leaders, Iran is perfectly democratic. There was an uprising there during the one in Egypt, but Obama didn’t think it would be appropriate to demand that Ahmadinejad step down. After all, that dictator, who has reportedly been executing people at the rate of one every 9 hours, is anti-Israel.  No need to get rid of him.  He’s on “our” side.  A few years back, the US Energy Department even subsidized 2 Russian institutes that helped build parts of reactors for Iran.

So if the true motives of the Fabian leaders for the attack on Libya are not the noble ones they enunciate, what is the motivation? The Left never starts anything that will not likely further their cause of world domination or that will have the outcome expected and intended by the public. That explains Obama’s role in opposing a regime that in recent years has been forthcoming toward Western interests, while ignoring regimes antagonistic to our interests. Sarkozy has an additional motive: he is up for re-election soon and needs a good war at his back.

It is more than obvious that replacing regimes that support the US and Israel with our enemies (like the street mobs of Egypt — dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; and of Libya — strongly allied with terror) will help the Left, as led by Obama and socialist Europe, to undermine Western culture and values.

The Fabian Socialists (of which Tony Blair is a member) were founded in the 1880s for the express purpose of spreading socialism and eliminating Christianity by stealth.

They believed that they could get away with anything as long as they pretended to be supporting worthy-sounding causes, and it is going swimmingly (Tony even has a religious foundation aimed at uniting all religions — that goes nicely with the Christian teaching: I [Jesus] am the way). They have managed to pretty much take over the West. You see, it wasn’t only Tony Blair. The entire power structure, top to bottom, is infested with globalist New World Order operatives, and “conservative” parties are in no way exempt. David Cameron used stealth to get elected, in keeping with the West’s trademark Fabian tactics. As head of the Conservative Party, he promised that, if elected, he would allow a referendum as to whether the UK should stay in the EU. Even though everyone now knows that was a lie, many see Dave acting like a “conservative” now, helping with a war effort in the tradition of “conservative” GW Bush (reminder: Blair’s staunchest ally). Yet starting wars whose predicted outcome is to undermine Christianity and our relations with the Middle East and endanger Israel is not necessarily a conservative thing to do, though it can certainly be deemed within the scope of Fabian stealth activities. It is hard to believe that any true conservative could support this cheap and transparent stealth tactic of starting wars for the apparent purpose of strengthening our enemies and weakening our friends. In fact, judging by the popularity of my last column on this topic (which has been reposted at several sites) and also the next-to-last (which shocked even me with the boldness of its conclusions), I seriously doubt any true conservatives do fall for this.

There is no excuse for Europeans to believe in the sincerity of the Western coalition. The Western powers that now support the attack on Ghadaffi, replete as it is with abundant collateral civilian casualties, are essentially the same leaders who insist on importing millions of hostile Muslims to Europe who refuse to assimilate and who not infrequently kill Westerners (like the people who bombed Madrid and London, like the killer of Theo van Gogh, and like so many other Islamic terrorists and violent criminals who had enjoyed Western hospitality or claimed the West as their home) or deliberately configure the Southern US border as a welcome mat for terrorists (eg, some of the 911 attackers) or promote rabidly anti-US soldiers to high ranks (eg, the Fort Hood shooter).

Democracy sounds like a worthy cause and the vast hordes of politically unsophisticated (whose study of history – or even current events — is next to non-existent) and the spiritually blind are liable to fall for this ruse.

However, the rest of us generally realize that if democracy were really a cause worth the shedding of blood, then Iran, for example, would be a nation marked by justice and protection of the weak — now that Carter has gotten rid of the cruel dictatorial Shah and paved the way for democracy there.

But the dirty open secret of democracy (as distinct from the republican form of government our founders founded) is that it neither protects the weak nor promotes justice. Invariably, it eventually winds up protecting the majority or a very powerful group of oligarchs, just as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, N Korea, and just as it is now doing increasingly in the Americas and Europe.

And as for Christianity, by supporting the Coalition, we are contributing mightily – knowingly or unwittingly — to the demise of Judeo-Christianity in the world.

By supporting the Iraq war, we indirectly eliminated the Assyrian Christians in Iraq by toppling a dictatorship that protected them, and are now witnessing the genocide of  the Egyptian Copts, who were at least allowed to exist under Mubarak. Within a week after Mubarak stepped down, at Obama’s behest, the democratic activist military that replaced him attacked a monastery and shot a monk and six church workers, and they’re just getting warmed up.

Behold democracy, a foul fruit with a noble-sounding name.

Remember these fruits of past Western adventures in the Middle East when the conflagration starts in earnest in North Africa and the torrent of crocodile tears from the instigators and participants from our own democracy movement starts to drown the West.

In the end, we all believe what we choose to – whether out of dangerously naïve or false altruism or because we are sympathetic to the far-left Fabian New World Order.

In either case, we reap the consequences.

Obama is already reaping some of his, both at home and abroad.

The terrorists fighting Qadaffi (he’s too moderate for them):

http://emperors-clothes.com/libya.htm

Further reading by a readers and friends:

http://www.ravenhill.org/prophet.htm

Deceit: let’s leave it to the Left of us

Only he who does nothing makes no mistakes.

Russian proverb

by Don Hank

Every time an American patriot falls for a hoax, as I did with a hoax video showing Obama apparently admitting he was born in Kenya, the devil laughs out loud.

Anthony Horvath, author of Birthpangs and owner of the site Athanatos, sent me the below link to the original of that video, clearly showing that Obama did not admit he was born in Kenya on that occasion (Laigle’s Forum partner Horvath has since posted a column on this at Laigle’s):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/The-President-Talks-with-Students-in-Turkey?category=9

It hurts our cause when we fall for these hoaxes. After I sent out my acknowledgment that this was false and that I had been fooled by this, one friend emailed back saying he was discouraged from ever reading emails disparaging Obama.

That is, of course, exactly what the Left wants, and it may very well be the Left that is behind this. At the very least, it is not a person who loves truth. It is wrong, it is a sin against God to perpetrate a hoax of this kind or to act dishonestly in a way intended to bring gain or false honor to ourselves. It leaves our cause of freedom with mud all over its face. Leave the hoaxes and fake data up to the Left. Do not borrow this trait from them. You become complicit when you do.

Let’s play clean. If you find yourself forwarding an email without paying enough attention, you owe it to every recipient to admit you were fooled. It is hard, but they will forgive you and sympathize because all of us have been had a time or two.

Pick yourself up after that confession, realizing you did the right thing, a brave thing, and then just march onward in pursuit of truth.

That is what smart scientists do all the time. They find some data that seems to suggest a hypothesis, and they go about finding more data to support it. The honest ones, if they are proven wrong, write up the conclusion reflecting that their hypothesis was wrong, and then they turn around and research something else.

Losers make mistakes and then try to hide them. Winners make mistakes, admit them and then dust themselves off and move on.

Of course, this “post-Christian” era is also post-scientific, which demonstrates that when you give up on the Lord, you have also given up on science and wisdom. This dismissal of science (that is, of facts) in favor of utopian fancies has led us down the primrose path almost to the point of no return. Banks can’t do science — the science of numbers — any more. They are guided by utopian dreams of “social justice,” which is neither Christian nor scientific. In other words, what they put to paper doesn’t work in the real world. In fact, this pursuit of an impossible and unworthy goal brought down banks, mortgage companies and brokerages that packaged and sold bad subprime mortgages (along with some good and mediocre ones) all over the world in a dirty scheme to save their own hides after committing the sin of giving away what was not theirs to give (by lending to the non-creditworthy). Likewise our lawmakers make unconstitutional bankruptcy laws that in fact lead to “legal” theft of goods and property, ultimately leading to equally criminal bailouts and stimulus packages, which also have failed, leading in turn to our official figure of 9.5% unemployment, which translates to over 20% unemployment in real numbers.

Likewise, scientists, like those at the University of East Anglia, can’t do meteorology any more. Instead of honestly reporting the data, as was done in the Old World Order, they tailor the data to suit the needs of world politicians subscribed to the New World Order.

We are a society of deceivers and deceived. It is no exaggeration that even we conservatives have become our enemy.

I was recently invited to join a recently founded conservative foundation as a fellow. Thinking of it as a stepping stone of sorts, and putting aside a slight anxiety over being used, I agreed to join but shortly thereafter, once I saw the shenanigans and petty politics, turned down the “honor” of being a fellow.  For one thing, the director asked me to write a press release billing this brand new foundation as “prestigious.” Sorry, but a brand new foundation hasn’t had the time to be prestigious. Lying is bad enough, but asking someone with conservative credentials to lie for you is beyond the pale.

If only people could see the harm they are doing by stretching the truth. Many of the same people who rear up in outrage against liberals for taking liberties with truth will not hesitate to do the same thing if they think it will bring them gain. For shame!

We can break free only if we are rigorously honest with ourselves and others.

Let me kick off the movement by saying:

I have been had, more than once. I’m sorry, but I definitely am not quitting. I will continue to move on, making mistakes at times, but will never quit.

In fact, I have only just begun to fight. Now let’s move on, America. This is no time to hide our heads in the sand. We have study and work to do. And — in the learning process — mistakes to make and confess.

America in full suicide mode

America in full suicide mode

Before Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked for almost $1 trillion to bail out rich bankers, and then got both parties to cow down to his demand, I would have thought the following article by John Wallace might be an exaggeration. But not any more. It is a missing piece in the puzzle.

It is your patriotic duty to read John Wallace’s article “The Council on Foreign Relations and Tack’s Tackle Shop,” but accompany it with Cliff Kincaid’s article “Wall Street and the rise of Obama.”

BTW, there is a rumor that Henry Paulson is not done with you yet. He may be wanting another $800 billion of your money. You don’t mind, do you? The first bailout was a bargain at only $17,000 per person (some estimates are higher). Bailouts! Get em while they’re hot!

Why do I now firmly believe in the world banker-CFR conspiracy that once seemed too outlandish even for a work of fiction?

Because, as Wallace’s article shows, these richies and world-governance fanatics have been working feverishly in both parties and having their way with them, openly and obviously, for many years for the purpose of destroying our country. A while back I wrote a column for Laigle’s Forum alerting that Mike Huckabee, the darling of the evangelical right, had chosen Richard Haass, President of the CFR, as his potential secretary of state. Haass had written an article saying that we need to “rethink sovereignty.” That fits the picture very nicely. The bankers and social engineers who control us need a central government to finish the job of killing your patriotism (England is only a few years ahead of us: people are getting arrested for flying the Union Jack in Muslim neighborhoods). It is very uncomfortable for them to have to deal with so many splintered governments. Sovereignty is just in the way and must be shipped off like an old parent to a nursing home. They have gotten their wish in Europe. The whole turkey is on the table there, ready to carve. But they need the NAU and the Amero. Clues abound: The secretive three way conference Bush attended a few years ago, the Mexican truck highway, open borders, amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens, and the elephant in the room: complete silence on immigration by the media and the presidential campaign (McCain was one of the amnesty deal makers last time around). And now, the bailout, the totally useless bailout that can’t budge the stock market. And finally, the absence of any new policy on banking, even though the old policy of putting social justice ahead of good banking practice was suicidal. Oh, and I almost forgot: America elected as its president one of the chief actors in enforcing the banking policy that destroyed the banks, throwing the blame on the free market that gave us the banks in the first place.

Did any of you notice that yesterday on CNN, when a desperate-looking Henry Paulsen was presenting his idea to bail out Citigroup on the pretext that credit was hard to obtain, one of the sponsors was a credit company offering low-interest credit to the viewers? At that very moment, my junk mail box was full of offers for cheap credit and low-interest credit cards, and my wife and I get a ton of junk mail every week offering us low-interest or zero-interest credit. My bank admitted they will give me all the credit I want because I pay back my loans. So what credit crisis?

Can anyone guess what the government is really talking about when they warn of a credit pinch? Why, it is really easy to figure that one out if you consider the socialist Zeitgeist: they mean that if you don’t bail out the banks, they will no longer be able to lend money to those poor unfortunate people who want to buy things they can’t afford and who, until just recently, couldn’t get credit because they were a bad credit risk, spent money like a drunken sailor, reneged on their debts and will continue to renege on their debts until the American tax payer turns blue and gasps his last. Irresponsible people need shiny Christmas presents too, and if they don’t get them this year, why, Christmas may just become extinct. Shysters in Washington, the media, and the “Christian” Left (which now means mainstream evangelicalism) have conned you into believing that banks must serve, first and foremost, a “social purpose,” and then do sound banking if there is any time left for it. But good banking practice and safety are off the table now, just as border safety and immigration enforcement have been off the table for years. We are staring down the barrel of a deadly Revolution in the form of a tectonic plate shift that has taken us far out into the ocean and most of us still think we are in America. Friends, look behind you and wave goodbye. That vanishing dot on the horizon was your country!

The banks now are hell-bent on lending to the irresponsible much in the way an evil perverted fool would offer booze to a recovering alcoholic. And the pubic bought into the notion of bailing out everyone but the tax payer. We hardworking, longsuffering, decent responsible people – the few who are left – are now forced at gunpoint to sacrifice our happiness, our safety and our future, and that of our children, for a bunch of lazy, spoiled-rotten free loaders with an entitlement mentality on steroids.

Friends, America is in suicide mode and no one is paying attention. I fear the worst.

PS: Articles like this never get done writing themselves. I just was alerted to the below-linked article where Lord Sterling says that the Rockefellers are benefitting from the bank crisis. If anyone has any information on this — whether it is true, how they benefitted, etc — I would appreciate your posting it in the comments section appearing under this article. Thanks!

http://www.ukcolumn.org/2008/11/20/cash-for-honours/

Donald Hank

 

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND TACK’S TACKLE SHOP

by John Wallace

When I was growing up in the Inwood section of upper Manhattan, I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old I had my first contact with discovering what a “front” was for another business. It was called Tack’s Tackle Shop. When it first opened, it looked like just another business. The guy in the store, Tack, was selling fishing rods, live bait and an array of fishing equipment. It didn’t take long before the kids in the neighborhood figured out that perhaps there was something else going on. The live bait in the window wasn’t alive anymore and local hoods and gangster type people seemed to be going in and out, particularly in the evenings and none of them looked like fishermen. It wasn’t long before the place was raided by the NYCPD and my friends and I all watched from across the street on Sherman Avenue as “Tack” came out in handcuffs along with a bunch of other men. We were later told that Tack’s Tackle Shop had actually been a front for an illegal gambling operation.

A “front group” can be any entity that is set up to appear to be a legitimate independent organization, like Tack’s Tackle Shop, when it is actually controlled from behind the scenes by another organization or group of individuals. These front groups are often legitimate businesses, social or political organizations, professional groups, advocacy groups, research organizations, etc. Organized crime has used legitimate front organizations for many decades to launder their income from various illegal activities. Pharmaceutical companies have used front organizations to advocate for the drugs they manufacture. International terrorist organizations have their front groups here in the United States and as the evidence clearly shows, so do the international bankers.

After researching the formation and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) it appears that it may be a very sophisticated version of “Tack’s Tackle Shop.” The CFR was specifically set up to carry out the goals and objectives of international bankers so that the public positions taken by the CFR would appear to be independent positions that could not be directly connected to the international bankers who personally control and fund the CFR. Continue reading

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.

So you want to be a communist

So you want to be a communist

 

By Donald Hank

Many conservative pundits today are trying desperately to warn their fellow Americans that Barack Obama has been linked to various far-left organizations, seems to have been reared by a convinced communist, and has ties to the far-left organization ACORN and with leftist terrorists like William Ayers.

Most of these pundits seem to be going on the assumption that, like us older Americans, people today have a basic knowledge of what communism (or socialism, the first step toward communism) actually is, at least enough to fear it.

But, in view of the enormous resurgence of the Left in America, I am not so sure the word “communism” raises so many eyebrows today.

Therefore, it is probably necessary to remind the reader what a communist state looks like from the inside.

I spent a summer in the USSR in the early 70s studying Russian under the auspices of the Council on International Educational Exchange, and a little later, about 4 months in Poland traveling on my own, and here are some things I observed: Continue reading