Glod bless Olavo de Carvalho

God Bless Olavo de Carvalho

By Don Hank

I know that some Americans are confused about who Putin is and what Russia is. Under ordinary circumstances, people — all of whom possess reasoning power — would say: ok, the US admits it supports some gun-toting people in Syria who want to force Shariah law down other people’s throats. And we know that the US military stood down for months as ISIS invaded Syria in long highly visible lines of white Toyotas with machine guns mounted thereon. The air force could have picked them off out there in the desert, but the government waited until they had blended in with the civilian population so that any action taken at that time would necessarily kill hundreds or even thousands of civilians, no matter how smart our smart bombs are or how strictly the military personnel observe strict protocol designed to protect civilians.

Therefore, if and when the Syrian people need to be liberated and civilians are killed in large numbers, the culprit is the US and no one else. It is not Islam, it is not Assad, it is not Russia, it is the government of the formerly Christian country the USA.

When it was apparent that the US had no intention of intervening, President Assad finally invited the Russians to help, breaking the rules of the Ba’ath Party that forbade foreign intervention in Syria.

Again, any ordinary person with an ordinary functioning mind would say: the US government is responsible for this mess (including the murder of Christians), and the Russians are the only ones willing to help. We need to support the Russians and their life-saving actions and, if possible, persuade our leaders to stop playing games that get innocent people killed and get off their duffs and fight the evil. A person of ordinary intelligence and common sense would think this way. So why don’t they?

Well, the New York Times and CNN and even Fox News, and more importantly, the president who had promised peace, all organized a chorus to badmouth Putin, Russia, Assad, and the Iranians – who were also fighting jihadis – making it look like the ones sincerely fighting the jihadis were the bad guys and the Western governments seeking Assad’s ouster were the good guys. This despite the fact that Syrian Christians overwhelmingly support Assad and after Aleppo was liberated, the people massed on a large town square there, erected a Christmas tree and a giant photo of Assad and danced with joy – Muslims celebrating Christmas. But the media ignored it and went into high gear to attack these excellent people who liberated the city, citing the fact that civilians were killed in the liberation attacks – this despite the fact that in Mosul, Iraq, the civilians killed by US forces far outnumbered the casualties in Aleppo! The campaign of lies and deceit was unprecedented in its scope and diabolical maliciousness. And the pubic, who should have known better, must bear most of the blame for allowing itselt to be deceived so completely.

Why can’t we just be ordinary people again with ordinary reasoning powers? How is it possible that we have drifted so far from common sense and reason?

You can’t explain this in earthly terms. Only strong delusions of a higher order can make people think that good is evil and evil is good.

The answer is that we are not fighting a visible enemy. Paul was right:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6:12.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Isaiah 5:20

And yet, our Commander-in-Chief said: Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make ye free.

In other words, the chains will be broken. People will wake up and we will be free again to use our ordinary common sense once more. It is just a matter of time.

He also said we are to love our enemies and bless those who curse us.

Lord bless my friend Olavo De Carvalho. (see http://laiglesforum.com/my-friend-olavo-part-i/3615.htm. BTW, you may have to copy and paste these links into your browser. Laiglesforum.com has come under attack lately.)

If you have been brainwashed into accepting a lie, open the links below for some detox. I pray that it will help you to heal your wounded soul and cleanse away the injuries done to it by ruthless obviously lying propaganda:

BTW, if you love Olavo as I do, and you are close to him, then you can help him live a longer life by telling him that cigarette smoke kills.

Thank you for taking the courage to do this.

What does Putin stand for?

http://laiglesforum.com/next-us-president-must-understand-the-putin-doctrine/3807.htm

Russia did NOT hack the Democrats

http://laiglesforum.com/wikileaks-proves-cia-has-no-evidence-of-russian-hacking/4064.htm

Putin a thug, eh?

http://laiglesforum.com/russophobia-so-putin-killed-litvinenko-eh/4050.htm

The Russkies are coming! Rebutting the cottage industry of Russian hating. Lord forgive these wretched people for the terrible mistake they have made.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140226

Pro-abort, pro-‘gay’ marriage Duke U prof threatens to sic cops on detractors

The following commentary titled “The technique of reverse labeling” reflects a situation that is so absurd as to be almost laughable – that is, if it weren’t for the harm that is being done to at least one persecuted Christian, our good friend Julio Severo, who is in hiding thanks to a Marxist government that criminalizes all public speech unfavorable to homosexuals.

First, please read Mr. de Carvalho’s commentary on this and then my email to the professor who wishes to harm Julio even more. I had originally hoped Professor Nicolelis would respond, but he has chosen to ignore my email.

Pastor Severo is a perfect example of how a Christian minister who wants to help homosexuals break away from their dangerous lifestyle (70% of AIDS cases are active male homosexuals) is persecuted by influential Leftists who want to make sure they never break away and remain trapped. The death of these unfortunate people seems to make no difference at all to the callous Brazilian Left, which also wholeheartedly supports the murder of the unborn.

The fact is, these same leftists who want to keep homosexuals trapped in their unwanted lifestyle are the real homophobes, despite the fact that they falsely label others that way.

Emails for Dr Nicolelis if you desire an explanation for his actions:

nicoleli@neuro.duke.edu

and colleagues (be polite):

http://www.neuro.duke.edu/faculty/nicolelis/personnel.html

Don Hank

The technique of reverse labeling

by Olavo de Carvalho

Miguel Nicolelis is a neuroscience teacher at Duke University (USA), founder of the Edmond & Lilly Safra Neuroscientific Institute (Macaíba, RN) and member of the Brazilian and French Academies of Sciences. Added to that notable curriculum was his recent appointment by Pope Benedict XVI to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Viomundo website, directed by journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha, now introduces him in a still more attractive light, claiming the scientist is a defenseless victim of a vast hate and fear mongering campaign waged by the eternally abominable “extreme right.”

Shocked and intimidated by the murderous virulence of the campaign, Prof. Nicolelis, in a tone of spurious sincerity distinguishing him as an unconditional follower of the free and democratic debate, warns against the dangers of ideological radicalization:

“Your political, ideological opponent starts to be seen as your enemy. And that enemy is subject to any kind of punishment, even death. I cannot imagine that those people spreading hate, revenge and violent messages can at the same time be Christians.”

But, after all, what did the murderous campaign consist of? It consisted of two things: Firstly, a ten-line story, published at the Rorate Coeli website on January 5 (see: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/pope-names-pro-abortion-and-pro-gay.html), stating that Prof. Nicolelis is a fervent defender of abortion and the gay agenda (and also, as of last year, of the candidacy of radical socialist Dilma Rousseff). His presence in an institution linked to the Catholic Church is therefore a little strange. Then, an article written by American journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, published on the website Last Days Watchman (see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/defender-of-for-abortion-and-homosexualist-police-appointed-to-vaticans-to) and later reproduced with or without additions and comments on a few Christian websites, among them the Brazilian version of Lifesitenews, Notícias Pró-Família, administered by Brazilian writer Julio Severo (I will speak about him later on). Hoffman, who is a Catholic, commented, “Pope Benedict XVI is a staunch defender of the right to life and of family values, and it is unlikely that he was aware of Nicolelis’ record when he made the appointment.”

Was there some threat, any hint of injurious plans? Prof. Nicolelis admits, “No, there was none.”

In view of these perfectly inoffensive expressions of disagreement, how did Prof. Nicolelis react? By debating with his opponents? No way. He himself describes his argumentative procedures:

“My laboratory staff contacted Duke University, warned about those websites and the university police have already begun to monitor the case. The security of my laboratory was reinforced… Nobody enters there without going through security procedures.”

And he cautions: at the first threatening sign in Brazil, he will call the Federal Police immediately.

Among the potential aggressors of Prof. Nicolelis denounced by the Viomundo website, one has already been put under control. Julio Severo, wanted by Brazilian authorities for the heinous crime of having stated and insisted that homosexuality is a sin and curable, is hidden abroad, moving from one country to another, living in extreme poverty with a wife and four small children. Journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha mentions that fact with evident contentment. The Fórum website, by columnist Luis Nassif (http://blogln.ning.com/forum/topics/homofobia-em-preto-e-branco), also celebrates it as a sign that Brazilian democracy is progressing.

The logical premises forming the basis of Prof. Nicolelis’ statements and the reports of the Viomundo and Forum websites could not be more evident:

1) Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2) An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under imminent attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

The brutally exaggerated reaction is expected to prompt the distinguished public to believe piously that the violent individuals are those who expressed opinions, not those who mobilized against them the armed forces of the repressive State system.

If the reader wanted a local illustration of what I have written previously on the technique of reverse labeling, this is it.

The constant and obsessive use of that technique is one of the most trivial manifestations of the general inversion of reality, characteristic of the revolutionary mentality.

Not by coincidence, but very significantly, Prof. Nicolelis had been railing some time ago against the “hysterical right.” Hysteria, by definition, is a hyperbolic reaction to some imaginary and false provocation. Therefore, when Prof. Nicolelis reacts hysterically, it is the others who are hysterical.

Translated by Julio Severo. Reviewed by Don Hank.

Portuguese version of this article: The technique of reverse labeling

Spanish version of this article:  La técnica de la rotulación inversa

Source: Diário do Comércio

Divulgation: Julio Severo in English

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

My email to Nicolelis:

Dear Dr. Nicolelis,

You have recently complained that groups of bloggers, whom you refer to as “ultra-right” have expressed concern that you, while serving as a member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, also are outspokenly pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage – positions diametrically  opposed to the Vatican’s positions.

It is not surprising that, given the Vatican’s approval of your membership (despite their disagreement with your views), this annoys you, as you have made clear. What surprises is that, in an interview with Viomundo you express fear that anyone who opposes your viewpoints on these issues is a potential threat to your safety or possibly your life.

I learned of this situation when I was asked to edit a translation by Olavo de Carvalho dedicated to your apparently intransigent viewpoint as expressed in that interview and elsewhere. I had intended to run the translation at my web site (Laigle’s Forum) but I then realized, I do not have a personal quarrel with you and it would perhaps be unfair to run this article before hearing your side of the story.

De Carvalho’s article says that, for you

1—Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2—An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

Obviously, Mr. de Carvalho is being ironic here. But he is conveying the impression, based largely on the aforementioned interview, that you are not in favor of a free debate on certain topics.

My question to you is:

Is an objective debate on homosexuality or abortion, for example, possible in your world or is Mr. de Carvalho correct in his ironic statement about your inflexibility in such areas? Such inflexibility would certainly seem incompatible with a questioning, scientific mind and with the image you otherwise project as a scientist dedicated to open and uninhibited inquiry. I therefore want to give you a chance to respond so that my readers can hear your side as well.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Don Hank

Editor, Laigle’s Forum

Karl Marx flunks history

In the following column, Olavo de Carvalho alludes to the Hegelian theory of the “historical imperative,” which the early Marxists used as a basis for their ideas.

This Utopian notion of history as a foregone conclusion, is still used by Marxists and their followers. I have shown how the idea of “gay marriage” is based in part on this idea and is seen by activists in the field as an inevitable outcome of all prior history.

Mr. de Carvalho points out the severe philosophical limitations of this Utopian idea. Ironically, its popularity and the virulence of its supporters are symptoms of its inherent lack of validity.

Don Hank

Social Critique and History

Olavo de Carvalho
Jornal da Tarde, October 11, 2001

All social critique is founded upon some idea of the better. It is only in comparison with this idea that any existing society may seem good, tolerable, bad, or unbearable. But the idea of the better does not emerge from nothing: it is conceived of by actual men, members of the same society they criticize. If we consider that the mindset of these men is entirely a “product” of society, then, only one of two alternatives is true: either they themselves fall into the evil they denounce, or society, having given these men the idea of the better, cannot be as evil as they say it is.

Therefore, all social critique that claims to have any foundation at all can only be based upon the premise that in man’s consciousness there is a dimension which somehow transcends any present society and to which he can transport himself in thought in order to judge that society from the outside, or from above.

It is evident, however, that a simple verbal appeal to a legitimating authority is not enough to validate any critique. A critique must not only allege but must also prove its logical affiliation with a superior authority.

Social critiques, therefore, can be hierarchized on a scale of strictly objective validity, in accordance with (a) the intrinsic legitimacy of the authority called upon to legitimize them; (b) the degree of logical consistency of the nexus between the legitimizing authority and the content of the critique. In other words: (a) The authority of the superior authority summoned to legitimize a critique may be false or deficient in itself, as in the case of the critic who condemns society based upon a pure Utopian model of his own invention. (b) If the alleged authority is valid in itself, there is also the risk that the deduction which the critic draws from it in order to validate a specific critique of a specific society is not a logically valid inference.

A history of social critique from antiquity to the present day would easily demonstrate that, over time, the social critiques formulated in the West have been progressively losing their validity as they have grow in virulence and in the number of their adherents. In other words: as time goes on, social critics lose in intrinsic authority what they gain in pretension and audience.

I know that this is a lamentable observation and that some people, without having ever studied the subject, or even become minimally aware of it before reading this article, will reject it in limine and will seek refuge from it behind all sorts of subterfuge. The only thing I have to say to these people is: don’t bother me; go study. As to other people, that is, those for whom the enunciation of a hypothesis arouses curiosity instead of tears, I suggest they compare, for example, the Socratic critique to the Marxist one. The latter has far more adherents and is much more ferocious than the former, but, in declaring that men’s consciousness is a “product” of history, the Marxist critique cannot allege any legitimizing authority other than history itself; however, since history does not provide models for its own judgment, but rather the simple reporting of faits accomplis, the Marxist critic is left with no other alternative than to infer from past history a hypothesis for a future development and to take it at once as the legitimizing authority for the critique of the present. Nothing proves that the predicted development is inevitable, nor that the state of affairs that results from it will have to be better than the present state of affairs; all this is nothing but hypothesis and has no other legitimizing authority than that of a hypothesis. On the other hand, Socrates’ critique, which did not gain many adherents, except in a very limited circle, had a much more solid foundation, since the authorities to which he appealed were the certainty of death and the intrinsic authority of reason, which no man can reject. 

Marxism stands at an even greater disadvantage when compared to the social critique of the Hebrew prophets, who draw their authority from the fulfillment of prophecies. Moses’ critique of the state of affairs in Egypt was founded upon his foreknowledge of the concrete means of leading the Jewish people to a better situation; and the success of his undertaking provided full proof of his claims. This is an argument that no Marxist can allege in support of his criticism of capitalism. Quite to the contrary, the historical achievements of the socialist model in USSR and China were so disappointing that, nowadays, Marxists, after having proclaimed and defended them as the purest and most typical expressions of how Marxism overcomes capitalism, strive to explain them ex post facto as accidental deviations and to purge Marxism of any commitment to such obvious failures.

Translator: Alessandro Cota; Translation Editor: Don Hank

Author Olavo de Carvalho is a noted correspondent for several major Brazilian newspapers and founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

To comment or schedule an appearance, contact Laigle’s Forum at:  zoilandon@msn.com

Reason or empty chatter: it’s your choice

 by Don Hank

Jesus and Stalin’s Dove” is another English-language debut of a column by Olavo de Carvalho to appear at Laigle’s Forum. It is an article about courageously facing reality in a Christian sense – what that means on a cognitive level and the sacrifices needed to be intellectually honest.

In today’s second column by Mr. de Carvalho “The demolition of conscience,” Mr. de Carvalho discusses “cognitive dissonance,” a recurrent theme of his. The term generally means the uncomfortable entertaining of conflicting ideas simultaneously. However, it goes deeper than that.

In our society, shaped by elitists diametrically opposed to traditional American thought, we see cognitive dissonance manifested as a conflict between what we see and hear (what we actually know) on the one hand and what the elitists – largely through media, “education” and government – impose on us (what we are supposed to “know”).

I witnessed a frightening illustration of cognitive dissonance in my hometown in 2008 and 2009, when record late frosts hit and none of the local papers carried the story either year. Obviously, this actual hard, cold fact would have conflicted with the theory of global warming and that was too risqué for the media. But even townspeople I met and spoke with as the frost still lay on the ground were strangely mum when I mentioned that in my 60+ years of life, I had never seen a frost this late in the year. They knew it was true – undeniably so — on the experiential level, but on a social level, they knew that to acknowledge this truth would be improper, even to the point of blasphemy. Gradually, over the years, they had been successfully programmed like Pavlov’s dogs, and I made them uncomfortable – even scared — just mentioning it. Some were willing to discuss it, but others looked and acted guilty, as if the acknowledgement of what we all could see with our own eyes was a shameful sin. In fact it was a sin — a sin against the leftwing establishment that needed the myth of global warming for its agenda: cap-and-trade, carbon credits, tougher emissions limits, etc.

You see, it is no exaggeration to say that Western society is mentally ill, suffering from a virulent kind of neurosis that is refractory to treatment. We need large, frequent doses of therapy. Not psychological, but philosophical therapy.

Olavo de Carvalho’s writings are all, in one way or another, valuable therapy sessions. Each one undoes a little bit of our distorted preconceptions, like untying a convoluted knot.

Over the years in which I have had the unique privilege of reading, translating and performing translation reviews of his writings, Olavo de Carvalho has gradually convinced me that the study of philosophy – a tool for analyzing thought – is by no means just a luxury item. It is in fact the key to the cage in which our minds are confined by our keepers.

Without this intellectual tool, while most of us can make noises — ranging from incoherent to vaguely cogent – in order to generally express anger, pain, frustration and anguish, and while some observers can even manage to sound authoritative at times, we can’t hope to fully articulate what it is we believe, what we desire, what we should love and what we should hate, who are our friends and who are our enemies, and what sacrifices must be made to preserve our American way of life for our children. We speak of peace when we mean war, of war when we mean peace. Of morality when we mean evil, and so on. We’ve been seduced by the “chatter,” to use de Carvalho’s word for it.

This lack of thinking skills to know with certainty, and of language skills to articulate with unfaltering conviction, what we want and why is at the heart of our malaise and of the destructive infighting among conservative Americans. And it’s the reason so few pundits today can define America’s goals well enough to steer us away from the perilous shoals.

Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

America, the dark continent

Curtain of darkness

Olavo de Carvalho
Diário do Comércio, January 15th, 2009

What is happening in the American news media is terrifying for those who can see through it. Exaggeration? Conspiracy theory? A recent example will allow you to judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

When Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was accused of attempting to sell Obama’s Senate seat, the first question that came to the mind of police authorities was whether the President-elect had partnered with him or at least was aware of what was going on. There was no hiding the question, not only because it came directly from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but also because, a few weeks earlier, one of the main Obamist campaign aides, David Axelrod, had mentioned in an interview a recent meeting between Obama and governor Blagojevich. Obama’s reassuring reply came right away, after, according to him, a thorough internal investigation, and was promptly trumpeted by the media as the final solution to the riddle: No, not even Obama himself, nor any member of his team had had any contact whatsoever with Blagojevich. Axelrod was quick to confirm it, swearing that his first declaration had been just a slip-up. With that, the media announced en bloc, to the general relief of the believers, that Blagojevich’s fall did not in any way stain the anointed Messiah’s honor.

Displeased with such a facile clarification, the non-profit organization Judicial Watch subpoenaed Blagojevich, under the Freedom of Information Act, to disclose all official records of any recent contact between the governor and Barack Obama or any member of his team. What came in response was astounding, to say the least: a letter written on the Presidential Transition Team’s letterhead, signed personally by Barack Obama, in which he thanked Blagojevich for the meeting they had had in Philadelphia on December 2, only a week before the Illinois governor was arrested. Even worse: not only had Obama and Blagojevich taken part into the conversation, but so had Vice-President-elect Joe Biden. The document can be read at http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/BlagojevichFOIAresponse122408.pdf.

It is full and official proof that Obama lied.

Well, do you know how many newspapers have publicized that so far? None. How many TV news programs?  None. Complete silence, total protection of the darling’s image. No matter how many documents are made public, no matter how many facts are unveiled and thoroughly proved, no matter how many crimes and misdemeanors he might have committed, not a single word against Obama will be read or heard in the elegant media. The abyss between news and reality has become immeasurable, insurmountable. With crushing unanimity, reporters, editors and commentators lie, conceal, obfuscate, change the subject and, with shocking cynicism, laugh at anyone who tries to do journalism the old fashioned way, the fact-and-document journalism, whose days are numbered, surviving only on the internet and talk radio. Nothing of what has been previously seen in Western democracies in terms of counterfeiting and news manipulation can compare to this absolute and relentless blockade, which can only be matched by totalitarian censorship in communist countries, the difference being that the latter was imposed by the government, while the first arises from voluntary complicity – a systemic and not conspiratorial one, exactly as predicted by communist strategist Antonio Gramsci.

More than Obama’s election itself, this phenomenon signals a historical sea-change, destined to bear devastating consequences on a global scale. Decades of indoctrination in the universities, based on the premise that there is no reality, just the “imposition of the narrative,” have accomplished their goal: a new generation of journalists has come to power at the news rooms, deeply imbued with the strong belief that their duty is not to depict the world, but to transform it. The honorable public, likewise, is supposed to be swept up by this change, without knowing where it comes from or where it will lead to. Whether this curtain of darkness will remain closed for a thousand or just a few years, I don’t know.

What is certain is that it’s already descended upon the land that was once home to the free press.

 

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.

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.

The lawsuit none dare mention

The lawsuit none dare mention

 

By Donald Hank

People all around the world are concerned about the lawsuit brought by Hillary supporter Phillip Berg, charging Barack Obama and the DNC with improprieties centered around Obama’s apparent inability to prove he is a US citizen, and in fact his having presented patently false documents, making him constitutionally ineligible to become the next president of the United States. The latest development is that the failure of Obama and the DNC to respond to the charges brought under this suit is, legally, an admission of guilt, making him ineligible for the presidency. It’s all over the internet.

But the silence in the media is deafening. None of the talk hosts will touch the story. Neither will Fox News.

Just this morning I received emails from two different Brazilian friends, including philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, whose columns we proudly present at Laigle’s Forum from time to time.

One email says:

Dear Don

Please clarify this: “Press Release: Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama”? http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/38-press-release-obama-a-dnc-admit-all-allegations-in-berg-v-obama 

Is this a hoax? If correct, why nobody says anything about it? The ‘official’ great media I can understand but why don’t conservatives like you say anything?

All the best and thanks for any help,

[name of prominent Brazilian activist]

  Continue reading

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.

Self-censorship of “conservative” media — Be afraid!

The big scandal here is that no one in the media, whether “conservative” or liberal, will talk about the lawsuit against Obama. I recall recently that a caller to the Glenn Beck radio program brought this up. Immediately, Glenn told her this issue was nothing in comparison to so many other really important issues, and that there is no need to discuss it.

So much for the “free” conservative media. Rush is silent on this issue, and so is Hannity. And even “conservative” news sites on the web are ignoring it.

So what if this is not the “opportune” time to mention it? So what if it puts Hillary in a position to regain her candidacy? So what if liberals don’t want you to know?

This silence on the issue is proof that the press, whether “conservative” (I don’t think it is) or liberal, is in some way operating in someone’s interests, and that someone is not you!

Think about it: why is it that a Brazilian Newspaper (Diário do Comércio) is carrying news that is, for all intents and purposes, censored in the US?

I hope to be able to comment further on the self-censorship and the recent distortions in the “conservative” media. (Have you noticed how no one is protesting the bailout? They limit themselves to a discussion of who gets what of your money. Sickening!)

Donald Hank

 

Obama runs away from a lawsuit

 

Olavo de Carvalho

 

Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), Sept. 26th 2008

 

            September 24 was the deadline for Barack Obama to file a response to the lawsuit, initiated by Democratic lawyer Philip Berg, which charges Obama of not fulfilling the constitutional requirements to be elected president, as he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Obama did not actually respond: he introduced a motion for dismissal, a typical delaying maneuver that makes the defendant look even more suspect.

            A motion for dismissal consists in alleging that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to justify the continuation of the suit. That Obama’s lawyers would use this maneuver is a curious sample of the revolutionary inversion of judicial logic. Berg’s central argument is that Obama has not presented a printed birth certificate. It is the duty of the candidate to prove that he is a natural born American citizen, not the duty of the plaintiff to prove that he is not. The hard fact that the document has never came to light is enough for the suit to go forward, as there is not a single piece of evidence attesting that Obama has legal citizenship. But to this undeniable assertion, Berg has added some strong evidence that: (1) the electronic copy of the birth certificate exhibited by Obama’s campaign is false; (2) Obama was born in Kenya. By challenging the insufficiency of these supplemental arguments, Obama’s lawyers are trying to dodge responding the central point: where is the paper version of the certificate?  If Obama had one, it would be enough to present it and he would be acquitted on the spot. What his lawyers have done suggests that he has no American birth certificate whatsoever.

            In return, they have gained time, but at the expense of sowing the seed of a constitutional crisis that will fatally blow up sooner or later. If the suit is resolved only after the election – and if Obama is elected – instead of simply nullifying a candidacy the United States will find itself in the contingency of having to topple a president, automatically raising the ire of his devotees. Or else, the United States will have to sacrifice its Constitution and laws on the altar of a grotesque pseudo-religion, artificial to the utmost, in which millions of idiots kneel down before an improvised arriviste without even bothering to ask where  he came from.  Both hypotheses are frightening, and if the motion for dismissal is accepted by the court, there will be no third one any more.

            More and more I convince myself that all this, form the beginning, was in the calculations of the creators of the Obama myth. More that just electing a president, they wished to implode a nation.

 P. S. – All the documents in the lawsuit are in Phillip Berg’s site www.obamacrimes.com. If you have difficulties accessing it, do not be surprised: it has received over 15 million visitors in the last few days and there has been a bit of a traffic jam.

 

 

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 Braziian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.