Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

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

Is “gay marriage” a historical imperative?

by Don Hank

According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

My recent response to the court decision by a homosexual judge in California supposedly making any ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional received a deluge of of responses, including some expressing gay rage at my refusal to accept the use of the word “marriage” appied to same-sex relationships. (Check out the comments section under the article “Same-sex marriage? There’s no such thing”).

Some suggested I was a Nazi, others a bigot, still others a hater. It was the same old Gramscian tactics that the Left has used for over 100 years, showing an almost complete lack of reflection and no palpable originality.

In the last comment, a poster, who calls himself a “Christian” and apparently wants to pass as a “conservative,” said:

“Of course, the rest of society has moved on [emphasis added], and we pretty much look at them [anyone opposing ‘gay marriage’] with a mixture of pity and revulsion, but hey, it is their right.”

So the work of a single judge activist is proof that “society has moved on”?

In fact the people of California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, voted for Proposition 8, which makes “gay marriage” illegal. So what is going on?

Let me try to explain.

This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.

Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present. Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact.” “Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”

But do utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?

The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, all reflect the opposite. There, the leaders pursued lifestyles of great opulence, living in palaces and feasting daily as the masses either starved or lived hand to mouth. In the Ukraine, under Stalin, for example, at least 10 million were killed, mostly by starvation. Still more were starved to death in China under Mao.

The closer any country comes to the dreamed-of “Utopia,” the further from equality it gets.

Of course, the above examples are restricted to the hardline communists, who, thanks to the unlimited power they enjoyed, had no need to use victim groups to get votes. But the same principle applies to soft Marxism of the kind that prevails in Europe and the US, where interest groups (like homosexuals) are seen as crucial to acquiring power. You need only look at Michelle Obama’s taxpayer-funded trip to Spain or Nancy Pelosi’s fabulously expensive taxpayer-funded airliner to see that the Western world is destined for an impoverishment of the middle class that may rival — or even exceed — that of hardline communist nations. You will get even poorer and the politically well-placed will get wealthy beyond measure. Our world financial and economic crises are a result of wealth distribution under “soft” Marxism. Yet our elites continue to borrow for ineffective Keynesian “stimulus” programs that transfer the wealth of the middle class to rich bankers, and will continue to do so as long as we close our eyes to the unconstitutionality of this plundering of our resources. (The elites confuse us by reminding that the “conservative” G.W. Bush also promoted such practices as lending to the insolvent and “stimulus” programs. Recruiting false conservatives into the Marxist game plays a key role in the subterfuge. “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron is playing this role in the UK, where he promised voters to hold a referendum on EU membership and then reneged on that promise. And in case you missed it, the “conservative”Ann Coulter has recently taken her place in the ranks of the cultural Marxist campaign, promoting “gay marriage,” thereby ensuring her place in a leftward-evolving GOP).

In other words, the “historical imperative” that the above-quoted homosexual activist alludes to, and his disdain for counter-revolutionary traditionalists like me (regarding conservatives with “pity and revulsion”), are a sign of a great inequality that is to come, one that is cynically expected to be a utopia.

Let me further clarify: The homosexual agenda we see proceeding apace before us is not, on the surface, the kind of economic Marxism we saw (or see) in Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It is something more subtle and insidious but with the same intent – namely, Fabian Marxism, which is a stealth revolution that is intended to eventually usher in economic Marxism later on once power is consolidated in the hands of the Left. Now if this “historical imperative” – the inevitability of the Marxist revolution – were possible, then the question is: why did it not happen a long time ago?

The first known Utopian screed appeared almost 2,500 years ago. It was written by none less than Plato. The first Utopian experiment was in 4th Century Persia and it failed ignominiously for the same reason all such experiments fail: no one wanted to work.

There were utopian movements from the 13th Century on in the Dark Ages and on through the Renaissance and beyond. They played crucial roles in the great wars of the time. All of them failed.

The French Revolution touted égalité, among other things. It follows that today’s France is very accepting of same-sex “marriage.” Yet today, there is scarcely a more economically skewed society, with government employees receiving vastly  more income and perks than workers in the private economy. And, of course, as in all “egalitarian” Utopias, there is a vanishing trend in work performed by this privileged class, while the less-fortunate private-economy workers earn less and less in terms of real wages, corrected for cost of living.

It is quite possible that eventually, the masses will be dumbed-down and propagandized to the point of no return, relinquishing the little freedom that remains, and learn to accept the unacceptable. A quick look at the sociocultural reality of Europe is a glimpse of our future, barring unforeseen circumstances.

But if past revolutions are a viable indicator, then the activists themselves will be the main recipients of the unintended consequences of their own actions.

Already, the first “gay” divorces have been examples of wealth redistribution, with the richer of the 2 being forced to relinquish a significant proportion of their income and property to the other.

It is to be expected that some of these “beneficiaries” of the homosexual revolution will eventually look back longingly at the days of traditional marriage and its defenders.

I for one will be looking at them not with revulsion, but with pity.

sign the Prague declaration and defend freedom

Modern Westerners have been brain-washed into tolerating communism — something most Russians, Poles or Czechs, for example, would never do. Many of the older ones have lived through the murders of up to 20 million. They know what this barbaric system is and freely condemn it.

Thus only ignorance makes us tolerant of communism, which killed over 100 million people (not to mention the unborn) to Hitler’s 6 million.

Yet, despite the heavy loss of life and freedom, a history lesson etched in the hearts of all who witnessed it first hand, in the US today, anyone identified as anti-communist risks being labeled a McCarthyite nut. We’re clearly supposed to trivialize communism to get along. In Germany, you can even go to jail and face a heavy fine for saying in public that the communists killed more people than Hitler, because that is considered by some judges to be “trivializing the holocaust.” Obviously, the German government got it backwards. It is no exaggeration to say that the worst holocaust of the 20th century by far happened in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China (up to 70 million dead), Pol Pot’s Cambodia (about one-third of the population killed) and other communist countries, and is still happening in Kim Jong Il’s North Korea.

Despite the facts of history, it is a risky thing to stand up in the Western world and denounce communism because the Left has infiltrated our education system, entertainment world, media, universities and almost every facet of our lives. The fact is, by denouncing communism, we are practically denouncing most Western governments, which practice wealth distribution, and that makes the elite ruling class very nervous.

Yet if we don’t denounce communism for what it is, we will lose our freedoms, the way the Germans did.

So please sign this petition to defend what is left of freedom:

http://praguedeclaration.org/

And never be intimidated into being quiet.

Dare to say it now out loud: Communism is an evil system and I reject it.

And finally, remember that the initiators of the system called it by its near-synonym: socialism. Neither is a good system for a free people.

Book/DVD list for your April 15 Tea Party

Book/DVD list for your April 15 tea party

 

By Donald Hank

The local tea party in Lancaster PA seems to have been organized by 2 fine ladies who, on the tea party web site, also recommend a book list for invitees. Good for them. Much of the list, apparently originating with Ron Paul, is made up of the True Liberals, or libertarians, like Ludwig van Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and many others.

I emailed these ladies and thanked them for doing this and then said there were a few other books that Americans ought to read.

I wrote:

For today’s world, the most important information – most of which your school and/or college probably made sure you missed – is the story of the socialist dictators of the 20th century.

An invaluable contribution to your list would be “Harvest of Sorrow” by Robert Conquest, describing the slaughter of millions of Ukrainian farmers, “Son of the Revolution” by Liang Heng and Judith Shapiro, an eye-witness account of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the 3 disk DVD set China, a Century of Revolution, directed by Sue Williams (one of the co-producers was Karma Hinton, my first Chinese teacher). You will immediately see the unmistakable similarity between the Red Guard and ACORN.

Further DVDs: Repentance, a top-notch surrealistic Russian film (RU title: Pokayanie) about a Stalin like figure, Est-Oueste (East-West), an excellent film about a French family that visits the Soviet Union in the early post-WW II years and is trapped there. The Chinese film To Live is also an artistic masterpiece but at the same time, a realistic portrayal of the tragedy of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

Others: A somewhat tedious but trail blazing book “The Black Book of Communism” was written by a group of French communists under Stéphane Courtois who decided to come clean about the death toll of the 20th century, namely, almost 100 million innocents slaughtered throughout the world in the name of “social justice.”

Further, the Russian film Nest of Noblefolk (RU: Dvorjanskoe Gnezdo), an adaptation of the Turgenev story, shows the remarkable similarity between the mid 1800s and our 60s, with the elite classes talking about the same ideas that threw our society into moral and social turmoil. Shot in the Russian countryside, it is a cinema buff’s delight, with gorgeous photography, period-correctness in all aspects, soulful Russian gypsy music, a gripping love story with 2 intertwined love triangles and a surprise ending.

Note, however, that Turgenev’s best description of the early revolutionaries is given in his novel “Fathers and Sons,” which reflects the ideas that we considered revolutionary in our 1960s. In reality, we were a century later than the Russians in introducing ordered chaos, which is why freedom survived so long here. Nothing stands in the way of totalitarianism now – except you. And you know what? I believe in you.

Best,

Don Hank

TEA PARTIES AROUND THE NATION (find yours here):

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34348

Shifting the blame from Left to greed

Blaming greed for failed leftist policies

Donald Hank

The Pope has said, over the Christmas holiday, that the world must overcome greed to get through the current economic crisis.

With all due respect for the Pope, whose stance on social issues are to be applauded, both Protestantism and Catholicism, while blaming greed, have failed to grasp the nature of the Left and its role in crises such as the financial and economic crises gripping the world.

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Jimmy Carter) and the way it was enforced, including the role of ACORN, played a major role in bringing down the banks. Generally, the trend to lend money, particularly mortgages, to people with no down payment and even without proof of employment, goes against all common sense and good banking practice, which has been in place since the beginning of time and throughout the world, and has proved disastrous. And yet so many are in denial, even to the utterly absurd point of casting all the blame on conservative policies and seeing the Democrats as being more economically astute and hence capable of pulling us out of the current crisis of their own making — sort of like Clinton “reforming” the failed welfare created by his party. Anyone paying attention in the years since 1995, when Clinton ordered the banks to lend a trillion dollars to “underserved communities,” would have been able to foresee this collapse. Some actually did, including a New York Times writer in 1999.

I suppose it could be argued that the Left, in its own way, represents greed, but it is probably more appropriate to call it ideologically motivated rather than greedy. Ideological motivation, rather than common sense, has caused the greatest destruction known to man — under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

None of these men’s political actions were greed-motivated in the accepted sense of the word. In their decisions that led to the murder and starvation of millions, they were, however, blinded by leftist utopian (revolutionary) ideology — a desire for a better world, for change, and ironically, for a world with less greed.

Ideology killed 100 million innocent people in the last century (see “The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois). No other factor, including greed, has ever done anywhere near that much harm.

Just say no to civility

Just say no to civility

Commentary by Donald Hank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the end thereof are the ways of the Left…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the question that demands an answer is:

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

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

 


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

Olavo de Carvalho on the revolutionary mind

Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind

 

By Donald Hank

Even the best of observers have trouble figuring out what the Left is, or what the difference between left and right is, or what these concepts even mean any more.

Great strides have been made recently, however, with the recognition, among the most astute observers, that Hitler’s Third Reich is by no means an example of rightwing ideology and policies in action, contrary to current political doctrine.

Many conservative writers have already concluded that Hitler was not a rightwinger, based mostly on his National Socialism.

Indeed Mr. de Carvalho’s (as yet unpublished) lecture “The structure of the revolutionary mind,” cites the recent book “The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia” by Richard Overy, which demonstrates the parallels between Hitler and Stalin.

I had noticed that the compatibility of Hitler’s ideology with today’s European relativism was brilliantly highlighted in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, and most poignantly in the scene in a former Third Reich mental “hospital” where patients deemed to be of no value to society were gassed (I couldn’t help but think of Terri Schiavo). When Stein asked the tour guide at the museum what she would say if she could talk to the perpetrators of that horror, she simply said that was another era and they had their reasons for doing what they did. Thus she clearly would not feel justified in judging these criminals by her standards (assuming she had any). Here was a woman who had certainly been educated in Germany, either the communist East Germany or the socialistic West Germany. Neither system prepared her to condemn Hitler’s actions because these actions were based on the same world view that Germany embraces today, atheistic humanism based on a tenacious belief in Darwinist principles of natural selection, and the correlative notion that man has a moral right and even obligation to support natural selection with his laws under which a race can be culled of inferior elements. Neither socialism nor “national” socialism reject this out of hand. Only Christianity does, and that religion is fading fast in Europe (while here Christianity is being absorbed by the Left. See here, here and here).

All this helps clarify the compatibility between two world views that our education system and mainstream press insist are opposites.

But surprisingly, despite a lot of keen observation, before Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture, no one had yet managed to credibly characterize the Left in all of its main facets.

I have personally grappled with this for many years and had all but despaired of finding an adequate definition. And yet, how can a good American be a good American if he can’t identify the enemy of his way of life? How can he stand athwart history and shout stop if he doesn’t know what it is he must stop?

At the top of the first page of each issue of Izvestia was the slogan “Workers of the world unite!” Thus to people of my era, the Left portrayed itself as a system of social justice that aimed at creating a level playing field between workers and their bosses and attempted to share the wealth equally with a view to building a world free of poverty.

Yet today, we see the Left working hard to make fuel more expensive for the poor, not in any attempt at social justice but rather to “save the planet.” The main area where social “justice” is sought is between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the current thrust is toward legalizing same-sex “marriage” which, if it triumphs, will trivialize traditional marriage, ultimately prompting fewer to marry and bear children, since part of the attractiveness of marriage has been a sacred religious ceremony affirming one’s faith, encouraging people to wait until marriage to enjoy sex, and therefore fostering heterosexual purity based on a biblical world view. None of this is apparent in the “gay” community with its emphasis on promiscuity (broad daylight naked orgies) and its rejection of the biblical view of homosexuality. This focus on discouraging child birth is mightily supported by Planned Parenthood. Thus, ultimately, the leftist vision seems to be a world with more poverty and fewer children born to shoulder the burden of caring for the elderly, for example, by paying into the social services system. The once-proud vision of a world of strong healthy workers receiving equal pay for a better, more prosperous life, is quickly giving way to a vision of a world impoverished for the sake of an impersonal planet to whose riches mankind must increasingly forfeit its claims. We are taught that to consider humanity’s needs is to be selfish, that we must sacrifice our children’s future for the sake of a planet. And yet we are being asked to sever ties to that planet as if our destiny were separate from its.

Thus, obviously, the old left and the new left are different ideologically and many ordinary people are confused (particularly since an astounding percentage of Republican politicians embrace the Left’s policies). Some are confused into thinking that the new Left is more benign. These are the ones who believe the myth that communism is dead.

In fact, communism never died, it merely metamorphosed.

How to explain that the Left can completely substitute its original ideology and still be the Left?

Olavo de Carvalho had wondered the same thing. But he was born into a South American environment where leftism was the air they breathed. It was the worldview in academe and on the street and there was no other box to think outside of. Therefore, as a philosophy student, he was steeped in the literature of the Left, not just Marx and Hegel but the entire pantheon of leftist gods writing the blueprints for society. Thus he had read an enormous amount of this literature and is today one of the few living conservatives-having had his epiphany-who now truly understands the Left, something like David Horowitz, except that de Carvalho had the additional benefit of seeing a much more virulent leftism in action and up close.

Even so, Mr. Carvalho had to read and reread the old (and new) revolutionary literature to find a common thread, and what he found is surprising:

The Left (which he calls the “revolution”) is not a unified ideology or agenda at all, but rather a way of seeing the world, and specifically it is an inversion of what normal people call common sense. And this inversion is the sole unifying factor, the one common thread running through the revolution since the 13th and 14th centuries

According to de Carvalho, revolutionary thought as we know it did not exist before about the 13th century; nor is it a function of chronological age. The myth that the young tend to be revolutionaries arises from the Left itself and serves the purpose of making the Revolution appear to be a natural phenomenon.

Instead, this revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:

1-Inversion of the perception of time.

Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it).

Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it.

One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral.

While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist.

2-The inversion of morality

De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.

The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale.

Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion.

De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority!

To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine).

By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” the American revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts. 

3-Inversion of subject and object

When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.

De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out.

You will be a better American for having read the writings of – a great American.

 

Olavo de Carvalho is a well-known Brazilian philosopher and writer, many of whose articles have graced the pages of Laigle’s Forum.

 

Change you can fall for

Change you can fall for

By Donald Hank

 

Change is the hallmark of the revolutionary, and it is not change for the sake of some greater cause. Change is the cause.

When the first red revolutionaries slithered out of the sea, their ideology and agenda revolved around the the worker. The first page of the newspaper Izvestia bore the slogan: Workers of the world unite!

The Left seemed to be about social justice for the worker in his struggle against capitalist injustice.

I say “seemed” because the situation of the worker remained grim throughout Soviet history and the government never tackled this problem in earnest, focusing instead on propaganda painting the West as the author of their ills.

In Soviet publications, gallons of ink were spilled over the plight of the international worker, but the plight of the Soviet worker never changed tangibly since 1917. Soviet workers suffered constant shortages of food and housing. Married couples shared small apartments in the most squalid conditions while the elite partied.

I glimpsed this disparity between attitudes and platitudes while studying at the University of Leningrad in the early 70s with a group of American students. Following our studies, we took a side trip by rail to the Estonian capital of Tallinn.  I sat in a car with our Russian language professor and about a half-dozen other students playing guitar and singing folk songs.

After a while, our tour guide came to the door and invited me to join him in another car with an honored guest who was a Communist party member. You’d have thought party members were in short supply.  I told him I was needed as part of our entertainment. I will never forget his response. Smiling condescendingly, he said “That lady is a mere teacher. You have the opportunity to meet a party member.”

Where was the classless society? If she was a nobody because she was a teacher, what about the factory worker, who was supposed to be united with his international comrades in the glorious future revolution?

I understood at that moment that the “change” the Bolsheviks had wrought was hollow and had been from the beginning. Among themselves, they made no pretense of such idealism. And I suppose they assumed there was no point in pretending in front of me either because, as an American capitalist, I could be assumed to share their disdain for the little guy. The social change, i.e., elimination of class barriers that constituted their platform, was clearly only a pretext for grabbing power from the naive. Now they had it and that was the end of the pretense.

What I am driving at is that the Left does not have a central ideology or platform, as much as they would like you to think they do. They are about destroying the existing order, the status quo, and that is all. Once traditional culture is dismantled, they have accomplished their mission and are done pretending to help people.

Take the example of China’s Chairman Mao and Cuba’s Fidel Castro. These two dictators mouthed the world communist ideology of freeing the worker from oppressive capitalism.

Now, note that both Castro and Mao, like the early Soviet communists, disdained homosexuals. Fidel had them arrested.

Today, however, the Left in Europe, North and South America protects homosexual “rights,” advocating “gay” marriage and promoting the homosexual lifestyle, “protecting” homosexuals against “hate,” particularly on the part of Christian pastors, who have been fined and arrested, even threatened with horrendous jail terms for preaching the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality. There is no more talk of workers and their rights to enjoy the fruits of their labors, even though workers everywhere have recently lost as much as half their purchasing power in about a year’s time. So has the Left changed its agenda? I rather think it never had one and never will.

Now I have spoken with sincere Christians who have expressed the view that homosexuals are victims, born with a genetic makeup that causes them to desire the same sex, and that denying them “marriage” is sinful. Senator Obama has expressed this belief. “Christian” Leftists like him helped birth this absurd and anti-biblical notion.

But isn’t it curious that, say, Hugo Chavez and Brazilian President Lula, who promote homosexuality  and advocate laws that “protect” them by criminalizing free speech, nonetheless seem ideologically compatible with Fidel Castro, who openly hated homosexuals during most of his career? Where have you heard that Fidel and any other Latin American leftist have ever feuded over this ostensibly so vital issue? Where was the debate between these intimate allies on an issue that is so profoundly important to the Left in Latin America that legislation is written based on the absurdity that “gays” are a victim group threatened with extinction?

Or what about the Left in Canada, where the Human Rights Commission rounds up and arraigns pastors and others who oppose homosexuality but at the same time, rushes to the aid of Muslims, by far the deadliest enemies of homosexuals, whenever anyone   especially a Christian, opposes that religion?

Where is “workers of the world unite” when we need it most?

So what do you think? Is the Left really unified behind an ideology or agenda or is it unified behind a distorted view of the world that is independent of ideological content?

Olavo de Carvalho, who has studied leftist thought in greater depth than perhaps any other scholar, showed in a recent lecture (unpublished) that Leftism is not an ideology or agenda, but merely a reversal of common sense, a rejection of things normal and natural that rises to the level of a pathology.

The perceived ideologies or agendas they flaunt are nothing but a means to an end, and that end is the end of civilization.

Once they achieve the power they crave, they will no more aid homosexuals or minorities than they now aid the long-forgotten worker.

Contact: zoilandon@msn.com

 

The violent overthrow of America

Donald Hank By Donald Hank

Three of America’s enemies are positioning themselves to enter the White House, where one will continue the siege initiated by George W. Bush.

Hillary hates us because we didn’t go to Harvard.

The Obama’s hate us for our color — red, white and blue.  Barrack H. (don’t ask what it stands for) wants to be our first red president.

John McCain doesn’t hate us.  He just doesn’t know — or care — that we exist.

We are like the Travelocity gnome about to go over the falls.

Conservatives have always thought the left was planning a bloodless takeover of the US.

Takeover yes, bloodless, hardly.

The left sprouted in the bloodstained soil of France, coming to maturity in Russia and later China and elsewhere. Whenever it took root, millions died.

How will Americans die?

We’re already dying.  We just don’t associate these casualties with the left, partly because we can’t agree on the definition of a person and partly because the Bush administration managed to pull off a leftwing coup without being identified as a leftist.

But what is globalism if not neo-communism?  Old-fashioned Communists robbed rich people and gave to poor people, making nations poor.

Postmodern Communists rob from rich countries and give to poor countries, making the world poor.

Where’s the violence, you say?

There are 2 forms of violence due to leftist activism. The most obvious is abortion, which has produced as many casualties as Hitler and Stalin. The other form is more subtle and requires some explanation.

First we need to realize that when leftist historians report on events like the French, Bolshevik and Chinese Revolutions, they excuse the violence, saying the leaders were noble but participants got out of hand. Voila, no such thing as intentional leftist-generated violence. Just collateral damage.

Stefane Courtois and comrades, authors of The Black Book of Communism, the itemized tally sheet of the Left’s casualties (about 100 million by their count), are unrepentant leftists, who think leftist ideology can exist independently of violence. They envision a kinder gentler Marxist utopia in the future.

The mantra that killings in leftist regimes are not attributable to ideology works like a charm.  Psychologically, Americans need to believe everyone is good, even brutal dictators.  Thus, it wasn’t hard to convince us of this absurdity. 

Another reason why casualties of the Left are hidden is that the Left has been successful in convincing us that the tilt of government toward “globalism” is actually part of a conservative agenda, alleging that the Bush administration wants open borders because capitalism needs cheap labor.  But if that’s true, why is it Ted Kennedy and Republicans in name only – the Republican left – who most enthusiastically support Bush’s amnesty campaign? 

But the left (Democrats and RINOs) has also succeeded in convincing the public that the alien invasion causes no violence.

Just like “people who got out of hand” in foreign leftist revolutions, many illegal immigrants have “gotten out of hand,” committing violent crimes and killing people in auto accidents (over 9,000 deaths annually from both causes) or through diseases and drugs.

Though shrugged off by the media, these deaths far exceed the American casualties in Iraq that the media constantly rub under our noses. 

But you will argue that these deaths are incidental and the government certainly does not intend to hurt you. But if you buy into this notion that the takeover of government by open border activists has not deliberately caused injury, then why are dangerous illegal aliens released here after serving time?  Why is an INS prison the site of one of the busiest naturalization offices on the East coast?

And how is it that a border guard can be killed by an alien criminal whom no one can extradite while those border guards who defend us are jailed?

Why do politicians oppose deportation when there’s a resurgence of formerly conquered diseases like leprosy, malaria or TB – including the multi-drug-resistant variety – precisely in areas of heavy illegal alien concentration?

How is it that the bulk of murder warrants in Los Angeles are for illegals, and yet the Los Angeles police department isn’t allowed to ask if a detained suspect is here illegally?

Isn’t it obvious that the government actually wants violent aliens to harm us?

What difference is there between releasing an angry mob to kill people in France, Russia and China and unleashing armies of criminal aliens to kill Americans?

Clearly there is an ideology behind this, based on the premise that Americans have too much — not only too much wealth, but even too much safety!  There is more to this than a desire to help the downtrodden.  There is a clear-cut thirst for revenge against the haves.  I had written that Maoism is, de facto, a movement intended not to help but rather to punish.  And our homegrown Maoism has been doing just that for many years.

I can’t tell you how many thousands of dollars I have lost over the years when companies that were then my clients started sending me affirmative action forms asking my sex and race.  Every time I returned one of these, confessing to being a white American male, I lost the client in question.  Every single time. 

Affirmative action wasn’t devised to help anyone.  It was born to punish.  I am in fact fined thousands of dollars every year for being who I am since I was born, and absurdly, my daughter and Hispanic wife – supposed beneficiaries of affirmative action – pay a heavy price for having a father and husband who is – male!

Likewise, if you are a resident of this country, you are being punished for living here.

Even immigrants don’t escape.

A Hispanic friend of ours used to argue that we can’t just deport illegal aliens.  He was horrified when I said we can and should.  He and his wife recently moved to a suburban community near Washington, DC.  She called recently and complained of violent crime in their neighborhood due to Hispanic gangs.  Though mostly illegal immigrants, when they’re jailed, the gang members are eventually released back into their neighborhood.  These friends have four children, including their anchor baby, and they fear for their safety.

They finally get it.

When will we?

Contact: zoilandon@msn.com