Bullies firmly in charge of your country

Democrat bullies now rule America

by Donald Hank


America voted for the bullies who destroyed the most powerful US banks. Is this what voters really wanted?

Without a doubt, they were duped – with the help of a RINO outgoing president and a RINO candidate, both of whom signed the bailout bill, and neither of whom ever said a word about the role of ACORN and the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) in the failure of America’s banks.

Notice that, in the article linked below, ACORN – which Barack Obama served as counsel – did things that were completely illegal and even criminal, bursting into a meeting to which they were not invited. Yet, because they were black and posing as victims, they were given a pass. America’s guilt over slavery is its Achilles heel and the Left has shown they can exploit it to the hilt.

This is exactly the kind of behavior seen in China under Chairman Mao, who encouraged the Red Guard, a loosely organized bunch of bandits, to raise havoc against suspected enemies of the state, even communist officials appointed by Mao himself. In the Great Leap Forward, the Guard viciously attacked, beat, browbeat, jailed and even killed thousands of generally innocent people branded as “enemies of the people,” and later in the Cultural Revolution, they turned against the Party officials themselves. Millions lost their lives. Almost no doctors were left in the hospitals – almost all of the intellectuals and professionals were in jail (see the Chinese movie “To Live”). The Left, no matter where it comes to power, inevitably follows this kind of pattern to some extent or other, but Obama will carry it further. Mao believed in constant revolution. For him, there was to be no peace. Peacetime is when revolutionaries (the Left) believe people are plotting against them.

Woe unto anyone – even convinced leftists themselves – who thinks they can co-exist with the Left or even cooperate with power-wielding leftists. The vast majority of Mao’s victims were convinced communist leaders.

How can the useful idiots of today expect to be spared now that America’s first openly Marxist president is in place? They will spare neither the RINO appeasers nor their fellow leftists, because leftists are smart: they know no one – not even they – can trust a leftist.

Although the Left has behaved much the same everywhere it seized power, many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum still cling to the myth that the American Left is somehow different from that of other countries. If that has been true to some extent heretofore, it is only because there has always been a strong counterweight among conservatives and Middle America. That counterweight seems to be vanishing as more and more “conservative” politicians cave and wave the white flag and as “conservative” citizens abandon their posts in the belief that the idea of freedom is somehow no longer valid in a world in crisis. Actually, these time-honored ideas are more vital to our existence than ever.


Quote: “FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA [Community Reinvestment Act] with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk “subprime” loans on banks is at the root of today’s economic meltdown.”

October 14, 2008

Spreading the Virus – How ACORN and Its Dem Allies Built the Mortgage Disaster

Stanley Kurtz

To discover the roots of to day’s economic crisis, consider a tale from 1995.

That March, House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to address a meeting of county commissioners at the Washington Hilton. But, first, some 500 protesters from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) poured into the ballroom from both the kitchen and the main entrance.

Hotel staffers who tried to block them were quickly overwhelmed by demonstrators chanting, “Nuke Newt!” and “We want Newt!” Jamming the aisles, carrying bullhorns and taunting the assembled county commissioners, demonstrators swiftly took over the head table and commandeered the microphone, sending two members of Congress scurrying.

Read more.


Deadly fallout from socialized medicine

Americans, here comes what you voted for: socialized medicine. To get an idea what that will cost you, read below. Once your cash-hungry government is in control and once it is apparent that taxes alone will not sustain their greed for power, this will happen here.

Outrage over organs ‘sold to foreigners’

By Sarah-Kate Templeton


THE organs of 50 British National Health Service donors have been given to foreign patients who have paid about £75,000 each for private transplant operations in the past two years, freedom of information documents show.

The liver transplants took place at NHS hospitals, despite severe shortages that mean many British patients die while waiting for an organ that could save their lives.

The documents disclose that 40 patients from Greece and Cyprus received liver transplants in the UK paid for by their governments. Donated livers were also given to people from non-European Union countries including Libya, the United Arab Emirates, China and Israel.

Read more.

Does ALIPAC really believe Obama cares about the Constitution?


Alipac has written a letter for you to sign that will be sent to Obama urging him to honor the constitutional duty to defend the borders and stem illegal immigration.

This letter is fine and covers all the bases.
There is only one problem: it is written from the standpoint that Obama really cares about the Constitution.
When writing to a far-leftist, you must write from the standpoint that by doing this he would be helping himself and his cause — politics is the motivator for Obama, not the Constitution.
The best approach would be to say that John McCain accused Obama of being against amnesty (he did this ONLY in his messages in Spanish) and that Obama won partly because conservatives perceived McCain as more soft on illegal immigration and Obama as tougher. So since Obama was elected on a pro-security, anti-invasion platform, he owes it to his constituents to follow through with tough policies and enforcement. Of course, it is a stretch, but Chicago guys like Blagojevich and Obama are looking out for Number One first, not somebody’s rights.
You should, of course, also provide an obligatory mention of the Constitution to provide cover for Obama to do this politically motivated thing.
That is the way they get it done in Chicago and the Chicago way is now the way of the White House.


Did FDR “get us out of the Depression”?

It is becoming increasingly clear that FDR, far from getting us out, prolonged the Depression through inept policies, such as the destruction of 6 million piglets in an effort to raise farm prices. In the middle of a depression? Yes!

Sadly, recalling the phony “lesson” of FDR’s recourse to Keynesian economics (Big Government), Americans reflexively said they thought a Democrat would be able to get us out of our current crisis.

Good luck with that one…

Read more below:

Factors in Great Depression


How about San Diego for your next convention?

If you or your group are looking for a hotel with good family values, may we recommend the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego?


In defense of traditional marriage

I previously presented the first round in an exchange in which I defended traditional marriage against an influential proponent of “gay” marriage. It is worthwhile to consider the arguments both for and against marriage in order to become more effective in the fight for our culture. Every one of you who believes marriage is sacred and is between a man and a woman is now considered the enemy by our leftward tilting elite in media, education, academe, the psychology racket, and, increasingly, in government. But you don’t have to sit and take it. Not by any means! Their arguments may sound intellectual, but it is all a facade, and you can break it down instantly with a little training.

Here is round 2 in my discussion with Charles Haynes. My responses are in brackets:

Hi Don,
Thank you for your very full and interesting response.  I am not trying to sway you on this issue.  I recognize that deeply-held convictions are at stake here [pro-homosexual activists like to speak of “deeply-held” convictions of religious people who oppose them. Are they trying to say that their own convictions are shallowly held?]
But I do have a few additional comments in response to the points you made.  Your Brazilian example offers some support to the arguments made by advocates of same-sex marriage:  When interracial relationships were legally recognized as “marriage,” people did accept these marriages, “whether they liked them or not” — as you say.  Having grown up in the deep South, I can assure you that many people rejected interracial marriages as marriages (some still do) — but, of course, were forced to “accept” them for legal/civic purposes after the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving.  This is now happening with same-sex marriages in Mass. and in some countries. [But interracial marriages were still recognized as marriage, legal or not. My focus was on the definition, not the legality. That is why I use quotation marks around “marriage” when it is preceded by “same-sex”]
I am not an expert in the history of marriage, so I will continue to read about it (including the authors you suggest).  But I think the struggle of women (and their supporters) to change the legal definition of marriage in ways that give women basic rights is well-documented [Unfortunately, the “victimization” of women hurt them more than it helped them]. I understand the “protection” argument (from another era [Are you trying to say protection of women is outdated…?])… but I think most of us now recognize that in matters of property, inheritance, divorce etc., women were indeed exploited in that system [But marriage was between a man and a woman. That was the definition. You are getting off-topic].  This is, of course, still the case in many parts of the world.  Most women most certainly do not “rule the roost” in much of the developing world. In India, for example, the treatment of millions of married women is appalling. True, there is a tradition of women taking charge of the household in families where the husband is the bread-winner (although this usually means the mother-in-law with the wife often treated very poorly).  But for the many poor women who do the back-breaking work in the fields while husbands often do little or nothing… women who have little protection in a culture that traditionally defers to male power and dominance … it would come as a shock to be described as “ruling the roost.”  I have spent considerable time in India — and I can only hope and pray that marriage continues to be redefined [Is marriage not a union between a man and a woman in India? I think you are being creative with the word “redefine.” They won’t need to redefine marriage to protect women. BTW, I wonder if Indian women would consider it safe to be sent on a bombing mission in Iraq, why the work would not be back-breaking if men did it and why it is more abusive for women to do hard work than men] there in ways that finally and fully protect women.

I agree that same-sex marriage is a very significant redefinition of “marriage” (bringing to the surface relationships that have existed throughout history, mostly underground [But never referred to as “marriage” in the past.]).  For those who believe as a matter of religious conviction that this is wrong — and that the sexual activity associated with same-sex relations is “unnatural” and wrong — no amount of “acceptance” of homosexuals in society will make same-sex marriage “right.”  I understand that. [But do you understand that not all proponents of traditional marriage are religious – or at least not all Christian? Please check out this article on that subject].  But I think the consequences are more likely to be good for society, rather than the dangers you cite.  Gay relationships and families are a reality that will not go away [Is the fact that you think “gay” “families” won’t go away an example of why “the consequences are more likely to be good for society”? If so, then we could also say terrorism will not go away, so we need to legalize it so that we can control it better, right?].  Legal recognition and state benefits will help provide stability and strengthen gay families [Now you are redefining “family.” I do not accept this redefinition].  After so many decades of “marriage” being debased in our culture (quickie weddings and divorces, TV contests for picking a wife/husband, etc), recognition of same-sex marriage may strengthen the meaning of marriage [Please show me how “gay” marriage would remedy the problems with heterosexual marriages. BTW, “gay” men have well over 100 sexual encounters on average over their lifetime].
As for adoption, that’s easy [I think a more appropriate word is “facile”] for me.  I know a number of wonderful same-sex couples with beautiful, well-raised children.  I would leave my children to them in a heartbeat.  [Many people have been charged by the police with being a pedophile and people said that about them too, before they were caught. BTW, you never answered my question: If homosexual adoption is ok, what is wrong with pederasty? You can’t answer that, can you?]. The larger questions about how couples have children “artificially” [do you feel uncomfortable using the word “artificial”? If so, why? If not, why the quotation marks?] applies as much or more to straight couples as to gay [As much? Even though most straight couples can have children without artificial insemination?].  I realize the ethical questions are complex and the subject of much debate [Subject of much debate only in a hopelessly corrupted society, which is what the West has become]. But the desire of people (straight and gay) to have children is strong — and these various methods are here to stay [Only if people in authority positions allow that to happen. It is clear where you stand. You now sound much different than in your article, where it almost seemed that you were neutral. You quickly have shifted into high gear for homosexual “marriage.” Really, if that was your agenda in the first place, you should have told the readers that you had chosen sides —  not that it wasn’t obvious for those of us who read between the lines]. So we need to continue to press for the best ethical guidelines for the use of these methods [or for discouraging people from using them. Don’t forget that option].
I do believe abuse of children is “objectively wrong” [But Mr. Haynes, you keep redefining things, so I have no idea what you think child abuse is! I had asked you why pederasty is abuse and you couldn’t answer that. And you wonder why conservatives are leery of “culture change”?]– and I think the arguments for protecting children [“protecting children” has become an excuse to remove fathers from children’s lives in “family” courts throughout the West. It has already been redefined. See why I don’t like redefinitions?] are deeply ingrained in our legal system.  I see no connection between legalizing gay marriage and child abuse [What do you mean by “child abuse”? I am sure your definition is no more traditional than the other definitions you are busy eroding, and that is worrisome].  On the contrary, I think increasing the number of stable, loving homes for children, including many unwanted and abused children, will help address the problems of child abuse. The fact that a small number of (disturbed) people promote such things as pederasty is a red herring [Again, why are they “disturbed”? Only a few years ago, homosexuals were recognized as disturbed, until they organized well enough to represent a powerful interest group capable of bullying psychologists. Once pederasts get that much power, how will people combat them? By your method? That is, by redefining our vocabulary? Lord forbid! Culture changers like you really scare me, and I am not saying that as a scare tactic. I am 100% serious].  There are groups of people in this country that promote all manner of evil things… [how do you define evil? Today, that is. I know that tomorrow your definition may be different].
When I travel to nations in Europe, most recently Spain, where same-sex marriage is legal, I find most people see this as a matter of fairness — and think it is healthy for their societies [They think climbing in the ring with a raging bull armed with nothing but a cape is healthy too, Mr. Haynes. Let’s be serious here].  This is new, of course, and my observations merely anecdotal — so the jury isn’t in on how this change will ultimately affect Mass., Canada, parts of Europe etc. What does seem to be the case, however, is the legal recognition of gay relationships will continue apace in the many parts of the world (including, surprisingly, Latin America [doesn’t surprise me a bit. Latin America has drifted to the far left, and the Left is anti-family, as confirmed by their own writings — which is why they constantly redefine “family”]).  The challenge will be to strengthen marriage for all — and to ensure that the welfare of children is a high priority in public policy.  That’s where we should be focusing our attention in my view. [I would only ask what the definition du jour of “welfare of children” is. I am sure that in your mind, that is “the subject of much debate.”]
Best, Charles 

Charles Haynes
The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202/292-6293 – office


Just a reminder that

December 15th is
Bill of Rights Day

Let us give thanks to the Divine Author of Liberty

Dear Friends of Liberty,

There’s still time to register for the Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet on Monday, December 15, 2008. I hope you are planning to join us.

I am including as an attachment a copy of the registration form and cover letter for the banquet. I hope you will forward it on to others, even persons in other states. We would like to hear that there were observances of some kind in every state!

For the Bill of Rights,
and the Ten Commandments,
Carris Kocher
Bill of Rights Bicentennial Committee
P.O. Box 912
Concordville, PA 19331

Victim of leftist regime warns America

I have found that there is no more reliable warning about the Left than that from a country that has been taken over by the Left, and there is no more valuable source of insight about the strategy and tactics of the Left than a former leftist who has been redeemed. I say that as a former leftist who has been redeemed.

Brazil is a country that has fallen into the clutches of the hard Left. There is almost no alternate news source there.

Mr. de Carvalho has repeatedly pointed out that, prior to the last presidential elections, the Brazilian news media had refused to mention that Brazilian President Lula was one of the founders of the far-left, terrorist-ridden Forum of Sao Paolo. In the early years, anyone who even admitted the existence of this forum was considered an insane rightwing hate monger.

Sound familiar?

Phillip Berg’s lawsuit that no one mentions in the media? The L.A. Times videos that will not be shown?  The silence over Obama’s involvement with radical leftist Odinga in Kenya? De Carvalho has already pointed out the eerie similarity between these (and many other) hush-ups and the way the leftwing suppressed the truth in his country before Lula’s election.

Later, after the damage was irreversible, Lula himself not only publicly admitted the Sao Paolo Forum existed, but in fact, spoke proudly of how much he had personally achieved for the Left in South America by participating in it. He even brazenly bragged how he had pulled the wool over the eyes of naïve Brazilian citizens.

Will Barack Obama some day brazenly brag that he has deceived you as well?

There is only one thing standing in the way of that possibility: you.

This coming Tuesday, November 4.

Donald Hank


The candidate of fear

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), October 24th, 2008

Called “the Messiah” by radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and “My Jesus” by the college associate editor of a student newspaper, Barack Hussein Obama informs us, “Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.” What if he did not let us know?

Whatever the case, he has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.

It is true that Obama pledges to dismantle the space defense system of the United States, to slow down unilaterally the American program of nuclear research, to turn victory in Iraq into defeat, to ban new oil drilling, and to grant driver’s license and health care to illegal aliens, that patriotic mob which wants to turn Texas and California into Mexican states. But if you insinuate that any of those things is a good reason for Communists and radical Muslims to like him, the media en masse will say that you have “crossed the line” and that you are virtually guilty of a “hate crime.” Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a “new beginning,” and will be fully operational soon. The meaning of those facts is clear, but noticing it is immoral: every decent citizen has to swear that the support coming from the enemies of America is only a mistake on their part, since Obama has never given-oh, no!-the least pretext for them to sympathize with him. To insinuate any convergence of interests is to impute to Obama “guilt by association”- an act of perfidy, obviously, loaded with racial “overtones.”

Besides, any stronger word used against the black candidate is pointed out as proof of racism, and the least suggestion that there is racial blackmail in this is double proof. John McCain himself makes a point of confining the debate to the sphere of “ideas,” emphasizing that his opponent is “a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of.”

This statement is unintentionally ironic. The thing that every American fears most, nowadays, is being suspected of thinking bad things about Barack Hussein Obama. Following the example of their leader, Republican militants are doing their best to show respect and veneration for the person of the adversary. A staffer at the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, California, who posted behind his desk a sign associating Obama with Marx and Hitler was immediately fired. An Ohio citizen, who asked some tougher questions to the Democratic candidate about his tax plan, paid dearly for his boldness. He had his life rummaged through by reporters and was severely criticized for the heinous crimes of working as a plumber without a license and of not having paid a traffic fine he had incurred in Arizona eight years ago. That gives an idea of the exasperated zeal with which the mainstream media protects Barack Obama’s image. Samuel Wurzelbacher, or Joe The Plumber-the nickname by which he has become known nationwide-draws from his experience an unavoidable conclusion, “When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary.”

This fear is not just psychological. Several Republican activists have already reportedly been beaten up by Obama supporters, McCain campaign offices in various states have been broken into and destroyed, and only police action managed to prevent, just in time, hundreds of well-trained Obama agitators, armed with Molotov cocktails, from setting fire to the buses heading to the Republican Convention in St. Paul (even so, the remainder managed to wreak quite some havoc). When a candidate employs terrorist methods, and at the same time the establishment decrees that calling him a terrorist is insanity to the utmost, it is clear that this candidate has unlimited rights. He is allowed to receive 63 million dollars in illegal contributions from abroad, and nothing bad will happen to him. An NGO that patronizes him can flood thirteen states with fraudulent voter registrations, and woe to them who suggest that he bears some guilt in the case. In contrast, McCain was charged with criminal verbal violence for the simple fact of mentioning the widely attested link between Obama and William Ayers. A pro-McCain-Palin march, in New York, was received with every sort of insult and threat. As, on the other hand, no violence could be observed against Obama militants, it was necessary to invent a story that, in a Sarah Palin rally, somebody shouted “Kill him” after hearing Obama’s name mentioned. The police looked carefully into the tapes of the rally and concluded that nobody shouted any such thing at all.

Another intimidating factor is economic superiority. Obama’s campaign collected nothing less than $605 million in contributions. For every McCain ad, four Obama ads come out. Even more overwhelming is the free advertisement provided by the big media for the Democratic candidate.

To this day, the only newspaper of some importance that has reported the lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg against Obama was the Washington Times-nominally Republican-which, nonetheless, categorizes doubts about Obama’s nationality as mere “internet rumors” and, alluding to the lawsuit only in the last lines, as if it were nothing but one more rumor, omit informing that Obama, instead of presenting his birth certificate as requested by the plaintiff, preferred making use of a complex legal argumentation in order to dodge doing so. The second lawsuit on the same issue, filed in the state of Washington, is not even mentioned.

The major newspapers and television companies protect the Democratic candidate not only against his adversaries but against himself. Acts or statements that may show him in an unfavorable light are carefully omitted. In all the American mainstream media one will not find a single word about Obama’s long career as an abortion militant, let alone about the only important activity he undertook on the international level: the campaign set up, with public money, to bring into power in Kenya the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation. Not only did Obama help Odinga with American tax-payers’ money, and introduce him to contacts in the Senate, but spoke in his favor at rallies in Kenya. If there is something that shows the true nature of the international commitments of the Democratic candidate, it is this episode-but even Fox News omits touching upon the subject. 

Here in the United States everybody says that Obama’s victory is certain. It seems to me that, even if Obama loses the election, he will be a winner. The party of his adversaries was already on its knees at the moment that, instead of an authentic conservative, it chose a typical liberal Republican for a candidate, a sure promise, if he is elected, of a weak administration subservient to critics, exactly like George Bush’s. After this first fit of frenzy, there followed a worse one: from the moment when Republicans, instead of filing a thousand lawsuits like that of Philip Berg, accepted as a legitimate and decent electoral adversary a candidate with no ascertained nationality, with a misty biography full of flagrant lies, aided and subsidized by the most heinous enemies of the country, it became clear that they had abdicated all sense of honor and consented to legitimate a farce. If they lose the elections, they will deserve as many tears as those who preferred to allow Lula to win the presidency of Brazil rather than tell what they knew about the São Paulo Forum.

As for Obama’s campaign, its profile is clear. The amalgam of utopian promises, overwhelming advertisement, psychotic beatification of the leader, racial appeal, media control, and systematic intimidations of voters, is identical in the least details with Hitler’s electoral strategy in 1933, but in order to say this in public-or even to become aware of it in a low voice-it takes more courage than one can expect from the average voter nowadays.


Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

So you want to be a useful idiot

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

Donald Hank


Quick lesson in sociology

By Olavo de Carvalho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translated by Donald Hank


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

The crisis with Obama’s footprints all over it

The manufactured crisis


By Donald Hank

Joan Battey, a good friend of Laigle’s Forum, writes:

James Simpson, a former White House economist, has just published “Barack Obama & the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis” – on AmericanThinker.com at http://www.americanthinker.com/ 2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

Listen to this Interview of James Simpson, by Sandy Rios, Tuesday 9/30 – WYLL 1160AM, Chicago, IL
From http://www.culturecampaign.com/culturecorner.aspx

Further documentation connecting the dots of all the neo-Marxists who have invested in the development of Barack Obama may be found on discoverthenetworks.org

Please take the necessary time to read each linked article and listen to the Sandy Rios program, plus this one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html.

You need to know the facts and draw the conclusion. To put it plainly, numerous activists on the Left have been orchestrating this crisis and others yet to come in order to introduce full-blown socialism in the US. Once they perpetrate a crisis and impoverish us, for example, as they did with welfare, they immediately blame free-market capitalism. If enough Americans believe this lie, the American experiment is finished and it will have failed! It is as simple as that. If you are not sure whether we need the Obama Kool-Aid or not, please read all the links above and listen to the Sandy Rios program linked there. Take notes. There is nothing more important on your agenda today than this.

Meanwhile, I just received an email from Sen. Arlen Specter in response to an email of mine regarding his vote in favor of the bailout.

According to this email, one of the details of the bill was as follows:

A first-time homebuyer tax credit of up to $7,500 is included in the Act, which serves as the equivalent to an interest-free loan to be paid back over 15 years. 

For those wondering what a tax credit is, it is much more than a deduction. It is a give-away. It is free money – at taxpayer expense.

My email in response:

Hello Senator,

With all due respect, it is the kind of give-away scheme you describe that got us into the mess in the first place. How could you support such a scam? You write, in all seriousness:

A first-time homebuyer tax credit of up to $7,500 is included in the Act, which serves as the equivalent to an interest-free loan to be paid back over 15 years. 

First, most of the bailout package rewards Fanny Mae and other lenders for bad decisions and rewards the government for forcing lenders to give out loans at subprime rates, with no documentation required (no job needed!), no down payment, etc.

I understand that the entire bailout package will cost every American $10,000. So to save some people $7,500, we honest people who do NOT default on mortgages or buy things we can’t afford, must now give up $10,000? Even the person who gets the $7,500 will have to pay $10,000. AND home prices will rise accordingly, as they did during the last scam under the Community Reinvestment Act.

With all due respect for your office sir, have you ever stopped to think that this will only exacerbate the current crisis not only through the enormous tax burden but by artificially raising home prices? No one will benefit, except Washington.


Don Hank

You can easily understand why a lender would want to know if the borrower has a job and can make enough money to repay a loan. But let me also briefly explain why banks have always, in every country in the world, throughout history, required down payments.

Lenders learned centuries ago that when they lent people money for housing without requiring a down payment, this is what often happened when economic conditions worsened:

1-The home prices in that area fell.

2-At the same time, the lender lost his job and couldn’t pay

3-When the lender foreclosed and tried to resell the house to recoup some of his cash, he lost money, often as much as 20%, because the house sold at a loss in the softer market.

That is the reason for the down payment. The reason lenders stopped requiring down payments in the last part of the 20th century was a series of Democrat-supported enactments, including the Community Reinvestment Act (under Carter), which was strengthened under Clinton and Bush, whose HUDs required Fanny Mae to drop or weaken all the safeguards enumerated above (down payment requirements, documentation of employment, etc). To pass this dangerous legislation, the Democrats claimed that minorities were being denied mortgages on the basis of race, when in fact, the minority communities statistically simply did not have enough people with good credit, good jobs and jobs to justify as many mortgages as the Democrats called for. It was – and is – politically incorrect to mention these inconvenient truths. People who now demand fairness in lending are called racists. Community organizers like ACORN, a group that worked hand-in-hand with Barack Obama, used strong-arm tactics to shake down banks and force them to give mortgages to people who could not afford them and then when the loans were, inevitably, foreclosed, the same people who caused the crisis blamed the banks. That way, they could blame the free market and make gullible people believe that America needs socialism, when in fact what we desperately need is less socialism.

Leftist activists are coming out of the shadows and openly gloating that America is now a socialist country. Many naïve people actually believe that socialism will lead to prosperity, even though this system destroyed the Soviet Union, China (under Mao), North Korea and many others and impoverished Europe, where families, even professionals, can hardly scrape by any more.

If you want to salvage even a remnant of the free market system that made America great, you need to widely forward the above links and talk to as many people as you can between now and the election and tell them what you have learned.

And pray that God will spare us from what appears to be an impending disaster manufactured by the Left.

Here is where this was supposed to end, but another dear friend of Laigle’s Forum sent me this urgent message. WATCH THIS VIDEO and read his message!



Watch the following videos in sequence so that you get the flavor of the entire HORRIBLE enchilada. Obama can kiss goodbye his presidential ambitions. (Hillary’s collection of Obama’s skeletons has started to leak!)

1- Barack Obama and his Kenyan cousin Raila Odinga – The mother of all October surprises!


. . . shocking, huh?

Now you will understand the true meaning of the next two . . .

2- Children Singing for The Dear Leader, Comrade OBAMA


3- Obama Youth – Junior Fraternity Regiment – Brown Shirts in the Making?


Barack Obama MUST be defeated on November 4: Such a threat to America and to the world cannot be elected President of the United States of America.

Do all you can do legally to defeat him!


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.


The revolutionary inversion in action

I admit I have got the cart before the horse here a bit. I am now reading an unpublished lecture by this same author that is truly an eye-opener, and it is because of that lengthy but riveting lecture that I was drawn to the column presented below. I don’t want to give away the “plot,” so to speak, but suffice to say Olavo de Carvalho is the only author I know of, and I am tempted to say, is the only scholar anywhere in the world who truly understands the revolutionary mind.

The revolutionary mind — and hence the utterances and writings of revolutionaries ranging from, say, Marx or Lenin to Obama (and also including the Nazis, believe it or not) — is so diverse in its message and presumed ideologies that one is tempted to say there is no unified Left at all. But not so. The commonalities are there and Mr. de Carvalho has isolated and identified them — I believe for the first time.

His thesis is that the revolutionary inverts everything, standing it on its head, but without actually having a unifying ideology or agenda, and this is demonstrable. Look at the USSR, where the slogan was: workers of the world unite. Today’s left is obssessed not with the worker but with, for example, homosexual “rights” and global warming. Different as day and night, and one might say, erroneously, that the old communists and the modern global left are different breeds altogether. But common to both is the inversion of reality — of time, of morality, of subject-object and other things as well.

Conservatives sense this inversion and enough has been written on it, but just what are the things that the Revolution stands on its head that makes them birds of a feather — what makes Stalin or Mao resemble Hitler?  What about the American revolution? Get ready for this: it is not a revolution at all! Author de Carvalho gets to the heart of all this in his world-class lecture, but also in this brief article of his.

Read it at least twice. It is well worth the while.

Lord willing, I will be talking later about Mr. de Carvalho’s eye-opening lecture, which has — no pun intended — revolutionized the way I think about the Left.

Donald Hank

The revolutionary inversion in action

 Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, July 21, 2008


I have been presenting, in newspaper columns as well as in lectures and conferences, a few conclusions of an extensive study on the revolutionary mentality. Here are the chief ones:


1. The revolutionary mentality, as it appears recorded in the writings and acts of every revolutionary leader since the fifteenth century, without one notable exception, consists not in adhering to this or that concrete politico-social proposal but in a certain structure of apprehension of reality, characterized by the inversion of the causal and temporal order and of the subject-object relation, a variety of secondary inversions deriving therefrom.


2. These inversions constitute not only a “spiritual disease,” in the sense given the term by F. W. J. von Schelling and Eric Voegelin, but a mental disease in the strict clinical sense. The revolutionary mentality is a specific variant of “interpretation delusion,” a syndrome of which the pioneering description by the psychiatrists Paul Sérieux and Jean-Marie-Joseph Capgras was presented in their classic book Les Folies Raisonnantes: Le Délire d’Interprétation(Paris: Alcan, 1909; also available online at http://web2.bium.univ-paris5.fr/livanc/?cote=61092&p=1&do=page).


Sérieux and Capgras remark: “While most of the dementing systematized psychoses rest upon predominant and almost permanent sensory disorders, all the cases that we have collected under the foregoing term are, almost exclusively, based upon delusional interpretations; hallucinations, episodic whenever existing, play hardly any role here. . . . [The interpretation delusion] is a false reasoning that has as its point of departure a real sensation, an exact fact, which, by virtue of associations of ideas conditional upon tendencies, upon affectivity, takes on, with the aid of erroneous inductions and deductions, a personal significance to the patient. . . . The interpretation delusion is distinguished from hallucination and from illusion, which are sensory disorders. . . . [It also] differs from delusional idea, an imaginary conception that is made up altogether or at least not drawn from an observed fact.” It differs too, according to the authors, from mere false interpretation, that is, from vulgar mistake, for two reasons: First, “the error is said to be, more often than not, rectifiable; the delusional interpretation, incorrigible.” Second, “the error remains isolated, circumscribed; the delusional interpretation tends to diffuse, to radiate, it associates itself with analogous ideas and organizes itself into a system.”


In a subsequent article I shall explain the specific difference between revolutionary mentality and the other varieties of interpretation delusion. Here I intend only to illustrate something that I have said and repeated dozens of times: the inversion of reality is so constant and so omnipresent a factor in the revolutionary thought of all periods that samples of it can be found in whatever the mouthpieces of revolutionary ideologies utter about subjects of their political interest. A researcher has such an immense amount of instances at his disposal that the only difficulty for him is the embarras de choix, the choice of the most obvious and illustrative cases.


I select here, at random, an article by the world famous “liberation theologist” Leonardo Boff published last July 14 in Jornal do Brasil (see http://jbonline.terra.com.br/editorias/pais/papel/2008/07/14/pais20080714007.html).


Quoting Arnold Toynbee, the author says that a constant in the decay of civilizations is the disruption of the balance between the number of challenges and each civilization’s capacity to respond. “When the challenges are such that they exceed the capacity to respond, the civilization starts to decline, enters in crisis, and disappears.”


Applying this concept to the description of the current state of affairs, Mr. Boff says: “Our civilizational paradigm, developed in the West and spread throughout the globe, is everywhere failing to hold water. So severe are the global challenges, especially those concerning ecology, energy, food, and population, that we have lost our capacity to deliver a collective and inclusive response. This kind of civilization shall dissolve.”


Having reviewed, with the aid of Eric Hobsbawn and Jacques Attali, some possible catastrophic developments of the situation, Mr. Boff enunciates what, in his mind, is the only hope left: “Mankind, if it is unwilling to destroy itself, must devise a world social contract by creating global governance agencies for the collective and equitable management of nature’s scarce resources.” In short, socialist world government.


Every fact mentioned in his article is real, but systematically misplaced.


1. The challenges that Mr. Boffmentions to illustrate Toynbee’s thesis do not illustrate it, failing by far to bear it out. What Toynbee has in view are not such material difficulties as those referred to, but above all the simultaneous pressure of an “internal proletariat” and of an “external proletariat,” both engaged in destroying the target civilization. The former can be exemplified by the illegal immigrants who receive from the American government every sort of benefits (denied even to legal residents) and thereby grow stronger in order to assault the local culture and fight for the dismemberment of the United States. The “external proletariat” is represented by the multitude of organizations engrossed in a violent and incessant campaign of anti-Americanism, in which Mr. Boff himself, at least on the Brazilian scale, is a prominent voice. The action of the two proletariats is intensely promoted and subsidized by the supporters of world government, who then present the ensuing debilitation of the United States as an involuntary and impersonal phenomenon, disguising the self-fulfilling prophecy through the appeal to “historical constants.”


2. Of the four challenges adduced by Mr. Boff – ecology, food, population, and energy crises – the first three affect much less the West than Islamic and Communist countries along with their respective spheres of influence. Never has there been an ecological disaster that ranks in its effects with the Chernobyl explosion or with the widespread pollution in China, nor is there population drama that compares to the Chinese one, nor even a food shortage as scary as that observed in such African countries under Islamic and Communist rule, respectively, as Sudan and Zimbabwe. If ever a paradigm was menaced by the three problems that Mr. Boff indicates, it is the anti-Western paradigm of China, Russia, and Islamic countries. In the West, instead of overpopulation, there is nowadays depopulation; instead of a food shortage, endemic obesity; and nowhere in the world are ecological risks, whether real or imaginary, held under such strict control as in developed capitalist countries. How could a civilization be under threat of imminent extinction when the challenges to it are absent or under control? And how could it be advantageously replaced by some “new paradigm” inspired precisely by the nations that helplessly succumb to these same challenges? The inversion of reality here is so symmetrical, so patent, so literal, in fact so naïve, that one could not wish for a clearer and more didactic instance of interpretation delusion.


As to the energy crisis, there is none in the United States, but it is a possible risk, which is becoming imminent thanks to the activity of – you guessed it -the very supporters of world government, the likes of Pelosi and Obama, who by every possible means block new drilling, turning the owner of the largest oil reserves in the world into a nation dependent upon foreign suppliers. These, in their turn, with the money collected from their major customer, finance not only propaganda campaigns, but even terrorist movements against it, while at the same time arming themselves to the teeth for the “people’s war” (General Giap’s expression adopted by Hugo Chávez) against the “imperialist monster” that feeds them. As a result of the “breakdown of the imperial order”- again Mr. Boff’s words – “there is beginning a collective process of chaos. . .  Globalization continues, but balkanization predominates, with regional powers that may give rise to greatly devastating conflicts. . . . This extreme situation calls for an equally extreme solution.” The extreme solution is, obviously, the aforementioned planetary socialism.


In other words, of the four “challenges” to Western civilization that, according to Mr. Boff, make it inviable and call for the advent of world government, three exist only among the enemies of the West, and they themselves are inoculating the fourth one, by spreading diseases in order to sell medicine.


Mr. Boff, himself one of the agents in the operation, albeit of a lesser kind, is aware of all this. His perception of the facts is exact. It is his interpretation of the picture that is altogether inverted, detail by detail, compulsively so, to create a system of errors in which revolutionary perfidy may be depicted as the highest expression of good and virtue.


Translated by Alessandro Cota and Bruno Mori


Transfiguring the disaster

A reader left a comment at a recent column of mine saying she was offended that I dared to suggest that the Left’s support for “gay marriage” was similar to their refusal to allow the free market to work in the extraction of oil on US territory. How does one go about compressing the distillate of a century of history in a paragraph? I told her simply to pay attention to the columns by Olavo de Carvalho, who arguably knows more about the Left than any other living human being. Perhaps this column will help broaden Americans’ view of what the Left is really all about, namely, that it is not about human rights for anyone but rather sowing disaster. When you hear someone pushing a new “right,” look out for that disaster!

Reader Hermes de Alzevedo recently suggested I read the following article. When I did I couldn’t help but think of how Bill Clinton shamelessly took credit for reforming welfare, when in fact it was his party that had caused the disaster in the first place and the opposition who forced him to reform it. At no time did any Democrat admit that welfare was a disaster. Instead the emphasis was on how their party had so brilliantly achieved this wonderful victory over the monster that no one dared to say was of their own creation.

As Mr. de Carvalho shows elsewhere, and as Paul Weyrich lately pointed out, the main reason the Left can do its dirty work almost unopposed is the cooperation it receives from mainstream “conservatives.”

The column was written in 2001, but is as timely now as ever.

Remember this quote:

“…but they [the Left] also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire.”

I know, folks, it is absurd that any group, especially one this large and powerful and as college “educated,” could actually want to destroy all that is good and decent, and most of you will steadfastly refuse to believe it. Just as Neville Chamberlain and the flower children of his day refused to believe that Hitler could be such a monster.

And by the time they did it was too late.

Donald Hank


 Transfiguring the disaster

O Globo, June 16, 2001

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

Every time the Left wants to impose a new item of their program, they say it is the only way to cure certain maladies. Invariably, when the proposition wins out, the maladies it proposed to eliminate become worse. The normal thing to do under such circumstances would be to lay the responsibility for the disaster on the Left. But this never happens, for at once the original legitimizing argument disappears from the repertoire and is substituted by a new system of allegations, which celebrates failure as success or as a historical necessity that could not be avoided.

No one will understand the first thing about the history of the 20th century – or the beginning of the 21st – if they do not know this retroactive justification mechanism by which the Left makes the people work for non-declared goals that would scandalize them if they knew their identity and that can only be reached through the indirect route of dangling the carrot in front of the donkey’s nose.

Some examples will make this clearer.

1) When the Communist Party released its program for the destruction of the “bourgeois” family institutions, laying the groundwork for what would later be “sexual liberation,” its main allegation, elaborated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, was that homosexuality, sadomasochism, fetishism etc. were fruits of repressive patriarchal education. Once the cause were eliminated, these deviant behaviors would tend to disappear from the social scene. Well, the last remnants of patriarchal values were expelled from western education between the seventies and the eighties, and what did we see right afterwards? The dissemination, on an apocalyptic scale, of the same behaviors they promised to eliminate.  Once the results were obtained, these behaviors started to be celebrated as healthy, honorable and meritorious, and all criticism of them is now frowned upon – sometimes even under penalty of law – as an intolerable abuse and attack against human rights.

2) When the international Left started to fight for the legalization of abortion, one of their main arguments was that the great number of abortions was due to the prohibition thereof, which facilitated the action of charlatans, crooks and all kinds of untrained individuals. Legalization, it was promised, would force the abortion to be performed under medically acceptable conditions, thereby lowering the number of cases. What was the result? In the first year, the number of abortions in the USA went from 100 thousand to 1 million, and it never stopped going up to this day. At least 30 million babies were already sacrificed, while at the same time, the apologists of legalization, instead of admitting the fallacy of their initial argument, now celebrate the fact, working to eliminate and criminalize any criticism of the new state of affairs.

3) When the North-American left devised the policy of quotas and indemnification known as “affirmative action,” they alleged it would diminish crime in the black community. After the new policy was made official, the number of crimes committed by black men against white men arose significantly, according to statistics from the FBI. What did the apostles of this “affirmative action” do then? Did they recognize that to reinforce the feeling of racial identity was to stimulate prejudices and racial conflicts? Nah. They celebrated the increase in hostilities as progress in democracy.

4) When, in an attempt to destroy the North-American tradition of considering education a duty of the community, the churches and the family rather than of the State, the North-American left demanded bureaucratization of teaching, one of its prime arguments was that juvenile delinquency could be controlled only by an educational action of the State. Under Jimmy Carter, in 1980, the USA had for the first time a Department of Education and uniform teaching programs. Two decades later, delinquency among children and adolescents is not only growing much faster than before, but has also adopted the public schools as its headquarters, which have now become danger zones, to the point where, at the beginning of the year, the Mayor’s office in New York was privatizing its schools because of the impossibility of controlling the violence inside them. In answer to that, what did the left do? Did it admit failure? No. It is fighting for State uniformity of teaching on a world level.

5) In Brazil, the only way of lowering violence in the rural areas, so said the Left, was to give land and money to the MST (Movimento Sem Terra, or Landless Movement). Very well, the land was given – it was the greatest distribution of land in all human history, with lots of money behind it. Violence has not lessened: it has increased a lot. Does the Left admit its mistake? No. It organizes violence and celebrates it as the attainment of a new historic stage in the fight for socialism.

The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum – and notice I deliberately avoided mentioning extreme cases that occurred inside socialist countries themselves, such as the collectivization of agriculture in USSR, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in China, the Cuban Revolution, etc., sticking to facts originating in the capitalist world.

The promise of salvation, transfigured into disaster and followed by a change in the discourse to legitimize it, has been, in sum, the constant and essential modus agendi of the international Left for a century, and we see no sign of any leftist mentor having any conscience problems with this. Au contraire, all of them continue to promise the solution to maladies, while having readied in their portfolios the future legitimization of the enlarged maladies. They promise to lower drug consumption through liberalization, to control corruption through “participative budgeting,” to repress delinquency through the disarming of civilians or through Leninist “alternative law,” which incriminates the social status of the defendant rather than his criminal act. They know perfectly well where this all will take us – but they also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire.