Poll shows one-quarter of world disenchanted with capitalism

BBC survey shows world disenchanted with capitalism

By Don Hank

Soon after last year’s disastrous bank crash, liberals and RINOs were quick to infer, from evidence to which only they seemed to be privy, that the capitalist system was flawed and needed regulation. Even conservatives seemed confused. Oddly, no one could come up with a uniform regulation design that would fix things or prevent such a crash. Something didn’t seem right about their take on the causes.

Not long after that, conservative pundits made an amazing revelation: Starting in the Clinton administration, an old banking law, the Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Carter for the purpose of channeling mortgages to the poor, had been strengthened. As a result, banks had been strong-armed into issuing mortgages to “underserved groups” meaning Hispanics and African Americans. Those that refused were harassed by radical groups like ACORN and/or blacklisted and/or sued by the government. Those that complied were given the highest marks and put into enviable positions from which they could make more money. The shrewdest lenders realized that this was a government-supported racket with which they could enrich themselves at little risk, as long as Fanny and Freddy were willing to back up their seemingly foolhardy lending policies. So they continued the game, and even lenders not subject to the CRA were soon cashing in, realizing that the government actually wanted them to play Russian roulette with public funds. Even when the inevitable crash came, they thought they were protected. Indeed many did get bailouts, but because of the innovative banking practice of bundling, or derivatizing, these mortgages, and then securitizing them – selling them as “securities” like stocks, bonds and mutual funds, the risk was actually multiplied to the point that even the bailouts were no longer a safeguard, because, surprise, even the US government isn’t too big to fail. The banking world on both sides of the pond, moving in lockstep like lemmings, sold and bought such “securities,” many made in the USA but also many homegrown ones, and a global disaster ensued that you are now witnessing, perhaps in person.

I know that many of you are aware of this background of the crash, but there is a whole industry devoted to telling you that this historical fact, authenticated by responsible, sober economists like Thomas Sowell, never happened. This disinformation campaign, supported by the mainstream media and universities, is overwhelming in both its magnitude and its absurdity.

I discovered this firewall of lies and distortions serendipitously while looking for articles on the issue. I had not read or heard anything lately on the causes and had also heard a Keynesian investment advisor on the radio boldly proclaiming that the capitalist system needs regulation to prevent such a crisis from recurring. Over a year ago, Sean Hannity had tried to tackle this issue, but I noticed that his grasp of the facts was a bit slippery. Later, the rest of the pundits also just dropped the ball. In retrospect, it is easy to see why. People are lazy by nature. There are a lot of esoteric concepts and language in this issue and it takes a bit of study. And after all, what’s it matter? We are only talking about your survival (please excuse the sarcasm).

To get to the bottom of this, I typed “cra causes bank crisis” in my search engine and found, compared to the legitimate articles plausibly describing the role of the CRA and government meddling in mortgages, about 20 times more articles either downplaying the role of the CRA and Fanny-Freddy and the strong-arming of banks or actually bold-facedly declaring that the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis. The gist of each one: capitalism can’t sustain itself without government regulation. We desperately need socialism under a scheme of global governance. Quick, give up your sovereignty and pledge allegiance to the UN before we all die. The truth is that government over-regulation of a toxic kind had threatened the world’s economy and those who were responsible for this outrage were self-righteously preaching to the rest of us that we were somehow the culprits and would now have to submit to their tyranny.

This is the time for conservative pundits to fly into action and defeat this insidious disinformation campaign. It is not new information that is needed, but someone must look at all the rubbish that is being written and start debunking it, because these government induced toxic loans are still ongoing. Right now the FHA has taken over the role of Fanny-Freddy in backing them and is starting to suggest that they too need a bailout. Nothing has changed. The actors are just shifting roles. We are not supposed to pull out of the crisis. It is just going to get worse — with “stimulus” money.

And that will be more evidence that the free market system “needs government control,” quick, before anyone has time to study the issues and recognize what actually hit them.

With the mainstream media and America’s – and Europe’s – professional pseudo-intelligentsia working overtime to show that global capitalism has self-destructed and that the story of the big-bad CRA and of Fanny-Freddy being the fox in the hen house are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, it is no wonder that the entire world is tilting to the Left in its thinking on so-called capitalism. As BBC reports (not without a certain unmistakable Schadenfreude), almost a quarter of people surveyed throughout the entire world are now saying that capitalism is fatally flawed.

Yet when you look at these statistics, you see that Americans are among the least deceived. BBC states: “In only two countries, the US and Pakistan, did more than one in five people feel that capitalism works well as it stands.”

I believe this is due to at least 3 phenomena:

1—Americans are smarter than the rest, including the BBC, because they have the commons sense to support the free market,

2–We have pundits like Rush, Savage, Farah, Beck and a whole slew of small but mighty web sites out there, like Laigle’s Forum, unspinning the spin and setting people straight.

But there’s also this I’m afraid:

2—Many Americans haven’t figured out that capitalism is no longer in place here. Many years ago they watched sanguinely as their government propped up a failing Chrysler, naively believing that the government was actually “saving” capitalism and the free market.

What was actually happening was that the stage was being set (BY BOTH PARTIES!) for Obama to come along decades later and deal the free market what was calculated to be its death blow.

There were other steps along the way to what is now being called alternately fascism, corporatism and even communism. Pick your –ism, but don’t call it capitalism, because Adam Smith would not see his ideal embodied in what we call big business in the West today.

Afterword: A reader emailed me that it was good news that 3/4 of the world still believe in capitalism. But if you go to the BBC article linked above, you see that of the 3/4 who still have not given up on capitalism, the majority by far believe the propaganda. They choose the option that capitalism “Has problems that can be addressed through regulation and reform.” A European Christian friend writes that neither capitalism nor communism are good — a conclusion that leaves socialism as the default system. If we lose this one, there will be no powerful conservative in the USA to say “tear down that wall.”

For Christians who think socialism is part of Jesus’ plan, please read the following article:


Nationalists International

Nationalists International

Not even out of the box and we’re already drawing enemy fire!

By Donald Hank

I recently wrote a letter to some friends essentially with the text of the following article:

A speech by Brian Gerrish shows that the organization, Common Purpose, was formed for the purpose of ramming the European Union down the throat of the UK. Their ultimate goal is a world government that would supersede national governments, just as the EU has largely superseded European nations, bypassing the people’s will.

Common Purpose is part of the International Leftist elite that wants to micromanage your country, whatever that country may be. Their bullying tactics are typical and can be traced to the earliest communist manipulators of the masses, particularly Antonio Gramsci, who proposed putting each individual in a “psychic iron cage,” making it almost impossible for people to speak their minds when their ideas are at loggerheads with the left’s agenda.

Read more

In addition to the text shown above, I had included, near the end, the following paragraphs for my European readers, mostly British friends:

I therefore propose the formation of an international organization to fight back, and I propose the name Nationalists International.

This name will sound like an oxymoron, and in the absence of a common enemy, it would be. But recall that the Soviet communists once pleaded “workers of the world unite” and the International Elite is following the very same socialist ideal. They want power, namely, your individual power and the political power of your nation to function as an independent and sovereign entity free of interference from any outside nation or group.

I was pleasantly surprised to receive a great number of very favorable replies from activists over there, including one long, thoughtful response from a member of the EU Parliament who wants to pursue the idea of Nationalists International using a name of his own invention that conveys the same idea.

Just this morning, someone apparently with connections sent me the following copy of a notice received from a Green member of parliament:

Angelika Beer (MEP) and Gisela Kallenbach (MEP) invite you to

The Green Conference  on “Right-wing extremism in Europe”

European Parliament in Brussels

15th April 2009


Room ASP 01 G2

Our guests are Dr. Christopher Husbands from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Christoph Busch, University of Cologne, Anetta Kahane, President of the Amadeu-Antonio-Foundation, and Pascale Charhon of “European Network against Racism”.

The conference will look at different forms of right-wing extremism in Europe and discuss cross-border civil society strategies against the far right. We want to explore possibilities for a common platform against right-wing extremism and racism in order to stand united against a “nationalist international” at the European Parliament elections 2009.


Assistant to Gisela Kallenbach
Member of the European Parliament, The Greens/EFA
European Parliament, ASP 08H259
60, rue Wiertz B-1047 Bruxelles
office: +32-2-2847339 fax: +32-2-2849339
email: gisela.kallenbach-assistant@europarl.europa.eu
web: http://www.gisela-kallenbach.eu

I was pleasantly surprised to see this because it was, in a very roundabout way, a genuine compliment. I, a retired easy-going gent armed with nothing but a computer and the truth, was now obviously seen as a very formidable enemy of the International Left, represented by 2 scared and trembling little products of the German indoctrination system cynically called the “Universität.” Angelika Beer and Gisela Kallenbach saw it necessary to pull out the nuclear option, ie, the race card, against harmless little old me and sincerely believe, in their deluded way, that they are doing something important by trying to muzzle me, not realizing that, should they succeed, a thousand others would spontaneously rise up and defend the truth. 

It later turned out that Brian Gerrish himself had posted my letter at his site just today:


I do not know whether Gisela and Angelika had read this, although that would be the most likely explanation for their campaign against Nationalists International.

I emailed Gisela, the writer of the above euronazi email, and said

“I am the originator of the group Nationalists International that you mention in your email (attached). We are not racists. My wife is of African and American Indian descent, so my daughter is a hybrid, and further, my son is half Chinese. Do you want to talk about this?”

I love stuff like this. I am chuckling as I write. They apparently think a balding 65 year old man with creaky joints and a paunch is so much of a threat they have to declare all-out war against him.

I find it extremely difficult – nay, impossible – to take myself as seriously as these sad, humorless leftist busybodies take me.

If you are as amused as I am by this lunacy, why not drop these poor befuddled ladies a line at:


Ask them if they really think one free human being in America armed with nothing but a computer and the art of language is such a dire threat that they have to hold an emergency high-level conference in Europe looking for strategies to ward him off! You are also certainly free to remind them that in your country, calling someone a racist is an offense with legal consequences — unless you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused is indeed a racist, and the burden of proof may be fairly heavy. Perhaps they can run all over Europe slandering people with relative impunity, but when they turn their slander against someone outside their turf, that may be a different matter. Are they prepared to accept the consequences?

All right, international friends of truth and freedom, it didn’t take long to find out who our enemy is. He has dutifully announced himself.

Now, in the name of God, let us stand, gird ourselves, and engage him, not in animosity but in love, prayer and compassion.

After all, he is empty and lost in a godless world of his own choosing and his own making. With a little wisdom and patience, and with much sincere prayer, we can help free him of his self-inflicted shackles.

What Obama will do

What Obama will do


by Olavo de Carvalho


“What can we expect from an Obama government?” is the question of the hour. To answer it, academicians and journalists invariably use a method that is renowned for its inaccuracy: they examine the general tone of campaign speeches and apply it to the objective problems – economic, military, diplomatic – the new head of state will have to face. This method fails for two reasons:

First: the method starts out with the assumption that the institutional framework will remain unaltered and that therefore the new president will carry out, in his own way, substantively the same tasks as his predecessor. Consequently, it does not envisage that in a revolutionary strategy, one of the basic functions of the leader is precisely to redefine these very tasks. Obama learned this lesson since his youth from his guru Saul Alinsky: “All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new” [1].

Second: it always assumes that the head of state represents the national interest and will commit himself to safeguard it in all earnestness, according to the balance he manages to find between the demands of the militancy that elected him, the claims of happenstance allies and the pressures of the objective situation. This assumption, however, loses all significance at a time that defines itself overall as that of the emergence and implementation of world government. Nowadays, the national interest of all countries is being subordinated to worldwide plans imposed by an economic, bureaucratic and intellectual elite whose power transcends that of any particular nation, including the United States. Many presidents and prime-ministers are installed with the help or guidance of this elite, not to protect national interests, but to oppose them based on much broader goals, which, though described more than half a century ago by such first-rate authors as Arnold Toynbee [2] and Carroll Quigley [3], are scarcely taken into account by these academicians and journalists, and for a very simple reason: as David Rockefeller, one of the main leaders of globalism, publicly acknowledged, the fight for the implementation of world government would fail if prematurely disclosed. Therefore, discretion, deceptiveness and disinformation are some of the essential jobs of the mainstream media during the intermediate period [4]. The “anti-democratic means” that Toynbee found indispensable to the implementation of world government include, quite obviously, control of the flow of information sent to the general public. The increasing uniformity of the world press — of which the campaign against the alleged human agents of global warming, the universal anti-Bush outcry or the waves of enthusiasm surging over Lula, Obama and the World Social Forum are eloquent examples — can be easily explained by the rising concentration of media ownership precisely in the hands of the economic groups most interested in world government. The fact that part of the lesser agents in the process complain about this type of concentration, arguing that it is the spontaneous effect of pure mechanics of capitalism, is partly due to a residual ideological automatism, and partly to the cunning desire of these groups and individuals to conceal their own actions under the guise of supposed tendencies or anonymous historical laws, putting the blame for the most disagreeable changes on the previous situation which the current changes purport to suppress.

Since, on the other hand, the media also has the role of laying out “common sense” (in the sociological and Gramscian sense), giving the people a sense of purpose and reassurance as to what is happening, the cultured reader will be forced, sooner or later, to choose between buying into the mainstream opinion or trying to arrive at a more scientific and realistic understanding of the state of affairs. In the first case, he will be rewarded with that comforting sense of confidence that comes with deceiving oneself together with the majority of the people. In the second, he will attain reasonable certainty enabling him to make correct predictions, while seeming weird or irrational to most people. Because my choice was made long ago, the method I apply to answer the kind of questions posed at the outset of this article does not rest on the usual academic and journalistic conventions, but on elementary scientific precautions, which has allowed me to achieve a certain degree of success in anticipating the course of events, the price of which is, naturally, the hatred of those who have failed to do so.

One of these precautions is as follows: at times of swift change, imposed top-down by groups whose line of action remains elusive, it is almost impossible to predict the general course of action of a new government. All we can and must do is abandon general predictions and confine ourselves to those specific, scant but significant, points already determined by the course of the previous action, so that the new government must necessarily proceed with them. Instead of deriving from the general picture the particular actions that the head of state must hypothetically accomplish to deal with it, it is convenient to start with the existing or practically inevitable specific actions and, if possible, to ascend laboriously to the general picture. I say “if possible” precisely because in most cases we can only achieve reasonable certainty regarding the specific lines of action, whereas the general meaning of things remains as far beyond our intellectual reach as it is from that of the head of state himself. Even the most formidable powers are only capable of determining a small fraction of the results of their own actions. Hence any serious statement about the direction of a new government must limit itself to the actions it must bring to bear merely to keep and to expand the power with which it has been invested, especially those actions that fit immediate commitments that were previously agreed upon with the political and economic forces that produced them.

A second equally obvious rule goes along with the first: whatever its proclaimed goals, any scheme of power will always safeguard its own continuity and expansion first and foremost. To act, St. Thomas Aquinas would say, you must first be. The existence and continuity of the scheme are a prior condition of its doing whatever it may want to do. Thus, what we must consider before anything else is what the head of state will necessarily have to do, not to reach this or that goal, nor to face the objective problems that afflict the nation or part of it, but simply to keep – and, in the case of a revolutionary leader, to increase – the power of action it already possesses. Consequently, I don’t know what Obama will do in general terms. Nor does anyone else. But I do know what he’s already doing and will have to keep doing, not to achieve predetermined goals, but just to hold and increase control of the means.

May I mention, by the way, that it was based on the above-describe method that I announced, shortly after Lula’s first election, that he would not take any effective measures against drug dealing, for the very simple reason that he was lifted to power – and could be dethroned – by the international scheme of the Sao Paulo Forum, whose interests are fundamentally akin to the FARC’s, now and then the biggest supplier of cocaine to the Brazilian market [5]. A head of state can do many things, but, barring insanity, can never destroy the means of doing things.

All Obama’s career and his ascent to power were entirely subsidized by notoriously anti-American forces. To claim that they are only anti-Bush and not anti-US proves to be a mere rhetorical twist, unworthy of attention. The essential role the new president will play once in office does not differ much from that which Strobe Talbott recommended to Bill Clinton: “Sell multilateralism …as a means of preserving and enhancing American political leadership in the world” [6]. It purports, in short, to weaken and submit to supranational institutions the national power it pretends to enhance. In his campaign speeches, as well as in his aide’s declarations, Obama promised to reduce the US military budget by up to 25%, to slow down nuclear research and – as amazing as it seems – “to demilitarize space”. This would allegedly make the United States more amicable in the eyes of mankind and would afford it enormous diplomatic leadership in the world. Only giddy schoolgirls – who not coincidentally made up the most critical segment of Obama’s electorate – could believe in such stuff. The efficacy of diplomatic action is, by definition, proportionate to the military power that backs it.

In every political action – and this is the third methodological precaution I recommend – one must distinguish between the final announced goals and the substantiality of the acts performed to achieve them. The latter are a reality, the former a mere hypothesis, if not a smokescreen. Therefore, the meaning of the action reveals itself to a greater extent in the nature of the means employed than in the stated nominal goals. To militarily weaken a nation is … to weaken it militarily. The notion that this could strengthen it diplomatically is a far-flung hypothesis which is much too contrived and contrary to all historical experience. What is more, the supposed connection between the declared goals and the chosen means is based on an assumption that is uniformly that of mainstream anti-American discourse: the United States is hated because of its military force; if it agrees to become less powerful, it will be eternally loved by mankind.

It must be noted that, in this case, what the candidate emphasized in his campaign speech was not the materiality of the means, but the supposed beauty of the aims, under frantic applauses of a crowd of students to whom even the total destruction of the United States would not be an idea devoid of sex appeal. This idea has the exact same power of attraction to all those who have financed Obama’s career since his teen years: Arab millionaires, pro-terrorist agitators, globalist corporations and, last but not least, George Soros. If one thing is right it’s that the purpose of militarily weakening the United States, already tenaciously pursued by the Clinton Administration, will be followed to the letter by Barack Obama, for the simple reason that accomplishing it constitutes one of the main reasons of his existence as a politician. It’s something that he cannot afford not to do, just as, by analogy, Lula could not help sacrificing Brazil’s interests and sovereignty to the higher ends of the Sao Paulo Forum and the globalist scheme that backs it up, as we saw in the case of the Bolivian pressures against Petrobras, and even clearly in the Raposa Serra do Sol issue.

It is indeed curious – and depressing – to find that, at a time when national sovereignties are overtly opposed in the upper spheres of world politics, and their limitation or progressive suppression is even proclaimed as a basic condition for the survival of the human species, analysts claiming to be scientific still hold as an at least implicit premise of their predictions the assumption that leaders always behave according to the national interest, as if they were Renaissance princes committed to breaking down the empire’s integrity and to establish new sovereign unities.

Today a leader can stand against the most vital interests of his nation and be granted, for this very reason, so much support from international opinion that his own people, judging by the most visible appearance rather than the substantiality of the actions involved, end up viewing him as a kind of national hero.

Talbott’s formula was followed to the letter by Bill Clinton, who was consequently one of the world media’s most endorsed American presidents. He reduced the American atomic weapons arsenal knowing that China was enhancing hers; he encouraged American investments in China, while hampering American industry with taxes and restrictive legislation; he blocked probes into Chinese espionage at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory and, in the last days of his government, when the chief Chinese spy involved in the operation was already in prison, pardoned him without any sound justification. Needless to say he was acting all the time against American national interest and conforming to the strictest “multilateralism” by stimulating the transformation of China into a military and economic power, one that intends to become the dominant center in the coming decades. Needless to say as well that the applause thus received from the international media created a huge impression in raising American prestige, making decline seem like an improvement in the eyes of the American people. He was even more enthusiastically cheered for his “humanitarian” intervention in Kosovo, which, under the pretext of punishing a genocide we now know did not exist at all, had the only effective result of turning a Christian region into an Islamic stronghold, and at the further price of the actual genocide perpetrated by Muslim troops trained and subsidized by Bin Laden himself [7].  Once again, the sympathy of the international media was sold to the American people as proof of the great success of the anti-American actions ordered by the president.

When Obama promises to enhance the international “image” of the United States, in exchange for the decrease of its military power, he’s again applying Talbott’s formula: to substitute an image for reality and then to sell that image as reality itself. That he’s going to do this is something that cannot be seriously questioned, because this proposal is the fundamental or even sole explanation for the worldwide support he received, a support that only a perfect idiot would see as stemming from the spontaneous preferences of the people and not from a coordinated effort of the globalist elite who dominates the media organizations all over the planet. If he steps back from this commitment, his political career won’t last one more day.

But Obama wasn’t elected just to repeat what Clinton has already done. In addition to shrinking American power in the international arena, he’ll push for an enormous increase in the American State’s power to control the lives of its citizens and to shape public opinion.

I’m not saying that he “can” do this or either that he “tends” to do this. I’m saying that he will necessarily do this, if he’s not stopped, because it is essential to boost the power of the forces who elected him and also to block, as of now, a potential return of Republicans to both houses of Congress by 2010. To hold and enhance its power is the most basic condition of the very existence of political forces, and these conditions become ever more vital and urgent when a political force has the aim of bringing about profound changes in society. Whatever the substance of these changes, the first one is – and must be – the consolidation of the power of action necessary to enforce them. It was for disregarding this fact that George W. Bush completely failed. Instead of consolidating Republican hegemony by debilitating his opponent, he chose to improvise a suicidal alliance with the latter, forging a semblance of national unity against the external enemy. This unity, when it crashed and smashed into pieces at a speed greater than anticipated (except as seen by the geniuses at the Department of State), carried away the prestige of the presidency and the Republican control over both Houses of Congress [8]. The Democrats do not ordinarily make this mistake. Even now before Obama is sworn in, they’re preparing the revival of the restrictive legislation, ironically termed Fairness Doctrine, whose sole object is to destroy the already poor balance of the American media, by transferring to the Democrats half of the time that republicans hold on the radio, without granting to the latter even the smallest amount of the Democrats’ hegemony in newspapers and TV stations.

Some Republican commentators, and by no means the worst of them, have been wrongly reasoning, in accordance with the second of the above premises, that the rules of the game will remain the same, and thus even believe that Obama’s victory was good for their party, because it will throw onto the new president the responsibility of handling the economic crisis and, since he will most likely fail, it will pave the way for the triumphant comeback of the Republicans in the 2010 legislative elections. This is one of the methodological mistakes I referred to above. In 2010, the rules of the game will be so radically altered that Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, will hardly be capable of making themselves heard by the public. The “change” promised by Obama could begin even before his oath of office: inspired by the victory at the presidential election, democratic senators and representatives can’t wait to rubber stamp the return of the catastrophic and anti-democratic Fairness Doctrine [9].

To this fundamental change, which will give the leftist establishment almost total control of the mass media, Obama intends to add a more complicated one, whose implementation represents an explicit commitment he made with the enragée faction of his militancy, whose support he’ll continue to seek unless he wishes to draw against him the most bold and outspoken part of the American nation, and he won’t fail to do it, short of being insane. I’m referring to the “Civilian National Security Force” [10]. Obama has been working on this idea for many years, in the framework of the “Public Allies” non-profit. The goal is, plainly, to arm the radical militancy and transform it, according to the words of the new president himself, into such a powerful and well subsidized force as the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The resources that will be allocated to this mission have already been calculated by obamist planners and amount to $500 billion annually. Every enlisted volunteer will be paid $1,800 per month, and will be granted scholarships and places at the best universities as well as many other social advantages that, together with the weapons and the military training, will quickly turn those fanatical mobs into a privileged class with a fearful power.

Whom will that power turn against? Is the “civilian force” meant to replace the military in repressing and controlling terrorism? Impossible. The Bush Administration already reduced to zero the number of terrorist attacks in US territory. And it doesn’t make sense to go below zero.

Is the new force meant to combat criminality, to restore public safety and thus promote social peace, the so-long awaited “reconciliation” among the races? Equally impossible. If, on the one hand, eighty percent of the Public Allies militants already comprise black young people, the same proportion will likely prevail in the “civil force,” for where else, if not among his own militancy, would the obamism recruit the volunteers for this task? It’s true, on the other hand, that of all interracial crimes perpetrated in the United States, 85% – almost the same proportion of the Public Allies members – are committed by blacks against whites [11], notwithstanding the politically correct detail that official statistics refuse to treat Hispanics as a separate group and include them among “whites,” thus attributing to white people those crimes committed by illegal Hispanic immigrants against blacks. An immense work of repression of interracial crimes would throw even more blacks into prisons they already overcrowd. This would be dreadful political suicide, which would send Obama against the community whose skin color is one of the strongest reasons for his occupying the presidential seat. (By the way, it is worthy remembering that the usual “racism” explanation for the bigger proportion of black inmates is a complete fraud, for the states where jailed blacks proportionally outnumber jailed whites aren’t in the South, but rather in the North, and they’re not governed by Republicans but, rather by Democrats [12]).

It is equally impossible that the new security force would be meant to control illegal immigration. Obama is already formally committed to the total amnesty project and soon the very concept of “illegal immigrant” will be abolished. Leaving out those three ends, what task remains for a portentous force the same size of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, apart from policing and intimidating religious and political groups the Left views as “suspect”? This goal has already represented the democratic agenda since Madeline Albright, who saw a great threat to national security in the groups made up of religious, conservative and — like half of the American population — armed people. Except that, to repress these groups, the Clinton Administration relied solely on the FBI and the state police forces, where many agents and chief officers would naturally abhor a drastic and comprehensive action against innocent people. The young obamist militancy comes pre-inoculated against that kind of ethical misgivings thanks to massive propaganda.

To weaken the American State abroad and to strengthen it internally are the two pillars of Obama’s politics. He cannot relinquish either of them, not only because they complement themselves, but because they are the chief justifications of his existence as a politician. His entire career has been supported and subsidized by forces that strongly desire both things. When I single them out as fundamental goals to which the Obama government will attach its best talents, I’m just drawing attention to two already ongoing lines of action, that are strongly rooted in the Democrats’ agenda once they come to power, and that have been previously coordinated through the broadest effort of militancy formation ever seen in the United States (for his internet campaigns alone Obama has in place a network of nothing less than four million people, formally committed to continue doing for his government what they did for the candidate). Whatever the general outlook the Obama government may eventually show to the world, these two lines of action will be there and will deeply affect the whole ensemble. That numerous Republicans, Democrats or independent analysts foresee a “moderate” or “centrist” government, is due to the fact that they do not have the analytical tools to understand the situation. “Radical” and “moderate”, are usually terms that better fit the description of rhetorical styles than substantive actions. The leftist “radical” Hugo Chavez was unable to dismantle Venezuelan opposition, while the “moderate” Lula disassembled one by one every pocket of right-wing resistance in Brazil, to the point that nowadays only leftwing opposition remains. Obama could well keep a “moderate” profile at those more visible areas, and, at the same time, discretely undertake these two measures that, per se, can not only irreversibly modify the American political system but also “change the world” as we know it.

It is obvious that Obama can be prevented from carrying out these plans, either by uncontrollable factors, or by the organized action of his opponents. What is certain is that the effort to accomplish them, whether in a spectacular or in a more subtle way, will be one of the unchanging features of his government, and any success he achieves, no matter how incomplete or minimum, will leave a scar on the historical face of the United States and on humankind.


[1] Brad O’Leary, “For Obama, All Roads Lead to ACORN and Saul Alinsky”, at http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=2319.

[2] In America and the World Revolution, cit. in Olavo de Carvalho, “Travessia perigosa”, Diário do Comércio, São Paulo, May 12th, 2008 (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/080512dc.html; English translation at http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080601lf_en.html).

[3] V. Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope. A History of the World in Our Time, New York, Macmillan, 1966.

[4] V. Will Banyan, “The proud internationalist”, em http://www.scribd.com/doc/296854/Will-Banyan-The-Proud-Internationalist-The-Globalist-Vision-of-David-Rockefeller#document_metadata.

[5] V. Olavo de Carvalho, “Lula e Lulas”, in O Globo, November 2nd, 2002 (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/02112002globo.htm; v. also http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/16112002globo.htm and http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/030308globo.htm).

[6] Cit. in John Fonte, Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation-State: What Is the Best Regime?”, Bradley Symposium 2008, Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. (http://pcr.hudson.org/files/publications/2008_Bradley_Symposium_Fonte_Essay.pdf).

[7] V. Joseph Farah, “Bill Clinton’s other genocide”, WorldNetDaily, July 26th. 2005, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=31471.

[8] V. Olavo de Carvalho, “Avaliando George W. Bush”, Diário do Comércio, São Paulo, June 18th, 2008, http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/080618dce.html; English translation at http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080618dc_en.html.

[9] Obama personally denies that he intends to apply the Fairness Doctrine, but he knows he won’t need to get his pretty hands dirty, because Congress will do that for him. Besides, his team has a reputable history of intents to silence opponents (v. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79273). Finally, at the obamist circles the name being more considered to head his transition team is that of Henry Rivera, who, during his presidency of the Federal Committee on Communications, was a forceful adept of the Fairness Doctrine (v. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=80424).

[10] V. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305420655186700.

[11] V. http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html.

[12] V. Steve Sailer, “Mapping the unmentionable: Race and crime”, in http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050213_mapping.htm.



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

American education and how it fell / Short changing the men in uniform

This issue contains columns by two popular authors who are widely published on the Internet. Thomas Brewton helps us look behind the scenes of public education in the US.

Tom Kovach blows the whistle on how the military short-changes the good guys in uniform.

The EU and the German government have been playing good-cop-bad-cop in the home schooling area. Home schoolers are finding a trifle more lenience among the leaders of the EU, who actually support them morally, but with no enforcement.

I have pointed out to my German home-schooling friends that the real enemy is the Left and centralized government, but that is hard for them to understand at this point. Many are still looking to the EU to supply a solution.

Donald Hank

Liberal-Progressive Mind Control

By Thomas E. Brewton

Socialism, of which liberal-progressivism is the American sect, is more than control of the economy.  Most importantly it is mind-control through the public education system.

The Washington Times reports the latest liberal-progressive-socialist curtailment of personal freedom. 

“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children in their own home,” said the Feb. 28 ruling by the California Appellate Court for the second district.

When they wish to overrule long-standing political liberties, liberals look to precedents of so-called international law and other nations’ customs.  The socialist European Union European Union and Germany specifically, provide ammunition for abrogating educational liberties.

Why the animus of liberal courts and teachers’ unions against home schooling?

The obvious answer is that home schooling does a better job, revealing the poor quality of public education.  Less obvious is the desire of home-schooling parents to teach Judeo-Christian moral principles, which directly conflicts with the public school aim of teaching the secular religion of liberal-progressive-socialism.  Propagating that mind-set necessitates identifying as ignorance all ideas of fixed and timeless moral principles.

Such was the work primarily of John Dewey, the leading liberal-progressive theoretician of the early 1900s.  He taught Columbia University students that Darwinian evolution had proved that everything, including morality, was continually evolving.  In such a world there can be no timeless principles of morality.  Rules for social behavior are simply whatever intellectuals think they ought to be in matters of sexual orientation, sexual promiscuity, and every sort of sensual gratification. 

Under the impact of such schooling, the traditional family unit is no longer the bedrock of society.  The norm tends toward single-parent units.  Home-schooling by parents in traditional families is, to that style of moral relativism, a direct affront.

There is now abundant evidence, in all parts of the nation, that public-education students are inculcated with anti-Americanism and a moral relativism that will not even condemn the Nazi Holocaust.  Liberal-progressivism teaches students that there are no real differences among nations, races, and cultures, even sexes.  We are all homogeneous and ready for a single world government that will end wars and guarantee harmony and economic plenty, equally for all.  In such a world, callow students must be conditioned to see every atrocity from the other guy’s view point and to avoid all judgments of right or wrong.

Liberal-progressives, it will be remembered, sympathized with Al Queda and blamed 9/11 on the capitalist greed of the United States.

The recent death of William F. Buckley, Jr. reminds us that, by the late 1940s, this disintegration of historical education was well established.  Ivy League universities such as Yale had long since abandoned their founding mission of educating Puritan ministers.  They had, as Buckley documented in “God and Man at Yale,” become overwhelmingly slanted toward liberal-progressivism.

Liberal-progressive-socialism is a world paradigm in which greedy capitalists become rich by grinding workers down to bare-subsistence levels of income, while forcing the workers to buy whatever products they produce, at whatever prices they elect to charge.  Hence the endless harping in the New York Times about income inequality.

In that paradigm, social justice demands that the undeservedly rich capitalists be expropriated, either by seizing their property and placing it under collective ownership, or by imposing a multitude of regulations that convey the rights of ownership to the political state.  This is known as socialization.

The most important element of liberal-progressive-socialism, however, is control of the educational system.  Henri de Saint-Simon, who systematically conceptualized socialism in the first decades of the 19th century, wrote that the educational system must be controlled by the highest level of the political state’s intellectual councils, so that nothing other than the doctrine of socialism may be taught.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776


Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

When this next article came in, I couldn’t help but think of a family that live near my place here in York County, PA. They lost their bread winner when the husband and father died fighting in Iraq. Almost immediately, they lost their home because she could not make the payments. As I said, our government punishes people for not running with the Leftist agenda. This mother got punished for not being a working mother. Our government is saturated with the lore of radical feminism  that demands women go out and work. She defied this paradigm.  Due to the loss, she couldn’t pay the mortgage, so on top of the grief of losing their father/husband, they got to be evicted from home. I can’t think of anything much more painful than that for a middle aged mother and a 10 year old girl. Here was a guy trying to be patriotic and he gets shot and his family loses everything. As long as this is happening – and I am certain it is happening all over the country – it will be hard to think of the benefits of the Iraq war. This sort of thing just clouds it all over. If a nation can’t afford a war, then they shouldn’t be waging one – especially not if they can’t protect their own border.

Donald Hank

For the good of the service …?! Let’s look at the bigger picture

by:  Tom Kovach

This is a column that military recruiters will not want you to read.

Those of us that have worn an American military uniform have, at various points throughout our careers, encountered the phrase “for the good of the service”.  The first place that many of us encounter it is in the assignment of job specialties after basic training.  People that are assigned an unpleasant job are told that it is “for the good of the service”, and are (sometimes) given a time limit after which they may request a different job assignment.  (When I was in the Air Force, it was three years.)  Another common use of the phrase is when assigning people to remote overseas locations.  Given the nature of military duties, both of those applications make sense.

But, sometimes, the phrase is used in ways that make little, if any, sense.  We’ve all seen things that don’t make sense — at least, at first glance.  If we stay in past the first enlistment, some of those things begin to make sense as we advance in responsibilities and see the bigger picture.  Some of those things never make any sense at all.  I’d like to hear from some of you about two classes of things in the military that don’t make sense.

One is why good people are discharged, and some sorry people are kept on active duty.  The destruction of my own career, after more than 16 years in uniform, is a classic example.  My discharge was illegal, it was done for nefarious purposes, and I was never given a discharge physical.  I had residual injuries (from a high-speed parachute malfunction) that led to a 40 percent VA disability rating.  But, I was never given a board hearing for a medical retirement.  Why?  And, what happened to the unscrupulous officer that forced my discharge through the system?  He got promoted — twice — after that.  How?  We’ll get to those points later.  For now, let’s look at a larger, more pressing, and far more important example of things that don’t make sense.

Combat-wounded veterans are, in some cases, being forced to repay the “unused” portion of their Selective Reenlistment Bonus.  The remainder of the bonus became “unused” through no fault of the servicemember.  The SRB is rated depending upon the hazards and the necessity of the person’s assigned job.  People with very hazardous jobs, and/or very needed skills, are given bigger bonuses.  But, the very nature of those jobs also often makes them more likely to be wounded in combat.  Hey, that’s why the military came up with the bonus structure in the first place, right?

But, now, the military Services are taking back the money that they paid to people for reenlisting.  There has been a long-standing policy that a servicemember that becomes unfit for duty by neglect (drug use, alcoholism, criminal activity, malingering, etc.) must repay the bonus.  But, in the modern cases, servicemembers have been compelled to repay the bonus because they have become unfit for duty by severe combat injuries.  This raises legal and ethical questions.  Is the bonus paid in advance for becoming available to perform the duties (by signing the reenlistment contract), or for actually performing the duties?  If the former, then why would the Services even try to recoup the money?  If the latter, then why do the Services pay the money in advance?

Last year, Congress introduced HR 3793 in an attempt to fix the problem.  But, the solution carries its own problems.  And, that is the main thrust of this column.  The organization that I started, Project “Warrior Bonus”, has discovered a flaw in HR 3793.  That flaw is fixed by a different bill, HR 4750.  As a result, Project “Warrior Bonus” has withdrawn its support from HR 3793, and now instead supports HR 4750.  (Another organization, founded by another disabled veteran, still supports HR 3793.  Last year, before the introduction of HR 4750, I attempted to work with that other organization.  No one ever replied.  I did some research, and discovered a possible reason.  That other organization is headquartered in an expensive Manhattan office building.  I run my organization from a room in my house.  Hmmmmmm.)  The root of the change to HR 4750 has to do with the use of the phrase “for the good of the service”.

The flawed bill, HR 3793, contains language that allows the Services to bypass the main intent of the law when recouping the bonus money is determined to be “for the good of the service”.  Hello?!  The bean counters at the Pentagon will say that saving money is, by its nature, for the good of the service.  That legislative loophole could put every SRB payment into jeopardy.  So much for fixing the problem.  If you don’t believe me, then read the entire language of both bills for yourself.  If you don’t want to take the time, then simply send a contribution to Project “Warrior Bonus”, and I’ll fight on your behalf.

Now, to answer those questions that were left dangling above.  How was my discharge illegal?  My DD Form 214 contains a “justification” phrase that contradicts itself, and is not found in any personnel manual.  How did it get through the system?  Because the base commander, a full colonel at that time, pushed it through the system during the big “downsizing” craze after Operation Desert Storm.  Why would he do such a thing?  Because I was on patrol one night (four days after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait), and saw him supervising members of the base fire department as they pumped chemically contaminated wastewater over the fence onto civilian airfield property.  (The water flowed downhill into a small creek, and then downstream to a reservoir.  That reservoir was part of the drinking supply for the city of Newburgh, New York.)  I reported what I saw to the NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, which had previously fined the base $200,000 for a “leak” that had been discovered in the sewage system of the Town of New Windsor (which borders Newburgh).

As “repayment” for being a good citizen and trying to protect the environment, the base commander had me discharged.  I fought it for months, but he won.  And, he was later promoted twice.  He retired as a two-star general.  He then went on to become a DC lobbyist.  In fact, he got his first lobbying contract about three months after he retired.  Given that a Federal law requires a one-year “cooling off” period before becoming a lobbyist (some interpretations of the statute say two years), his lobbying business was illegal from the start.  But, the first year, he made a quarter-million dollars in lobbying fees, in addition to his military retirement pay.  I’ve reported his activities to authorities (and to some of his clients), but nothing was ever done to stop him.

The above is how I know, first-hand, that there are some unscrupulous people within an otherwise honorable military bureaucracy.  Those unscrupulous people can, and do, take advantage of the system.  Therefore, any laws or regulations governing that system must be written in such a way as to deny unscrupulous people the opportunity to use loopholes in order to hurt good people.  As distasteful as my own example is (when the money ran out, so did my first wife), it pales in comparison to the examples of people that have lost eyes, arms, and legs in combat, only to have their government take back money that was already paid to them for faithfully enlisting and putting themselves into harm’s way in the first place.  Those wounded warriors deserve our respect, our help, and our support.

What do you think?  If you agree, then there are two things that you can do.  First, contribute to Project “Warrior Bonus”.  Help me to fight on behalf of those combat-wounded veterans.  The other thing that you can do is call my talk-radio program and tell your story.  Help me to keep a watchful eye on unscrupulous people in the military and in government.  When I was discharged, there was no one in talk-radio with a career military background.  (And, when Oliver North later got a talk show, it was not on the air in my market.  There was no such thing as Internet streaming then.  So, call screeners did not allow calls from areas where the show was not broadcast commercially.)  I can use my talk show, and my columns, to help our military members and families have a voice “outside the system”.

The name of my program is “The US Phone Force”, from my service in the US Air Force.  The concept is that, by banding together, we can become an influential force via the telephone.  From time to time, as issues come up, the show will carry “Ops Orders” to the listening audience.  We will then “attack” the phone lines of government and business officials to demand changes.  It’s a very American concept, and you can be a part of it simply by listening and calling.  We can start by posing this question to our elected representatives:  Which is more important, “the good of the service”, or “the good of the servicemember”?  In an all-volunteer military, that question needs to be considered when legislating things such as recoupment of Selective Reenlistment Bonuses.  Otherwise, there won’t be any more volunteers.

And, now you know why this column won’t be on the table in the waiting room at the local recruiter’s office.


Tom Kovach lives near Nashville.  He is a columnist, network talk-radio host, inventor, certified paralegal, and a former USAF Blue Beret.  You may contact Tom via:  www.TomKovach.US.