This series of newspaper columns by Olavo de Carvalho was collected in this order in the book “The Minimum You Need To Know So As Not To Be An Idiot”.
The first article, “The Owners of the World”, outlines three competing global power projects: the Russian-Chinese (Eurasian), Western (often mislabeled Anglo-American), and Islamic. He argues that each bloc is shaped by distinct geopolitical, economic, or religious ambitions, and while competition between them exists, there are areas of collaboration. Olavo highlights that most analyses fail to recognize the intertwined nature of these forces, leading to skewed perspectives.
In “What is Happening”, Olavo criticizes the popular narrative that the Cold War was solely a conflict between socialism and capitalism. He reveals that powerful Western elites, including the Morgans and Rockefellers, have historically supported various socialist movements, including Marxism, Fabianism, and even National Socialism, to further their global agenda. He suggests that while Western elites played both sides, the real conflict between East and West is only now beginning, with Russia under Putin emerging as a true adversary.
Finally, in “Who Rules the World?”, Olavo explores the complex question of global leadership, noting that behind governments lie powerful elites who truly control world affairs. He references the work of sociologist Charles Wright Mills to explain the intricate web of power in the United States, dominated by the Fabian globalist elite. In contrast, the power structures of Russia, China, and the Islamic world remain opaque, complicating accurate global power analyses.
The Owners of the World
Diário do Comércio, February 21, 2011
The historical forces that today compete for power in the world are articulated into three projects of global domination: the “Russian-Chinese” (or “Eurasian”), the “Western” (sometimes mistakenly called “Anglo-American”), and the “Islamic.”
Each has a well-documented history, showing its remote origins, the transformations it underwent over time, and the current state of its implementation.
The agents that personify them are respectively:
The ruling elite of Russia and China, especially the secret services of these two countries.
The Western financial elite, as represented especially by the Bilderberg Club, the Council of Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of various Islamic countries, and some governments of Muslim countries.
Of these three agents, only the first can be conceived in strictly geopolitical terms, as its plans and actions correspond to well-defined national and regional interests. The second, which is more advanced in achieving its world government plans, explicitly places itself above any national interests, including those of the countries where it originated and which serve as its operational base. In the third, occasional conflicts of interest between national governments and the greater objective of the Universal Caliphate are always resolved in favor of the latter, which today is the great factor of ideological unification in the Islamic world.
The conceptions of global power that these three agents strive to realize are very different from each other because they stem from heterogeneous and sometimes incompatible inspirations.
Although, in principle, the relations between them are competitive and disputed, sometimes even militarily, there are immense zones of fusion and collaboration, albeit shifting and changing. This phenomenon disorients observers, producing all sorts of misinterpretations and fanciful ideas, some in the form of “conspiracy theories,” others as self-proclaimed “realistic” and “scientific” challenges to these theories.
A significant portion of the world’s confusion is produced by a more or less constant factor: each of the three agents tends to interpret the plans and actions of the other two in its own terms, partly for propaganda purposes, partly due to genuine misunderstanding.
The strategic analyses on each side reflect their own ideological bias. While attempting to take into account the totality of available factors, the Russian-Chinese scheme privileges the geopolitical and military point of view, the Western one focuses on the economic perspective, and the Islamic one on the religious struggle.
This difference, in turn, reflects the sociological composition of the ruling classes in their respective geographical areas:
Originating from the communist Nomenklatura, the Russian-Chinese ruling class is essentially composed of bureaucrats, intelligence agents, and military officers.
The dominance of financiers and international bankers in the Western establishment is too well-known to require further emphasis.
In the various countries of the Islamic complex, the authority of the ruler depends substantially on the approval of the umma — the vast community of certified interpreters of traditional religion. Although there is a great variety of internal situations, it is not an exaggeration to describe the structure of dominant power as “theocratic.”
Thus, for the first time in world history, the three essential modalities of power — political-military, economic, and religious — are embodied in distinct supranational blocs, each with its own plans for world domination and its peculiar modes of action. This does not mean that each does not operate on all fronts, but only that their respective historical and strategic visions are ultimately limited by the modality of power they represent. It is not an exaggeration to say that today’s world is the subject of a dispute between soldiers, bankers, and preachers.
Practically all international policy analyses available today in the media, whether in Brazil or any other country, reflect the subservience of the “opinion makers” to one of the three competing currents, and thus their systematic ignorance of areas of complicity and mutual assistance. These individuals judge facts and “take positions” based on the abstract values dear to them, without even asking whether their words, in the overall sum of factors at play in the world, will end up contributing to the glory of everything they hate. The strategists of the three major world projects are well aware of this and include political commentators — journalistic or academic — among the most valuable useful idiots in their service.
What is Happening
Diário do Comércio, August 29, 2012
The childish mythology that the population consumes under the name of “journalism” teaches that the leitmotiv of world history since the beginning of the 20th century was the conflict between “socialism” and “capitalism,” a conflict that supposedly reached a conclusion in 1990 with the fall of the USSR. Since then, the legend goes, we live in the “empire of the free market” and under the hegemony of a “unipolar power,” the cursed Judeo-Christian civilization personified in the US-Israel alliance, against which all lovers of freedom rise: Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Workers' Party, the SlutWalk movement, and the Bahia Gay Group.
The amount of stupidity required to believe such a thing is not measurable by any human standard. However, I do not know of a single newspaper, TV news program, or university course in Brazil that offers its audience any different version. The fairy tale has become mandatory not only as an expression of factual truth but as a measure of mental sanity: contradicting it means being instantly diagnosed as a paranoid lunatic and “conspiracy theorist.”
Since I have become accustomed to these labels and am even starting to enjoy them, I take the liberty of passing on to the reader, in a horribly compact version, some basic and well-proven information, though I acknowledge, difficult to accommodate in a lazy brain:
The supreme capitalist elite of the West — the Morgans, the Rockefellers, people of that caliber — never lifted a finger in favor of “liberal capitalism.” On the contrary: they did everything to promote three types of socialism: Fabian socialism in Western Europe and the US, Marxist socialism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, and China, and National Socialism in Central Europe. They spent rivers of money on this. They built the Soviet industrial park during Stalin’s time, the war industry of the Führer, and, more recently, the economic-military power of China. In the conflicts between the three socialisms, the Fabians always came out on top because they are the only ones with the most advanced technology, a flexible strategy for all situations, and, better yet, all the time in the world (the symbol of Fabianism is a turtle). Nazism, having fulfilled its mission of eliminating the European powers and dividing the world between the Western elite and the communist movement (precisely according to Stalin’s plan), was thrown into the dustbin of history; from the end of World War II until the end of the eighties, it survived only in the evanescent form of “neo-Nazism,” a ghost activated by communist governments to scare children and divert attention.
Fabianism was never the enemy of Marxist socialism: it adores and cultivates it, because Marxist economics, incapable of technological progress, guarantees captive markets, and also because it has always considered communism an instrument of its global strategy. The communists, of course, respond in kind, trying to use Fabian socialism for their own ends and infiltrating all the democratic socialist parties in the West. The inevitable points of friction are attributed to “capitalist greed,” strengthening the communists' moral authority among third-world idiots and, at the same time, helping the Fabians tighten state controls over Western economies, strangling capitalism under the pretext of saving it. The “true believers” in economic liberalism are the ones who suffer: without enough power to interfere in the great global decisions, they have become a mere auxiliary force of Fabian socialism and, generally, do not even realize it, so horrible is that prospect for their sincere souls.
But sometimes the fraternal competition between Fabians and communists breaks down: with the fall of the USSR, the former thought it was time to reap the rewards of their long collaboration with communism, and they descended on Russia like vultures, buying everything at rock-bottom prices, including the consciences of the old communists. However, the core of the Soviet elite, the KGB, did not consent to play the secondary role now destined for it in the new stage of the world revolution. It admitted the defeat of communism but not its own. It raised its head, reacted, and from nothing created a new independent strategy, Eurasianism, more hostile to the entire West than communism ever was. Fabianism, which was never one for fighting with anyone and always resolved everything through seduction and accommodation (including with Stalin and Mao), finally found an opponent who refuses to negotiate. The Cold War was largely pure theater: the Western elite competed with communism without doing anything to destroy it. On the contrary, they substantially helped it. Putin is not a competitor; he is a real enemy, full of rancor and dreams of revenge. The real Cold War is only now beginning, and indeed it has already turned hot. The competition between “capitalism” and “socialism” was an ideological veil for mass consumption, but the fight between East and West is for real. Not by coincidence, the Middle East is the fulcrum, halfway between the two blocs. There, the Muslim nations will have to decide whether they will continue serving as a docile instrument in Russian hands, whether they will accept accommodation with the Fabian elite, or whether they truly want to make the world into a vast Caliphate. The Western elite, speaking through the mouth of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, seems determined to push them in this last direction, for reasons so malignant and stupid that they escape my desire to understand them. This, dear readers, is what is happening, and none of it will you read in Folha or Globo.
Who Rules the World?
Diário do Comércio, November 7, 2012
In my youthful readings, more than four decades ago, few questions impressed me as much as the one that gives the title to the second part of La Rebelión de las Masas by José Ortega y Gasset: " Quién manda en el mundo?"
The philosopher did not pose it in a metaphysical sense, where it could be answered with something like “God,” “chance,” or “fate,” but in a geopolitical sense, concluding that it was a shame that Europe had lost its leadership position, ceding the spot to Russia and the United States.
The answer seemed misaligned with the question. States, nations, governments, and continents do not rule. Those who rule are the individuals and groups who control them. Before geo-politics comes politics tout court. And here things get enormously complicated. It is easy to perceive which States or countries predominate over the others. But discovering who really rules in a State or country — and through it, rules over others — is a more intimidating intellectual challenge than the usual political analyst can imagine.
The verb “rule” comes from the Latin manus dare: the one who rules lends his means of action (his “hand”) so that others can accomplish something he envisioned. A ruler gives orders to his subordinates, but, upon closer examination, you will see that only the rarest rulers in history — a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan — were themselves the creators of the ideas they realized. The first theorists of the modern state hit the mark when they invented the expression “executive power”: in general, the man in government is the executor of ideas he did not conceive and would not have the capacity — or the time — to conceive. And those who conceived those ideas are the same ones who gave him the means to reach government and carry them out. Who are they?
Applying the question to the specific case of the United States, sociologist Charles Wright Mills, one of the mentors of the New Left, published in 1956 the book that would become a classic: The Power Elite.1 The answer he found took the form of a highly intricate web of groups, families, companies, official and unofficial intelligence services, sects, clubs, churches, and ostentatious and discreet personal relationship circles, including lovers and call girls. The political class, culminating in the person of the nominal ruler, appeared there as the foam on the surface of murky waters. Mills was, obviously, on the right track. But he died in 1962 and did not have the chance to witness a phenomenon that he himself helped to produce: the New Left became the power elite itself and lost all interest in “transparency.” On the contrary, it refined opacity to the point of placing a complete unknown in the presidency of the most powerful country in the world and surrounding him with a protective wall that blocks every attempt to discover who he is, what he has done, who he associates with, and whose interests he represents. If you want to get an idea of what the power elite in the US is up to, you have to look for information at the other end of the ideological spectrum: conservatives are now the heirs of the tradition of studies inaugurated by Wright Mills.
Thanks to them, the Fabian globalist elite, the living core of power behind practically all Western governments, has become visible in its composition and details of its modus operandi to the point of near obscenity, making the insistence of some on calling it “secret power” unintentionally comical. Click on Google the terms “Council on Foreign Relations,” “Bilderberg,” “Trilateral” and similar, and you will get more information than your neurons can process for the next ten years — information whose level of credibility ranges from scientific proof to sheer fabrication.
In contrast, little or almost nothing is known about the deep sources of power in Russia, China, and Islamic countries. Even the descriptions we have of the visible ruling class in these regions of the globe are schematic and superficial, incomparable to the meticulous Who’s Who of the Western elite. This is easily explained by the difference in access to sources of information. One thing is to research in Western archives and libraries, under the protection of democratic laws and institutions, and even, in the US, to break through the barrier of official unwillingness through the Freedom of Information Act. A totally different thing is to try to guess what happens behind the impenetrable walls of the Russian-Chinese establishment.
Neither the KGB nor China’s intelligence services have ever given access to independent researchers. Even the archives of the Communist Party of the USSR were closed again after a brief period of tolerance, motivated not by some sudden love for freedom but by the illusory conviction, soon disproven, that most Western researchers were sympathetic to the Soviet regime.
In the Islamic world, beneath the ruling class and the jumble of terrorist groups, there extends an ungraspable network of esoteric organizations, some millennia old, whose influence varies greatly from country to country and from time to time. These organizations, which constitute the spiritual core of Islam, the profound guarantee of its civilizational unity and, in the long run, the condition for the possibility of Islamic world expansion, remain perfectly unknown to Western political analysts, whether journalistic or even academic.
The difference in visibility between the major globalist schemes in dispute is the source of catastrophic errors in describing the global power conflict.
-
Editor’s note: The Power Elite, Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1975.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment