Wednesday, September 18, 2024

USA, by Olavo de Carvalho

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”. It is divided into two parts: the first on Bush, and the second on Obama.

The first part of the collection, focused on George W. Bush, consists of three articles that explore the media’s role in shaping public opinion and the moral implications of the Iraq War. In “The Disadvantage of Seeing”, Olavo argues that the Brazilian media’s anti-American narrative remains intact, despite the transformative impact of the 9/11 attacks on American public opinion. He criticizes the media for selectively omitting facts about the opposition to globalism within the U.S. conservative movement, which he believes could challenge the outdated anti-Americanism prevalent in Brazil. In “In the Name of the Corpses”, Olavo reflects on the moral necessity of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, particularly after the discovery of mass graves containing 300,000 victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime. He contends that even without weapons of mass destruction, Bush’s actions were morally justified to stop the genocidal dictatorship. The third article, “Evaluating George W. Bush”, praises Bush for keeping the U.S. safe from terrorist attacks and for his handling of the Iraq War. However, Olavo criticizes Bush for failing to confront his internal political enemies and allowing the Republican Party to lose ground domestically, preventing a long-term conservative shift in U.S. politics.

The second part, devoted to Barack Obama, spans eleven articles in which Olavo harshly critiques Obama’s administration, accusing him of orchestrating political crises and enabling the growth of globalist and socialist agendas. In “The Parents of the American Crisis”, Olavo traces the 2008 financial crisis to leftist activists like Saul Alinsky and the Cloward-Piven strategy, which aimed to overload the welfare system and cause economic collapse. “The Advent of the Secret Dictatorship” accuses Obama of signing secret decrees, gradually transforming the U.S. into a dictatorship. In “Fleeing Humiliation”, Olavo discusses how Obama’s background and forged documents were hidden by the media, while “The Birthers’ Mistake” (part of “Depressing Notes”) argues that birthers should have focused on document fraud instead of Obama’s eligibility. In “Obama’s Zero Hunger”, Olavo compares Obama’s economic policies to Lula’s, suggesting that Obama intentionally created poverty to expand government control. The next article, “The Empire of Pure Coincidences”, alleges that Obama’s scandals and election irregularities are part of a broader conspiracy. “Saving the Global Triumvirate” critiques Obama’s efforts to weaken American power in favor of a globalist agenda. In “Old Trick”, Olavo describes how leftists use the media to manipulate public opinion. “Thinking Like Revolutionaries” and “Disarming the Little Ones” examine how Obama’s policies, especially on gun control, are part of a revolutionary strategy to disarm and control the population. Finally, in “Armed and Disarmed”, Olavo concludes by condemning Obama’s attempts to disarm his political opponents while arming government agencies, comparing it to Hitler’s tactics in the 1930s.

1. BUSH

The Disadvantage of Seeing

Estado de S. Paulo, October 13, 2001

The media doesn’t influence public opinion solely by this or that particular news or opinion. It’s the repeated selection, the prolonged reiteration of mentions and omissions that gradually shapes the mental mold which, once solidified, only a collective trauma can break. An earthquake, a war, or an epidemic has the virtue of shaking long-settled habits. But even these cataclysms must be reported, and their awakening effect can then be controlled and reduced to harmless proportions. The effectiveness of this control depends less on some emergency action than on the accumulated solidity of conventional supporting walls.

In Brazil, these walls are perhaps the most durable case ever seen outside the Iron Curtain.

The September 11 attacks could, in one fell swoop, change the worldview of Brazilians as they did for Americans. After these events, not many people in the United States doubt everything they’ve heard against their country since the 1960s. Faced with the fall of the WTC, it’s difficult for an American adult not to wonder if their youthful idols — Jane Fonda, Susan Sontag, or Noam Chomsky — were not just traitors who helped condemn Vietnam to tyranny and misery, while the countries defeated by the USA grew in wealth and freedom.

But the impact of this discovery hasn’t reached us. It was cushioned along the way. In this country, the anti-American mythology of the 1960s bravely resists, revitalized not only by the repetitive ranting of clichés from that era, sold as comprehensive explanations of today’s events, but by the complete exclusion of information that could change the backdrop, the basic frame of reference from which daily news is interpreted.

Never, never has a newspaper or magazine in this country published even the smallest piece of news about the fierce, general, and stubborn opposition that American conservatives wage against the IMF, the UN, and globalist policies. For more than a decade, our people have been deceived daily when journalists make them believe that globalism, Americanism, and conservatism are hand-in-hand oppressing the poor Third World.

Half of the US electorate sees the New World Order as a socialist, anti-Christian, and anti-American project. It was this group that, for better or worse, chose George W. Bush. The globalist crowd — international organizations and NGOs devouring territories and sovereign powers of nation-states — voted heavily for Al Gore, a man whose family’s prosperity was owed to the patronage of Armand Hammer, a businessman revealed by Moscow Archives to have been a financial agent of the Comintern.

Like these, thousands of other basic facts, public knowledge in the US and Europe, haven’t reached us. But just these might be enough to instantly change the entire perspective through which Brazilians view the world. Perhaps these reports would burst the dam of clichés keeping them away from reality.

That’s why these reports don’t come out. That’s why those who know them face enormous difficulty when trying to shed light on new events. To persuade the public, they would need to remove an entire body of premises and assumptions settled over decades of press, academia, and well-meaning intellectual circles. They’d need to overcome a whole set of collective habits and reflexes, a whole culture of deception built by two generations of hardworking liars and lazy imitators. No isolated argument, no matter how powerful, can perform that magic.

They say that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Maybe so. But one thing is certain: those with both eyes are considered crazy.

In the Name of the Dead

Folha de S.Paulo, February 27, 2004

When I heard that George W. Bush had decided to invade Iraq, I asked myself: why Iraq? Why not Pakistan, which has the atomic bomb and distributes nuclear technology in the international terrorism market? Why not Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia itself, which pours money into Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and tutti quanti?

Readers, through email, demanded I “take a stand” on the war, but I had none. I don’t usually have opinions on matters I can’t influence, and, unlike most columnists in this country, I don’t write as if hoping to stir panic in the White House, deprive the Pope of sleep, or raise Vladimir Putin’s blood pressure. All I expect is to speak to a few readers in this obscure corner of the universe, helping them, to the extent of my abilities, find their way in the global confusion. That’s why I said nothing about the war but warned my readers about the farce of the Bettos who already accused the American president of the imminent death of “millions of Iraqi children” (sic) and denounced the stupidity of countless “experts” who predicted the American troops' destruction by Saddam Hussein’s all-powerful Republican Guard.

In the last days of the war, however, when clandestine cemeteries were opened in Iraqi prisons and the body count began, I couldn’t help but see — and write — that George W. Bush’s decision had been morally correct and even obligatory: any country that kills 300,000 political prisoners must be invaded and subdued immediately, even if it poses no threat to neighboring nations or the supposed “international order.” National sovereignties should be respected, but not beyond the point where they arrogate the right to genocide. I wrote it then and I repeat: each UN delay cost, on average, thirty Iraqi lives per day, more than 20,000 over two years of pacifist blah-blah-blah, i.e., just during that period, five times more than the total number of war victims. For halting this flow of innocent blood, with few casualties on both sides and with the lowest rate of civilian victims observed in all 20th-century wars, the American president, whatever his mistakes, deserves the gratitude and respect of all conscious humanity.

The intrinsic moral correctness of American action is so clear and undeniable that in all the discussions that followed in the international and Brazilian media, this aspect of the issue had to be systematically concealed to focus public attention on whether or not Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction and, therefore, whether George W. Bush had been right in citing this particular reason — among countless others.

Well, a government that kills 300,000 of its people doesn’t need high-tech means of mass destruction because, with rudimentary means, it has already started mass destruction on its own territory and must be stopped, immediately, by whoever has the means to do so. The US had those means, and they did the right thing. The UN had them and did nothing. Which of the two is the criminal?

It’s no wonder that those who tried to stop American action — and take revenge after its success — are the same “pacifists” of the 1960s, who, by pressuring American troops to leave Vietnam, handed South Vietnam and Cambodia over to the communists, who promptly made three million victims, three times more than the total dead from decades of war. No literate American ignored that the anti-American campaign would lead to this, that peace would be more murderous than war. But the Janes Fondas and Kerrys wanted precisely that. Four decades later, only a few of those “peace lovers” have realized the heinous crime they participated in, and those who confess their sin are targets of intense hate campaigns. The others not only swept their old crime under the carpet of history, but, with slightly altered pretexts, hurry today to joyfully repeat it, pretending that 300,000 dead are nothing, that stopping the Iraqi genocide by force was — to speak like the ridiculous and perverse José Saramago — “an atrocity.”

That arguments like this can only prevail through total falsification of the news1 is no surprise. Everywhere the media, for example, broadcast inspector David Kay’s confession that he hadn’t found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — because those words created the false impression that George W. Bush had attacked an innocent country — and hid from the public the rest of the sentence: “Later, we discovered that Iraq was much more dangerous than we imagined.”

Evaluating George W. Bush

Diário do Comércio (editorial), June 18, 2008

Whatever one thinks of George W. Bush, there are six things about him that no one has the right to deny:

  1. He kept his country completely safe from terrorist attacks for eight years.

  2. He overthrew a genocidal regime responsible for the murder of 300,000 Iraqis.

  3. Contrary to what the hysterical mendacity of the mainstream media claims, he did so through a war that, historically, produced the fewest civilian casualties.

  4. He practically dismantled terrorist resistance in Iraq, killing 20,000 Al-Qaeda militants and forcing most of the remnants to seek refuge in Iran.

  5. He promoted the fastest and most spectacular post-war reconstruction ever seen, making the Iraqi economy more prosperous than it was before the war.

  6. He implanted democracy in Iraq — and it works.

From these six facts, I draw two conclusions:

a) He was the best security chief the US ever had.

b) He was the best president Iraq ever had.

Judging him as the president of the US is a completely different matter. When he was elected in 2000, the Republicans had every chance of winning the next presidential elections for four decades, dismantling the Democratic Party’s conspiracy with the radical left, and healing the country following Ronald Reagan’s tried-and-true formulas. After two terms, not only did he fail to do any of that, but he allowed his party to lose so much momentum that it made it nearly impossible for the Republicans to stay in power.

Attributing this disgrace to the failure of the Iraq war explains nothing; it’s pure deceptive leftist propaganda.

George W. Bush never failed in Iraq. His failure was on the domestic front. This failure began shortly after September 11, when, instead of taking the opportunity to denounce Democratic collaborationism, demoralizing leftism once and for all and cleaning up the political atmosphere in America, he chose to pretend his enemies were his friends, creating a fiction of national unity against the external aggressor. The Democrats, displaying the label of patriots that Bush himself had stuck on them, and armed with the prestige thus acquired, were able to stab the country, its Armed Forces, and its president in the back without the population doubting their good intentions for a second.

By avoiding the confrontation they were relentlessly seeking, Bush strengthened his enemies, who were also the enemies of the US. Everything he bravely managed in conducting the war, he politically lacked in domestic struggle. The result: his success is condemned as a failure, and his real failure can’t be confessed publicly without unleashing, tenfold, the same internal division that he still wants to avoid but that his adversaries assume more and more loudly, drawing from it, against the US, the same advantages that Bush should have drawn in favor of the country.

George W. Bush chose the wrong profession. He’s a great military commander, but not a politician by any means.

2. OBAMA

The Parents of the American Crisis

Diário do Comércio, March 5, 2009

If the list of criminal achievements of revolutionary movements in democracies can’t, by definition, compete with their performance in the areas they dominate, it still remains the main cause of disturbances and suffering, whether in the third world or developed nations. There is no crisis, no famine, no violence, no failure for which the revolutionary proposal, in its raw form or one of its many camouflaged versions, hasn’t made an essential contribution. Perhaps the most evident example is in our own country, where criminal gangs would never have come to spill the blood of 40,000 Brazilians per year if not for the indirect and direct help they received from revolutionaries. First, through training in organization and guerrilla techniques, learned from the terrorists imprisoned on Ilha Grande in the 1970s, second, through the succession of laws that these same terrorists, later amnestied and transformed into politicians, created to protect criminals and hinder police action, and third, through the technical assistance and military training that the FARC now provide to national gangs.

But another, no less significant example, is the American economic crisis. Speculation about the causes of this phenomenon abounds in the international media, but it is a monstrous methodological error to seek explanations in supposed general trends of the economy and society when it’s possible to lay bare the precise and determined sequence of individual and group actions that produced the effect. Much of today’s so-called “social science” consists of camouflaging concrete causes under abstract universals. It’s no wonder that, in almost every case, the “explainers” are either the perpetrators posing as external observers, or their idiotized victims, striving to anesthetize themselves with self-injections of pseudoscience so they don’t have to see the true identity of their oppressors.

Allowing ourselves to be deceived by this camouflage is even more unacceptable when the perpetrators of harmful processes don’t even have to be investigated a posteriori because they themselves left written evidence of their plans and methods. In this case, the collapse of American social security and the banking system that supports it was not the result of an involuntary confluence of anonymous factors, nor was it even the result of a series of blunders, but rather the simple implementation of a plan devised in the 1960s by leftist strategists inspired by Saul Alinsky, who later became the mentor of a young law student, Barack Hussein Obama.

The document that testifies to this above any doubt is not secret at all. It was published in 1966 in the prestigious magazine The Nation and to this day remains one of the top ten most-read articles in the publication since its founding in 1886.2

The authors, Cloward and Piven, sought to implement the rule taught by Saul Alinsky, which he later spelled out in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” The rule anticipates one of the most notorious tactics of “asymmetric warfare.” David Horowitz interprets it this way:

When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every moral principle of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human action is inevitably deficient. The system’s failure to ‘live up’ to its book of rules can then be used to discredit it completely, and to replace the capitalist system with a socialist one.3

The strategy proposed by Cloward and Piven consisted, according to Horowitz, of “forcing political change through orchestrated crisis… they sought to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading government bureaucracies with impossible demands, pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.” But don’t think this is Horowitz’s interpretation. Cloward and Piven’s original text is cynically clear:

Our purpose is to put into effect a strategy that provides a basis for organizational convergence. If this strategy is implemented, the result will be a political crisis that could lead to legislation guaranteeing an annual income, and thus eliminate poverty.

Cloward and Piven went on to explain that there was "a vast difference between the nominal rights secured by social security and the number of people actually benefiting from those rights. If it were possible to locate and organize these unserved beneficiaries and use them to pressure social security institutions, they wouldn’t have enough money to meet the demand and would inevitably collapse.” The proposal for socialist legislation would then emerge, seemingly spontaneously, as the natural solution to the problem. In the following decades, the strategy was implemented to the letter, enrolling millions of potential beneficiaries to demand their rights en masse and create the crisis. At the forefront of this movement was the group of activists trained by Alinsky, among whom was Barack Hussein Obama. The flood of mortgage loans provided by banks, under pressure from activists, to applicants without the slightest means to repay them was the direct cause of the banking crisis that erupted in September 2008.

Two essential points of the Cloward-Piven plan immediately stand out to the external observer. On the one hand, the difference between two concepts of social security. In the capitalist system, social security is, by nature, a last resort, to which citizens should only turn in cases of extreme necessity. The general prosperity of the system, it was hoped, would sustain families on its own, reducing to a minimum the lines at the social security counters. Cloward and Piven acknowledged this obviousness in theory but adopted a strategy of ignoring it in practice, forcing the nominal right expressed in law to become a guarantee of immediate service to all real and potential claimants, needy or not. Instantly, in line, were not only the genuine destitute (an insignificant number) but also lower-middle-class people merely dissatisfied with their modest circumstances:

For every person on the welfare rolls, there is at least one more who meets the eligibility criteria but is not receiving assistance. This discrepancy is not an accident of bureaucratic inefficiency. It is an inherent feature of the welfare system, which, if challenged, will precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for this challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive effort to recruit the poor and put them on the welfare rolls.

In this aspect, the mere activation of the Alinsky-Cloward-Piven campaign already radically transformed the nature of the system, turning the liberal-capitalist state into a pre-socialist welfare state — and the collapse of the latter would then be denounced as a crisis of the former.

On the other hand, the ultimate proclaimed goal — guaranteeing a state-provided annual income to all the poor — immediately revealed itself as a sham, by the very premise of the plan: if welfare didn’t have enough money to meet the existing rights on paper, how could it have the funds to bear an immensely greater expense? “Ending poverty” wasn’t the plan’s goal: it was merely the moral pretext for generating the crisis. That crisis was the only real goal, and there’s no doubt it was achieved. In this case, as in many others, revolutionary rhetoric appeals to an unattainable utopian goal to enable efforts toward a perfectly achievable practical objective, deliberately disastrous. If we look at the current state of the American economy, with the banking system in agony and unemployment rising day by day, and note that all this was done under the pretext of “ending poverty,” it’s impossible not to realize that the idea’s authors never believed in that excuse, just as those advocating for softer criminal laws didn’t believe it would reduce crime, and those pushing for sex education in schools didn’t believe it would reduce teenage pregnancies. All these measures, and many others like them, aim solely to destroy the capitalist system through deliberately harmful socialist welfare policies. There’s no reason to believe that the resulting damage was merely the effect of incompetence or poor administration. They were calculated outcomes, achieved through remarkably effective social engineering. It’s always and invariably about making the “system” pay for the sins of its aggressors.

The Advent of the Secret Dictatorship

Diário do Comércio, March 28, 2012

Schooled by the precedent of the São Paulo Forum, whose existence was concealed for sixteen years by the so-called respectable media, some Brazilian readers may not be so shocked to see that the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and other major journalistic organizations in the US, even after being scolded by Pravda, continue to withhold any news about Barack Hussein Obama’s forged documents.

In both cases, the refusal to fulfill journalism’s most basic duty can initially be explained by the automatic reaction of skepticism toward behaviors so perverse, malicious, and abject that they seem improbable. Who could believe, just like that, that the left, discredited and seemingly moribund after the fall of the USSR, was preparing a triumphant return in Latin America through a secret agreement between legal and criminal organizations, designed to control an entire continent behind the electorate’s back? Who could easily swallow the notion that a small-time thug with a false identity, backed by big-time criminals, deceived practically the entire human race and, overnight, emerged from nowhere to become the president of the world’s most powerful nation? It’s indeed hard. But when even the relentless accumulation of undeniable evidence fails to shake the stubborn silence of the professionals paid to speak, then it’s impossible to avoid the suspicion that the grand deception was concocted not only by politicians but also by newspaper, magazine, and TV channel owners, aided by the intellectual proletariat of editorial offices.

However, as any person over 15 years old ought to know, nothing is ever so bad that it can’t get worse. After hiding the biggest political fraud of all time, the American media moved on to hiding even official decrees from the Obama administration, which are imposed on the entire population without people having the basic right to know they exist. Older readers may recall that our military dictatorship once invented, one fine day, something called a “secret decree,” which would go into effect without needing to be published. They invented it, but, as far as I know, never had the nerve to actually use it. Well, thanks to the communications companies in New York and Washington, that thing — that unparalleled legal deformity — is now in full use in the world’s oldest and — until recently — most stable democracy.

When the fanatical love of the journalistic class for a politician places itself so blatantly above the Constitution, the laws, national security, and all basic moral rules, this can’t be explained by the mere spontaneous preference of the press professionals, as Obama-supporting as they undoubtedly are. Some journalists have even complained to Sheriff Arpaio’s chief investigator, Michael Zullo, that they received direct threats from the government if they published anything about the investigations. Articles on the matter mysteriously disappeared even from conservative sites like www.townhall.com, and an interview with Jerome Corsi, the tireless investigator of the forged documents, was canceled at Fox News by explicit order from the directors. Clearly, the gag order comes from very high up, involving both government officials and media moguls.

But when you learn the content of the hidden decrees, you realize the matter is infinitely more serious than just an organized boycott of the right to information. On December 31, while people were distracted celebrating the new year, Obama signed the Defense Authorization Act, which simply gave him the right to order the killing or indefinite detention, without trial or habeas corpus, of any American citizen. On Friday, March 16, at dusk, he issued an executive order (the equivalent of our “provisional measure,” but not provisional) giving him the powers necessary to nationalize, at any time and without compensation, all energy resources in the country, including oil companies, as well as the food industry, and even to impose mandatory military conscription at will, without Congressional authorization. In short: the man granted himself dictatorial powers, and on both occasions, he did it at moments calculated to divert attention and frustrate dissemination. The precaution turned out to be unnecessary: newspapers and TV channels, carrying their servile devotion to totalitarianism to its limit, published practically nothing about it, so that, except for those who have turned their backs on mainstream media and prefer to get their news online, Americans, having fallen asleep in a democracy, woke up in a dictatorship without having any idea what had happened.4

Not that this is the first dictatorship to hide its own existence. Secrecy, as René Guénon taught, is the very essence of power. The differences here are twofold:

  1. For the first time in world history, a secret dictatorship is being imposed by an illustrious nobody whose identity itself remains secret, blocked from all investigation.

  2. The episode glaringly demonstrates the global phenomenon I’ve often mentioned: the 180-degree turn in the function of mainstream media, which over the last few decades has shifted from being a vehicle of information to a massive organ of censorship and governmental control of public opinion.

Fleeing Humiliation

Diário do Comércio, February 4, 2013

In the Euthyphro, Plato warned against those who stand for the good only by tradition and habit, without refreshing their beliefs through the active pursuit of truth, thus becoming unwitting collaborators in evil. Two and a half millennia later, it seems no one has learned the lesson, at least in the USA. What can most easily destroy a country is the blind trust citizens place in the automatic functioning of the system, without doing anything to ensure that it survives new and unforeseen challenges.

Talking to a friend — who stopped being my friend because of this — I told her that Barack Hussein Obama’s life remained a mystery since no one in the higher circles wanted to investigate it, and many were even interested in keeping it secret. The woman reacted as if I were fresh out of an insane asylum. “Impossible!” she yelled over the phone. “Imagine if they’d accept a presidential candidate without investigating him! Do you think this is Zimbabwe? This is America, the democracy, the land of transparency!”

Well, that’s exactly the problem. A window is transparent because you can see through it, not because you imagine that others can see through it.

If every citizen transfers to those above them the duty to try to see, soon the country becomes a nation of blind people governed by a handful of cunning seers.

The old esoteric saying that “secrecy protects itself” isn’t quite accurate: what secrecy does is feed the mass of cretins with a compulsive urge to prematurely exorcize the ghost of a looming disillusionment, one that seems as inevitable as it is unbearable.

An old IBM study shows that it is possible to drive anyone to near paranoia by simply controlling the flow of information they receive: just keep them constantly on alert against the imminent danger of humiliation.

Studies like this have long since left the realm of pure scientific investigation and have become part of the arsenal of behavioral manipulation techniques. The cruel mockery that the government and the mainstream media direct at the birthers5 isn’t aimed at them per se but at ricocheting back onto the mass of Obama believers, subjecting them to the intolerable anguish of having to choose between risking similar ridicule or facing an even worse humiliation later on by discovering they’ve fallen for the biggest political hoax of all time.

This is how the victims of the hoax themselves become the Praetorian Guard of the swindler, furiously rejecting even the suspicion that he might have deceived them. Desperate appeals to irrational faith, like that of my ex-friend, already denote that exaggerated self-defense reaction that marks the first stage of neuroses, the hysterical falsification of the perceived picture.

Polish psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski teaches that when a group of cynical, brazen psychopaths takes power in society, hysteria spreads through the population in epidemic proportions.

The fact is, in decades of journalism, I’ve never seen anything more abundantly proven than the falsity of Barack Hussein Obama’s documents. Anyone who denies it either hasn’t examined the evidence, doesn’t want to examine it, or, having examined it, doesn’t want anyone else to. They’re terrified of it.

I say this with the experience of someone who saw the entire national media pretend, for sixteen years, that the São Paulo Forum didn’t exist. Where are today those clerics in cap and gown who, from their high perches, cackled accusations at me for flogging a dead horse or being a “conspiracy theorist”? In what hole did they hide after Lula himself started publicly boasting about the power and glory of that communist institution?

They are all playing dead, waiting for time to erase the most humiliating embarrassment in the history of Brazilian journalism.

If none of them lost their jobs, it’s for the same reason that the mensaleiros remain out of jail: Brazil has become a giant complacent hymen, surviving repeated rapes and walking out smiling as if nothing happened.

Under these conditions, I came to the USA in 2005 prepared and vaccinated not to be surprised when the American media copied the national example at the first opportunity, in a joint effort to cover the sun with a battered sieve.

The American voter hasn’t yet adapted to the Brazilianization of their country. They still go into crisis every time they have to choose between believing the media or what they see with their own eyes.

Many still cling to the mad hope that it’s all a misunderstanding.

Obama traveled to Pakistan at a time when Americans were banned from entering that country, using a foreign passport, proving that he holds dual nationality? There must be an explanation.

Obama uses 27 different Social Security numbers, registered in the names of deceased people, distant relatives of his wife, and even the mother of a senior Social Security official? There must be an explanation.

Obama signed a 1980 draft registration card issued in 2008? There must be an explanation. The stamp was visibly cut and inverted to turn 08 into 80? There must be an explanation.

Obama’s birth certificate published by the White House shows letters with different spacing, something only possible with electric typewriters that didn’t exist when the document was issued? There must be an explanation.

These facts don’t appear in the mainstream media, but everyone knows them, and no one contests them. All they do is hate them and attack anyone who insists on mentioning them.

The Birthers’ Mistake

[in: Notinhas deprimentes]
Diário do Comércio, July 12, 2012

It’s been a long time since the “mainstream media,” practically all over the world, turned into pure show business, indifferent and even hostile to the duty of informing the public. Few facts, in the entire universe, are as well-proven as those that the entire journalistic class insists on ignoring or only recognizing too late, when nothing more can be done about them.

Barack Hussein Obama was elected president with forged documents. His birth certificate is fake, his Social Security card is fake, his draft registration is fake. Speculating on where he was born is conjecture, and whether he’s eligible is a matter of legal controversy, but the forged documents are brute facts, visible to the naked eye. The pro-Obama media, which includes almost all American media, diverted the discussion from the facts to speculations, and the birthers fell for the trap, insisting on trying to veto a candidate by electoral law whom they could more easily have sent to jail for document fraud. Napoleon taught that it’s necessary to attack the enemy directly in one place — the most vulnerable point. The birthers, deceived by the massively Obama-supporting press, diluted their force of attack, engaging the enemy in areas where he enjoys an unlimited stock of procedural loopholes.

Obama’s Zero Hunger

Diário do Comércio, September 18, 2012

If my dear readers understood my article "The Engineering of Disorder,"6 it may have occurred to them, at least in passing, that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama might not have been engaging in pure political theater when, upon meeting Mr. Lula in Washington D.C., he exclaimed: “This is the guy!”

The American president promised to imitate the Zero Hunger program, and not only did he do so, but he has been getting results from this endeavor that are perfectly symmetrical to those achieved by his Brazilian colleague.

In recent years, the American economy has dropped from first to seventh in the World Economic Forum’s competitiveness ranking. Unemployment, which in 2008 was a bit over 4%, is now above 8%, and job creation is increasingly sluggish. Comparing numbers, Washington Times columnist Donald Lambro concludes that the current U.S. administration’s performance in the labor sector is the worst since World War II.

On the other hand, Obama has been the absolute record-holder in distributing government money, not just to the poor but also to the rich — including a wide range of bankrupt companies, due to mismanagement and fraud, generally owned by his campaign donors. To do this, he has burdened the state with more debt than all his predecessors combined, from George Washington onwards.

It’s a colossal failure, say economic analysts. But, utilitarians forgive me, economic rationality isn’t the ultimate motivation behind human actions. What may seem absurd from an economic standpoint can be politically logical and sensible, at least in the Machiavellian sense of the term.

An excellent article by commentator Ira Stoll, published in the New York Sun,7 shows that the best chances for Obama’s success in the November election rest precisely on the disastrous nature of his labor policies: in Obama’s first term, the number of people living on government assistance began to surpass, for the first time in American history, the number of people working and paying taxes.

Today, 46.7 million Americans receive food stamps, 8.7 million are scholarship students, and 7.6 million are unionized government employees. Total: 63 million compulsory Obama voters. Four million more than the number of votes John McCain received in 2008.

Is it paranoid speculation, is it a “conspiracy theory” to suspect that there was some premeditation behind such a failure, so beneficial to its author? No, when we consider the following fact: the only job Obama ever held in his life, the only line of work in which he gained any experience, was as a “community organizer,” engaged in applying the Cloward-Piven strategy. And this strategy consists, from top to bottom, of the art of fostering economic disaster to reap political rewards.

I explained this in a 2009 article published in this very Diário do Comércio.8 What’s so implausible about assuming that, as president, the man did the only thing he demonstrably knows how to do?

Herein lies also the difference between him and his Brazilian model. Lula, in order to establish the political monopoly of the left and corrupt the entire society, had to keep the economy running reasonably well and do everything possible to woo the business class, desensitizing them to everything happening outside their most immediate interests.

Obama, unlike our former president, did not find a mass of ready-to-enroll impoverished people to form his clientele. He had to create it — and there was no other way to do that except by demolishing the economy, increasing unemployment and public debt so that these two monsters could feed off each other until the national organism was fully exhausted.

Another difference is the position of the USA in the international scene, which had to be corroded by budget cuts to the military and the initially discreet, then explicit, favoring of enemy forces rising up against allied or neutral governments.

The assassination of the American ambassador in Libya,9 synchronized with anti-American protests in Tunisia, Yemen, Iran, and Egypt (where, to top it off, the Marines guarding the embassy are still forbidden from carrying live ammunition), is the condensed symbol of the logic guiding the entire Obama administration’s policy. This logic boils down to the local application of the globalist command: weaken states on the international stage and strengthen them internally.

In other words: disarm them against their enemies and arm them against their own populations, turning them into both docile and ruthless guard dogs of the new global order. From under the shells of the old national Leviathans, a majestically sinister planetary Leviathan begins to rise.10

The Empire of Pure Coincidences

Diário do Comércio, November 22, 2012

After all, who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?

— Groucho Marx

Two weeks ago, Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an English mathematician who advised Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet as a specialist in applying probability theory to document authenticity evaluation, signed an affidavit regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate as published by the White House.

According to his calculations, the likelihood that the small and large irregularities found in the certificate are purely accidental is 1 in 75 trillion.

That’s the reliability of the document. Monckton placed the results of his analysis at the disposal of American courts under penalty of perjury. Charles Neal Delzell, a mathematics professor at Louisiana State University, in turn, made a sworn statement affirming that Monckton’s calculations are correct.

But if the American presidency, the Democratic Party, and the entire mainstream media can demand that voters bet on such a tiny probability, ridiculing and stigmatizing as insane anyone who sees it as an excessive risk, why can’t they also impose a pious devotion to other coincidences with even lower margins of error, say in the billions or millions? Why couldn’t they demand that, to avoid being accused of “conspiracy theorists,” everyone should become devout believers in the “theory of pure coincidences”?

By pure coincidence, General David Petraeus, who was scheduled to testify in Congress about the lack of assistance to the American consulate in Libya, was suddenly caught in a scandalous affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell and forced to resign as CIA Director, automatically excusing him from testifying, much to the relief of the Obama high command.

Lawmakers, however, weren’t fooled and decided to summon the general to testify anyway. What he said was, essentially, that from the very first moment, he informed the White House that the attack in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist act, and that someone in the government had convinced Ambassador Susan Rice to change the story, attributing it all to a spontaneous popular protest against a ridiculous anti-Islamic amateur video released on YouTube.11

The general’s testimony was all the more important because it is now known that the assassinated Ambassador Chris Stevens had been distributing weapons to Syrian insurgents, among whom were many Al-Qaeda and Hamas members who later participated in the attack on the consulate. These weapons were also used to kill 28 Christian civilians. The case therefore takes on the dimensions of high treason — which American law defines as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” — followed by a cover-up operation.

The FBI officially stated that it had discovered the Paula Broadwell affair months earlier, by chance, just by chance, while investigating something else. However, by spreading this excuse, the agency let the cat out of the bag, confessing that it had decided to withhold the revelation until after the elections. This suggested a doubly Machiavellian premeditation: if the delay spared Obama from a scandal on the eve of the election, the sudden haste to reveal the affair before the general’s testimony was a desperate attempt to spare him from an even bigger scandal. Both the delay and the haste showed perfect timing to avoid damaging the president’s image. But, of course, whoever thinks this way is a conspiracy theorist. Sane, well-balanced people believe everything was a coincidence, mere coincidence.

It was also mere coincidence that the Republican campaign’s computer, with the list of reluctant and unmotivated supporters to be visited in the final hours by volunteers to convince them to vote, crashed on Election Day, leaving many potential Romney votes far from the polls. Again, perfect timing? Honni soit qui mal y pense. Everything is coincidence, mere coincidence.

Even more coincidental was that Obama lost in all the districts that required voter photo ID but won in those that accepted IDs without photos or no ID at all. Coincidence, too, that so far all the voting machines reported as defective swapped Romney votes for Obama votes, never the other way around.

And who, except a paranoid reactionary, would find anything suspicious in the fact that in all the voting districts where Republican poll watchers were excluded, Obama received between 99% and 100% of the votes, even reaching the remarkable feat of getting 108% in one district? Coincidence, coincidence, pure coincidence.

Authorities and the mainstream media, by definition, possess what is called “public faith”: they express what society and decent people are duty-bound to believe. When, however, these holders of public faith repeatedly defy the laws of probability, when the simple use of logic becomes an abomination and almost a crime, it’s evident that the dominant political scheme has reached that point in which it already enjoys the “omnipresent and invisible authority of a divine commandment, of a categorical imperative,” which Antonio Gramsci described as the ideal situation for the revolutionary transformation of society.

Saving the Global Triumvirate

Diário do Comércio, November 25, 2012

The most obvious mistake I referred to in the previous article12 is measuring giants solely by their visibility. On this scale, the Anglo-American establishment — to use Carroll Quigley’s term — appears so much more voluminous that the other two seem like harmless pygmies bravely engaged in an uneven battle.

Professor Aleksandr Dugin13 takes advantage of this optical illusion to give Third World audiences the impression that the Russian-Chinese and Islamic blocs are their comrades in misfortune, groaning together under the heel of “unipolar power.”

He knows that this view is false, that the three great globalist schemes are equally powerful, rich, fearsome, ambitious, and amoral, as well as being complicit with each other. When the mental slum dwellers at USP applaud him, he chuckles inwardly. Imagine with what sadistic satisfaction he must see the enraged youth supporting, out of sheer hatred for the USA, a regime that bans gay propaganda and presents itself to the conservative public as the new, purest incarnation of traditional Christian values, skillfully exploiting two opposite credulities.

But it’s not just the sense of proportion that is completely distorted here. It’s the actual web of relations between the three blocs, which Duginism reduces to the false simplicity of a schematic conflict between two.

Nobody ignores that Barack Hussein Obama’s selection as the Democratic Party’s candidate over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was an imposition, a diktat from the Bilderberg Group. It also takes a sworn oath of blindness to fail to see that during his first term, the globalist’s anointed one did everything to debase the dollar, weaken the USA’s international standing, halt national oil, gas, and coal production, cripple the American defense system, kneel before China and Russia, and — both in the Middle East and in internal security policies — give strong support to the heralds of the universal Caliphate. A similar favoring of Islamic expansion has been guiding the policies of the European Union and several Western governments blessed by the Fabian International.

These facts alone are enough to prove, beyond any doubt, that:

  1. The policy of the Fabian elite does not align at all with the geopolitical interests of the American nation. The dismantling of the “American Empire” is part of its program, just as it is for the Russian-Chinese bloc and the Caliphate.

  2. The only “unipolar power” that exists has no geopolitical center; it resides in the intersection area between the three great globalist schemes.

  3. The future of the world, in the short and medium term, depends on whether the fragile unity that still exists in this intersection area will prevail over the particular interests of each globalist scheme, or whether the tripod will collapse, pitting the three schemes against each other, or two against one. In the first scenario, we will have a global dictatorship. In the second, a world war. Of the three blocs, the only one ideologically and militarily prepared for the second scenario is the Russian-Chinese bloc. The Islamic bloc — except for Iran, which is Moscow’s sacrificial lamb — has more to gain from peaceful expansion and terrorist blackmail, while the Western bloc is visibly disarming itself, fully betting on the unity of a world dictatorship in which nation-states lose autonomy internationally while tightening their social controls internally.

Barack Hussein Obama’s re-election is another step in this direction, a crystal-clear indicator that the USA will continue its self-disarmament militarily and economically, coupled with the unlimited expansion of mechanisms for the internal police control of society, following the same “politically correct” canons that international organizations have been imposing on all Western hemisphere countries. How far they will be able to go down this path depends on how the Western elite handles its inherent contradiction: it must weaken American power to subject it to international control, but it still needs it, for now, as its military base. Nothing could more clearly show its parasitic nature.

The decisive question for the coming years is: will Russia and China be content to continue enjoying their share of the world, divided among the three great blocs, or will they try to make a move to get rid of their partners and seize everything at once?

Obama was already caught red-handed promising the Russians that, in his second term, he would make all sorts of concessions to appease them and save the unity of the global triumvirate. It was under the same pretext that he stroked the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions, achieving nothing but increased terrorist violence and the fiasco of Benghazi.

Vladimir Putin knows that, in the long run, unity is untenable. He is profiting from it for now, but between the global triumvirate and the Eurasian Empire, his choice has already been made.

Old Trick

Diário do Comércio, November 28, 2012

One of the oldest tricks in communist propaganda in Brazil is to hide behind some unknown American communist and shout victory: “See? Even the Yanks say so…” Starting from the popular premise that being American is an anti-communism certificate, even the voice of the KGB speaking in English sounds like a potent right-wing confirmation of any pro-communist lie they wish to sell to the gullible Brazilian reader.

It’s always been like this. When I was a teenager, they used to shove Drew Pearson’s articles in my face, and I would be crushed by the irrefutable argument: “See? Even the Yanks say so…” Of course, I ended up believing it, without knowing that Pearson’s sources were two Soviet agents — something I only learned four decades later, but which is still totally unknown to the general public, who no longer even remember who Pearson was or the tremendous influence he had on American politics.

The deception became even more persuasive when reinforced by a constant bombardment of articles and erudite studies proving by A + B that the entire American media was an instrument of imperialist propaganda. Any communist agent with minimal training knows that the most effective way to persuade an audience is not through continuous logical argument, but by playing with the tension between two seemingly opposing arguments (one implicit, the other explicit). When even imperialists admitted that Fidel Castro was a fighter for democracy or that the Viet Cong were patriots without a trace of communist ideology in their veins, what Brazilian would dare say otherwise?

It has always been like this. The difference is that now this trick, once used only in the communist press, has become standard in the mainstream media and multiplied its power to confuse and deceive a thousandfold.

Take a look at what you read in Brazilian newspapers about Barack Hussein Obama throughout the 2008 and 2012 election campaigns, and you’ll see that, with infinitesimal exceptions, the opinions expressed fell into two categories and only two:

a) Barack Obama is a moderate progressive, the voice of enlightened America fighting against reactionary and racist obscurantism.

b) Barack Obama, behind his good-guy facade, is a Yankee imperialist like any other, a “hawk” bent on crushing the poor world under the boots of the American Empire. The only difference between him and John McCain or Mitt Romney is that at least he isn’t a racist hillbilly like them.

Forced to choose between absolute good and the lesser evil, the “average idiot,” as readers are called in editorial offices, always ended up siding with Barack Obama. If elections were held in Brazil, the Democratic candidate would have 99% of the votes without needing to tamper with the machines like he did in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The secondary benefit of this technique is to accustom the reader to choosing between two leftist opinions and believing that by doing so, they are enjoying one of the great pleasures of living in a democracy, which is the ability to freely take a stance in public debates. Gradually, democracy becomes reduced to Leninist “democratic centralism” — free discussion within the Party — without the general mass of people noticing the difference.

Finally, the most wonderful thing: over time, journalists without explicit ideological affiliation adapt to the model simply by imitating older colleagues, and they end up becoming the most efficient collaborators in the communist maneuver, precisely because they have no awareness of being part of it and reject, with feigned indignation or sarcastic gestures, any suggestion that they’re acting as useful idiots. In fact, it’s for this reason that they’re called useful idiots.

“Hegemony” is this: the invisible and imperceptible dominance exerted over consciousness by the force of repetition and habit ingrained in language, routines, and “common sense” (in the Gramscian sense). Building it is, by definition, a work of many decades, relying on the passage of generations and collective forgetting. Only very fine knowledge of the cultural and psychological history of the society we live in, combined with a rigorous retrospective examination of our own inner biography and a firm determination to seek the truth beyond all pressure from our reference group, can free us from an influence that clings to our souls like a second nature. The people capable of making this examination can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and they are even rarer in the university class, where adapting to the vocabulary and mental habits of the environment is a necessary condition for academic and professional survival. The construction of hegemony bets on stupidity, laziness, the spirit of imitation, and intellectual cowardice — qualities that are rarely lacking among young university students eager for recognition.

Thinking Like Revolutionaries

Diário do Comércio, December 27, 2012

The technique of the “aggravating solution” is one of the most prominent historical constants of the revolutionary movement. The cases are so numerous and evident that it’s astounding how liberals and conservatives continue discussing (and often accepting) leftist social proposals for their proclaimed literal sense, without grasping the cunning crisis-generating mechanism always embedded within them.

The difficulty in this case arises from the gap between the scientifically positivist mindset that dominates capitalist practice and the historically dialectical vision that guides the revolutionary movement. The former follows a linear logic in which, once a goal is defined, the means are rationally linked to produce an effect that, once achieved, can be objectively measured and evaluated in terms of success or failure.

Revolutionary logic always operates with two simultaneous and antagonistic goals: one declared and provisional, the other implicit and constant. The first is the solution to some social problem or crisis. The second is the systematic disorganization of society and the increase of power for the revolutionary group.

Between the problem pointed out and the solution proposed, there is always a non sequitur, a logical gap camouflaged under strong emotional appeal. But between the means adopted and the real objective, the connection is always perfectly logical and inexorable. The problem remains untouched or worsens. The revolutionary movement comes out stronger.

In his classic The Vision of the Anointed,14 Thomas Sowell provides, among other examples, the case of sex education, proposed in the 1960s as a foolproof remedy against the proliferation of pregnancies and venereal diseases among schoolgirls.

Against the obvious warning that the more they heard about sex, the more girls would be interested in practicing it, the measure was adopted in half of American schools. The result: the incidence of venereal diseases among students increased by 350% in fifteen years, and pregnancy cases rose from 68 per thousand in 1970 to 96 per thousand in 1985, while the number of abortions surpassed the number of births. Faced with the fait accompli, the promoters of the brilliant idea moved on to the next step: promoting free access to abortion clinics for minors.

Another even clearer example — not in Sowell’s book — is the well-known Cloward-Piven strategy. Conceived by two disciples of professional revolutionary Saul Alinsky, Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, its nominal objective was “to end poverty.” The real objective only dimly emerged in the description of the means. “If this strategy is implemented,” the authors promised, “the result will be a political crisis that could lead to legislation guaranteeing an annual income and thus ending poverty.”

The plan didn’t explain how to extract the intended legislation from such a crisis or where the resources would come from to guarantee every American an annual income. It merely detailed the means to create the crisis (falsely assuming that this would spontaneously eliminate poverty). These means consisted of recruiting as many people as possible and convincing them to demand from Social Security all the benefits they were legally entitled to, whether they needed them or not.

It’s obvious that no social security system in the world has the resources to provide all benefits to everyone at once. In short: it wasn’t about eliminating poverty but breaking the Social Security system and, along with it, the banks, spreading poverty instead of eliminating it, and almost automatically imposing greater government intervention in the economy.

The result was achieved in 2008, favoring the election of Barack Hussein Obama, who — not coincidentally — had as his only job in life the role of “community organizer,” tasked with putting the Cloward-Piven strategy into action.

But the most beautiful example of all is Barack Hussein Obama’s policy in the Middle East. Nominal objective: to implant modern democracy in Islamic countries. Means adopted: to distribute money and weapons among resistance movements against local dictatorships, while pretending to ignore that these movements are primarily led by the Muslim Brotherhood and are filled with Al-Qaeda agents. Result obtained: elevating the Muslim Brotherhood to power, replacing pro-American or neutral dictatorships with fiercely anti-American fundamentalist Islamic regimes. Next step: propaganda campaigns aimed at intimidating Americans into not saying a word against Islam.

In these cases and countless others, liberal and conservative critics talk about the “failure” of the policies adopted, pretending that the revolutionaries' objectives are the same as theirs and refusing to see the underlying calculation designed to turn each national or societal failure into a spectacular success for the revolutionary movement.

If the reader has understood how this works, I suggest now a mental exercise: the American left, seizing upon the impact of the Sandy Hook tragedy,15 is clamoring for greater government control of civilian-owned firearms. Nominal objective: to prevent further massacres of innocents. How long will it take you to figure out what the actual result will be?

Disarming the Little Ones

Diário do Comércio, January 27, 2013

In the town of Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania, a 5-year-old girl was suspended from school for threatening to shoot her classmate with a pink plastic toy gun that shoots… soap bubbles.

On the brink of carrying out her deadly plans, the dangerous little creature was providentially disarmed by the competent authorities and subjected to the penalty prescribed by the school’s wise regulations.

This proves that the USA would be better off banning all toy guns, whether they shoot soap bubbles, plushy bits, or love notes, and forcing all children to play house, regardless of gender, so that they don’t cultivate the wicked desire to someday shoot a bandit before the bandit shoots them. But the great northern nation has not yet reached that higher stage of civilization that has allowed our country, by enforcing such preventive measures and the drastic repression of gun commerce among adults, to have only 4.5 times more gun-related murders than the violent American society, even though we have 100 million fewer inhabitants and thirty times fewer legal firearms in circulation.

I myself am a living example of the extreme danger of letting children play with guns. I spent my childhood trying to be Roy Rogers or Hopalong Cassidy, and when I grew up, I became an intellectual killer of idiots — a harm that could have been avoided if, in my time, instead of the indecent ease of accessing plastic pistols and rifles, there had been Teletubbies, Menudo, and Mr. Luiz Mott. Unfortunately, these only appeared around the 1990s, by which time my soul was already irreparably corrupted.

But sometimes children — that particularly fearsome part of humanity — frustrate even the best intentions of the disarmament advocates and discover unusual and pathological means of engaging in mortal violence. In a Maryland school, two boys suffered the same punishment as the little girl from Pennsylvania because, with no access to plastic or wooden weapons but still intent on playing cops and robbers, they shot at each other with imaginary pistols formed by their index fingers and thumbs — this one mimicking the hammer, that one the barrel. In such an unusual situation, the educator, unable to confiscate nonexistent weapons or chop off the tiny murderous fingers, has only one course of action: to scientifically investigate where the boys got the extravagant idea that cops and robbers exchange gunfire and then submit them to rigorous sensitivity training so they understand that these two classes of professionals never engage in such an exercise.

Once again, our northern neighbors would do well to learn from Brazilian experience. Around here, we don’t just take the guns out of children’s hands but out of their minds, directing their attention from an early age to healthier practices like solitary or collective masturbation and cross-sexual fondling.

Unfortunately, the implacable harshness of the reactionary universe has prevented such a salutary measure from producing the expected effects. The forces of the beyond conspire to frustrate the best initiatives of our enlightened rulers and progressive intellectuals. In a genuine plot to demoralize our so-deserving media, who with maternal devotion daily warn us of the growing epidemic of murderous violence in the USA, the total number of homicides in that country has been shamelessly decreasing over the past three decades, dropping from 9.8 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1981 to less than half (4.7) in 2011, despite the tremendous increase in the number of legal firearms in civilian possession. In our country, on the other hand, with increasingly strict gun control, the total ban on toy guns, and successive campaigns for voluntary gun surrenders to the government, the number of homicides has doubled over the same period, reaching around 36 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. Oh, unjust world!

Even so, there are still lucid and courageous minds in the American republic, like President Barack Hussein Obama, who promise to eliminate the 8,000 annual gun-related murders by banning firearms. It’s true that in the same year, according to official statistics, 400,000 American citizens saved their lives by shooting back at serial killers, robbers, rapists, etc. Unfortunately, the cold hearts of reactionaries and members of the National Rifle Association still fail to understand that to prevent 8,000 murders, it’s worth encouraging another 392,000.

Armed and Disarmed

Diário do Comércio, February 20, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security is distributing a video to schools, churches, clubs, and other institutions, teaching them how to respond to an armed intruder with a pistol, rifle, or machine gun. Tip number one: run away. Tip number two: hide under the desk. Tip number three: attack the guy with scissors, a fire extinguisher, a paper cutter, a stapler, or some other deadly office supply available in the stockroom. And so on.16

The possibility of having an armed guard or allowing qualified staff to carry weapons isn’t even mentioned. It’s exorcized. There are places, of course, where the exorcism doesn’t work: the committee of educators in Newtown, the town where two dozen children were murdered by a deranged gunman, has already declared that they will follow the National Rifle Association’s suggestion, not the wise lessons of Homeland Security.

For its own protection, of course, Homeland Security uses exactly the opposite remedy from the one it recommends to others. Citing, believe it or not, “self-defense,” the department has just purchased 7,000 AR-15 rifles — the same ones the government wants to confiscate from citizens — and two billion, yes, two billion hollow-point bullets, the kind that shatter into pieces inside the body. This ammunition is prohibited for military use under the Geneva Convention, meaning it can only be used against civilians. Hell is not just paved with good intentions.

Homeland Security is the bureaucratic monster created after September 11, supposedly to prevent enemies from entering US territory. Today it’s the apple of President Barack Hussein Obama’s eye, as he counts on it to disarm the population and, in the process, intimidate his political enemies.

One of its great achievements was installing those X-ray machines at airports that reveal the size of penises and the styles of underwear. No terrorist has ever been discovered this way. But millions of old ladies have fainted, millions of women and girls have felt molested, millions of businessmen have missed meetings, and millions of husbands are still trying to explain why they got home late. But not everything is bad: it’s possible that some romantic relationships have begun in the waiting lines.

One of Homeland Security’s basic functions, by definition, is to prevent and remove illegal immigrants from the US, but, with the same care it takes in inspecting travelers' private parts at airports, the department strives to facilitate the entry and ensure the permanence of the invaders: knowing that most illegals don’t arrive by air, it dismantles border surveillance, opening the doors to the unwanted, and drags its feet when it comes to expelling those who have already entered, claiming that there are too many and it’s impossible to catch them all.

It goes without saying that President Barack Hussein Obama sees in illegal immigrants a delicious contingent of future Democratic voters, just as he sees in the nationalist, conservative, and armed half of the American population an enemy to be destroyed by all means, starting with their unofficial labeling as radicals and terrorists.

For this reason, the department that claims it’s impossible to expel 12 million illegals doesn’t hesitate to embark on the infinitely more ambitious and complex project of disarming a population twelve times that size; and, as we’ve seen, it’s already preparing for this by stockpiling weapons and ammunition, the most convincing argument against the stubborn and recalcitrant.

The president has good reasons to bet all his chips on Homeland Security since state police forces aren’t exactly eager to disarm Americans or, much less, shoot at them.

In several states, sheriff associations have already declared that if any federal agent shows up to confiscate citizens' guns, they will simply arrest them.

If there’s one reality becoming more obvious with each passing day, it’s this: the Obama administration doesn’t want to disarm the population — it wants to disarm its enemies and arm its friends, just like Hitler did in the 1930s. Obama himself, still wiping away that over-the-top, much-feted tear for the children of Newtown,17 finds it horrible to place armed guards in schools but sends his daughters to one that has at least eleven of them; and he still has the gall to release a photo of himself shooting a hunting rifle capable of blowing an elephant’s brains out.

The other day, reporter Jason Mattera cornered one of the most fanatical gun-control advocates, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, catching him circulating around town with five armed bodyguards, but couldn’t get an answer to the question: “Why on earth do you have the right to protect yourself, and we don’t?” Instead of answering, the mayor ordered one of his bodyguards to tail the reporter and scare him off.18

These things, which are the bread and butter of everyday conversations in America today, are what the mainstream media tries to hide from the public, even though it can’t completely succeed. Why do they do this? It’s simple: 90% of readers and viewers are controlled by only six companies — GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner, and CBS — of which only one, News Corp, isn’t fully at Obama’s service, though it is halfway there.19

  1. Editor’s Note: On the “total falsification of the news” in the case of Hurricane Katrina, for example, for whose consequences the Brazilian media still blames George W. Bush, see the articles “Amantes do furacão” (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/050905dc.htm), [“O malvado Bush contra a infeliz Louisiana” (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/050912dc.htm) [and “More Lies” (in: “Behind the De Lay Scandal” — http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/051003dc.htm), published in Diário do Comércio on September 5, 12, and October 3, 2005, respectively.↩

  2. See Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” The Nation, May 2, 1966. A PDF copy of the article can be obtained for $3 on the magazine’s archive page. A thorough summary can be found in James Simpson’s article, “Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis,” translated into Portuguese at http://cavaleirodotemplo.blogspot.com/2009/01/barack-obama-e-estratgia-da-crise.html.↩

  3. See http://www.discoverthenetworks.org.↩

  4. See Dick Morris' comments at http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-assumes-dictatorial-powers/.↩

  5. Editor’s Note: The term birther comes from birth plus the suffix “er” (indicating one who does something). Birthers are those Americans who challenge the nationality of President Barack Hussein Obama, demanding the release of his true birth certificate.↩

  6. Editor’s Note: The article “The Engineering of Disorder” is in the Petismo chapter of this book.↩

  7. Editor’s Note: See “Paradox of Obama Emerges With the Danger That ‘Takers’ Are Starting To Outnumber ‘Makers’ and Change the Dynamics of the Election,” by Ira Stoll, at www.nysun.com/national/paradox-of-obama-emerges-with-the-danger-that/87978/.↩

  8. Editor’s Note: “The Parents of the American Crisis,” the opening text of this section of the book.↩

  9. Editor’s Note: The author refers to the terrorist attack on the US consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, which resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The causes and effects of the attack, as well as the subsequent evasions by the Obama administration, will be analyzed later in this book. For a chronology of the day’s events, including local images and evidence that the White House was informed about the attack, see the episode of Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News, available, for example, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3i7r5Fj5Yc.↩

  10. The bloody aftermath of the US intervention in Libya helped the mainstream media muffle at least one important piece of news: the Israel Science and Technology Institute examined the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, released by the US government, and confirmed that “it is manifestly fake.” See the link: https://usjf.net/2012/09/video-former-netanyahu-adviser-obama-birth-certificate-forged/?utm_source=USJF+List&utm_campaign=418932d804-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email.↩

  11. Editor’s Note: Pressured to explain, in a Senate hearing in January 2013 — two months after this text, and with the president already re-elected — why the Obama administration lied to the American people instead of revealing in the early days that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded with this gem: “What difference does it make, at this point?” The hearing can be seen on various YouTube links, like, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4.↩

  12. Editor’s Note: The author is referring to the text “The Owners of the World” — present in the Domination chapter of this book, on page 541 —, in which he unpacks the so-called global triumvirate, that is, the tripartite structure of global power schemes.↩

  13. Editor’s Note: Aleksandr Dugin is a Russian political scientist with whom Olavo de Carvalho had a debate, later collected in the book The USA and the New World Order: A Debate Between Aleksandr Dugin and Olavo de Carvalho (Vide Editorial, 2012).↩

  14. New York: Basic Books, 1995.↩

  15. Editor’s Note: On December 14, 2012, after killing his 52-year-old mother at home, a 20-year-old gunman killed 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the small town of Newtown, Connecticut, before taking his own life.↩

  16. I’m not kidding. Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0.↩

  17. Editor’s Note: See, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dCjm9NUZ0M.↩

  18. Editor’s Note: The video is available on Jason Mattera’s YouTube page at the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCC-rEx81PE.↩

  19. Editor’s Note: Founded by Rupert Murdoch, News Corp, short for News Corporation, is one of the world’s largest media and entertainment conglomerates; it owns, for example, Fox News, the cable TV channel where conservatives like Sean Hannity host highly rated shows, which leads leftists to label the entire channel as the paradise of “far-right” reactionaries, though, of course, there are plenty of leftists on it, even on the conservative shows, debating the issues of the day.↩

at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)