How Modern Liberalism came to existence

How Modern Liberalism came to existence

The modern liberals, a.k.a. cultural marxists, emphasize that they don't have anything to do with the classic marxism, however the modern liberalism is not only a culture against Christianism, but also tries to fool people proposing anti-Christian ideas as if they were Christian. For example, the idea of worldly peace without Christ, symbolized by the logo of the inverted cross with the broken arms (peace logo).

Democracy needs a moral basis of mutual respect where left and right can get along. But with the cultural marxism hegemony, things have changed in such a way that what was considered leftist has became center; what was the ultra-radical left, has became the current left; and what was right, is in the endangered species list and disappearing very rapidly from the political scenario.

The communist manifesto of Marx called the proletarian workers from around the world to unite and proposed that they should revolt against the property owners. From this perspective, Marx foresaw a great conflict across Europe in which the "oppressed workers" would attack "the oppressors bosses" according to the interests of their economic class.

However, the conflict occurred not according to the Marxists' vision. The First World War started in 1914 and lasted until 1919. The German Kaiser said "there are no more parties, we are all Germans" and turned workers against workers from other countries, each defending the "interests of their bosses."

In 1917, the Bolshevik revolution gave hope to Marxists, although all other attempts to communist revolution failed.

In 1919, the Spartacus revolution in Berlin - with Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and Spartacus - failed.

Also in 1919, there was a Soviet government in Munich, whose interim government failed to attract the support of workers.

In Hungary, the provisional government of Bela Kun, with involvement of the philosopher Georg Lucács, also failed.

In Italy there was a unionist revolt in Turin, which also failed.

These failures were a major problem for the Marxism theory: the reality does not follow this theory! A normal brain would have discarded any theory that it is not compatible with reality, but the Marxist brain is not normal: if the reality does not confirm the theory, to hell with the reality!

Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács concluded that the Western culture "alienated the proletarians and prevented them from fighting against the interests of other classes." They concluded that Russia was not "Western" enough, so the revolution was successful there for that reason.

In their view, Western culture is sustained in 3 columns: Roman law, Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christian morality.

To deploy socialism in the West, they concluded that it was necessary to destroy Judeo-Christian morals. That is why the new Marxism, the cultural Marxism, or modern liberalism aims to destroy anything that is Jewish and Christian.

However, this has created a schism in Marxism. In the West, they began to fight for a different kind of Marxism that was different from the orthodox Marxism practiced in the East, behind the Iron Curtain.

The CULTURAL MARXISM

Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a French philosopher, coined the term "Western Marxism" to differentiate that heterodox Marxism which was somewhat heretical in the eyes of communist Russia. Stalin hated the Communists in the West who did not accept the orders from Moscow despite also being Marxists. Later, the KGB welcomed these new collaborators, seeing how they could be useful, and started paying them.

Several famous writers and philosophers in the West were participants in the Western Marxism. Ernst Bloch (important influence on the European students revolution), Walter Benjamin, Jean Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas (who once discussed with the future Pope, who was then Cardinal Ratzinger).

In 1923, Germany held the Week of Marxist Labor. Marxist philosophers gathered to discuss the crisis of Marxist theory (why the reality was not following the theory?) That crisis had existed since 1919. At that meeting, stood out Felix Weil and Georg Lukács. Felix Weil came from a rich family and spent his dad's money creating and sustaining financially the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt in 1924: the famous School of Frankfurt.

This group originally intended to use the name "Marx-Engels Institute," mirroring the office of the same name in Moscow, but in the West they have decided that there was greater advantage in not identifying themselves as Marxists. The institute published the first volume of the General Works of Marx and Engels (a.k.a. MEGA - Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe) at the same time the office of Moscow did.

These rich young studied the German society and the Western thinking to figure out how to destroy it. With the rise of Hitler to power and his persecution of Jews and Marxists, they fled to the United States.

A main feature of the cultural Marxists is that they do not predominantly want armed struggle, however they want to "occupy territories" in the culture, preaching their doctrines in the universities, in the media, in churches or anywhere where there is speech.

Several of these thinkers, who did not identified themselves as Marxists, infiltrated and taught in American universities. Of these, it is worth mentioning Teodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, who were teaching at Columbia University, in New York. Horkheimer and Adorno returned to Europe after the end of World War II and made many disciples. Marcuse worked for the CIA (then called the OSS) in anti-Nazi propaganda projects and then moved to California. At the time the student revolution of 1968 flared up, he was teaching at the University of San Diego.

Marcuse has greatly influenced the culture of the West, changing the Western marxist thought into a kind of intellectual marriage between Marx and Freud. The Marxists wanted a revolution and so they needed angry people. The revolt of workers, exploited by classical Marxism, was demonstrably inadequate. It was necessary to find more angry people. Marcuse discovered the youth and the sexually repressed people.

Their discourse then became: "the capitalist society" - that is, Western society - "is a repressive society. It oppresses people, repressing them sexually. You can not freely exercise your sexuality. Revolt!" They wanted to destroy the Christian morals but did not openly confess their intentions.

These Marxist "preachers" proposed the liberation of sexuality, abortion, homosexuality and divorce, calling the monogamous marriage as "bourgeois morality" (codename for Christian morality).

Erich Fromm, Cornelius Castoriadis (who took part in the student revolution in Paris), Michel Foucault (one of the first victims of AIDS - he was a drug addict and a quite promiscuous homosexual) and Herbert Marcuse were the biggest influences in universities. When the student revolution of 1968 broke out, Marcuse, Foucault, Castoriadis and others helped the students in Paris.

In Hollywood, the Marxists also worked to destroy the "bourgeois morality". About twenty of them were denounced by Senator Joseph McCarthy but he ended up being victim of the ideological police.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Venona Code was discovered in the KGB archives and it revealed that not only twenty, but more than a hundred Marxists were working in Hollywood under orders of KGB. The book "Venona Code" explains in detail these historical facts.

In 1955, Marcuse wrote "Eros and Civilization", a widely used book in universities which became the "bible" of the hippie revolution. According to its text, the capitalist society leads to war and sexual repression, therefore, "make love, not war," "Love and peace, dude!"

To have the courage to de-repress, some young people, who were also raised in Christian families, needed to take drugs so they could practice those sexual perversions (the "sexual liberation"). With that came Woodstock and the protest against the war in Vietnam. The young and the perverted served as fuel for the engine of Marxist revolution.

CASE STUDY: BRAZIL

In 1964, Brazil was a very conservative country, with a society capable of uniting for the "March of Families for Freedom with God" in protest against the impending revolution of president João Goulart, who among others was pushing the country towards a Cuban-style communist dictatorship.

That has changed with the indoctrination through the widely watched soap operas of Rede Globo - among several other occupied spaces in the media. There were many Communists working in the Globo organizations and other bodies of the mainstream Brazilian media. Roberto Marinho (big media owner) reacted against the military regime and protected the communists in the Globo enterprises: "Let me handle my Communists by myself." Of these communists, the most notable - Dias Gomes and Janete Clair - dominated the 70 with their soap operas.

In Dias Gomes' biography, "Just A Subversive", he recounts preaching divorce - it was taboo at that time - in his 1970 soap opera "Red Summer". In his second 1970 soap opera, "On Earth just as it is in Heaven", he attacked the Catholics for their celibacy. In the 1975 soap opera "Roque Santeiro", which had been censored by the military government, he attacked Christianity by way of Catholicism.

In "Roque Santeiro," Father Albano (a liberation theology priest) and Father Hipólito (supposedly a conservative) discussed before the statue of Roque Santeiro, who had died and became worshipped as a Catholic saint. Under the protest of priest Albano, corrupt Father Hipólito sold images of Roque Santeiro and tried to cover up the fact that Roque Santeiro had not died. The intent of Dias Gomes was to make people believe that Christianity created false myths and the denounciation of these myths was necessary to prevent Christians from taking advantage of people.

The military government had no idea about cultural Marxism. They searched the house of Dias Gomes looking for weapons and books teaching guerrilla tactics and they didn't find anything. Only with wiretapping they discovered something when Dias Gomes explained his intentions to his friend Nelson Werneck Sodré: "But will the censors miss this?" "... Doing it this way it will pass. The military is very stupid!" That conversation was described in Arthur Xexéo's book, "Janete Clair, the Maker of Dreams." Once the government learned of it, they outlawed "Roque Santeiro" and explained: "The novel contains affront to morality, public order and good customs, and attacks the church."

The general Golbery do Couto e Silva, with his "theory of the pressure cooker," was one of the main culprits for the misfortunes that occur today in Brazilian universities. "Every pressure cooker should have a valve." The valve that he handed to the Marxists in a platter were the universities.

Although there were military government agents watching the lessons of the Marxists in the universities, they could preach anything, provided they would not touch the topics of land redistribution and guerrilla. They were free to talk about abortion, divorce, free sex because that was not identified as Marxism. Today the universities are completely dismantled in terms of Christian culture, becoming barely disguised anti-Christian factories, accusing the conservatives and denouncing their "bourgeois morality" and their "backward thinking".

The politically correct is a Marxist invention. It was created to try to convince people that Christian moral convictions were flawed and that it would be necessary to make everybody equal.

On September 7th (Brazilian independence day), a date that should be a commemoration of patriotism, the CNBB (National Conference of Brazilian Bishops, the part of Brazilian Catholicism dominated by liberation theology) had created the "Cry of the Excluded". The "excluded" is a category created by Pierre Bourdieu to perpetuate the idea of class warfare.

In Ibiúna in 1968, there was a congress of the UNE (National Union of Students), under the leadership of the current left-wing politicians who are in the Brazilian government and the opposition. The Marxists Aldo Rebelo (PC do B - Communist Party of Brazil), Jose Serra (PSDB - Democratic-Socialist Party of Brazil) and Jose Dirceu (PT - Workers' Party) were in that conference and all of them belong to currently hegemonic parties.

In today's Brazil, dominated by the cultural Marxism, there are virtually only leftist parties. They all try to enforce and encourage sexual promiscuity, abortion and homosexuality, racial conflict and environmental hysteria.

The PT calls the PSDB "right-wing", but the PSDB is not right-wing. PSDB is to the right of the PT but is still a left-wing party. The PSOL accuses the PT and the Lula government of not being leftists, but that only means that the PSOL is further left than the PT.

The Brazilian right today no longer exists in the form of parties, but as the Marxists still need an imaginary enemy, they use the DEM as a scarecrow and punching bag. The DEM is the former PFL, a party created to oppose the military regime which was taken by opportunists and today they form a mediocre, subservient and easily handled opposition.

IDEOLOGY PATROLLING - "You shall not disagree with the Left!"

The leftist hegemony today is maintained largely through ideological policing.

If someone dares to denounce the evil deeds of the Marxists, they use the tactic proposed by Lenin: jump on the victim collectively, making numerous allegations.

"You are a CIA agent, you are paid by Wall Street, you are bourgeois, you are the white elite, you are homophobic, you're a fool" - all possible and imaginable accusations and slander are used with the aim of intimidating other people so that they dare not agree with whoever denounced the evil deeds of cultural Marxists.

The goal is to make others afraid and make them think twice before speaking or denounce the same things - that is the ideological policing.

Differences between leftists/liberals, socialists and communists

If we discount the ignorance of the typical communist and his use of ideology as an excuse to relieve internal frustrations, we realize that there is a difference between leftism, socialism and communism.

All of the three have in common the fascism. "Fascists" is a word very appropriate for lefitsts. Fascist is the one who proposes that the state dominate everything and this is what the leftists preach.

However, when the leftist call someone a "fascist", he is not concerned about the meaning of this word, he just wants to use it to offend and express his hate. With misuse, words end up losing their power of precising what one wants to express and the discourse loses its meaning to the lay people.

The word "communist" is another that has double meaning: it can refer to both cultural marxism and to the ideology that preaches the end of private property and the state. That is why lay people do not understand when we call some politicians communist. They say "He, a communist? Absurd!" and then ignore the rest of the message, not understanding that what was meant is that the politician mentioned is a representative of cultural marxism.

There are differences between leftism, socialism and communism. Communists and socialists are leftists and every communist is socialist. But there are a few leftists who are not socialists and there are a lot of socialists who are not communists. How? For example, a Fabian socialist is not communist.

To better visualize this, you can imagine that there is a box labelled "Leftism (cultural marxism)". Inside of it, there are other smaller boxes and one of them has the label "Socialism". And inside of the Socialism box, there are other boxes and one of them has the label "Communism".

A true communist wants the end of private property in order to have equality (or so they say) but they also preach the end of state.

Those are in contradiction because the end of private property can only be achieved through the monopoly of power of coercion and whoever monopolizes the coercion becomes the de facto state - a perverse state that instead of guaranteeing freedom and property rights, guarantees robbery and tyranny. Thus, communism is something that will never exist and will be merely an excuse to take power. Communism is absurd - but there are those who want the absurd and do not recognize it.

In the strict sense, most of the communist parties are not merely fascists (preaching, for example, the "nationalization" of private companies and friendlier foreign relations with totalitarian countries such as China, Cuba, Vienam, North Korea). However, these parties are part of "communism" in the ample sense of the word, that is, cultural marxism.

The socialists consider the state as the ideal agent to foster equality. It is obvious that there are socialists that say one thing and desire the opposite, but the declared intention of the socialists is to make all properties belong to the state, who would give the citizens a very limited control over properties.

There are those who label themselves communists, but they are in fact socialists. If, for example, Fidel Castro say he is communist, he's lying. He can be socialist and fascist, but he is not a communist because this Cuban dictator admits the existence of the state. Fidel is "communist" only in the ample sense: Fidel, like Guevara, is an icon of the cultural marxism.

The leftist is more or less those who are "against" and those who preach moral relativism, that is, disregard for the standards of moral conduct. Some of them may not give attention to socialism, but some of them steal, cheat, kill, are promiscuous, want things for themselves without giving anything in exchange, consider everything relative, etc.

Example: it is very well possible that an abortionist doesn't care or completely ignore the equality that socialists and communists preach. It is also possible that several of those gay supremacy militants do not want the end of private property.

Those types of abortionists and gay militants are leftists, but they are not necessarily socialists or communists. However, all of them are part of "communism", that is, cultural marxism.

Thus, leftism is a general attitude of moral denial, socialism is also an attitude of moral negation but more directed against property and individual rights. And communism is an attitude of moral negation that emphasizes the denial of property and individual rights and the state too.

Leftism, socialism and communist do not have existence by themselves and are instead defined by the negation of something that exists. Therefore, this is trying to define and delimit things that are contradictory by themselves and of course that this is not a perfect explanation - it takes into account only some of the aspects.

Brief History of Machismo

Olavo de Carvalho
Jornal da Tarde, August 16th, 2001

(This translation has not been reviewed by the author)

The women have always been exploited by the men. If there is a truth that nobody disputes, this is the one. From the solemn conference rooms in Oxford to the Fausto Silva show, from the Collège de France to the band of Ipanema, the world reinforces this certainty, maybe the most unquestioned certainty that has passed through the human brain, if it really has ever been on it and did not leave the womb straight to the academic thesis.

Since I am not willing to oppose such lordly unanimity, I propose to list some facts that can reinforce, in the believers of all existing genders and the genders yet to be invented, their feeling of hate against the adult heterosexual male, this despicable type that no one who has had the misfortune of being born male wants to be alike when grown up.

Our narrative starts in the dawn of time, in an imprecise moment between the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon. In those dark ages, the exploitation of women started. Those were hard times. Living in caves, the human communities endured constant attacks from the beasts.

The males, taking advantage of the prerogatives of the dominant class, have soon took the safest and most comfortable places in the social order: the interior of the caves. The nerve of these scoundrels! Making food for the babies and combing their hairs while the poor females, armed with only clubs, left to fight lions and bears.

When the economy of gathering was replaced by agriculture and animal breeding, again the men came with their smartarseness, giving the women the heaviest tasks, such as carrying stones, taming the horses, plowing the earth, while the males, the slackers, stayed at home painting the pottery and playing with textile mills. Disgusting!

When the great empires of antiquity were dissolved, giving place to the feuds in perpetual war against each other, these soon formed their private armies, composed entirely of women, while the men sheltered in the castles and relaxed there, enjoying the poems that the warrior women composed in the interval of combat to praise their virile charms.

When someone had the extravagant idea of Christianize the world, making necessary to send missionaries everywhere, where they risked being impaled by the unbelievers, knived by highway robbers or lynched by the audience bored with their sermons, it was again on the women that the heavy burden was put, while the machos stayed, machiavellically praying novenas before the domestic altars.

An identical exploitation the unfortunate women suffered during the Crusades, when, armed with the heaviest armor, they crossed deserts only to be cut with a sword by the Moors (also women, since the machismo of Mohammed followers could not be any less than ours).

And what about the great navigations? Seeking gold and diamonds to decorate the lazy men, the brave women crossed the seven seas and fought ferocious native cannibals.

Finally, when the modern State created the conscripted military service, the state armies were drafted from the women, subjecting them to the guillotine for the stubborn and the draft dodgers - all of this so that men could stay at home reading "The Princess of Clèves".

For thousands of years, in summary, the women died in the battle fields, carrying stones, constructing buildings, fighting with beasts, crossing deserts, seas and jungles, sacrificing everything for us, the idle males, to which there is no challenge more dangerous than to make our hands dirty with the diapers of our babies.

In exchange of the sacrifice of their lives, our heroic female defenders have not demanded from us anything other than the right to be the head of the family, to leave their clothes in the wrong place and, sometimes, to leave a pair of socks in the middle of the room for us to pick up.