The fictitious Left
Olavo de Carvalho
Diário do Comércio, 5/5/2009
Among liberals and conservatives, in Brazil and the rest of the world, only a few have a clear view of who is one's enemy and how to fight him. The majority fights only against an idealized Left, a trompe l’oeil fabricated by the Left to be consumed by their adversaries as a stupefying, paralyzing and incapacitating drug. The model of this ruse is a copy of something that existed historically: a humanitarian, democratic, anti-communist Left, only separated from the Right by a different conception of the means - more statist than capitalist - to be used with the goal of realizing values that were, in the end, the same ones from the other side - liberty, human rights and a decent life for all.
Although vaguely inheriting the reformism of Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky – the “renegade”, as Lenin called him –, this Left had only became a prominent actor in the Western media during the Spanish civil war, when the murderous violence started by the Stalinist command against their own ranks served as an alert call to many leftists, making them understand that communism was at least as destructive as nazism. The Ribbentropp-Molotov pact of August of 1939 had completed the delusion. Some had switched sides completely, becoming conservatives. Others, refusing any loyalty to the Soviet government, but not denying the socialist ideal, ended up integrating the social-democrats and workers' parties and becoming good allies of the conservatives in the fight against communism, but continuing to fight them in the ground of social policies. George Orwell and the philosopher Sidney Hook are famous examples. The first one became, with his books Animal Farm and 1984, one of the greatest creators of the anti-communist language, designed to make a parody and implode the communist jargon. The second one was the main organizer of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, the only serious enterprise ever attempted - in 1949-50, with the help of CIA - to reunite anti-communist intellectuals and offer some resistance to the Soviet's massive culture attack started thirty years before.
It is not necessary to say how much the existence of a prestigious anti-communist Left had annoyed the Soviet establishment. The policy of “pacific coexistence” inaugurated by Nikita Kruschev had as one of its main purposes to reintegrate the army of stragglers into the communist strategy. The success of this operation was complete. Already in the 70s, as the writer Vladimir Bukovski would find out in the Moscow archives, virtually all of the social-democrat media on Europe was subsidized and controlled by the KGB (v. Jugement à Moscou. Un Dissident dans les Archives du Kremlin, Paris, Robert Laffont, 1995). In the United States, infiltrated and dominated by both undercover and declared agents of the revolutionary Left, the Democrat Party, which until the 60s worked as the ideal refuge of the anti-Soviet leftists, had drifted more and more to the Left, until it assumed the flag of the most radical and intolerant anti-Americanism. The bibliography that documents this transformation is abundant, not leaving any reasonable excuses for the self-proclaimed specialists in foreign policy to ignore the phenomenon, as ours had ignored it in whole. See, for example, David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party, How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, Nelson Current, 2006; James Piereson, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism, New York, Encounter Books, 2007; Phil Kent, Foundations of Betrayal. How the Liberal Super-Rich Undermine America, Johnson City, TN, Zoe Publications, 2007.
The transfiguration of the American moderate Left in an agent of the radical Left has reached its apex with Obama's presidency, who ostensibly protects terrorist organizations and criminalize any conservative resistance, at the same time it that continues to display the conventional signs of democratic progressiveness (v. http://truth11.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/former-presidential-candidate-alan-keyes-has-given-perhaps-his-most-dire-warning-yet-saying-that-the-obama-administration-is-preparing-to-stage-terror-attacks-declare-martial-law-and-cancel-the-2012/, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=494798, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=490720 and http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=).
In Latin America, the incarnation of the "moderate Left", the Worker's Party, is discreetly the coordinator of the Foro de São Paulo, that is, the maximum strategist of the revolutionary violence in the continent.
In summary, the democratic, civilized Left, loyal competitor of the conservatives, does not exist anymore as an independent political force. Financing and hiding terrorist and subversive movements everywhere, and imposing under a different guise the same policies that would be rejected by the people if presented with the communist label, the "moderate Left" is an enemy even more powerful to the conservatives than the card-carrying communists themselves, who would not have any power at all without the former.
The difference between the two Lefts is that one is willing to share power with the conservatives, according to the regular democratic rotation, while the other is not content to win these adversaries in the elections, but attempts to destroy them completely, marginalizing, criminalizing and expelling them forever not only from the politics but from social life, if not their very physical existence. The other difference is that the second Left is the only one that exists in reality; the other, only in the residual imagination of the Right.
If the Left still makes use of the beautiful image of democratic moderation created in the battlefields of Spain, it is only to fool their enemies. However, if one continues believing in its existence and imagines that is fighting loyal adversaries when in reality one is fighting murderers and revolutionaries, this is something that comes from an unforgivable intellectual and moral cowardice, which is suicidal as any other kind of cowardice.
Showing posts with label NWO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NWO. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Documentary about the communist subversion in the US media
This is an interview with Yuri Alexandrovitch Bezmenov (*1939 +1997), a Soviet dissident who was a KGB operative and employee of the Novosti agency.
The interview is conduced by G. Edward Griffin, political commentator and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island. This interview took place in 1984.
The interview has been divided in 9 parts for YouTube and the play list is here.
Understandably, Yuri Bezmenov, being a foreigner with counterintelligence background, underestimated American society's capacity to resist the onslaught of Soviet propaganda.
With the fall of the evil empire, this interview explains the communist plans that fortunately failed, a horrible scenario from which America and the world have escaped, even though the US media continues to be infected.
The interview is conduced by G. Edward Griffin, political commentator and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island. This interview took place in 1984.
The interview has been divided in 9 parts for YouTube and the play list is here.
Understandably, Yuri Bezmenov, being a foreigner with counterintelligence background, underestimated American society's capacity to resist the onslaught of Soviet propaganda.
With the fall of the evil empire, this interview explains the communist plans that fortunately failed, a horrible scenario from which America and the world have escaped, even though the US media continues to be infected.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Why billionaires favor socialism?
If all means of production were "nationalized" (meaning confiscated by the government), there would be no market. Without market, we would not have prices. Without prices, there is no calculation of costs. Without calculation of costs, there is no economic planning. Without planning, there is no state planned economy.
Thus, "Communism" is only a hypothetical construction devoid of materiality, a name without anything inside, an universal abstract formalism that does not escape unharmed from Occam's razor. There never was a communist economy, only camouflaged or perverted capitalist economies, barely enough to sustain a gang of political leeches.
Since Ludwig von Mises explained this obviousness in 1922, many consequences have followed.
The communist leaders, however stupid they were, understood immediately that the Austrian scholar was right, but could not concede it in public. Tolerating increasing doses of capitalism - legal or illegal - in the territories they dominated, they continued to insist on any arrangement that disguised the inevitable.
Eduard Kardelij, Minister of Economy of Yugoslavia, has even imagined that there could be a committee of planners to determine one by one, by decree, the prices of millions of articles, from supersonic aircraft to sewing needles. The idea was never put into practice, because it was too reminiscent of the dumb method of killing cockroaches by trying to hit them with naphthalene balls.
The Soviets allowed the officially banned capitalism to continue prospering in the shadow and to answer for almost fifty percent of the economy of the USSR. Hence the swarm of millionaires who emerged from their hiding places, suddenly after the fall of the Soviet state: they would never have been able to exist in a system of effective prohibition of private property.
Some major Western capitalists took from Mises' demonstration some more pleasant conclusions (for themselves). If the communist economy was impossible, all efforts designed to create it nominally would generate into something else. That something else could only be a hidden capitalism, as in the USSR, a half-bred socialism, a symbiosis between the power of state and the most powerful economic groups, an oligopoly, in short.
The two hypotheses promised formidable profits - first, from the absolute absence of taxes, secondly, from the State guarantees granted to the friends of the government against any competitors. If the first feature still involved some minor risks (extortion, personal vendettas of public officials unsatisfied with the low amount of their bribe), the second was absolutely safe.
It was then that a group of billionaires created the most Machiavellian strategic plan in the world's economic history - the formula was so ironically summarized by columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt (granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt): "The best way to fight Communism would be a socialist New Order governed by 'experts' such as themselves."
This idea spread like fire among the members of the CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, the powerful NY-based think tank. This policy has been adopted by all U.S. governments (except Reagan) in regards to the Third World: combat the "extreme left" by giving support to the "moderate left".
The scheme is supposedly infallible: if the "moderates" won, there would be monopoly, and if the Communists rose to power, the Plan B would automatically be put into action - the black market capitalism. The "extreme left", presented as "the" enemy was not the actual target, it was only the lefthand half of the plan.
The real target was the free market, which should perish under the dual attack of its enemies and their "defenders" who would use the communist revolution as a scarecrow and make increasing concessions to the "prophylactic" type of socialism of the "nice" Left.
For half a century, the permanent goal of the billionaire inventors of the New World Order has been to reduce the range of political options to a dispute between Communists and Social Democrats. Brazil today is the laboratory of their dreams.
Excerpt of "Who invented Brazil?", by Olavo de Carvalho
This translation was not reviewed by the author.
Zero Hora , 11 de junho de 2006
Thus, "Communism" is only a hypothetical construction devoid of materiality, a name without anything inside, an universal abstract formalism that does not escape unharmed from Occam's razor. There never was a communist economy, only camouflaged or perverted capitalist economies, barely enough to sustain a gang of political leeches.
Since Ludwig von Mises explained this obviousness in 1922, many consequences have followed.
The communist leaders, however stupid they were, understood immediately that the Austrian scholar was right, but could not concede it in public. Tolerating increasing doses of capitalism - legal or illegal - in the territories they dominated, they continued to insist on any arrangement that disguised the inevitable.
Eduard Kardelij, Minister of Economy of Yugoslavia, has even imagined that there could be a committee of planners to determine one by one, by decree, the prices of millions of articles, from supersonic aircraft to sewing needles. The idea was never put into practice, because it was too reminiscent of the dumb method of killing cockroaches by trying to hit them with naphthalene balls.
The Soviets allowed the officially banned capitalism to continue prospering in the shadow and to answer for almost fifty percent of the economy of the USSR. Hence the swarm of millionaires who emerged from their hiding places, suddenly after the fall of the Soviet state: they would never have been able to exist in a system of effective prohibition of private property.
Some major Western capitalists took from Mises' demonstration some more pleasant conclusions (for themselves). If the communist economy was impossible, all efforts designed to create it nominally would generate into something else. That something else could only be a hidden capitalism, as in the USSR, a half-bred socialism, a symbiosis between the power of state and the most powerful economic groups, an oligopoly, in short.
The two hypotheses promised formidable profits - first, from the absolute absence of taxes, secondly, from the State guarantees granted to the friends of the government against any competitors. If the first feature still involved some minor risks (extortion, personal vendettas of public officials unsatisfied with the low amount of their bribe), the second was absolutely safe.
It was then that a group of billionaires created the most Machiavellian strategic plan in the world's economic history - the formula was so ironically summarized by columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt (granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt): "The best way to fight Communism would be a socialist New Order governed by 'experts' such as themselves."
This idea spread like fire among the members of the CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, the powerful NY-based think tank. This policy has been adopted by all U.S. governments (except Reagan) in regards to the Third World: combat the "extreme left" by giving support to the "moderate left".
The scheme is supposedly infallible: if the "moderates" won, there would be monopoly, and if the Communists rose to power, the Plan B would automatically be put into action - the black market capitalism. The "extreme left", presented as "the" enemy was not the actual target, it was only the lefthand half of the plan.
The real target was the free market, which should perish under the dual attack of its enemies and their "defenders" who would use the communist revolution as a scarecrow and make increasing concessions to the "prophylactic" type of socialism of the "nice" Left.
For half a century, the permanent goal of the billionaire inventors of the New World Order has been to reduce the range of political options to a dispute between Communists and Social Democrats. Brazil today is the laboratory of their dreams.
Excerpt of "Who invented Brazil?", by Olavo de Carvalho
This translation was not reviewed by the author.
Zero Hora , 11 de junho de 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
