Sociopathy and Revolution

Modern social science, with all its presumption and arrogance, has failed to bring forth any discovery that ever approached, in accuracy and explanatory power, the Hindu doctrine of the four castes, whereof the Marxist conception of class struggle is but a remote and caricatural imitation, hence deriving whatever impression of truthfulness that it may make upon the foolish mind of the university “intellectual proletariat.”

For anyone who has taken the trouble to make a little study of the Hindu explanation of the historical process, it is impossible, on observing the sequence of power structures that succeed one another throughout Western history, not to notice that it exactly repeats the transition from the rule of brahmanas to that of kshatriyas, from this to the rule of vaishyas, and from this to the misrule of shudras and the confusion of pariahs which foreshadows either the end of society or the return to the initial order.

Here I shall briefly summarize that doctrine, not as it stands in its pure original formulation, but in my adaptation of it, in courses and lectures delivered since 1980, intended to make it more flexible as an explanatory instrument of more recent historico-cultural processes.

The brahmanas are the intellectual caste, intent on the search of spiritual knowledge and on the construction of a social order that more or less reflects “the will of God”—the laws determining the entire structure of reality.

The kshatriyas are the warriors and aristocrats, who over the structure of reality place the glorification of their own dynastic traditions and the expansion of their military power.

The vaishyas are the bourgeois and merchants. In everything they seek profit and economic efficiency, which they illusorily take as an actual power, ignoring the military and spiritual bases of society and in the end being swiftly destroyed by the shudras. These are the “proletarians,” in the Roman sense of the term. Incapable of governing themselves, they matter only because of the power of the many, because of the quantitative extension of the “offspring.”

The brahmanas fall because of their difficulty in remaining faithful to their original spiritual intuition, entropically crumbled into ever more insoluble and violent doctrinal disputes of a stifling artificiality.

The rise of aristocratic power, with the formation of modern nation states, started directly out of the need to appease religious conflicts by means of an external, political-military force.

The kshatriya government falls because the aristocratic-military establishment is essentially an expansionist and centralizing power, which must rely on an ever-growing bureaucracy whose officials it cannot keep up providing indefinitely, therefore having to collect them from among the most talented members of both lower castes, who are to be given necessary training for the exercise of their new functions in the administration, in the judiciary, in the foreign service, etc. Hence the origin of the modern “intelligentsia,” as a byproduct of an educational system designed to shape officials for the state: once the state bureaucracy is consolidated as a means of social ascent, candidates for it are always in greater number than the positions available, while, at the same time, schooling, itself an instrument of selection, must necessarily reach much more students than those to whom it can secure positions in the civil service. The bureaucracy with which the kshatriya state controls society thus becomes a time bomb. On the one hand, it goes without saying that the bureaucratic intelligentsia soon lays hold of the effective control of the state, dreaming of shaking off its shoulders the yoke of an increasingly idle and costly aristocratic caste. On the other hand, there is the throng of those rejected. Their ambitions were aroused by schooling, frustrated by job selection. They make up the contingent of what I have called “potential bureaucracy”—the growing army of those individuals with some training but no role. Their only possible place in society is within the state, but the state has no room for them. They are the revolutionary class par excellence, the leading character in the adventure of modern times. Before long they will be dreaming of a state that is molded to their needs. Until they manage to create it, they busy themselves with endlessly chattering about all matters, thus spreading their rancor and their frustrations throughout society and, above all, adorning themselves with the prestige of the ancient brahmanas, of whom they constitute the inverted caricature. The “intellectuals” are the lay clergy of the Revolution. If you have ever heard of PT, the Brazilian Workers’ Party, you know what I am talking about. Further on I shall come back to it.

On the other hand, the aristocratic state causes much expense and cannot sustain itself indefinitely with the resources from a traditional and artless agrarian economy; the economic expansion requires the mobilization of specific skills which are those of the vaishyas. Bankers and industrialists furnish the state with a new economic basis, by regimenting shudra manpower in proportions never dreamed of before and by replacing the ancient agrarian economy with modern capitalism.

It is at this moment—and under this aspect only—that the difference between two systems of ownership of the means of production becomes historically determinative, creating a peculiar situation which Karl Marx will misleadingly project on the whole course of history. But it is also clear that the rise of capitalism, in itself, presents no risk to the aristocratic class, which easily adapts to the new ways of amassing riches and, by means of marriages and the award of titles of nobility, integrates into its ranks the new rich who ascended without ancestral nobility, sine nobilitate (s. nob. for short, hence the term “snob”). To this adaptation there corresponds, politically, the transition from the absolute monarchical state to the modern parliamentary monarchy, a process that does not have to be violent or traumatic, this being the case only in France because the excessive growth of state bureaucracy had fatally occasioned an even greater growth of the “potential bureaucracy” and had turned into sheer revolutionary rancor the frustrated ambitions of the intelligentsia. This very intelligentsia is what brought about the revolution. There was not a single capitalist among the revolutionary leaders, and the bourgeoisie, as was seen in England, never needed any revolution to climb the social scale up to a status to which it was insistently invited by the aristocracy itself. The concept of “bourgeois revolution” is one of the greatest frauds in the history of the social sciences. The elements in the potential bureaucracy, in turn, cannot be defined economically. Their only common trait was the education which distinguished them from the masses. They came from all classes—the peasantry, the old clergy, the petty bourgeoisie, the impoverished sectors of the aristocracy itself. Theirs was not a unity of origin, but of social station and ambitions. The true formula of their unity lay in the future: in the image of the perfect state, invested with all the virtues which they themselves thought to embody. Living off a self-glorifying fantasy, a psychological compensation for their vexatious social position, it is no wonder that they conceived of themselves as inheritors of the intellectual authority of the brahmanas but also imagined that they were the natural successors to the Church as spokesmen and keepers of the poor and oppressed, namely the shudras. Everywhere they speak on behalf of “science,” but also of “social justice.” They imagine that they embody at the same time the highest spiritual authority and the downtrodden rights of the lowest caste. But just as there was no bourgeois in the vanguard of the “bourgeois revolution,” there shall be no proletarians among the leaders of the “proletarian revolution.” The entire revolutionary sociology is an ideological fraud destined to cover up the power of the “intellectuals.” These are not a caste. They are an interface accidentally born of the cancerous swelling of the bureaucracy, and for this very reason they will fight to make it grow even more wherever they have acquired the means to do so. They are, strictly speaking, pariahs—a confused, deluded mixture of fragments from the speech of the various castes. They are the pseudo-caste, with neither function nor axis, sociopathic by birth and calling.

The rise of the capitalist bourgeoisie is not a revolutionary process. It is a long, complicated process of absortion and adaptation. French capitalism was born weakly and has remained stunted because of the Revolution, which came along with the bureaucratic expansion and has continued to live off it until today, in a nation that is the paradise par excellence of “intellectuals.” Capitalism rather developed in England, where the aristocracy smoothly adapted to their new capitalist functions, and in America, where, the presence of the aristocracy of blood being sparse, that same capitalist bourgeoisie invested itself with the heroic-aristocratic ethos, generating a new kshatriya caste. I must observe in passing that this transfiguration of the American bourgeoisie into aristocracy—the most important and vigorous phenomenon in modern history—would never have been possible without that profound Christian impregnation of the new class which rendered it, in contrast to the farce of the “intellectualls,” the partial, distant, but authentic heir to the brahmana authority.

In the Hindu doctrine there is never a shudra government. The shudras are, by definition, the ruled and not the rulers. A guy may have been born a shudra, but on ascending to positions of importance he is already an “intellectual” (if Lula continued to be a lathe operator, he would be just a lathe operator). What there can be is the government of intellectuals passing themselves off as the shudra vanguard and, of course, oppressing the shudra more than ever to make them form the economic basis of a boundlessly expansive state bureaucracy.

Economically, the shudra government, or socialism, has verbal existence only. In 1921 Ludwig von Mises thoroughly demonstrated that the completely nationalized economy is infeasible and that therefore every self-styled socialist regime would never be more than a capitalism disguised under the iron armor of state bureaucracy. History has not ceased to prove him right ever since.

From this brief exposition it is possible to draw some conclusions that historical experience abundantly proves:

1. Wherever state bureaucracy becomes the predominant way of social ascent, as in eighteenth-century France or in nineteenth-century Russia, the potential bureaucracy tends to grow indefinitely and become a generator of revolutionary pressures. Many modern nations alleviate these pressures by creating an indefinite number of cultural and academic sinecures in order to integrate and somehow “officialize” the potential bureaucracy, but, on the one hand, this is a very expensive palliative, one that can only be afforded by a powerful capitalism, which precisely presupposes that the revolution be aborted in time; on the other hand, the members of the officialized potential bureaucracy may for a while be satisfied with their new roles in capitalist society, but social ascent itself will eventually make them even more presumptuous and arrogant. This explains why it is precisely in those countries where intellectuals have the best living conditions that they are the most resentful enemies of the society which fosters and flatters them while, by compensation, they are unable or perhaps unwilling to deal this society the final blow, confining themselves to constituting a permanent structural corrosive agent which on the whole is neutralized by technical progress and capitalist growth.

2. Where a potential bureaucracy as yet not perfectly officialized holds in possession a political party as its main vehicle of social integration, this party, embodying in its own eyes both the supreme intellectual authority and the rights of every real or imagined victim of social injustice, will necessarily place itself above the laws and institutions, arrogating to itself every right and every virtue and acknowledging no higher judgment than its own.

3. Every hope of integrating this party into the normal democratic process will be repeatedly frustrated, for it will never construe its participation in this process but as a temporary concession—in itself repulsive—to those conditions which preclude the attainment of its goals.

4. The conquest of total power will always be the goal and the single raison d’être of this party, which will attempt all sorts of coup d’état and at the same time will regard as a coup d’état any attempt, however timid and limited, to prevent it from reaching its goals. Examples of it abound in Brazil. The latest one is that in which the leaders of the ruling party openly preach violent resistance to its possible election defeat, while literally denouncing as a “coup d’état” the simple journalistic disclosure of the money that they used in a dirty trick against their opponent.

5. Since the primordial function of the revolutionary party, beneath the most diverse ideological pretexts, is exactly to create a bureaucratic state to serve its own members, it is normal and inevitable that this party, once invested with state power, should regard the state as property of its own, using it for ends of its own without finding the least immorality in it. The potential bureaucracy is sociopathic by birth and by definition; and its form of government, as soon as there are conditions for it to be established, is and will always be organized sociopathy.

6. The affinity between the revolutionary party and common banditism is something more than a temporary conjunction of interests. From the perspective of the potential bureaucracy, the only evil in the world is that it does not have absolute power, is that there is a society that transcends it and obeys it not. Every other evil, if it weakens this society and facilitates the conquest of total power by the revolutionary party, is a good. The solipsistic self-idolatry of the gang boss and that of the revolutionary leader are one and the same, with the slight difference that there is a little bit of intellectual refinement in favor of the latter. It is ridiculous to say that a party like PT “has turned” into a gang of delinquents. It is a born delinquent.

7. The insistence of opponents on pretending that this party can honorably participate in the normal political process will always lead to conditions of “asymmetrical warfare,” in which one side will have all the duties, and the other all the rights.

PS—Those who have had the misfortune of being members by birth of the potential bureaucracy cannot pursue but three courses of life: (1) integrate into the revolutionary sham and brag everywhere that they are benefactors of mankind, (2) fall into marginality, mental illness, self-destruction, or banditism, (3) understand their historical situation and struggle to escape from an essentially grotesque social condition and to acquire through study and spiritual self-discipline the dignity of the true status of brahmana, which implies renouncing all political power and every psychosocial benefit of participating in the revolutionary intelligentsia. Economically, to make a livelihood from intellectual activity outside the revolutionary scheme of mutual protection is a formidable challenge.

The challenge to those who were born vaishyas is to resist the siren song of revolution and to impose capitalism as a morally superior way of life. This is impossible without the cultivation of the kshatriya discipline and without the acceptance of the heroic burdens of a new noble caste, which implies the absorption, even if slight, of the brahmana legacy. The struggle in the modern world is between vaishyas and the potential bureaucrats—that is, between those who feed the state and those who feed upon it. If the former let themselves be hypnotized by revolutionary culture, they are finished, and with them the shudras as well, who lose their status of free workers and become slaves of the Communist bureaucracy.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on October 26, 2006, and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota and Bruno Mori.

The Grand Deception

Those who fear Russia are easily mocked. “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming,” is on video. Watch it and laugh. Concern about communist subversion is also mocked. All you have to do is remember what a bad egg Joseph McCarthy was, if you remember at all. To allay any lingering doubt or fear, go to Russia and take the KGB tour. See all the rusting submarines and missile boats you want. You can even see rusty signs in front of Russia’s ABM radar at Sofrino.

If you subscribed to “National Review” when it was still under the influence of Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham, you may remember a completely different magazine than exists today. It’s funny how vigilance and a sense of danger can be turned into smug self-satisfaction over time.

Twenty years ago, a Russian KGB defector named Anatoliy Golitsyn went to see William F. Buckley, the editor of “National Review.” Golitsyn needed help on writing a book with the title “New Lies for Old.” It was about Russia’s strategy of faking the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. As it happened, Buckley showed Golitsyn the door.

After the “patron saint of American conservatives” closed the door on the truth about communist strategy, few would have the courage to look back and say that Golitsyn was right. The changes in Eastern Europe have been deceptive, orchestrated and calculated from on high. The strategy has been to disarm the West and get communist bloc countries inside NATO – to subvert the alliance from within.

Consider the Czech Republic as an example. Having entered NATO, it is yet controlled by the old communists who are waiting for a signal from Moscow. That’s all it will take for them to reverse the changes that have taken place since 1989. Yesterday, I received a letter from a politically active Czech citizen, Hana Catalanova. “I know how hard this is to make people see,” she wrote. “You might think it is better over here … no, it is not!”

The big lie of 1989, the grand deception, was cynically calculated to take advantage of modern apathy and ignorance: “… we are actually living our lives in such lies, and people don’t care,” wrote Catalanova. “What about the next generation, our kids?”

Hana worries about freedom and the truth. Explaining how the communists retained control after the Velvet Revolution of 1989, she noted, “The problem here is that too many people were involved and engaged in shady deals with the secret police and corruption … betraying their friends, fellow workers, next door neighbors. And this is such a small country.”

America has a different excuse for turning its back on freedom and the truth. As I once told a leading Russian military defector who asked about America’s unpatriotic attitudes, “They’re too busy shopping and having fun.”

The Czechs have another problem. “In towns and villages everyone knows everyone,” explained Catalanova, “They are hiding their past behind the silence. They stay deaf to everything that doesn’t concern them, because if they speak up, somebody might tell who they were before. I can tell you, it is all very depressing.”

Hana Catalanova has written an important essay on the imprisonment of Captain Vladimir Hucin, a Czech official who has uncovered the truth about secret communist structures controlling important public institutions. “The whole world must know that communism is not dead,” wrote Catalanova. “It is very much alive and threatens to overthrow the world democracies.”

People here in America look around and wonder why the environmentalists are so strong, why business is under assault and rural property rights are no longer secure. They wonder why so many are teaching Marxist propaganda in schools and universities. Some of us cannot understand why our political leaders keep insisting on further military cutbacks as they continue to do business with the gangsters in Beijing and Moscow.

The short answer is: We’ve been subverted, infiltrated, duped and manipulated by communists and leftists. We have been too busy shopping and having fun to notice their “long march” through our institutions. We have been too absorbed in our careers and personal satisfactions. And now our country has its own hidden (or not so hidden) communist structures. As Russia and China prepare new missiles against us, our own state system allows itself to be unthinkingly nudged toward self-dissolution.

The danger is real, despite all the ridicule that comes to mind about “communists under every bush.” Have you talked to your daughter’s social studies teacher? Have you any idea where all this political correctness ultimately comes from?

If I joined the present chorus writing about shark attacks, the response to my column would be huge. But since I write about the advance of communism, about evidence that our Cold War enemy has been playing a trick on us, I get hardly any response at all. Americans have lost their sense of self preservation, their sense of history.

Do you really think that an enemy of more than four decades simply ran up the white flag because he couldn’t “pay the bills”?

Of course, that’s what you want to believe to keep your peace of mind. But this peace of mind is for fools. Give it up and get with the facts and testimony. The superficial reports on Russia, Chechnya, Eastern Europe and the collapse of communism are laced with falsehood and distortion. Such reports do not convey a real understanding of events.

French journalist Anne Nivat’s book on the Chechin war has recently been translated into English. It deserves to be widely read, though few will understand its importance. Nivat disguised herself as a Chechin refugee and watched events close up. Many of the Chechins she interviewed felt the war was a Kremlin puppet show. “I’m ashamed for Western Europe, where you live in a world of lies,” an elderly Chechin told Navat. “We are all victims, manipulated by the politicians in Moscow.”

The same could be said for America.

Jeffrey Nyquist is the President of the Strategic Crisis Center and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Political Science at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought.

This article was originally published on Financial Sense on September 6, 2001. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Terrorisms and Globalisms

The Brazilian military has not caught up with the new era in international politics and examines the politics of today with outdated categories.

For more than a decade leftist intellectuals infiltrated at Brazil’s National War College and staff colleges around the country have sought to sell to officers of our armed forces the theory that, with the fall of USSR, Communism is over, the world has become unipolar, and the one and only pole, with its growing ambition of world dominance, is the virtual enemy against which strategic plans of national defense should be turned.

Cowed by persistent campaigns of journalistic slander that accuse them of the worst crimes, by the creation of a Ministry of Defense that excludes them from ministerial meetings, by budget cuts that reduce the armed forces to impotence, by the proliferation of environmentalist and pro-Brazilian Indians NGOs that exclude ever larger areas of Amazonian territory from military surveillance, and so on and so forth, many officers tend to accept that theory, which allows them to glimpse, behind so many humiliations they have suffered, the figure of a culprit: American imperialism.

Starting from these assumptions, they see the reaction of the Bush administration to the 9/11 attacks as another step of the American imperialist advance that puts the world in danger and, naturally, Brazil as well. To give more credibility to that “conspiracy theory,” the latest editorial of Ombro a Ombro, a newspaper of military affairs distributed to thousands of Brazilian officers, even rehashes an old cliché of the anti-American campaign from the time of the Vietnam war, dividing Washington’s ruling elite into “doves,” who want to submit American belligerence to the control of the UN, and “hawks,” who do not accept to be kept on a rein and want to rule the world. The conclusion drawn from this is obvious: national defense should ally with “doves,” giving support to multinational forces that, from Cuba to China and from the European Economic Community and to Mr. Yasser Arafat, want to tear off the wings of the “hawks.” The conclusion is so consistent with the assumptions that it almost automatically imposes itself. There is only one problem: the assumptions are false.

(1) There is no unipolar world. There is, on the one hand, the alliance between American and Israel and, on the other, the bloc of leftist globalism, entrenched in the UN. From a military point of view, the globalists’ fortresses are China—involved in an increasing nuclear preparation on a global war scale—, Russia (that has never ceased to sneakily help terrorists all over the world), a few heavily armed Arab countries, and, last but not least, the worldwide network of narcoterrorist organizations; economically, their stronghold is the European Economic Community, without whose support Arafat’s assaults against Israel would have already ceased for being out of gas; from a political and publicity point of view, the big international leftist media (including the main American newspapers) that trash George W. Bush on a daily basis.

(2) The United States are not a mirror-image of the Soviet Union; they are not a right-wing totalitarian state capable of formulating long-term strategic plans which continue to be faithfully followed down the generations, but rather a democracy, whose foreign policy changes from water to wine after each new presidential election.

(3) All the imperialistic pressures that would have been behind the humiliation of our Armed Forces were applied during the government of the most innocent of the “doves,” Mr. Bill Clinton, and not during George W. Bush (presumably a “hawk”) administration.

(4) At that same time that Mr. Clinton put all those pressures on us and on many other countries he also cut his own country’s military active duty personnel, budget, combat war crafts, and nuclear resources, blocked the investigation into Arab terrorist infiltration, seriously weakened the CIA and FBI, and, in short, did exactly the opposite of what would be logically expected in an imperialistic advance. What is more: elected with the support of Chinese funds for his presidential campaign, he also vetoed investigations into Chinese nuclear espionage in Los Alamos and moved heaven and earth to transfer the control of the Panama Canal, a strategic zone, to China. Finally, after 9/11, he joined in the international left’s outcry that blamed the victims for the terrorist attacks and demanded that the United States, instead of exercising its right of defense, consented in becoming a mere auxiliary force of United Nations. What kind of imperialist Yankee is he? Therefore, seen as signs of Washington’s imperial ambition, the anti-Brazilian pressures from the Clinton administration make no sense at all. Seen as maneuvers intended to turn Brazil against the United States and to strengthen the other pole of global dominance, they make all the sense in the world.

(5) The media campaigns against our armed forces—in parallel with the beatification of terrorists of the 1970s—have always come from leftist journalists who, in terms of international politics, side with that second pole, against the United States.

(6) Our military have not only been materially and morally disarmed. They have been intellectually disarmed: the suppression of courses in “revolutionary war” from the curricula of staff colleges has left two generations of army officers completely unprepared to take action in the context of continental revolutionary violence, today more intense and widespread than in the 1970s. The then Brazilian president is today an enthusiastic supporter of a presidential candidate who, at the meetings of the São Paulo Forum, from 1990 to 2001, signed successive solidarity pacts with Latin-American terrorist organizations.

(7) Most of the NGOs that infest the Amazon rainforest, removing it from the control of the armed forces, have no roots in the United States, but rather in European countries and the United Nations, that is to say: they belong to the other imperialistic pole, that of anti-American globalism (which has the support of Mr. Clinton and all the other doves of the American aviary).

Based on those observations, one can only conclude that our armed forces, and especially the new generations of officers, are the target of a vast and persistent disinformation and manipulation effort, intended to turn them into docile instruments of organized anti-Americanism, of the continental revolution, and of the leftist globalist pole. Today, flattering promises made by four left-wing presidential candidates announce, at the end of two decades of humiliation, the restoration of the dignity of our armed forces. But can there be dignity in someone who sells himself so cheaply to those who did so much to lower his price?

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Zero Hora on Septemeber 8, 2012, and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.




Winston Churchill and Oliveira Salazar

In 1974, a British Colonel, named Frederick W. Winterbotham, was authorized to reveal the existence of a system of classified information designed Top Secret Ultra (1). Its proper base, located in Bletchley Park, was indeed a formidable concentration of British scientists, professors and students that worked on codified messages changed by the enemy during the Second World War. Besides, when Winston Churchill arrived at Downing Street, the Ultra service, based on the computer Colossus, was able to decipher the principal code of the Luftwaffe (2).

On the other hand, two old institutions, dating from 1909 and especially related with the War Office – the MI5 and MI6 (3) – were operating with three new services created in 1940: the MI9, also known as the Escape Service (4); the SOE (Special Operations Executive) (5), whose purpose was to debilitate, through small teams specialized in sabotage, the enemy war production regarding Europe and even Asia; finally, the PWE (Political Warfare Executive), charged with propaganda and, at the same time, dependent on the Foreign and Intelligence Offices.

When Churchill became Prime-Minister, in 1940, he ordered his Chiefs of Staff to conduct a full revision of the British Secret Service in order to divide the functions and assure the circuit distribution of the classified information collected and deciphered. So, the main exigency concerning the Ultra service was the ability to keep a secret, or, in other words, to hold a secret circle focused on:

a) decoding, in Bletchley Park, the enemy messages transmitted after that to Colonel Stewart Menzies, the chief of SIS;

b) transmitting of those messages to Downing Street, to which Churchill, judging by default of the majority of ministers, secretaries and military chiefs, gave obviously a crucial importance that, in many ways, was even more necessary to win the war than the ingots accumulated in the vaults of the Bank of England.

In fact, Churchill always liked the underground action worked out by secret agents and sabotage operations in the enemy territory. An identical tendency could be found in Colonel Lawrence, who, by himself, defended a war strategy based on an invisible and invulnerable force that, without any front or rear-guard, would be, like a gas – metaphorically speaking -, capable of penetrating anywhere. Thus, to fight the political and military power of Nazism, it was necessary to implement a “Shadow War” or, more precisely, a parallel one using a subversive strategy by using the new technical possibilities offered by radio and plane incursions within the enemy space.

Too many secret services were active in Portugal during the Second World War. Besides the British one, there was also the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), superintended by Edgar Hoover, and specially, dating from 1942, the Office of Strategic Service (OSS), whose structure would become, after the war, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The Soviet Secret Service was also in Portuguese territory, namely the Rote Kapelle, as well as the German one through several agencies, among which was the Abwehr, headed in Portugal by Major Albrecht von Auenrode, also known as «Ludovico von Karshtor».

According to the North American historiographer, Douglas Wheeler, Portugal was, between 1939 and 1945, something like a «spyland» (6). Generally speaking, it can be acceptable, if we consider that too many secret agents were lodged in hotels such as the following ones:

a) Hotel Tivoli, in Lisbon, where German spies abounded as well as in hotels like Vitória, Suíço-Atlântico, Duas Nações, Avenida Palace;

b) Hotel Avis, also in Lisbon and, above all, a very luxurious one in which the Duke of Windsor rejected the Nazi plan already mentioned, not to say in which lived Calouste Sarkis Gulbenkian, a magnate of the Armenian petroleum whose son, Nubar Gulbenkian, worked for the MI6 through his union with Donald Darling;

c) Hotel Atlântico, located in the villa of Estoril, as well as Grande Hotel do Monte Estoril, Hotel do Parque e Hotel Palácio (7).

Far beyond the international espionage in Portugal, hundreds of thousands of refugees came to Lisbon to escape from the Nazi persecution as also from the horrors and destruction of war itself. Once there, many of them – Polish aristocrats, Czechs without nation, persecuted Germans, French runaways from Nazi occupation, expelled Scandinavian and Austrians, Belgians and Dutch, Jews of Central Europe and so on – waited in order to embark to the New World. Thus, Portugal, owing to the fact of being a neutral country, received and sheltered (8) people of all kinds of countries during the time that Europe was, unfortunately, under darkness by means of goods rationing, air raids and war operations.

In 1942, Oliveira Salazar’s international policy had effectively cause serious perturbation in some British diplomats and politicians, like Sir Donald Campbell, Ambassador in Lisbon, as well as Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for War appointed by Churchill. In fact, both really thought that Salazar’s Portuguese policy, despite strictly stemming from a neutral status, had not contributed unequivocally to the war effort made by both UK and US governments (9). And, besides that, Salazar had also anticipated the most woeful consequences for a British victory based on an Anglo-Russian alliance, given the fact that reality itself could not admit ideological contradictions, especially when Communism expansion through erroneous Western strategy was at stake.

It is well documented by Franco Nogueira, Salazar´s minister of the Foreign Office (1961-1969), as also his best biographer (10), how some lower officials of British diplomacy considered, along their correspondence with Campbell, the possibility of removing Portugal’s leader to set a more propitious government of their own. Therefore, it seems conceivable that, in critical moments where Portugal’s political independence could be in jeopardy, Salazar decided to engage firmly any pressure or imposition coming from the British Empire, or even confronted every range of interests of His Majesty’s Government which would be, notwithstanding the historical Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (11), in opposition with the Lusitanian ones. Rather, it is also true that, regarding the cooperation between the British Embassy and the Portuguese Government, the agents of the Intelligence Service were working behind Portugal’s back with some bad elements of the internal opposition, many of them mistakably taken by anglophiles (12).

Salazar 2-002In spite of such incidents, Churchill, while lunching at Portugal’s Embassy, on 7 January of 1943, said to Armindo Monteiro that Salazar was a man whose intelligence and wisdom were really crucial to preserve Spanish neutrality. But, by the time, Churchill and Roosevelt, thinking about the idea of installing an aerial base in the Portuguese Archipelago of the Azores, didn’t exclude the possibility of using force (13). Meantime, the opposition came from Anthony Eden, to whom the violation of the Portuguese neutrality could destroy, despite the theatre of war, the moral foundation of a true community of sovereign nations.

So, the dilemma of Roosevelt and Churchill consisted of, regarding Salazar´s Atlantic policy, using force or of setting up a diplomatic approach to obtain military facilities in the Archipelago of Azores, especially in the islands of S. Miguel, Terceira and Faial. It seems that Salazar disowned the Anglo-American conspiracy to undertake a strategic incursion into such an Archipelago, but he really had, nevertheless, a deep intuition of the possibility of it (14). That is why, considering what, finally, would be the British appeal to the Azores issue, Salazar agreed in discussing the conditions of such a delicate case, which could certainly bring to Portugal some political advantages, like the most vital one: the preservation of the Portuguese sovereignty in the Oversea Territories (15).

Sustained the Anglo-American impetus upon the Azores, Campbell reopened the wolfram issue, supplied by Portugal to Germany as well as to England. Regarding this issue, we must remember that, since 1942, Portugal was being extremely affected by the British blockade in what respects the provision of some goods and raw materials, in order to stop the wolfram supply to Germany. Salazar immediately understood the British attempt to protect proper interests while disregarding Portugal’s neutral ones, purposely expressed, by the way, in a war commercial agreement between Lisbon and London (1941).

For a more fundamental explanation, here are some arguments of Salazar to defend Portugal’s attitude toward the wolfram problem:

1. Portuguese interests are in first place. From this point, the Portuguese Government must do what it can to defend the war commercial agreement far beyond the wolfram question. The priority goes to commercial and financial relations with England in order to safeguard the Portuguese interests without admitting any arbitrary activity upon them.

2. The wolfram transaction to England and the United States was much larger than it was to Germany (16). Besides, the last one had already protested against the imposing restrictions, almost seen as a down of neutrality.

3. Portugal was not disposed to be drawn to war, directly or indirectly, for the sake of the wolfram problem.

4. Many of Portugal’s mines were German property. Such mines were equipped and invested by German capital, susceptible of limiting, consequently, the legitimate action of the Portuguese Government. Moreover, Portugal could trade wolfram for German raw materials considered essential and, as we know, fully denied by the United Kingdom and even by the United States.

5. Despite the last item, Portugal, willing to satisfy the British demands, reduced the wolfram exportations to Germany. Salazar was, inclusively, too technical and factual about it: in 1942-43, 37% of wolfram was supplied from Portugal’s mines, while, in 1943-44, just 25% was extracted. From this 25%, only a quarter could represent what the British experts considered to be the wolfram necessities of the German military industry.

Finally, Churchill wrote a letter to Salazar saying, subtly, that the Iberian Peninsula was alone in providing wolfram to Germany and that British soldiers were being killed by a German war industry based on the Portuguese wolfram, etc. Obviously, these allegations were tactically endorsed to intimidate Salazar, but, beyond that, without any legitimacy respecting Portugal’s neutral position at the time. Salazar, instead, remained in his attitude reconcilable and yet refutable.

After that, several incidents took place, like for instance:

a) the American, Brazilian and South Africa diligences to contain the wolfram Portuguese production;

b) Campbell’s idea to throw out Salazar, promptly excluded by the Foreign Office;

c) Salazar’s conditional proposals to cut the wolfram supply to Germany even more;

d) the variance between the Foreign Office and the Department of State to what should have been the respective sphere of influence upon Portugal’s affairs;

e) finally, Salazar’s assent in the presence of the British appeal to stop the wolfram production to Germany in the name of the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (17).

Salazar considered the war through peace, or, more properly speaking, wished to know on what base of values and principles the peace process would be raised up. In this context, he didn’t approve of Churchill’s speech in which the British leader salutes the entry of Russia to fight Hitler’s Germany. So, if Salazar could see and recognize the British strategy in using Russian force, he couldn´t also forget that the Soviet Union, besides invading Finland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia, collaborated with Germany to share Polish territory.

In Churchill’s case, the main goal was strictly focused on the Nazi defeat. To him, it was an extermination war not braced by armies or governments, but by and among people. And the Allied Powers’ victory should be, above all, a History lesson to the Germans as well as to the future world.

After the most lethal conflict of the twentieth century, Churchill came up with a crucial warning about the possibility of a Third World War caused by the URSS military expansion. Inasmuch as Salazar had already anticipated it, the «wisest man of Westminster» could finally recognize, while pronouncing a speech in an American University, that Europe itself was day after day submitted to a totalitarian domination coming from international Communist organizations planned and disseminated by Moscow’s World Wide Revolution. Thence his reference to the eccentric “Iron Curtain” between Eastern Europe and everything eastward, like Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia.

Curiously, Joseph Goebbels, the well-known Minister of the Nazi Propaganda, had already used the term “Iron Curtain” to warn the Germans against an eventual advance of the Red Army in Europe. In such circumstances, Churchill once more subscribed, as in the past, the idea of the United States of Europe based on Christian values and cultural, scientific and philosophical ones. Therefore, Western Europe should be the centre of civilization, in which Great Britain, in spite of being an expression of such civilization, was not really part of it.

In fact, the ultimate vision of Churchill was really vital to England in order to protect its integrity and to make sure that it would not be absorbed in continental problems either, such as economical and political ones. In truth, Churchill worked for the Atlantic Europe and not for the Carolingian oneof the Shuman, Monnet and Adenauer. In short, he wanted the doctrine of the three circles, the first of which was the Commonwealth and the British Empire centrally considered, while the others were the Anglophone world and the united Europe stemming from French and German´s spiritual and material development.

mooreSalazar, on the other hand, worked to preserve Portugal’s historical mission in Europe and in all places of the planet signed by the Lusitanian spiritual culture. Thus, what made him special was, in fact, his own political intuition to defend Portugal’s sovereignty in front of other national interests and global organizations which were working, conscious or not, to the constitution of a New World Order. Until his final moment, the Portuguese statesman could also see that Portugal’s Oversea Territories were being under attack by terrorist forces prepared, directed and launched by foreign countries.

As we can see it, nothing of what has been told here corresponds to what is a complete process of subverted omission in Portugal’s university as well as in media ideological disinformation. Even numberless figures of the show business are somehow connected, in Portugal, with such ideological disinformation. An example, among others, can and should be made as regards an old James Bond actor, called Roger Moore.

So, about fifteen years ago, the illustrious actor came to Portugal and was interviewed on a television set by Herman José, a “German comic” as stupid as he can also be tremendously ignorant. While chatting, the name of Salazar came up and, informally, Roger Moore treated the Portuguese leader respectfully; the “German comic”, reacting like a little child, immediately said that his interlocutor was wrong about the man, adding that he was a terrible dictator, a fascist as no other. It was then interesting to see Roger Moore’s face with an astonished expression of disbelief.

And à propos the disbelief, George Ball, an important figure of the US Government, recognize, after a meeting session in 1963, that Salazar was a man with charm and grace. But became puzzled when found that, besides mentally sharp as well as extremely conservative, Salazar was – paraphrasing Ball’s impression -, living in another century as if Henry, The Navigator, Vasco da Gama and Magalhães still were conducting the Portuguese policy. And, in fact, he was really living in it, especially because past generations, based on a secular Portuguese secret, were being connected through time and space.



(1) Cf. Frederick W. Winterbotham, The Ultra Secret, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974. The results of the Ultra Secret service, during the Second World War, were really considerable, as, for instance, In the context of the Atlantic battle against the submarines (1942-43), or facing the Africakorps during the first battle of El-Alamein (1942), or, last but not least, in breaking the German counter-offensive of Mortain in Normandy (1944).

(2) In 1941, the decipherers of Bletchley Park dominated completely the Kriegsmarine code, while, in the Spring of 1942, they also decoded Wehrmacht’s one. Nevertheless, the Germans, by means of the Abwehr, deciphered, at the beginning of 1940, the Royal Navy code, as were also capable of reading, till 1943, the Merchant Navy one.

(3) The Military Intelligence 5, charged with counterespionage, operated in British territory, while the Military Intelligence 6, generally known as the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), operated in foreign lands. Moreover, the MI6 created a «double cross system» to reinforce the proper detection of German secret agents. The Yugoslavian Dusko Popov is one of the most famous double agent at the time, especially for transmitting secret information to the Bristish about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941) and for also projecting, through the Gestapo, the kidnapping of the Duke of Windsor in Portugal. “Operation Willi” was the German code name for such an unsuccessful attempt, because Edward rejected the Nazi plan bent on the peace settlement with Britain and on the restoration to the throne after the German conquest of Great Britain. So, before his departure to the Bahamas as Governor, Edward stayed a month in the villa of Estoril, to be more exact in the house of Ricardo Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker.

(4) The Military Intelligence 9, while operating in Portugal with the help of the Consulate of Great-Britain, organized the flight of allied and military prisoners in occupied countries. The objective was to maintain entry and escape lines through Gibraltar and Lisbon to London.

(5) The name of this organization was created by Neville Chamberlain and connected, by the hand of W. Churchill, with the War Office. Jack Grosvenor Beevor, military adjoined attaché of the British Embassy in Lisbon, was the local director of the SOE propaganda action and sabotage. In 1941, the SOE organized a movement of resistance against an eventual German invasion of Portugal, supported by Portuguese elements and based on a network known as «Shell», meanwhile dismantled by the PVDE (“State Defence and Surveillance Police”).

(6) Due to the fact that, in Portugal, several networks of espionage were being detected and dismantled, the result would be the criminalization of such phenomenon occurred in 7 June of 1943.

ianfleming(7) The German spies seemed to prefer the two first mentioned ones, while the others were chosen by the Allied spies. Furthermore, there were also many diplomatic attachés and rich refugees who spent their fortunes in the Estoril Casino. At this point, we shall not forget the inspiration that such a Casino had on the imagination of Ian Lancaster Fleming to write his James Bond novel: Casino Royale (1953). And the reason for that is very simple: Ian Fleming, during his career at the Naval Intelligence Division of the Admiralty, went to the Estoril Casino, habitually full of a great number of spies of warring regimes.   (8) For that specified purpose, the police had to organize residential centres in Lisbon suburbs.

(9) It is crucial to note how Armindo Monteiro, while Portuguese Ambassador in London, conceived the war problem according to the British point of view, and specially how he was not capable of getting a deeper understanding of Salazar´s delicate position in the presence of the most dangerous conflict that ever existed on earth.

(10) Cf. Franco Nogueira, Salazar, Livraria Civilização Editora, Vol. III, pp. 398-400.

(11) Salazar was indeed very suspicious concerning the richer, more powerful and greater nations. In other words, he knew that the Portuguese were educated to believe in the thesis that Portugal’s independence and integrity depended on Great Britain’s generosity. With this in the background, he argued that, even if it would be true, every Portuguese should have the moral and the political duty of renouncing to such an alleged thesis, just because the Lusitanian people must have, above all, the strength sufficient to be themselves.

(12) In this particular sense, Salazar, which economical liberalism was an undoubted fact, repudiated the political one, especially when it was responsible for immoral and not an upright action.

(13) After their meeting in Casablanca, where Churchill and Roosevelt discussed again the Azores case, the second one proposed to Getúlio Vargas the occupation of the Portuguese Archipelago by Brazilian forces.

(14) On Portugal’s neutrality, Salazar, relating one of his own conversations with Ronald Campbell, said to Armindo Monteiro: «The Secretary of State [Anthony Eden] can be sure that Portugal, as a neutral country, will retaliate, up to the limit of its forces, against an attack coming from the British fleet in the Azores and Cape Verde. I can´t imagine what else can be done with dignity». Before this statement, Armindo Monteiro, inspired by panic, couldn’t believe in such audacity. However, this episode can give to the world an idea about the greatest statesman of the twentieth century.

(15) From this vital advantage, Salazar would get: 1. The Exclusive use of the Archipelago of Azores by the British forces; 2. The safeguard of the Archipelago of Cape Verde, due to the fact of being a key strategic position in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean, in which Brazil and the United States were well interested; 3. The guarantees of Australia and South African Union related to the non-violation of the Portuguese territories, the first one related with Timor, invaded by Japanese forces at the time, while the second one with ambitious incursion of Southeast Mozambique.

(16)  In 1942-43, the Allied forces received 3 184 tons of wolfram while Germany got 1 900; in 1943-44, the former received 4 660 against 1 555 to Germany.

(17) Salazar, however, formulated to Campbell his own reserves concerning the invocation of such Alliance in so particular circumstances. And, of course, he also applied the embargo to any other belligerent country in order to guarantee Portugal´s neutrality.

19Miguel Bruno Duarte is a Fellow in Philosophy and Political Science at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. Translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

New York has no authority to license ‘gay’ marriage

Abolition of the family! … The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital. – The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels

On July 25, 2011, MSNBC and the other undereducated, misinformed and politicized news media proclaimed, “N.Y. becomes sixth and largest state to legalize gay marriage.” Of course, this is the same group of fellow travelers and useful idiots who misapply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the respective states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” to deny Christians and soon Jews the freedom of worship, when the clause plainly recognizes the inalienable freedom of worship.

Either of these distortions of real truth is more of the same Marxist double speak. The New York state government has no authority to legalize homosexual marriage, whether the government was conscious of the Marxist thrust of its illegal actions or just being a useful idiot in the advance of Marx’s goal to destroy the family.

Pages could be, have been and should be written about the progressive Marxist destruction of the American constitutional republic. And pages could be, have been and should be written about the destructive nature of the homosexualization of the culture. With regard to the illegal action of the New York state government, it is more important to understand clearly that the civil government has no authority in area of the free exercise of religion such as marriage. If it has no authority and tries to exercise power not vested to it, then the state is acting illegally.

So that you don’t buy the lie, this commentary focuses on the fact that, intentionally or not, too many in the press, the mass media, the government and the education establishment have confused the citizens of America about the institution of marriage.

First of all, as many of our readers already know, there are many forms of government. In our western democracy, there are at least four spheres of government: individual government, family government, ecclesiastical government and civil government. In the United States of America, the civil government owes its existence to the consent of the governed, not the other way around, in the tradition of the Magna Carta. Furthermore, since the Rev. Samuel Rutherford wrote “Lex, Rex,” which clarified the rule of law posited by the Magna Carta, all of these forms of government have been under God’s law in the United Kingdom and the United States. When king or ruler is above the law, he often acts in imperious and dictatorial ways, for the very nature of power is to corrupt the powerful, unless it is restrained by God’s law. In essence, God’s law says to love your neighbor as yourself, and the civil government is subject to that divine law.


Thus, the Declaration of Independence made it clear that King George III acted illegally when he oppressed the American colonies, because he was under the law of God. Countries that allowed men to rule above the law have produced tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse-tung. Current examples include Mugabe, Chavez and the military junta in Burma, among many others.

It must be emphasized that marriage between one man and one woman is a God-ordained, God-defined, biblical act. For 1,800 years in western countries, marriage was a unique institution, initiated by God when he created the male and female, presided over by Jesus Christ when he blessed the act of marriage and stated that a man and a woman would leave their parents and join together to become one flesh and sustained by the Holy Spirit, which not only holds the marriage together but also produces the offspring that God creates.

The norm in most other religions is not monogamy, although many have borrowed the form of a Christian wedding. Moreover, the state’s involvement in Christian marriage is relatively recent.

In 1837, Rev. Henry Morris complained that the state had usurped the authority of God in marriage. Morris railed against the passage of a law on marriage by providing a detailed look at the institution of marriage. He painstakingly interpreted the scriptures to establish his point that marriage is most importantly a religious institution, and therefore it should not be relegated to a strictly civil character:

They took from the Clergy “the solemnizing of Matrimony, and put it into the hands of Justices of the Peace …” In the former instance of this desecration being ordained, the power to legislate had been seized by those who would be restrained in nothing that they imagined to do; and, in a day specified in their ordinance, “no other marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth,” but such as should be contracted … before a Justice of the Peace, “should be held or accounted a marriage according to the law of England.” But the national principle is not yet sufficiently prostrated to make us again ripe for so arbitrary and irreligious an imposition, and therefore, by the law just come in force, you are left to form your own judgments, whether marriage is a mere civil contract, or a Divine institution “whether it shall be celebrated with or without any offices of religion” whether the Church, the Conventicle, or the Register-office, shall be the place of celebration and whether the Clergyman of the Parish, the Dissenting Teacher, or the superintendent Registrar, shall officiate on the occasion.

Morris adds that the biblical position is that only God ordains marriage. So, in the light of history and God’s Word written, the judges in Massachusetts, California or any other state or federal court have nothing to say about Christian marriage and have no authority to define, ordain or desecrate it.

Morris brilliantly continues in his sermon:

“… by the state of matrimony the spiritual marriage that is betwixt Christ and His Church is signified and represented … But that ‘the fruitful vine’ … is not procurable by a civil contract, it cometh only of the Lord.”

His reasoning is impeccable, but many have forgotten that marriage belongs to the church. In fact, a few are very uncomfortable with that concept because of the abuse of power by some ecclesiastical authorities. Two wrongs don’t make a right, however. And they certainly don’t make a civil right to same-sex “marriage.”

With regard to the abuse of power, it must be noted that civil government is good, although there can be bad presidents, governors, judges and other authorities. Family government is good, although there can be bad fathers and mothers. Ecclesiastical government is good, although there can be bad clergymen. The rules and the laws of the exception do not make the rule. In other words, a bad father does not give us the license to call for the abolishment of fatherhood, etc. What it does do is to give us the opportunity for checks and balances, which until recently were most perfectly expressed in our constitutional government.

The church has to reclaim marriage as its unique institution. Whatever anyone wants to do outside of the church may be their business, but it is not sanctioned by God’s law. The state has the right to regulate only what the Constitution allows it to regulate, because there is no liberty for license. But, the state does not have the right to tell the church that any couple outside of the faith is married.

We need to stand for God’s law in the face of the power grab by those in civil authority who know no restraints.

New York and the other increasingly socialized states have not only violated God’s law, they have also violated their own Constitution and the will of the governed. When they do that, they are just like King George. They have abdicated their moral and legal authority and are subject to indictment, trial and just punishment.

Now, all those who freely exercise their inalienable right to religious faith must stop acting like useful idiots and fellow travelers by going along to get along. Instead, they must stand for their God-given rights by proclaiming loud and clear that these New York government servants have crossed the line into illegal activity that has no authority and makes them criminals.

Often, people of faith and values do not stand up because they have been slowly boiled in the brine of socialism and so give the states powers they have no authority to use. Often the state or federal government creates the problem by violating our individual rights to property, estates, income, etc., through the Marxist device of illicit taxation. Then the government argues that the state needs to govern marriage to alleviate the tax burdens the state created so that it can encourage marriage. Such circular and dishonest reasoning has almost deceived the very electorate.

Now the people must throw off the stupor of Marxist doublespeak and return to the basic principles that made them free to live at peace in the American republic that recognizes “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do not let it destroy godly marriage and families!


Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

This article was originally published at on June 27, 2011. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

The Creeping Pink Cloud

Rupert Murdoch’s New York bullhorn, also known as the New York Post, has recently been jubilating each time a Republican in the state legislature comes over to the side of gay marriage. According to the Post, the legalization and celebration of gay marriage is only another step on the road to universal emancipation that has included mileposts such as the civil rights movement and women’s liberation. On June 15, the Post, casting aside the fig leaf of news reporting, produced an editorial called “New York Is Overdue to Say ‘I Do’ to Gay Marriage”:

The sum total of human liberty grows any time a single individual enjoys expanded freedom. So much the better when rights grow through popular consensus, as is likely with bipartisan legislative approval in Albany, rather than through activist judges.

Although some Neanderthals may object to this supposed expansion of freedom, the editorialist assures us not to worry:

The same principle, by the way, demands that religious institutions not be forced to perform marriages they don’t sanction. Their liberties, too, must be protected.

So there! We’ve expanded freedom once again while protecting the liberties of those who may have scruples about what the Post editorialist is rejoicing over. Not quite. Special protection for those thought to have been deprived of rights has come at the cost of those whose rights are being restricted. A gay rights or feminist bill invariably removes rights from people who are thought to be in violation of what some government agency demands. To give proof positive of accepting a newly protected lifestyle or group, an employer or renter will have to strain to show that he is not “discriminating.” Such a person will be expected to lean over backward as evidence of good intentions. In practice, this translates to mandatory favoring of those who are being specially protected.

“What about individuals who for religious or moral reasons find themselves repelled by gay marriage…or gay anything?”

“Discrimination” in these instances is being broadly interpreted to allow public administrators and judges to push dissenters into rethinking their basic values. In 1970 the IRS (with resounding media approval) denied tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist college in South Carolina—not because this institution kept blacks from attending, but because it discouraged interracial dating as a matter of religious principle. Such a policy, as Justice Rehnquist noted in a single dissenting opinion when the case came before the Supreme Court in 1983, did not contravene the existing law about the purpose of tax-exempt institutions. Bob Jones was stubbornly resisting the progressive thinking about race relations that civil rights laws were intended to produce. Religious conscience was made to take a backseat here to an evolving government policy aimed at altering attitudes.

It is also outrageously dishonest to pretend that religious dissenters will be protected with gay marriage’s legalization because churches will not—not yet—be forced to perform the offending ceremony. What about individuals who for religious or moral reasons find themselves repelled by gay marriage…or gay anything? Grant Havers, a Canadian professor and devout Protestant, has kept detailed evidence of government bullying that has been inflicted on his countrymen for failing to submit to what Robert Weissberg has called “coercive tolerance.”

By now, Havers’s dossier could fill entire library shelves. Although Canadian provinces and the Canadian federal government through its “human rights” purview have not explicitly compelled religious institutions to perform gay marriages, they have by no stretch of the imagination respected dissenters. In the 2001, Ontario evangelical printer Scott Brockie was fined so heavily as to ruin him financially. His crime was that he refused to print material for the Lesbian and Gay Archives. Brockie was found to be in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which obviously was not mindful of his rights as a citizen.

In the relatively conservative province of Alberta, pastor Stephen Boissoin was ordered by a provincial Human Rights tribunal to renounce his views on homosexuality after publishing some disapproving remarks about gay unions. This case came three years after the same tribunal hauled before it the Catholic Archbishop of Calgary for expressing his disapproval of gay marriage. In both cases expensive appeal processes were begun. But while Archbishop Henry backed out of the imbroglio by issuing a “clarification,” Boissoin allowed his case to go all the way up to the highest appellate court in the province, the Queen’s Bench. There the appellant was relieved of the heavy fine that had been imposed by a lower court but not of the charge of having engaged in “hate speech.” This year, comedian Guy Earle was fined $15,000 for giving offense to a lesbian heckler during a routine in a Vancouver restaurant.


It is naïve to believe that First Amendment rights will be a permanent protection against such excesses. The US Department of Education, the Justice Department, and other federal and state agencies are already monitoring our words and demanding remedies for insensitive speech in educational institutions and in the workplace. (See my book After Liberalism, pp. 107-09.) The Canadian situation is not unimaginable, because public administrators and judges have already breached guarantees of free expression and free exercise of religion. But they have done this in corporate settings, applying government pressure to alter the values and mindsets of those associated with institutions instead of censoring isolated individuals’ views. It is also incorrect to imagine that the legalization of gay marriage in New York or in any other populous state will not significantly change the degree of control that is already being exercised over us because of existing anti-discrimination laws affecting gays.

The concerns of religious organizations that the “all but inevitable” passage of the gay-marriage bill will further limit their institutional freedoms are well-founded. Henceforth discrimination against gay spouses can and will be treated (however ludicrous this may seem) as an attack on the sacred institution of marriage.

It is equally questionable whether legislators any more than judges are legitimizing gay marriage because of a democratic “consensus.” If by consensus one means a settled, widely shared opinion, this is not what we’re talking about. True consensus, as opposed to fabricated public opinion, can only arise in real communities. It cannot be manufactured by the media and entertainment industries, but unfortunately these are the influences to which our under-thirties crowd has become increasingly susceptible. Factoring in the effect of public education, one has a complete picture of the supposed consensus being formed. The Still Divided Academy (a work by two of my young former colleagues, April Kelly-Woessner and Matthew Woessner) proves that most college freshmen have already been conditioned by the educational and entertainment establishments to embrace liberal social views. Adolescents happily accept that what they are made to believe is “liberal,” often with the illusion that they are choosing their own values.

Their parents may be compared to floating objects, located somewhere between fragmented communities and the world that their offspring inhabit. These middle-aged parents do not form a “consensus” but, like the kids, they can be persuaded (albeit more slowly) to accept what is fashionable. Obviously the media and universities have been working overtime to create a “consensus.”

Up until the 1970s, when I first noticed journalists and intellectuals pushing the incipient gay agenda, it is unlikely that people favored gay marriage any more than they endorsed legalized bestiality. After all, heterosexual unions are not a recent fad but the way hominoids have lived for the last million years. It may also be historically important that the “gay community” and their advocates are browbeating uncooperative businesses, law firms, and political figures. A Bronx Democrat and state senator, Ruben Diaz, says he has received numerous death threats since he publicly stated that he had reservations about voting for gay marriage. A writer for the Advocate, Jonathan Rauch, has warned his gay allies that the time has come to cool down. It may be necessary to “leave room for homophobia” now that his side is winning. Gays, explains Rauch, shouldn’t accommodate their reactionary critics by appearing to be “bullies.” To which one might reply: “Why not?” Bullying tactics have only helped them so far.

Given these forces it is not surprising that almost overnight a “consensus” has emerged in favor of gay lifestyles and gay unions. It was also predictable that this trend should be particularly popular among minicons, RINOs, and the more recognizable left. Perhaps we should now try to fashion a new “consensus” for unions between humans and chimps. Legislators and the Post could champion this project the way they have gay marriage. The government could then depict “chimpophobes” as the sworn enemies of freedom.

Paul_GottfriedDr. Paul Gottfried is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Western Civilization and the History of Ideas.

This article was oiginally published at on June 27, 2011.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Harvest Time

The São Paulo Forum gathers together radical leftist political parties and criminal organizations, and it is making the socialist revolution in Latin America.

Given the accomplished fact of the downfall of the USSR, the São Paulo Forum has been the most powerful initiative for reorganizing the international Communist movement since 1990, and, in Fidel Castro’s words, “for reconquering in Latin America what was lost in Eastern Europe.” Convened by the Cuban dictator and the then Brazilian Workers’ Party’s presidential candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Forum gathers together legal Communist (and pro-Communist) parties, committed to the struggle for cultural and political hegemony in their nations, and armed organizations involved in kidnapping, terrorism, and drug trafficking. Among the latter, the FARC, whose connections with the Brazilian drug market have been proved by the arrest of the Brazilian drug lord Fernandinho Beira-Mar, is a standout. There are also double-faced organizations, simultaneously legal and illegal, like the Chilean Communist Party, whose armed wing had something to do with the kidnapping of the Brazilian businessman Washington Olivetto.

Perhaps my readers will at first find strange a meeting in which legally organized parties fraternize with criminal gangs. But, actually, this association is just another application of the old Leninist rule that, in the revolutionary struggle, legal and illegal means should be combined together.

In fact one of the advantages of an international alliance is that it allows that a promiscuous mix of moralist rhetoric and drug trafficking, beautiful ideals and the brutality of kidnappings, humanitarian sentimentalism and organized terror (a mix so clear and evident on a continental scale, and in meetings of the Forum) appear disguised and nebulous when seen from the standpoint of each separate nation. That is to say, through the employment of Argentineans to take action in Mexico, Bolivians in Brazil, or Brazilians in Chile, the most obvious connections become invisible to the eyes of the local public opinion. As a result, the legal parties remain above any suspicion, and the mere suggestion that they should be investigated is rejected as an intolerable offense, even when the arrest of criminals gives full proof of the intimate connection between organized crime and leftist politics on the continent. And the criminal identity of the left becomes still more patent when the arrest of criminals is followed, by some magical coincidence, by a fast and effective mobilization of the left’s “decent” and official leadership in favor of the criminals under arrest.

The São Paulo Forum has been holding regular meetings since 1990. The tenth one took place in Havana, Cuba, in December 2001. Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was there. Therefore to deny that he is politically associated with the organizations that signed the declarations of the Forum is to deny the validity of a Brazilian presidential candidate’s signature on official documents of international relevance. As Vasconcelo Quadros wrote in the March 2002 issue of Isto É magazine: “Brazil shelters a clandestine network for supporting international guerrilla organizations which are involved in kidnappings, bank robberies, and drug trafficking.” In a country in which a phone call given to a swindler is enough to make a politician fall under police suspicion, the national refusal to investigate a criminal connection officially recorded on public documents is surprising at least.

What is even more surprising is that, among so many pundits, police officers, politicians, and military officials (all of them allegedly very intelligent), nobody can (or wants to) see a logical connection between those facts and Dr. Leonardo Boff’s statement, reported by the newspaper Jornal do Brasil of August 23, that with the coming election, “the time for the Brazilian revolution has arrived. The sowing has already been done. Now it is harvest time.” Or did the retired friar not mean anything of the sort when he used the word “revolution,” it being nothing but a naïve figure of speech? The massive and obstinate refusal to realistically face the present situation can be explained by the fact that this situation is indeed a dreadful reality, the sight of which would be far too traumatic for the delicate nerves of an effeminate bourgeoisie, a class terrified to the point of no longer acknowledging the reality of the evil that terrifies it.

Psychologically kidnapped by some nameless Marxism that has taken over the country, the ruling class is already ripe for performing its role of a docile, smiling, and helpful victim. But, please, do not think that with these remarks I here give my support or opposition to any of the candidates for the presidency. Consider this: the four candidates—the differences among them are irrelevant—have the same ideology, and any one of them, when elected, will not be able to rule the country without the support of at least one or two of the other three. From this point of view, then, the coming presidential election is actually a one-party election, in which the ruling party has been subdivided into four temporary tickets. That is why Dr. Boff did not say that the revolution will be inaugurated with the victory of this or that candidate, but with “the election” itself—it does not matter who will be the winner.

At least from the psychological point of view, that revolution has already begun: ideological uniformity, once accepted as the normal state of affairs in democratic politics, is enough to virtually outlaw, as “right-wing extremism,” any word henceforth said in favor of free-market capitalism, the United States of America, or Israel. And whoever says anything in favor of one them regularly receives death threats, some of which no longer even take precautions to be sent as anonymous messages: they are out there, for anyone to see, on internet sites and cause no scandal at all. Dr. Boff is right: the sowing has already been completed. It is harvest time.

But, of course, all of this is certainly a mere figure of speech. And to see any malign intention in such innocent words, that would be a scandal.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo on Septemeber 7, 2015, and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.




Classroom Prostitution for Fun and Profit?

On March 4, Laurie Higgens, the dauntless director of Illinois Family Institute wrote, “The burnished legacy of Alfred Kinsey and his cultural progeny, the sexual revolutionaries of the ’60s, burns bright at Northwestern University.”

In “Gettin’ Freaky at Northwestern University,” Higgens was reporting on Northwestern University’s professor Michael Bailey, who has a rather gloomy history of luring vulnerable youth into college-credit peeping!

Bordello Bailey and his work were lauded in the 2006 volume of “The Best American Science Writing.” A major sexual-orientation researcher, Bailey is lionized by academe and the controlled media (he is sure homosexuality is largely inherited).

Bailey inspires students to advance the Kinsey sexuality canon.

On point, March 7, Joseph Bernstein proclaimed Bailey’s class “the best” he ever took (identifying the key problem of higher education).

Joe says, “J. Michael Bailey is the person at the center of the controversy currently burning on the western shore of Lake Michigan, fed by gusts of air from every prurient corner of the Internet and every red-faced moralist who can sit through the Fox News or MSNBC or CNN makeup chair long enough to release his outrage.”

As does this “red-faced moralist” object to Northwestern indoctrinating naive youths like Joe to praise prostitution, a direct form of sex trafficking. Before discussing Northwestern’s “voluntary” curriculum, note three definitions:

Prostitution is the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.” A pimp is “one who arranges such sex acts for hire.” A voyeur is “one who enjoys seeing the sex acts or sex organs of others.” All three were (and are) psychosexual pathologies.

Each definition describes Old Bailey’s latest campus sex entertainment.

Child sex victims worldwide testify that their predators, like Bailey, commonly couched their sex abuse in “educational” terms.

“I am helping you learn about sex!”

“This is educational!”

“Only puritans see this as wrong!”

“I am teaching you how to have an orgasm.”

Professor Bailey “educated” 120 gasping students with wide-screen pornography while a naked, unbalanced woman was paid to have her reproductive organs assaulted with a mechanical device.

Bailey also asserted he was teaching them about “orgasm.”

Now, I have that bridge to sell you, cheap.

Bailey, Northwestern’s resident voyeur fits both the pimp and the voyeur profile.

One of the peepers, Bailey eagerly watched both the sex entertainment and his young students who were coping with their sexual discomfort, confusion and excitement.

Bailey’s students hoped for a good grade in his human sexuality course, so most accepted his “invitation” to watch the pitiable prostitute with the device, until, announced Bailey, she “reached sexual climax,” said The Daily Northwestern.


My, my, my.

Unfortunately, like “Harry Met Sally,” Bailey knows this isn’t science and that there is no evidence that the wretched woman had a “sexual climax.”

Oh, she said so.

Northwestern paid Weird Chicago Tours, a “Network for Kinky People,” for Bailey’s “extracurricular activity.”

This means a sex business was paid by Northwestern to indoctrinate students into prostitution.

So, will Bordello Bailey and Northwestern officials be arrested for suborning and pimping prostitution – and were all viewers of his illicit demo adults?

Northwestern has long supported Bailey’s barely legal sex activities. Dec. 23, 2002, then-Rep. Mark Souder seethed over one Bailey payout:

“Do I need a Ph.D. to understand why it is a sensible prioritization to spend hundreds of thousands of research dollars to pay women to watch porn, while countless Americans are suffering from debilitating diseases with no cures?”

In 2003 Bailey was “investigated” for describing his sex with a transvestite subject in his book, without her/his informed consent.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.