Judicial Insanity in Indiana

Recently, a rather shocking “judicial opinion” was handed down by a bare majority of the Indiana Supreme Court, to the effect that it is supposedly illegal under Indiana’s “public policy” for any individual to resist an unlawful search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention by rogue law-enforcement officers (or, presumably, any other rogue public officials purporting to enforce, but actually violating, the law).

Many people are rightly concerned that this decision will provide more grist for the mill of the national para-military police state now being elaborated around the misnamed Department of Homeland Security, which is stretching its tentacles into every State and Local police department. No doubt it will—and perhaps was even intended to do so. For, plainly, this decision is an all-out frontal attack on a principle well known to the Founding Fathers. As Sir William Blackstone observed, “[s]elf-defence * * * , as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society”. Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Robert Bell, Subscribers’ Edition, 4 Volumes & Appendix, 1771-1773), Volume 3, at 4.

Protective measures, though, are available. WE THE PEOPLE are not at the mercy of the ideological descendants of Reinhardt Heydrich and Lavrenti Beria who seem to have usurped control over much of America’s contemporary “judiciary”. For Indiana, as well as every other State in the Union, has a government of legislative supremacy subject to popular sovereignty. So, this most recent “judicial” travesty can be rectified in Indiana, and prevented in other States, by the simple expedient of a statute.

As a public service, I have drafted a model bill that, with a bit of workmanlike tinkering by local lawyers to fit it into the possible peculiarities of each State’s own code, should do the job (at least as a first step).

I am confident that, in many States, foresighted patriots will put this suggestion to good use.

AN ACT TO GUARANTEE THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE TO THE PEOPLE OF […name of State…]

SECTION 1. The State of [ … ] recognizes that the right of personal self-defense is an unalienable right that no just government, or any official of any such government, may abridge, infringe, or burden at any time, for any reason, or to any degree.

SECTION 2. No individual within this State shall be denied, prevented from exercising, or penalized for having exercised, the right to defend

(a) his or her person in any place; or

(b) the person of any member of such individual’s family, or any friend, associate, or co-worker in any place; or

(c) the privacy of such individual’s home, permanent or temporary residence, place of employment, or vehicle; or

(d) the security of such individual’s property, possessions, papers, and other effects of whatever nature, wherever they may lawfully be kept; or

(e) the privacy of the home, permanent or temporary residence, place of employment, or vehicle of any member of such individual’s family, or any friend, associate, or co-worker who has, directly or indirectly, placed such home, permanent or temporary residence, place of employment, or vehicle in such individual’s custody or under his or her supervision or care; or

(f) the security of the property, possessions, papers, and other effects of whatever nature, wherever they may lawfully be kept, of any member of such individual’s family, or any friend, associate, or co-worker who has, directly or indirectly, placed such property, possessions, papers, or other effects in such individual’s custody or under his or her supervision or care,

against an unlawful search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention, or unlawful attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention, by any law-enforcement officer or other public official of this State or any of its political subdivisions, so long as such individual employs in his, her, or another’s defense, or in the defense of the privacy or security of his, her, or another’s home, permanent or temporary residence, place of employment, vehicle, property, possessions, papers, or other effects, no force or threat of force greater than he or she reasonably believes at the time to be necessary under the circumstances in order effectively to deter, repel, or otherwise resist such unlawful search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention or unlawful attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention.

SECTION 3. In any civil action or criminal prosecution in which is at issue an individual’s exercise of his or her right of self defense with respect to an actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention by any law-enforcement officer or other public official of this State or any of its political subdivisions—

(a) The lawfulness or unlawfulness of such actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention shall be determined before any other issue is heard and decided.

(b) The party or parties asserting the lawfulness of the said actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention shall have the burden to produce competent evidence thereof beyond a reasonable doubt.
(c) No matter how any other issues in the action or prosecution may be tried or decided under applicable law, the issue of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention shall be tried to a jury, in which proceeding

(i) the jury shall consist of twelve persons;

(ii) the jury shall be instructed that the reasonableness of the force or threat of force that was employed by the individual in the exercise of his or her right of self-defense must be determined from the viewpoint of the individual at the time that he or she so acted; and

(iii) the jury shall be instructed that it may judge, not only the facts, but also the law under color of which arose the actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention; and

(iv) the jury’s verdict must be unanimous.

SECTION 4. In any civil action, howsoever and by whomsoever initiated, in which is at issue an individual’s exercise of his or her right of self defense with respect to an actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention by any law-enforcement officer or other public official of this State or any of its political subdivisions, the said individual may cause to be named or joined as adverse parties any or all of the individuals who counseled, authorized, planned, or participated in such actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention, for the purpose of adjudicating the lawfulness thereof. In the ensuing litigation, no defense of or other argument based upon official immunity, whether absolute, qualified, or of any other kind or degree whatsoever, shall be allowed.

And if the jury determines that such actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention was unlawful, then each and every individual who counseled, authorized, planned, or participated in such actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention shall be personally liable, jointly and severally, for all damages suffered by the individual who exercised his or her right of self-defense, as well as for all reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and other costs which that individual incurred in litigating the question of the unlawfulness of the actual or attempted search, seizure, arrest, or other assault or detention. Provided, that no portion of any damages, attorney’s fees, expenses, or other costs imposed upon any individual under this subsection shall be paid by any public treasury, office, fiscal agent, or other authority of the State or any political subdivision thereof; nor shall any such public treasury, office, fiscal agent, or other authority reimburse or make whole any such individual, either directly or through insurance, guarantee, surety, or any other third-party payment, for any such damages, attorney’s fees, expenses, or other costs

vieiraDr. Edwin Vieira  is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Jurisprudence and Constitutional and Monetary Law.

This article was originally published originally published at NewsWithViews.com on May 21, 2011.

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

 

Sheep in Sheep’s Clothing

A curious discussion was started on the Website of the Inter-American Institute between the Russian geopolitical theorist Aleksandr Dugin and the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. In this discussion Mr. Dugin argues against global capitalism and the “New World Order.” He foresees the ultimate victory of Eurasian land power over American sea power. It is difficult to say whether Dugin’s rhetoric has real long-term importance or whether it will prove to be one of Moscow’s passing trial balloons. Whatever the case, Dugin’s ideas appear to justify a future war against the United States; furthermore, his promotion within the Russian establishment indicates an observable strategic tendency.

Dugin’s point of departure is simple: Western and Russian (or Eurasian) civilizations are incompatible. “The metaphysical basis of the West is individualism,” wrote Dugin. Russian civilization, on the other hand, stresses “a collective entity.” The collective entity in question is a Eurasian commonwealth, with its capital in Moscow. In Dugin’s view America is the champion of a hyper-materialistic ethic, based on radical individualism. It is subversive of traditional human values. As an empire of “frenetic consumption,” America threatens to remake the world in its own image. To prevent this, Dugin proposes an alliance between Russian/Chinese militarists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Appealing to the conservative sympathies of Professor de Carvalho and others, Dugin wrote: “every … traditionalist should be on the Eurasian and Islamic side against materialist and capitalist decline….” He believes that all conservatives and traditionalists should join with Moscow and the Islamists in smashing the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

Here we encounter a central theme of Moscow’s old (and new) rhetoric: Western civilization is a den of iniquity ruled by a wicked money power. Within Western civilization the Left already represents a movement against capitalism. Now it is time to bring the political Right into the anti-capitalist camp. Dugin therefore extends a hand of friendship to all conservatives and traditionalists. We have the same enemy, he explains. And that enemy should be attacked. The globalist project, says Dugin, “is far more powerful … [and] dangerous … than the two other projects [i.e., Russian/Chinese militarism and Islamism].” The merchants of the West, and the financial oligarchy they build, can only be stopped by a combination of Russian-Chinese “national-militarism” and “Islamic religious fundamentalism.” The choice is clear, says Dugin, “and everyone is invited to make it by himself.”

Furthermore, as Dugin points out, the emerging neo-socialist trend in Latin America suggests that a new bloc of countries will soon join Russia, China and the Islamists. As a Brazilian, Professor de Carvalho should know that South America isn’t really part of Western civilization at all. The Latin Americans are, by nature, opposed to the West’s money changers. Though Dugin does not pose as a Luddite, he nonetheless suggests (however indirectly) that the fundamental technology of civilization (i.e., the technology of money) must be smashed; and those who handle money (i.e., bankers) are vile. He does not acknowledge that money (together with fire and the wheel) is one of those inventions responsible for getting man out of the Stone Age. Instead, he says that the world will never accept “the absoluteness of the free market, human rights, liberalism, individualism and parliamentarian democracy.” Such ideals only signify the hegemony of the Western financial elite. Surely, Western conservatives cannot align themselves with corrupt money interests. And they cannot remain neutral, either. For the reality is, they must choose one side over the other. It is either Rome or Carthage. And for Dugin, U.S. global power represents “the eternal Carthage, which became a worldwide phenomenon.”

This theory, by the way, implies that America is doomed. In the end, sea power cannot cope with land power. The great wealth that comes to sea power is ultimately corrupting and vulnerable. Athens, as a sea power, was defeated by Sparta. Carthage, as a sea power, was defeated by Rome. In the end, the land power can become a sea power. Inevitably, Eurasia defeats Oceania. Russia and China form the whole of Eurasia, together with its “temporary” Islamist allies. What can the United States do against this great combination? The Americans cannot possibly “impose” individual freedom and the market economy on such a vast territory. The entire American project is therefore doomed, and will be squeezed out of existence in the end. As for those Americans who do not serve the greedy financial oligarchy of the free market system, Dugin says, “There may be another America, but that does not change anything in general.” America apart from the CFR and the neo-cons (i.e., “World Carthage”) is a nullity.

Dugin is incredulous regarding de Carvalho’s idea that the globalist elite “is not an enemy of Russia, China or the Islamic countries” but a collaborator with them in efforts to “destroy the sovereignty … and economy of the United States.” Because Dugin relies on a set formula for stigmatizing American policy-makers and their motives, he does not see the extent to which American leaders are themselves neo-socialists ready to hoist the banner of “holistic collectivism.”

In response, Professor de Carvalho noted the difference between Dugin’s mission and his own. “[Dugin’s] task is to recruit soldiers for the battle against the West and for the establishment of the universal Eurasian Empire. Mine is to attempt to understand the political situation of the world so that my readers and I are not reduced to the condition of blind men caught in the gunfire of the global combat….” To associate the globalist elite with America, argues de Carvalho, is an error. The globalist elite are following a course of their own, which does not coincide with American national interests. “I defend one-half of the West against the other half,” he says.

As a matter of course, de Carvalho’s claims that the Western financial elite has been working to establish its own worldwide socialist dictatorship, which is not to be confused with the dictatorship of Moscow or Beijing. The socialism put forward by the richest families in the West is a means for ensuring their ongoing influence – an effort to protect themselves against the ravages of free market competition. To prove his case, de Carvalho points to the work of Anthony Sutton. He also points to the “industrial blossoming of China … and its transfiguration … into the most powerful potential enemy of the USA….”

Here the question must be asked: What kind of brilliant scheme could entail the industrialization of China, and the arming of an implacable enemy? Setting aside Sutton’s misinterpretations of the data (where he completely fails to grasp the psychological realities of the capitalist milieu), the entire situation may be clarified by reference to a single fact: namely, the suicidal trajectory of the Western financial elite over the past half-century.  As James Burnham indicated long ago, liberalism is a philosophy leading to Western suicide. By industrializing and arming China, by rebuilding Russia’s position, by opening Europe to Islamic immigration, by adopting social policies which have collapsed Europe’s birth rate, we see the rush to suicide. What geniuses indeed! What leadership! Through intellectual superficiality, political shallowness, and arrogance, they cannot possibly hope to survive their own policies. If there is a plot to establish a universal socialist dictatorship the only people who stand a chance of establishing it are in Moscow and Beijing. I fail to see how Washington and London remain standing, let alone influential.

The pre-war propaganda of Alexander Dugin merely provides a rationale for destroying something that has essentially weakened and undermined itself over a period of decades. The course of self-undermining is not conspiratorial, in my view. Wealth and power, combined with an overly rationalistic intellectual culture, tend to produce a mild form of insanity within elite groups.  Russian, Chinese and Islamic leaders are not free from their own special forms of insanity. It is the large, deracinated, non-traditional, highly bureaucratic structures of modernity that contribute to such insanity, along with the shift away from a culture based on books and serious reading to a culture based on images, television and slogans. The intellect in all classes, among the most advanced societies, has been declining for decades. Stupidity may be added to insanity, the one amplifying the other.  This is the real New World Order. We have left behind the greatness of the past, setting aside the classics. The vaunted elite are merely sheep. Or as Winston Churchill once described a representative specimen: “A sheep in sheep’s clothing.”

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 May 5, 2011. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Portugal’s Oriental Odyssey

During the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age, the Lusitanian discoverers were especially focused on finding the Christian kingdom of Prester John, mythically located in the Orient[1]. So, the story begins with two secret agents of D. João II – António de Lisboa e Pero Montarroio – searching across overland routes for the Christian King, who never went beyond Jerusalem due to not knowing the Arabic language in order to achieve the goal of the journey. Then came, in 1487, Afonso de Paiva and Pero da Covilhã, both leaving from Santarém to Valencia, then to Barcelona, Rhodes, Alexandria, Cairo and El-Tor in the Red Sea. Finally, as merchants in caravans, they crossed Arabia[2] to reach Aden, from which they took different paths: Covilhã went to India (Cannanore, Calicut and Goa), Paiva, in turn, went to Suakin, on the coast of Abyssinia.

The last one died prematurely, while the former, once again in Cairo, sent his new information[3] about the oriental coast of Africa[4] and the Island of the Moon (Madagascar) to Lisbon. In fact, it was indeed Pero da Covilhã who helped to set the itinerary of India’s navigation to the Portuguese discoverers, especially pointing out the south passage of Africa from where it was possible to reach Calicut. After visiting Aden again, Covilhã went to the trackless mountains of Ethiopia from where, due to the imposition of a descendant of Prester John, was not allowed to leave it for the rest of his life, despite being well treated.

The Portuguese, while discovering the oriental Ocean mysteries and secrets, really found a commercial and a maritime monopoly set by Muslims, Ethiopians, Turks, Egyptians, Venetians, Persians, Afghans and Chinese. Despite all, the Portuguese discoverers tried to establish good relations with the oriental natives, especially with the Rajah of Calicut (now Kozhikode), who, unfortunately, betrayed the Portuguese people by allowing them to be killed in order to save commercial and religious interests in the Indian hemisphere. The Portuguese, who, at the time, were undoubtedly a spiritual force of nature, had no other option except to wage war by constructing trading dêpots and fortresses in every key strategic position from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of China.

In fact, many places – such as Quiloa, Anjediva, Mombasa, Sofala, Onor, Diu, Curiati (Kuryat), Sohar, Muscat, Khor Fakkan, Kalhat, Orfacate, Hormuz, Goa, Cannanore, Cochin, Malacca, Daman -, are historical ones regarding the Portuguese Diaspora. Besides, it is perfectly known that the Governors of Portuguese India, like Francisco de Almeida, Afonso de Albuquerque and João de Castro, were indeed military geniuses by closing all the Indian Ocean Naval passages to the Atlantic, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and the Pacific, transforming them into a Lusitanian mare clausum established over the Turkish, Muslim and Hindu colonies, emporiums and feudal lord systems. Nevertheless, those Governors, despite being fiercely feared and respected by their enemies, were capable of guaranteeing that many natives could pursue their own lives according to their religion and, especially, making full use of their own properties[5].

Far beyond the usual commercial and military reasons about the Portuguese Diaspora ascribed by superficial academia, we must say that a deeper one was taking place at the time, evidently rooted in the Christian Holy War which occurred in the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa and the Middle East[6]. So, the ultimate mission, dating from Henry, the Navigator, was not confined to the circumnavigation of Africa’s coast to reach Ethiopia through the West, but especially to pontificate an alliance with oriental Christian kings, remotely related to Saint Thomas, the Apostle. Paradigmatic of this spiritual mission can also be the military prowess planned by Albuquerque to steal the Prophet’s body in Mecca to ransom the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem from the infidel’s yoke[7].

Albuquerque, The Caesar of the East, successfully created, for barely seven years, a Portuguese Empire in Southeast Asia. To assure it, he set up the respective limits through three key strategic positions: Hormuz, Goa and Malacca. Consequently, the real aim consisted in enclose the Red Sea entry in order to obstruct the network passage of spices into the Mediterranean[8].

Also known as The Portuguese Mars, or even as The Lion of the Seas[9], Albuquerque seems to be a unique character historically and religiously speaking. In the battle of Goa, he suddenly got an extraordinary vision of a knight who used a red cross over his mantle while fighting the Muslims infidels with blank arms. This knight was, according to Iberian religious tradition, an Apostle of Christ, named Santiago[10].

Thus, the military history of the Portuguese, especially in what respects the oriental Odyssey, is a supernatural phenomenon. Remembering the first siege of Diu (1538), it is really astonishing how the Lusitanian heroism could face a numberless Turkish army to which the Governor, António da Silveira, resisted so Homerically that even the King of France (Francisco I), marvelled with such exploit, ordered that the portrait of Diu’s illustrious hero should be installed in the Palace of Fontainebleau.  When Diu was encircled for the second time (1546), João de Mascarenhas, emerging as a brave and courageous Governor, would be able, in turn, to resist during seven months against consecutive battles and as many constant assaults which were permanently repelled, or even against eventual open breaches caused by hundreds of Muslims rapidly detained by a handful of invincible Portuguese, including children, women and older men[11].

Despite all the heroic, religious and military achievements of the Lusitanian people in the Orient, it is also true that a careless administration put a brief end to a spiritual mission prefigured in the Armillary Sphere. Ormuz, for instance, was deprived of the Portuguese domain in 1622, while Malacca suffered the same fate in 1641. Goa, also known as the “Rome of the Orient”, remained integrated in the Portuguese State of India till 1961, as it also occurred with Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, unlawfully invaded by the Indian Union troops[12].

Only one man resisted using unusual diplomatic agenda regarding the historical rights of the Portuguese people, to which Goa strictly belonged as well. That man was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Oliveira Salazar. His political strategy consisted of several main goals during Goa’s crisis, such as:

1. Showing to the world that Pandit Nehru was, no matter his nominal pacifism, an imperialist aggressor in whom the British education did not deeply remove the primitive one. Focusing on this point, the Portuguese leader could also indicate how England, as a civilized nation, had always respected the Portuguese State of India.

2. Letting one see that the Indian accusations against Portugal concerning colonial imperialism were a pure product of political propaganda, since Goan citizens had already their own legislative college as well as their own representation in the Deputy Chamber, not to speak of the possibility of being able to exercise their own professional duties in every Portuguese territory, including metropolitan ones.

images GoaInvasao4803. Renouncing Indian Union proposals since 1950, through which the main purpose was to convince Portugal to compromise Goa’s future. Nevertheless, Portugal never denied the genuine predisposition of resolving the multiple problems regarding the joint state affairs.

4. Resisting against Indian Union violence and oppression based on a state war or even on a psychological state of terror purposely created upon Goan citizens, namely through the interdiction of the circulation of persons and merchandise by overland and sea, and through railway cuts, communication interruption, harbor enclosures, freezing deposits and, finally, through terrorist attacks against frontier stations and the population itself.

5. Appealing to the International Court of Justice which recognized, in 12th April 1960, Portugal’s rights respecting Dadra and Nagar Haveli, in spite of being ignored and disrespected by the Parliament of New Delhi, from which finally came the illicit act of annexation by simple decree.

6. Comparing not only the moral population of Goa, deprived of religious and racial conflicts, with the precarious, racial and anti-Western way of life imposed by the Indian Union in so many States of the Hindustan Peninsula.

7. Considering secular alliances and treaties between England and Portugal, such as the Declaration of 14th October 1899, also known as the Treaty of Windsor. According to this one, the British Government was obliged to defend the Portuguese overseas territories from all present and future enemies[13]. Consequently, Oliveira Salazar, forced by the circumstances involving Goa’s crisis, invoked the reported alliance in order to request the Government of His Majesty about the possible cooperation against Indian aggression. Unfortunately, the answer, expressing the subtle pragmatism of British diplomacy, came through “inevitable limitations” on preventing armed attacks taken by members of the Commonwealth against Portuguese territories.

8. Requesting the United States intervention based on the assumption of the moral responsibility of one of the most powerful nation at the time. But unfortunately, the political and diplomatic intervention, though repeated diligences in Washington and New Delhi, did not make any difference at all. On the contrary, it had not only revealed the defeat of the less powerful nations of the world, but, above all, the utter inability of the most powerful ones to defend International Law.

9. Denouncing the United Nations Organization, which could not prevent Goa’s invasion no matter how the world would be shocked in the presence of such an alarming aggression[14]. It was, perhaps, one of the last few chances that the Western civilization had to establish, in a classical way, a universal system of balanced forces in order to keep a desirable solidarity between noble and pacific nations. Instead of that remained the crash of the United Nations invaded by a tumultuous crowd of States, parties, majorities and anti-Western groups bent on continental revolution and International Law subversion.

10. Dissuading, through a military position, an eventual Indian aggression, even if the military superiority of the last one could not allow any hope for a Portuguese success without allied support. Besides, in case of attack, Oliveira Salazar ordered, notwithstanding such terrible grief of soul, full sacrifice of spirit and honor by all Portuguese forces in order to: a) resist as much as possible – at least eight days -, to mobilize international instances in profit of the Portuguese Government b) preserve, at one time, Portugal’s historical dimension by assuming an old Lusitanian tradition in India c) valorize the military capacity of the Portuguese concerning their own territories, especially in Africa.

At mid-night, 18th December 1961, Portuguese Goa was finally invaded by Indian military forces. Despite the surrender of the Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief Vassalo e Silva – whose heroic intentions were till the last minute very well known -, there was, symbolically speaking, some resistance expressed by Cunha Aragão and the ship´s crew of Afonso de Albuquerque, vanished after an artillery duel with Indian cruisers[15]. On the whole, 45 Portuguese and 22 Indians were killed.

In consequence, Goa’s fall was indeed disastrous for Portugal’s future as a political and an economical nation. So, for the first time, Portugal was not the same country as it had been for five hundred centuries, even becoming, for that very reason, much more vulnerable in its spiritual unity. Besides, the strategy of Nehru was, at that critical moment, reinforced by the Kremlin’s communist policy in order to attack and neutralize Portugal’s vital points based on African territories.

If it is true that some U. S. political and diplomatic personalities have perceived Portugal´s strategic position in facing international communism subversion, as, eventually, John Foster Dulles or even Dean Rusk, it is also true that Kennedy’s Administration, intellectually bounded by anti-colonialism illusion, commended an unrealistic policy that, in so many aspects, was incapable of protecting the Western allies and, in the end, of taking down terrorist forces by helping ironically some alleged alternatives based on pro-Western “nationalism”, democracy and human rights in Africa[16].

Oliveira Salazar, while establishing a parallel between international communism and American democratic “liberalism”, had the feeling that within twenty or thirty years the world would be entirely communist. Today, many academic analysts, scholars and political scientists can abstractly say that his prevision failed, no matter how the world came into an incredible mess. But, for the most precautious and independent thinkers, that same intuition can, surprisingly, make some real sense as it approaches one more battle between the forces of Good and Evil[17], both prefigured, in many ways, in the Atlantic and Eurasian conceptions of Life and Humanity.


[1] According to Marco Polo´s information, the enchanted prince lived in Central Asia.

[2] They also travelled through Medina and Mecca. While in the sacred city of Islam, both, in disguise, prayed to Maome, the Prophet.

[3] In Cairo Covilhã met with two Portuguese Jews sent by D. João II: Rabbi Abraham of Beja and Joseph, a shoe-maker of Lamego. The second one returned to Portugal with all the information gathered by the “Perfect Prince’s” secret agent.

[4] Pero da Covilhã had, for the purpose, visited Melinde, Quiloa, Mozambique and Sofala, recording the centres of commerce dominated by local sultans.

[5] After the victory of Goa (1510), Albuquerque was very generous in preserving the natives from slavery as well as being deprived of their own lands, riches and religious cults. The only demand was indeed Mamluk’s expulsion. In the conquest of Malacca (1511), another example can be found in Albuquerque´s tolerance with regard to the existence of cult places and Koran teachings. Generally speaking, he wished to preserve the coexistence between Jews, Muslims and Christians as Portugal earlier did in the Iberian Peninsula.

[6] Regarding the Portuguese Knights Templars, the greatest one was the Grand Master Gualdim Pais, companion of D. Afonso Henriques, the first King of Portugal. During the 3rd Crusade (1189-1192), guided by the tree most powerful princes of Europe – Federico Barbaroja, Emperor of Germany, Richard the Lionheart, King of England and Philippe August, King of France -, a considerable number of crusades, disembarking in Portugal´s coast, helped D. Afonso Henriques making the conquest of Lisbon (1147). However, the King responsible for transferring the Order of the Temple, extinguished by Pope Clement V (1307), to the Order of Christ (1319), was, fortunately, D. Dinis. This providential diligence, connected with the construction of a naval army, would permit the prospective knowledge and the financial resources to finally project the Portuguese navigators into the greatest Oceanic adventure of all times.

lisbonne torre de belem[7] Albuquerque received secret instructions from D. Manuel I in order to form a Christian Crusade to save Jerusalem from Islamic domain. The chief goal was to plan a strategy to reach the rear of the heart of Islam through the Indian Ocean. For that special purpose, D. Manuel I sent several emissaries to contact the European kings (Louis XII of France, Henry VII of England, Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain) and even search for the approval of Pope Alexander IV, who himself, in spite of the Turkish advance into the Balkans, did not accept the Portuguese Crusade.

[8] Alexander the Great planned, in times of yore, to open a canal between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. Albuquerque was so attracted by that possibility that he even considered doing it by recruiting land undertakers of Madeira Island.

[9] This last expression belongs to Shah Ismail I from Persia.

[10] On the other side, Malacca was military taken in Santiago’s day (25th June). Curiously, Albuquerque was already a knight of the Order of Santiago.

[11] At the occasion, D. João de Castro, an intrepid warrior as well as a man of science specialized in hydrography, meteorology and the art of navigation, ran to help Diu with a small army that put to flight forty thousand Turks.

[12] The Indian forces were composed by an army of 45 000 soldiers and 26 000 reservists, supported by heavy ordenance, combat cars and several squadrons of Aircraft Bombers. The Portuguese forces, in turn, were barely composed by 3 500 officers, sergeants, metropolitan soldiers and 900 Indo-Portuguese.

[13] With regard to such Declaration, the first article of the Treatise of 1642 was expressively ratified as well as the final article of the Treatise of 1661. The former was generically related with an alliance between both Atlantic nations, while the other was related with the Portuguese Overseas defence by the British Government.

[14] The motion approved by a majority of seven votes to cease immediately the hostilities and to make the invasion forces drawback, was rejected by Russia. Once more become demonstrated not just the influence of the Soviets to support the New Delhi belligerency, but especially the inability of the Western nations to defend collectively their own strategy, interests and good will for the well being of Mankind. On the other side, the United Sates, guided by Kennedy’s Administration, joined again the day after with all members to vote against Portugal and, curiously, to guarantee, two days later, financial support to the Indian Union.

[15] There also died in combat brave Portuguese men, as the second lieutenant Santiago de Carvalho and lieutenant Oliveira e Carmo.

[16] In fact, a great number of juridical principles coming from the United Nations siege, such as the plebiscite or the principle of self-determination, were indeed abstract and negligent principles applied to Portugal’s case. Firstly, because Portugal’s Political Constitution had been expressively conceived to assume and guarantee the existence of a sentimental community of multiracial people spiritually united. Furthermore, Portugal was not a classical colonialist nation as England, France, Holland and Spain really were, simply because its peculiar racial interpenetration was not a fictitious theory, or even less an ideology or propaganda illusion, but a real fact. And that is why there is, according to traditional Portuguese culture, a deep distinction between colonialism and colonization. In other words, the Lusitanian secret conception of life had always been focused on historical and future nation embracement of many and different cultures in most places in the planet. So, in these armillary context, Salazar’s Portugal wished to preserve political ties – constitutionally different but not incompatible with a tendentious autonomic administration concerning individual participation on sovereign powers in all Portuguese territories – in order to unite all community parcels based on linguistic, national and Fatherland common values.

[17] We see Good and Evil as principles in a symbolical way and not in a strictly Manicheaistic one.

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.

A Suggestion to the Right-Thinking: Check Into a Mental Hospital.

Here is a fact that has passed unnoticed by the mainstream media and has just been noticed by me: during the conference “Axis for Peace 2005,” promoted in November of last year by the network www.voltairenet.org, with the support of Al-Jazeera and pro-Chávez TV station Telesur, Russian General Leonid Ivashov said that international terrorism does not exist, that it is all a fabrication of Washington, D.C. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he said, were staged, they were nothing but shows put on by George W. Bush to destabilize the UN’s world order and to impose American dominance upon the whole world.

No, perplexed reader, that was not a vodka ad. Ivashov is vice-president of the Russian Academy on Geopolitical Affairs, former secretary of the Council of Defense Ministers of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and, at the time of the 9/11, he was Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. Drunk or sober, he is the voice of Vladimir Putin. And there is no record that he was drunk. Through his lips, it was the Russian government itself that trumpeted the good old conspiratorial explanation for the war against terrorism.

Originally launched by the organizers of the conference, the theory, in itself, has no rhyme or reason. No democratic government as controlled by the opposition and as investigated by the nosy media as the U.S. government could ever set up so big a farce in complete secret, a formidable challenge even for dictators with absolute control over the media.

But what really matters is not the theory, in which its inventors never believed. It is the fact it is approved, at least as lip service, by such an illustrious high-rank official of a country that nominally remains a U.S. ally in the war against terrorism. Indications that Russia has been double-dealing were never lacking. The weapons seized from Islamic terrorists were almost always Russian, when not Chinese. Putin has allayed suspicions with the smuggling excuse. The General’s speech marks a change of tactics, quite in the old Soviet style, dialectically passing from concealment to ostentation: if there is no terrorism, Russian weapons need no longer be denied; they may be trumpeted as meritorious aid rendered to pure and freedom-fighting heroes. Right there, the adherence to that psychotic theory begins to make sense.

But the change of tone of the propaganda speech is not an isolated whim. Ivashov himself made this clear when he used it as preface to the far more substantial idea he defended next: the strengthening of the UN, based upon a “geostrategic unity of civilization,” designed to stop “the expansion of imperialism.” Absently, and as if feigning disinterest, he suggested that this new structure of world military power should be led by/be centered in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which brings together Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.  After all, if the idea is to serve so grand a plan, what does one little lie more or less matter? A UN transformed into an instrument of Russia and China, and devoted to paralyze or destroy American power: this is the only objective which logically summarizes and explains all recent conduct not only of those two powers, but of their allies and their conscious or unconscious servants in international organizations, left-wing parties, terrorist organizations, drug gangs—now almost all under the unified command of the Russian mafia (which is the Russian government itself)—, the network of activist NGOs around the world, the media and even the allegedly elegant “nationalist” circles of peripheral nations. KGB defector Anatoliy Golytsin had already disclosed this plan in the 1980’s. Several scholars, such as Stanislav Lunev, Jeffrey R. Nyquist, Constantine C. Menges, Jack Wheeler, and even I, the most stupid among them, agreed that, whether guessing or not, Golitsyn was not altogether wrong. It was easy for the right-thinking to get rid of us by simply calling us crazy “conspiracy theorists.” But now, what are they going to do with General Ivashov? They should either send him to a mental hospital, or discharge us. In the bargain, I suggest that they sign themselves into one.

Note and sources

* Anatoliy Golitsyn, whom I mentioned above, is a high-rank KGB officer who fled to America in the early 80s and tried to alert the CIA to a dramatic strategic shift of the international communist movement, a shift whose preparation he had directly witnessed at meetings of the CPSU Central Committee with the commanders of the Soviet secret services. I will explain this in more detail in one of my next articles, but in essence, the idea was to sacrifice the unity of the Soviet state in favor of diversification and expansion of the world communist movement, which, in parallel with this, should desist from any doctrinal unity and devote itself to preparing an anti-American global siege, using/taking major international organizations as coordinating centers. At that time, few people believed, but today it is known that 95% of the predictions that Golitsyn made, based on the information available to him, have already taken place, including the fall of the Berlin Wall. V. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984).

* In 1998, in his book Through the Eyes of the Enemy (Washington, Regnery), Colonel Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking defector from the Soviet military secret service, said: “The Cold War is not over. The new cold war is between the Russian Mafia and the United States.”  The Russian mafia has two distinguishing features: (1) it has so deeply infiltrated the upper official echelons that it is impossible to distinguish it from the Russian government itself. (2) Since at least 1993, the Russian mafia has managed to unify/unite under its command all the mafias of the world, becoming a sort of Central Committee of organized crime (see Claire Sterling, Thieves’ World: The Threat of the New Global Network of Organized Crime, New York, Simon & Schuster 1994). To this day, the so-called “MSM” (or rather, “B.S.-Er”) has not reported the end of the wars among the mafias, the most important phenomenon of the 1990’s, without which the laying of the anti-American siege would have been impossible for lack of funds. Today, one third of the money that circulates in the Stock Exchanges of the leading financial centers comes from organized crime, which is sufficient to explain the good relations between the financial elite and the FARC (remember the kind visit Richard Grasso, chairman of New York Stock Exchange, paid to the commander of the Colombian narcoguerilla, Raul Reyes, on June 26, 1999).

* In perfect harmony with General Ivashov, The New York Times condemns the hypothesis of military action against Iran and proposes, instead, the adoption of Russia’s plan: to transfer Iran’s uranium enrichment research to Russia’s own territory, where the inspection of Russian officers would be sufficient to give the world “enough guarantee” (!!!) that the material would not be used for military purposes against the United States. No wonder that many in the conservative movement consider the old NYC’s daily as an official organ of the anti-American fifth-column in the United States.

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 January 30, 2006, and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

Acknowledging the Deception

Meet Victor Kalashnikov: former KGB officer, scholar, analyst, and writer. He is married to historian and journalist Marina Kalashnikova, the subject of last week’s column. Before the Soviet Union collapsed Victor worked for the KGB in Vienna. After Gorbachev’s bizarre abdication in December 1991, Victor found himself drawn into the Presidential administration of Boris Yeltsin on orders of KGB General Yevgeny Primakov. There he became a research director in the Russian Public Policy Center. “So I turned my attention 180 degrees from Europe to Russia,” Victor explained. “I was quite enthusiastic to explore what was going on in Russia. The people in the Kremlin came across a lot of surprises and discoveries as to what Russia really was.”

And what is Russia?

With help from presidential advisor Sergei Stankevich, Victor managed to retire from the KGB. But the KGB wanted him back, just as they wanted Russia back. Whatever job Victor took, wherever he went, the KGB would appear. “They always arrived on the scene with offers and promises, wanting to exploit my contacts,” Victor explained. You see, the Cold War was still ongoing, and so was the work of Moscow’s spies. In 1997 the SVR (KGB) wanted Victor to bring spies into the German oil company he worked for. When he refused, the SVR promised he would “pay with his blood.” In 1999, after having coffee at the Russian Embassy in Brussels, Victor became very sick. Quite naturally, he suspected poison.

In 2000, one of Victor’s colleagues had been summoned by the secret police and told that the Kalashnikovs were on a “black list” due to their politically incorrect writings. People were being warned on all sides, including their dentist. Friends melted away. Co-workers avoided contact. Dental work could not be done. “What struck me, especially with the younger generation,” Victor noted, “is that they appear to be such conformists. No idealism, no values. They were just ready to cooperate with whomever they saw as their superiors. That’s why ultimately, nowadays, we unexpectedly found ourselves in the position of outsiders, dissidents, even enemies. That’s the way it developed.”

In 2004 Victor and his wife continued their controversial writing activities and found themselves accosted on the street by FSB (KGB) officers who warned them against entering foreign embassies and disrupted their attempts to meet with diplomats. At about this time the Kalashnikovs were fired from their newspaper jobs. From that point forward, Victor and Marina could not find work in the Russian media, academia or business. Eventually, they sought an outlet for their talents in Ukraine. But here again, the Kremlin gave them no rest, as Ukrainian officials warned that the Russian Interior Minister had included the Kalashnikovs on a list of “extremists” and that, as a consequence, their personal safety in Ukraine could not be guaranteed.

“Conformism is absolutely overwhelming here,” Kalashnikov lamented. “You should not distinguish between the Russian authorities and the Russian people. From the unemployed in the provinces, to the top of the hierarchy, conformism is huge. Also within the media, they are all willing to cooperate. It is a reality and it will develop that way, despite today’s economic troubles. It is a typically Russian phenomenon.”

If it sounds like Soviet times, you are not mistaken. The totalitarian system has now become more sophisticated and more streamlined. The West should not deceive itself. The Cold War never ended. The KGB remains in place. According to Kalashnikov, “It is not necessary to control the entire former Soviet area. We can project our influence. Even when we allow the Americans and NATO to have a presence there, we have the upper hand. I even suspect that what happened has produced a modernized strategic model.”

Gone are the imperial burdens. Russia can use its secret agent networks to blackmail executives, politicians and intellectuals. Journalists can be bought inexpensively, as it turns out. The disinformation campaigns of the 60s, 70s and 80s have laid the groundwork for a great deception. The West thinks they are dealing with a new entity in Russia. Yet they are still dealing with the house that Stalin built.

“My feeling is that the old personnel management system has been reinstalled from Soviet times,” said Kalashnikov, explaining how the secret police can deprive uncooperative citizens of a livelihood. “In the Soviet Union your personnel file followed you whenever you changed from one job to another. Your employer sees any black marks set down by previous employers, and my former employer [the KGB] was eager to make life as difficult as possible. They wanted to press us to the degree that we would admit our defeat and failure, reconsidering our behavior.”

In the West we were told that the Soviet system was finished. We were told that the Communist Party lost power, the KGB was reformed and democracy won the day.

Kalashnikov said: “There was not any moment, I can state with certainty, that the old system of KGB and nomenklatura admitted their failure or lost control. They just changed their form and appearance. It was a sort of generational change. Instead of generals in charge, we have lieutenant colonels. They behaved differently, but they are doing the same thing. There has never been any moment when they admitted historical defeat. There never was any serious step toward de-communization – never, never. The Yakovlev Commission was conceived to imitate de-communization procedures in Central Europe.”

So it was a sham?

“Yes, it was a fake, an imitation,” Kalashnikov insisted. “From the very beginning the idea was, we’ll get back, we’ll modernize. And that’s how it happened. Of course, many Western observers were happy about the new faces and new styles and openness. But step by step, you yourself may remember that many American institutions here in Russia have been pushed out or brought under Russian control. So, formally, we have several Western bodies here allegedly doing democracy and consulting work, but in fact they have become an instrument of Kremlin policy to imitate and exploit for their own purposes.”

Here are the words of a former KGB official, telling the truth from his home in Moscow, barred from employment for his honesty – blacklisted by his former colleagues because he did not want to participate in the greatest deception of our time. “There was no real accountability for the past,” Kalashnikov explained. “It was a big deception. People changed their appearance and behavior, but the real meaning of the system remained the same – in substance. It was quite visible to me. The West was just happy that we let go of the names of Communism and Soviet and so on. We changed our vocabulary. Instead of Politburo and Central Committee we have a president and a presidential administration. Instead of KGB, we have FSB. I insist that the interpretation of late Soviet history should be changed profoundly. The KGB maintained huge networks of domestic spies. Hundreds of thousands of people were deployed at the right time, influencing the democracy movement. That system has been extended by Putin. If you look at Russia from the outside you cannot discern who is manipulating the whole thing. Hundreds of thousands of assets are employed in politics and business. There is a hidden agenda and hidden structures. Even the Germans have not gotten rid of their hidden structures having to do with the Communist era. With all the German efforts and technology they still cannot solve the problem of hidden Communist structures. They are still being manipulated. Now take Russia, which was free to reconstruct its [totalitarian] structures under a different guise.”

And what are the strategic implications?

“They would be huge,” said Kalashnikov. “You know, one thing people should understand. There is a definite line of continuity in Moscow’s military policies from Stalin’s time. Moscow has consistently followed the same line of policy. What is misleading for many people is that the material military presence is not there anymore. We don’t need so many tanks. The question is what sort of design, what sort of strategy you have in place. All of that Moscow has in terms of potentials. We see that the Russian presence is being reinstalled in some places – Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.” The important thing is manipulation and influence instead of direct control.

In terms of modern strategy Russia’s reduced size brings advantages. Now Russia is not responsible for feeding Azerbaijan or providing cheap energy to the Baltic States or Ukraine. The KGB’s weapons of influence and manipulation, including organized crime and drug trafficking, can be used to influence and manipulate without maintaining expensive armies. And so, the Russians have learned how to streamline their dominance. Make the Americans think that Washington has the upper hand. But look around today and see what is happening to the American economy, to the U.S. dollar, and to the U.S. nuclear deterrent. There is a visible weakening in all three areas.

Victor Kalashnikov is a brave man. He has refused to falsify reality for the sake of career opportunity or even personal safety. He is telling us the way things are the largest country in the world. You can ignore him if you like, but ignore him at your own peril.

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 July 24, 2009. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Right Wing Bolshevism—Part 2

Last September, in the Web magazine AlternativeRight.com, Nina Kouprianova wrote an intriguing article titled Who’s Afraid of Russia Today? As an “alternative right” spokeswoman, Ms. Kouprianova thinks Russia’s 24/7 English-language news channel (Russia Today) provides encouragement for “the burgeoning Patriot movement” here in America. And what encouragement, indeed! In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center is going after the Russian channel on account of its support for Right Wing extremists.

Given the Leftist taint of the Southern Poverty Law Center, what are we to think? Has Russia Today been unfairly maligned? According to an explanatory article on the SPLC Website, “the Kremlin-financed television channel has devoted considerable airtime not only to coverage that makes Russia look good, but to coverage that makes the United States look bad.” Of course, nobody should be surprised at this, given the Kremlin’s longstanding rivalry with the United States. What is interesting, however, is the new approach of Moscow’s anti-American rhetoric – from the Right. According to the SPLC Website, “Over the past year and a half, Russia Today has reported with boosterish zeal on conspiracy theories popular in the resurgent ‘Patriot’ movement…. Its slickly packaged stories suggest that a legitimate debate is under way in the United States about who perpetrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and about President Obama’s eligibility for high office.”

It appears that Moscow’s TV channel is suggesting (however indirectly) that the U.S. Government was behind the 9/11 attacks; – and would also like to see a constitutional crisis over President Obama’s birth certificate. The Kremlin has long sought to demoralize and cripple their “main enemy” by every means at its disposal. Saying bad things about the capitalist system is Moscow’s stock and trade. For those who understand the game, it is hardly necessary to point out that the entire 9/11 Truther movement, in point of fact, is a tapestry of useful idiots and agents of influence whose activities may be characterized by that eminent pioneer of Right Wing Bolshevism, Lyndon LaRouche, who began his career as a member of the Socialist Worker’s Party teaching dialectical materialism at New York City’s Free School, and later founded a Right Wing Marxist Party (the United States Labor Party). His frequent meetings with Soviet representatives over the years did not end with the Soviet Union. He has continued to meet with Russian “representatives,” with occasional trips to Moscow.

There is a picture, easily accessible on the Web, of long-time LaRouche associate Webster Tarpley sitting next to Russian Gen. Leonid Ivashov during the 2005 Axis for Peace Conference in Brussels. Ivashov, who served as the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces on Sept. 11, 2001, stated at the conference: “The organizers of those [9/11] attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and who had the means necessary to finance the operation.” The Russian general further argued, “We have to look for the reasons of the attacks in the coincidence of interests of big capital at global and transnational levels….”

Well of course, the evil capitalists were behind it all. Such are the talking points of every Bolshevik, at all times, without the need for direct instructions from on high. This “truth,” in one form or another, is constantly being packaged and passed along to the useful idiots, tools, and agents of influence who spread the infection throughout society. And make no mistake; the anti-capitalist infection has taken root, as anyone can see. Russia Today is no minor broadcast outlet. As the SPLC points out, “the Moscow-headquartered Russia Today has a large global audience tuning in via cable, satellite and the Internet. In North America, Europe and South Africa, some 200 million paying viewers – including a growing number in the United States – have access to the network.”

It is worth noting that Russia Today has produced segments with the notorious 9/11 Truther Alex Jones, who once said to Webster Tarpley (on air), “Our information is everywhere.” And that is how Kremlin disinformation works. It is not a function of quality, but quantity; and Jones has been the perfect mouth-piece. Inciting his radio listeners against finance capital in the language of a revolutionary agitator, Jones says “9/11 was an inside job” and that the United States has become a “deep tyranny.” A close observer of the Jones phenomenon, Cliff Kincaid (of USA Survival News), has said, “Jones has much more in common with the Left than the Right.” Kincaid noted that Jones is a fan and friend of Lyndon LaRouche, and furthermore: “Why is he on Russian television defending their foreign policy? Why has MSNBC called this man a member of the ‘New Right’?”

In the tangled web of today’s politics, where economic sabotage has its parallels in ideological sabotage, you must always look for the hidden connections and telltale signs that agents of influence are at work. The most sophisticated disinformation machine in the world has been the KGB and its successor organization (FSB/SVR). Nina Kouprianova, in her Alternative Right article, wants us to laugh at the idea of Russian agents of influence – as if the history of the last several decades never happened. Russia Today, she says, “is not much different than the BBC…. Furthermore, the idea that private ownership of massive media conglomerates somehow guarantees objectivity is simply utopian – to state the painfully obvious.”

But that’s not really the point, Ms. Kouprianova. The BBC is not the mouth-piece of a murderous dictator at the head of a police state. For that matter, a private media corporation like ABC or Fox News is not the state, however slanted their presentations may be. There is an important difference between a private corporation and the state. Private corporations cannot send millions to death camps, or build a system of collective farms on a foundation of genocide, or threaten half the world with nuclear annihilation. No, Ms. Kouprianova, as Friedrich Nietzsche once said, the state is “the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: ‘I, the state, am the people.'” But the state, more than anything, is not the people. If it has broken its bounds, usurping the private sphere, it is a destroyer of peoples. Whatever the state says, warned Nietzsche, “it lies – and whatever it has, it has stolen. ” There should be no room in the heart of the true Right (alternative or otherwise) for state control of any television  channels. The state should remove its paws from the economy and from the media; that is, if the people are to remain free.

Furthermore, American “patriots” should not serve as apologists for the Kremlin’s English-speaking propaganda tentacle. Those who attack America and its institutions, favoring the institutions of a foreign enemy, do not merely insult our intelligence but undermine the integrity of public discourse.  A random lie may be harmless when there is no guiding strategy behind it; but a coordinated campaign of lies, begun by secret agents, perpetuated by dupes, is no child’s play. The game threatens our national unity, our prosperity, the viability of our internal order. But then, how else would a foreign enemy provoke civil war in 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 April 8, 2011. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Right Wing Bolshevism—Part 1

A few months ago the Website AlternativeRight.com made a laudatory reference to a work by French author Giullaume Faye. Curious about Faye’s apocalyptic ideology, I bought and read his book, which is titled Archeofutursim: European Visions of the Post Catastrophic Age, published in Europe during the 1990s, and recently translated into English. The book proposes the creation of a new Eurasian empire in which the countries of Europe are demoted to mere provinces, and the new nationality will be that of white Europeans. As Faye told a gathering of Russians from the People’s National Party in 2005, “I believe that Russia must be the center of a great white confederation. It’s the same goal as your organization.”

Faye’s book opposes the “ethnic masochism” of the ruling liberal ideology, which he says is exacerbated by hedonistic individualism. Faye blames individualism for “triggering a boom in anti-natural practices: divorces made automatic … rejection of the housewife model … the glorification of homosexuality [and a] … demographic fall caused by anti-natalism….” Faye predicts calamity, though he doesn’t say exactly what the calamity will be. Modernity is failing, he says, because it is “based on a dream-like view of human nature and fallacious anthropology.” An apparent believer in global warming and various environmental scares, Faye is even more attuned to the incompatibility between Afro-Asian Muslims and Europeans. He believes that a social explosion is coming, along with hard economic times. Liberalism is dead, says Faye, and the rationalism of the Enlightenment has no future whatsoever. “[T]he post-catastrophic world will have to reorganize social fabrics according to archaic principles — which is to say, human ones.”

What will this reorganization entail? There will be a return of authority, of family power and “the subordination of rights to duties.” He vaguely mentions the possibility of communitarian structures, “the power of hierarchy” and “the principle of punishment over prevention” along with “the rehabilitation of the aristocratic principle.” The European soul, he says, longs for the future, and also longs for a plan. This plan entails the overthrow of the liberal order. Why? “Because the egalitarian and humanitarian mindset of modern man … does not allow him to manage the explosive possibilities behind genetic engineering” which Faye would embrace. We are approaching the day when science will be able to make super-humans and sub-humans; and we must embrace these new creatures, Faye suggests, eradicating the “pseudo-ethical obstacles raised in opposition to genetic engineering, the creation of ‘modified’ human beings, and positive eugenics.”

Faye plays with such themes as a child might play with matches. He is an incendiary, setting fire to God’s creation to make way for man’s. Having no real sense of history, he nonetheless recognizes that modernity is an unsustainable chaos, and a retreat into old forms (with new technology) is inevitable. Having no sense of right or wrong, he nonetheless recognizes that old forms of moral authority must be re-established. “Archeofuturism,” he writes, “is a concept of order, a concept that upsets modern minds, which are shaped by the fallacious individualist ethics of emancipation and the rejection of discipline that has led to the swindle of ‘contemporary art,’ and wreaked havoc in the educational and socio-economic systems.” Faye is a revolutionary. He would favor Marx insofar as Marx was anti-bourgeois, but he realizes that Marxism is unworkable. Some other brand of anti-bourgeois ideology must therefore be cobbled together. And so, a new form of critical theory emerges.

Faye opposes “the weak spirit of humanitarianism, a sham ethic which raises ‘human dignity’ to the rank of ridiculous dogma. this, not to mention the hypocrisy of the many well-meaning souls who yesterday forgot to denounce Communist crimes and today have nothing to say about the embargo on Iraq [1998] and Cuba by the American superpower … [and] the oppression of the Palestinians.”

About religion he says that everyone is in agreement that modernity has overseen a process of de-spiritualization and the destruction of transcendental values. According to Faye, “The failed attempt at establishing secular religions, the empty disenchantment created by a civilization that bases its ultimate legitimacy on the value of exchange and the cult of money, and the self-destruction of Christianity have engendered a situation that cannot endure.” If we are not careful, he warns, Islam may become the religion of the future. This is dangerous because a triumphant Islam would destroy “the creativity and inventiveness of the European soul….” On the other hand, he laments, the Machiavellian plans of certain American strategists has led them to encourage the penetration and entrenchment of Islam in Europe in such a way as to induce paralysis.”

What does Faye propose as a religious alternative to Islam? “The archeofuturist answer might be as follows,” Faye explains: “a neo-medieval, quasi-polytheistic, superstitious and ritualized Christianity for the masses and a pagan agnosticism — a ‘religion of philosophers’ — for the elite.” As for the secular religion of “political correctness,” he finds it to be ethnically insincere, based on “intellectual snobbishness and social cowardice.” He calls it chic, soft, and a bourgeois form of Stalinism. To talk of a threat to Europe from Islam is to be barred from trendy restaurants, and loses its appeal in the eyes of beautiful girls. “Being politically correct is a matter not of ideology,” says Faye, “but of social acceptance.”

Faye believes today’s opposition to political correctness is also politically correct. Rebellion is neutralized, he says, “through sham rebellion.” Here the politically correct merely hide behind the mask of political incorrectness. As for freedom of speech, instead of outright censorship what we have is a media that relies on diversion, focusing on side issues and entertainment. The media careerist craves safety, and knows how to win an audience through trivia. “What we are dealing with here,” writes Faye, “is not simply the usual brutalization of the population via the increasingly sophisticated mass-media apparatus of … the spectacle — a veritable ‘audiovisual prozac’ — but rather a concealment of essential political problems….”

Faye refers to consultation and negotiation as the “scourges of modern democracy.” He says that “Constantinople is under siege and we’re debating the gender of angels.” Though his meaning is given indirectly, he appears to suggest that the racism and bigotry of old was not entirely bad; that the class system was not entirely oppressive; that male dominance is a biological imperative. The old ways and institutions are coming back, he says, whether we want them or not. There is nothing overtly anti-Semitic in the book. There is nothing overtly racist, though it is racist. His argument is an appeal to the native European stock, warning that one day they are going to react against liberalism and egalitarianism and  Islamic. These are the forces destroying European civilization. And the ultimate blame, he says, must be put upon liberal economics and hedonistic individualism. It is the permissiveness engendered by market systems, he says, which have most undermined the authoritative structures of civilization. Once the ancient notion of aristocratic order was taken down to make way for bourgeois economic power and plutocracy, authority was bound to unravel and a rising tide of chaos became inevitable.

As for “conservative” politicians and right-wing governments, Faye says they “have always been soft. They fear confrontation and do not dare to implement the ideas and programs by which they came to power…. A Right-wing government would rather avoid displeasing those who voted against it rather than please its own electorate. Winning the favor of the Left is the delight of the Right.” Democracy, he says, is therefore headed for failure, and the emergence of a new aristocracy is a necessity. Everything is thoroughly rotten. Multiculturalism, he says, merely signifies multi-racism. Only now everyone is going to truly hate everyone else. Only the Americans still have imagination and epic vision. “Culturally, as well as politically and geopolitically, Americans are strong because we [Europeans] are weak, absent, stiff, and we lack dynamism and will. Let us stop moaning: America is only quite naturally occupying the space we have abandoned.”

This takes us to Faye’s shocking conclusion. He points westward to what he calls “the Imperial American Republic.” He says that America’s decline  “has already been ‘virally’ programmed for the first quarter of the twentieth century….” Then he points to the east, to the emergence of what he calls “Eurosiberia.” According to Faye, France should no longer be called France. This is not its true name, after all. France should resume the name it had under the Roman Empire, and henceforth become the Eurosiberian province of Gaul. To build an empire of our own, says Faye, will require the emergence of predators who are “on guard for a historical disaster to happen and make their prey emerge from the undergrowth in panic.” The predator, in this case, is Russia. The prey would be the petty bourgeois states of Europe.

“In human history,” says Faye, “the establishment of a Eurosiberian complex would represent a revolution greater than that of the short-lived Soviet Union or even the United States of America.” The reasons given to justify this empire, he admits, are of little importance. In his view a Greater Europe absolutely must emerge. He calls the nations of Europe a “disorderly grouping,” which is somewhat shocking insofar as nationalism is the authentic European heritage while the Roman Empire was the very embodiment of European decadence in the original. The example of imperial Rome’s progressive ossification, the strangulation of the economy by State decree, is clearly in evidence from Diocletian to its ultimate culmination in Theodosius, but is utterly forgotten by Faye (if he ever knew it).  And yet, Faye would celebrate his new imperial project, with Russia at its core, as “Leviathan and Behemoth rolled into one.” He then writes, “From the harbor of Brest to Port Arthur, from our frozen islands in the Arctic to the victorious sun of Crete, from the fields of the steppe and from the fjords to the maquis, a hundred nations free and united, regrouped to form an empire….” He fully and rightly credits Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev with the idea.

Faye’s book was published in 2010 by Arktos Media Ltd., where Arktos is the Greek word for bear — the same bear that symbolizes the ruling party in Russia, and is connected with the name of a Russian publishing house named ARKTOGEYA, and the Website arcto.ru, where elements of Bolshevik and nationalist terminology are knitted together by the Russian geopolitical “philosopher” Alexander Dugin, who is somehow ideologically linked to Faye’s project (insofar as Dugin is also preaching the establishment of a Eurasian empire). The discerning investigator cannot help but see a connection between the various projects of Arktos Media and Arktogeya, between Faye’s publisher and Dugin’s. Why should we not discover, in due time, a common source of funding for these two curious men (as well as a common strategic direction)?

There is a peculiar tendency of alliance between the Red and the Brown, between the Communist and the National Socialist. This may be seen in Stalin’s support for Hitler in 1932, and in the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, and more recently in the parliaments of certain “former” Communist countries. The Red-Brown alliance deserves our close attention. It’s new rhetoric, no longer stale or lacking insight, is more conducive to European unity than the rhetoric of Hitler, and more anti-capitalist than Stalin. The fall of America is here anticipated, and welcome. The rhetoric of Faye and Dugin suggests that Russia is their instrument; but we must ask ourselves whether they are the instruments of Russia.

In May 2005 Faye said the following to members of the People’s National Party in Russia: “I am often asked if I’m racist. If I am a Nazi. No. My concept is, I am against war. I don’t want to conquer Algeria. But if they attack us, they have to be destroyed…. So I completely agree with the teachings of Russia-ism. I believe that Russia must be the center of a great white confederation. It’s the same goal as your organization [the People’s National Party]. ” Commenting on this rhetoric, a Ukrainian researcher told me, “This is theater. They want to create a Nazi atmosphere without the Nazi stigma. They are exploiting the emotional idea that Hitler came close to liberating Russia from Bolshevism. This is why a lot of anti-Soviets have this unconscious sympathy toward Hitler. The stupid will be led by such emotions.”

It must be understood that methods now exist, in terms of psychological warfare, for leading the Right and the Left toward the same end. What we find today is two varieties of rhetoric, each tending to the same outcome, each connected to the same secretive system. Readers should check out the images and symbolism of the People’s National Party at nnpr.su. According to Wikipedia, the People’s National Party was allegedly founded by Aleksandr Ivanov-Sukharevksy with help from two veterans of the Black Hundreds. Ivanov-Sukharevsky allied himself with Semyon Tokmakov, the leader of a skinhead group. Oddly, the two great heroes of the People’s National Party are Tsar Nicholas II and Adolf Hitler.

It might be said that a bizarre mixing-up of diverse personalities and causes is an outgrowth of an experimental approach to political adaptation, perhaps overseen by a particular country’s special services. However intriguing or brilliant the ideological formulations presented by writers like Faye, the character behind these formulations nonetheless cannot help revealing an unabashed lack of moral sensibility. This we also find in American ideologists who appear on the right, yet aim their blows at the Left’s favorite targets.  More on this next week.

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 January 4, 2011. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Death Squads—Part I

Recently, one of the General Government’s District Court Judges dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the purported authority of the President to order the assassination overseas of American citizens whom someone in the Executive Branch has categorized as a dangerous “terrorist”. The Judge ruled that the plaintiff, being only the father of the threatened victim, rather than the victim himself, lacked “standing” to prosecute the suit, and that in any event the issue involved a “political question” that could not be adjudicated in court. So the underlying claim was not decided, one way or the other.

The judicial dodge of denying “standing” to people who raise contentions that are extremely embarrassing to rogue officials in the General Government has become all-too-familiar these days—particularly in lawsuits and other proceedings that raise challenges to the qualifications of Barak Obama for the office of President. But in this case, not merely usurpation, but nothing less than murder is the ultimate issue. Which, one might have imagined, should have given even the most legally dim-witted and morally obtuse judge serious cause for concern that perhaps the matter was not just a “political question”.

Rather than analyzing the some eighty-three pages of this particular Judge’s opinion, though, I shall simply lay out some of the principles on which any honest and competent jurist would not only find “standing” in a case such as this, but also declare the claims of the Executive Branch to be unconstitutional.

1. The basic assertion from the Executive Branch is that the President, in his capacity as “Commander in Chief” during “the war on terror”, enjoys the inherent power, by himself or through his subordinates, to identify certain American citizens as extremely dangerous “terrorists”, and on the basis of that determination to order operatives of the General Government to assassinate those Americans wherever they may be found in foreign venues. Furthermore, the exercise of this purported power: (i) is not dependent upon any prior judicial determination that an individual targeted for execution is guilty of any crime punishable by death, or that the individual could not be apprehended and made to stand trial in some court; and (ii) is not subject to any other kind of judicial review, either before or after the execution takes place. Indeed, because many of the supposed facts on which a determination of an individual’s status as a “terrorist” certainly will be claimed to be “state secrets”, meaningful judicial review either ex ante or ex post would routinely be impossible as a matter of practice. In addition, inasmuch as the Constitution does not limit the exercise of the powers of the “Commander in Chief” (whatever they may be) to foreign venues only, no reason can be found why the supposed authority to execute certain Americans outside of any judicial process, if it does exist at all, cannot be exercised within the United States proper, even on the lawn of the White House itself. After all, if an American “terrorist” who might be apprehended in Afghanistan may nonetheless simply be assassinated there, because some bureaucrat in the Executive Branch considers the latter course of action more efficient than the former, then why should not an American “terrorist” operating within the United States also simply be executed out of hand, for the same eminently practical reason? So, in its fullest statement, the President’s contention is that he enjoys judicially unreviewable discretion—acting either by his own hand or by the hands of his minions—to assassinate, anywhere in the world and presumably by whatever means may prove effective, any American citizen whom someone in the Executive Branch, whose identity may never be disclosed, has identified as a dangerous “terrorist” by some process and on the basis of some purported evidence that in its most important particulars may forever remain secret.

2. This stark statement of the issue settles the question of “standing”. For, on this statement, any American—and certainly every American who, for whatever reason, may run politically afoul of the Executive Branch or of some subversive private organization with malign influence over the Executive Branch—is potentially the victim of an “official” assassination, the real reason for which can easily be disguised behind some fictional, or perhaps merely erroneous, assertion that the victim is a “terrorist”. Because the process and criteria for selection of an individual for “official” assassination are largely secret, one cannot predict who these victims will be, until they are killed and someone from the Executive Branch admits to complicity in the deed. But, self-evidently, once a victim has been executed, an injury irreparable by judicial process will have occurred. So, if the courts are to enforce the constitutional mandate of the Fifth Amendment that “[n]o person shall * * * be deprived of life * * * without due process of law”—with proper emphasis on the word “[n]o”—then they must entertain at least one suit by one American to determine the legality of the power the President claims, before that individual—or anyone else—is actually assassinated. Which means that the very first lawsuit meeting the standard requirements for personal jurisdiction and venue should be heard on the merits. (Of course, this would not guarantee that the issue would be decided correctly, the Bench being overrun by one Judge Flapdoodle after another in every jurisdiction throughout the federal system. But at least it would move the process of inquiry ahead under public scrutiny.)

Prudential considerations compel the same result. The doctrine of “standing” is mostly the bastard contrivance of individual judges, in the formulation and application of which the personality on the Bench rather than any fixed and certain legal principle usually decides the outcome. As such, the doctrine of “standing” is wholly nonscientific—being both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Yet, in this case, that is no demerit. Rather, it is an advantage. Because, here, a clever judicial wordsmith could easily concoct out of bits and snippets extracted from hundreds of other judicial opinions his own decision in favor of “standing”. And although other jurists and lawyers might disagree with his conclusion, who could declare him to be wrong in any objective sense? No one. He would, as well, be quite right morally. Because, having found “standing”, he could at least temporarily enjoin the continuation of the program of “official” assassinations, until the Judiciary could pass on the question after plenary consideration, thereby preventing who could predict how many irretrievable violations of the Fifth Amendment. Eventually, higher courts might overrule him, licensing the assassins to proceed. But then the blood would encarnadine those judges’ hands, not his.

If they were honest in their claim of constitutional authority, the President and his agents in the General Government, too, would themselves encourage this result, so as to find out exactly where they stand legally. For if “official” assassinations committed anywhere within the United States are unconstitutional, then both the assassins and their principals are criminals for whose transgressions the penalty may be death. For just one example, Title 18 of the United States Code provides as follows:

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * * or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, * * * shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * * or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Moreover, the victims of attempted unconstitutional “official” assassinations would, in the exercise of their natural right of self-defense, be entitled to resist their assailants with deadly force. Which means that, in an environment in which any agent of the General Government might secretly be engaged in an “official” assassination on American soil, against which the Judiciary refused to protect the citizenry, any American—and certainly any political dissident—could reasonably and justifiably resist any government agent with deadly force at any time, because the victim would have no way of knowing whether that particular agent’s assault was actually a “hit” disguised as some kind of supposedly valid “law enforcement”. Too many contemporary Americans may be sheep willing to be shorn; but it is unlikely that more than a few of them are sheep willing to be slaughtered after they finally realize that such is the shepherd’s intention, and are exposed to some examples of his bloody handiwork. And having publicly espoused the position that they may with impunity kill any American for secret (and judicially unreviewable) reasons at any time, agents of the General Government could hardly complain if every American took them at their word, and defended himself accordingly.

Obviously, to allow a situation of this kind to degenerate into widespread violence would verge on madness. So, any judge’s invocation of the “standing” ruse to derail timely litigation of this issue is more than merely intellectually indefensible and morally irresponsible. Unless the judge can successfully invoke the defense of insanity on his own behalf, his misuse of the “standing” doctrine amounts as well to his complicity in—and at least equal culpability for—whatever crimes may be perpetrated in the course of any attempted “official” assassinations. For part two click below.

vieiraDr. Edwin Vieira  is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Jurisprudence and Constitutional and Monetary Law.

This article was originally published originally published at NewsWithViews.com on December 10, 2010.

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