Who Rules The World?

From the readings of my youth, more than four decades ago, few questions struck me so much as that which is the title of the second part of José Ortega y Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses: “Who rules the world?”

The philosopher did not formulate the question in a metaphysical sense, where it could be answered with something like “God,” “chance,” “fate,” but in the geopolitical sense, and he arrived at the conclusion that it was a pity that Europe had lost its position of leadership in the world, yielding it to Russia and the United States.

However, the answer did not seem to match the question. In fact, states, nations, continents, and governments cannot rule anything. The actual rulers are individuals and groups that control states and nations. Prior to geo-politics is politics tout court. And here is where things get formidably complicated. It is easy to see what states or countries prevail over others. But finding out who really rules a state or country—and thereby may rule other states and countries as well—is a more daunting intellectual challenge than an ordinary political analyst can imagine.

The English verb “to command” ultimately derives from the Latin expression manus dare, that is, “to give one’s hands”: he who commands lends his means of action (his “hands”) to others so that they may perform something he has planned. It is true that rulers give orders to their subordinates, but when you look into the practice of ruling closely, you will see that only very few leaders in history—a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan—were themselves the creators of the ideas they put into practice. Early theorists of the modern state hit the nail on the head when they coined the term “executive power”: in general, a statesman is an executor of ideas which he did not conceive nor would have the ability—or the time—to conceive. And those who conceived these ideas were the same ones who gave him the means to get into office to put them into practice. But who are they?

Applying the question to the specific case of the United States, the sociologist Charles Wright Mills, one of the mentors of the New Left, published a book in 1956 that would become a classic: The Power Elite. The answer he found took the form of a very complicated network of groups, families, corporations, official and unofficial intelligence services, cults, clubs, churches, and circles of overt and discreet personal relationships, including mistresses and call girls. In that picture, the American political class, which culminated in the person of a nominal ruler, appeared as foam on the surface of dark waters. Mills was obviously on the right track. But he died in 1962 and did not have the opportunity to witness a phenomenon that he himself helped bring about: the New Left itself has become the power elite and lost all interest in “transparency.” In fact, the New Left has taken great pains in becoming opaque, to the point of placing a complete unknown in the presidency of the most powerful country in the world and surrounding him with a protection wall that blocks any attempt to discover who he is, what he has done, with whom he walks, and what interests he represents. If you want to have an idea of what the power elite in the United States has been up to, you will have to look for information on the other end of the ideological spectrum, for it is conservatives who are the current inheritors of the tradition of studies inaugurated by Wright Mills.

 It is thanks to conservatives that the Fabian globalist elite, the living nucleus of power behind practically all governments of the West, has become visible in its composition and the details of its modus operandi to the point of almost obscenity, making some people’s insistence in calling that elite “a secret power” unintentionally comical. Google the words “Council on Foreign Relations,” “Bilderberg,” “Trilateral Comission” and the like, and you will get more information than your neurons will be able to process for the next ten years—information whose level of credibility ranges from scientific evidence to downright fabrication.

 In contrast, little or nothing is known of the deep sources of power in Russia, China, and Islamic countries. Even the descriptions we have of the visible ruling class in those regions of the globe are schematic and superficial, bearing no possible comparison with the meticulous Who’s Who of the Western elite. This is easily explained by differences in access to information sources. For it is one thing to research in Western archives and libraries, under the protection of the law and democratic institutions—and in the Unites States it is even possible for someone to pierce the barrier of official unwillingness through the Freedom of Information Act. It is a totally different thing to try to guess what goes behind the impenetrable walls of the Russian-Chinese establishment.

 Neither the KGB nor China’s secret services have ever allowed independent researchers to gain access to their files. Even the files of the Communist Party of the USSR were closed again after a brief period of tolerance, motivated not by some sudden love of freedom, but by the illusory conviction, soon to be dispelled, that Western researchers were mostly sympathetic to the Soviet regime.

 In the Islamic world, underneath the ruling class and the hurly-burly of terrorist groups there extends an unfathomable network of esoteric organizations, some of which being a thousand years old, whose power of influence varies greatly from one country to another and from time to time. These organizations, which are the spiritual core of Islam, the deep guarantee of its civilizational unity, and in the long term, the condition of possibility of Islamic worldwide expansion, are still perfectly unknown to Western, journalistic or even academic, political analysts.

The difference in visibility among the great globalist schemes in competition is the source of catastrophic errors in the description of the conflict of power in the world. I will explain some of these errors in upcoming articles.

200px-Olavo_de_Carvalho1Olavo 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 translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

Penn State’s Ironic “Child Sex Abuse” Conference

Rodney Erickson, Ph.D., the new president of Penn State, delivered welcoming remarks to attendees at the very first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference Oct. 29-30. Erickson assumed the presidency Nov. 9, 2011, after the disgraced Graham Spanier was forced to resign as president following exposure of his foreknowledge of Coach Jerry Sandusky’s infamous rapes of young boys.

The 2009 well-funded Penn State Justice Center for Research partnered the conference with the College of the Liberal Arts and University Outreach. The Justice Center’s “press releases,” which appear on the Web, began in 2010. These press releases, like the October conference speakers, ignored the infamous child sex abuse Penn State network.

I never heard the names of former “Coach Sandusky” or “President Spanier” mentioned by a single carefully vetted Penn State child sex abuse speaker. Nor was there a mention of The Second Mile, the nonprofit charity founded by Sandusky & Co. – of course, to help local underprivileged and at-risk youth. The conference speeches are posted on the Internet, so if someone noted these names or events when I sneezed, kindly email those citations to me.

While Mr. Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse in June 2012, Mr. Spanier has recently been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. In plainer English, Spanier is accused of a long-time cover-up of Sandusky’s homosexual child rapist preferences.

The conference, attended largely by sexuality “experts,” therapists and survivors, was visible in its denial of a multitude of related facts about the violation of children.

Indeed, many therapists and survivors in the audience were stunned to hear the famous keynoter boldly claim a steep decline in substantiated child sex abuse (Finkelhor) and public safety resulting from sex offender treatment (Kaufman).

Although it would be dandy to believe Finkelhor and Kaufman’s fantasy “statistics,” telling us that all is improving so we must be doing things right, one critic said the massive child sex abuse decline parroted by the sexperts suffers from “the smell test – we on the ground see the problem of child sex abuse getting worse, not better.”

In fact, the expert child abuse denier, Dr. David Finkelhor, is the director of the Crimes against Children Research Center, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory and professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Finkelhor has so successfully pleased all big-government political administrations that he – like the Kinsey Institute and similar agencies – has received government grants from 1978 to today.

Despite the exposure of 5,200 Pentagon staffers found downloading “child pornography,” neither this well-known phrase nor “pornography” make it into the sexperts’ prevention lexicon. Who were these people at Penn State to protect? Not children.

Earlier in writing about pornography’s link to adult and child rape, I exposed some of the phony stats cooked by law professor Glenn Reynolds. Glenn and Northwestern law professor Anthony D’Amato claim “Porn up, Rape down” – with psychologists and therapists grabbing onto that shibboleth like a hungry dog on a bone.

The child abuse speakers didn’t dare claim, like D’Amato, that since “teenagers and adults” are using pornography fewer children are raped, yet their silence strongly implied that is the case. They all know the truth. U.S. News and World Report (April 24, 2000) said, “Facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.” One officer snarled, “The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” “A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997-1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, and medical examination’ – non-crime codes.” “This puts one in four rapes in a non-crime category.”

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (ret.), a West Point psychology professor, said, “Violent crime … is still about five times greater today, per capita, than it was in 1957.” He adds, “We’d have to let 1.5 million convicted offenders go to get down to a 1970s-level incarceration rate. We are lying about the data.”

The National Institute of Justice Managing Adult Sex Offenders (1997) reported: “The number of adults convicted annually of rape, child molestation, or other forms of sexual assault and sentenced to state prisons more than doubled between 1980 (8,000) and 1992 (19,100). In 1994, state prisons held 88,100 sex offenders compared to 20,500 in 1980.”

Adds Grossman, “Crimestat” had cops bring down crime. “When the NYPD police union went over the data the crime rates doubled in New York City.” Other than murder (reduced via medical technology), “police artificially ‘bring crime down,’ we cook the books.”

“The American Police Beat,” May 2005 quotes Denver Police Lt. James D. Ponzi, a Regis University professor: “Compstat turned into ‘Compscam’ as departments cooked the books to lower crime rates,” never making it into the “National Incident Based Reporting System [NIBRS].” Adds Ponzi, “These ‘lower’ rape statistics don’t reflect what is truly happening in sex related crimes.” For example, “LAPD reported a 28 percent drop in violent crime in 2005, the same year the department reclassified domestic assaults in which the victim suffered minor injuries or had no injuries.”

“In Atlanta, 22,000 crimes were left out of the crime reports. In New York, the crime rates doubled in a precinct when the proper classification was applied by the police union. The list goes on.” Bureaucrats are happy, but “the citizens … get nothing but a false sense of security about the safety of their cities.”

Although pornography is absolutely causal in child sexual abuse, other critical falsehoods were given to the attendees.

Again ignoring the massive increase in child sex abuse that coincides with “school sex ed,” Finklehor wants more of the same to lower child sex abuse rates. He claims boys who are “gay” should be supported in their decisions, without any reference to any sex abuse that these boys probably experienced. Hence we lower rates of child sex abuse by labeling children “gay” and saying they liked it.

All speakers ignored the fact that younger victims are more likely to have developed traumatic amnesia; they ignore the increasingly violent nature of child sex abuse, pedophile rings, pedophile proponents, child sex trafficking, institutions harming large numbers of children, child protective services workers refusing to protect and instead reunifying children inappropriately, courts ordering children to live with reported offenders and coordinated disbelief of children when they report sex abuse. Attorneys and advocates in divorce situations advise their clients not to report child sex abuse, since the children are almost always placed with the abusers (Neustein & Goetting 1999 and Steubner, 2011).

Finkelhor also claims “low” recidivism for sex offenders. Ludicrous. Numerous studies show a steady increase in recidivism over time. One attendee stated, “Dr. Kaufman’s talk was disturbingly offender-friendly.”

Statistics are commonly used to falsify reality. I’ve written extensively on that in my books on the statistical and criminal frauds of Alfred Kinsey. Interesting, that one of the speakers defined statutory rapists as children’s “partners,” the word coined by Kinsey for child rapists.

The speakers claims that a rapist is a child’s “partner,” that children are “engaged in prostitution” and that “children with a crush” can lie to have sex speaks to adopting a predator worldview.

The objection to sex offender registration as “draconian measures” is more predator-protector language, as is, “Children may like the attention,” and “not all victims experience problems.” These claims are disingenuous since problems develop throughout the life cycle and there is no way to assess that truth. “Kids having problems prior to the abuse put them at risk of being abused” again lays the blame on the children. All this while hiding the role of mainlining pornography as the primary culprit in child-on-child and adult-on-child sex abuse.

A very serious complaint came from one survivor who said, “The family courts are really criminal enterprises. Even the Center for Missing and Exploited Children is part of the problem. I collected fliers over five years and found that NCMEC sent four times more fliers looking for women abductors than for men, although men abduct more often. I was appalled. I confronted the president and shortly NCMEC stopped sending fliers and moved to the Internet.”

As violent sex crimes increase, including all sodomy and use of objects, and photos, etc., many professionals, themselves users and/or abusers, must minimize the horror of the growing child sex abuse pandemic. To many hearing these speakers, this appears to have been the subtext of the first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference.

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 November 3, 2012. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.


Vfew people really know that Professor Antony Sutton revealed throughout his historical research that an American power elite, otherwise known generally among Conservatives as the “Liberal Establishment”, had effectively a substantial role in three significant twentieth-century historical events: the 1917 Lenin-Trotsky Revolution in Russia, the 1933 election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States, and the 1933 seizure of power by Adolf Hitler in Germany. So, we are dealing here with a fundamental historical research almost totally unexplored by the academic world, especially concerning the Portuguese one.

Meanwhile, regarding the rise of Hitler in pre-war Germany, the British Professor also puts in evidence another area to be explored by independent and competent researchers, such as in the stretch:

«The role of this American power elite in the rise of Hitler should also be viewed in conjunction with a little-known aspect of Hitlerism only now being explored: the mystical origins of Naziism, and its relations with the Thule Society and with other conspiratorial groups. This author is no expert on occultism or conspiracy, but it is obvious that the mystical origins, the neo-pagan historical roots of Naziism, the Bavarian Illuminati and the Thule Society, are relatively unknown areas yet to be explored by technically competent researchers. Some research is already recorded in French; probably the best introduction in English is a translation of Hitler et la Tradition Cathare by Jean Michel Angebert.

Angebert reveals the 1933 crusade of Schutzstaffel member Otto Rahn in search of the Holy Grail, which was supposedly located in the Cathar stronghold in Southern France. The early Nazi hierarchy (Hitler and Himmler, as well as Rudolph Hess and Rosenberg) was steeped in a neo-pagan theology, in part associated with the Thule Society, whose ideals are close to those of the Bavarian Illuminati. This was a submerged driving force behind Naziism, with a powerful mystical hold over the hard-core SS. faithful. Our contemporary establishment historians barely mention, let alone explore, these occult origins; consequently, they miss an element equally as important as the financial origins of National Socialism»[1] .

Werner Gerson, the author of an interesting work entitled Le Nazisme Société Secrète, is another researcher who has also studied the occult forces in the side-scenes of human history. In his book, comes mentioned the main role of Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Orden der Illuminaten, a secret society with origins in Bavaria. As we know, Weishaupt was born on 6 February 1748 in Ingolstadt, a university city at the time as well as an active centre on behalf of the Counter-Reformation. In 1773, Weishaupt became a professor of Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt, from where some of his students were recruited into the ultra-secret Order of the Illuminati[2] , in which most historians still believe as having been a branch of Freemasonry.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that Weishaupt’s Order was somehow inspired on Masonic Constitutions, as it is possible to see through the esoteric and symbolic language used in the Order, such as apprentice, companion, master, Scottish shield bearer, Scottish Knight, etc. The Order’s mission consisted in the subversion and destruction of all monarchical governments and state organized religions in Europe and its colonies[3] . So, the character of such Order was an elaborate network of spies and counter-spies based on secret reports.

Moreover, Weishaupt knew very well how the Lodges of Freemasonry, namely the Blue one constituted by three degrees – apprentice, companion and master -, would be very useful to counterfeit the true objectives of the Bavarian Illuminati. After all, those degrees could indeed emerge as a veil to simulate the lowest degrees of Weishaupt’s Order. And, in fact, the founder of the Illuminati used his secret society in such a way that every candidate would see it accordingly to his own personal view, or even through his particular interest eventually focused on a specific branch of Freemasonry, or perhaps on a Rosicrucian circle, whenever not in a political association.

Usually presented as a conspiracy theorist, John Robison published in 1797 his work full titled Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the secret meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies. By some means or other, the author provides interesting material on how the Illuminati have started a subversion process that many others[4] believe susceptible to be carefully traced in subsequent organizations throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries[5]. Besides, a French Jesuit priest, named Augustin Barruel (1741-1820), developed a similar view about the infiltration of the Illuminati in the Continental Freemasonry, from which would supposedly come the excesses of the French Revolution as it is historically known.

Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme became Barruel’s book published in 1797-98. It can be considered a crucial document made up of four volumes in which Barruel claims that the French Revolution was deliberately consecrated to the annihilation of Christianity according to a plot hatched by a coalition of philosophers, Freemasons and the Order of the Illuminati. In other words, Barruel alleged that a conspiracy was ultimately carried out by the Jacobins to overthrow the throne and the altar in the name of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”.

On the other side, Barruel’s charges relapse into “philosophism”[6] and intelectual framework promoted by some proponents of the Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu. Barruel inclusively believed that Voltaire, d’Alembert and Frederick II, the King of Prussia, were working from behind the scenes to plan the course of events that lead to the French Revolution[7]. Besides, Diderot’s Encyclopédie was a Masonic project[8].

Meanwhile, Edmund Burke, an Anglo-Irish statesman and philosopher, wrote a letter expressing his admiration about the author of the Memoirs. Significantly, he states: «I forgot to say, that I have known myself, personally, five of your principal conspirators; and I can undertake to say from my own certain knowledge, that as far back as the year 1773, they were busy in the plot you have so well described, and in the manner, and on the principle you have so truly represented. To this I can speak as a witness»[9] . In turn, Joseph de Maistre, a French philosopher and a key figure of the Counter-Enlightenment, rejected Barruel’s conspiracy theory, particularly regarding the implication of the Illuminati in order to overthrow the Church and destroy all monarchies in Europe.

Maistre also refused the idea that Freemasons were behind the French Revolution, though being himself a member of the Scottish Rite Masonic lodge at Chambéry from 1774 to 1790[10] . In spite of his interpretation of the Revolution of 1789 as a providential event, Maistre finally understood that the crimes of the Reign of Terror were the consequence of the rationalist rejection of Christianity, to which the monarchy worked in general by not attending, untimely, the spiritual, social and political tensions developed through the Ancien Régime. So, instead of directing the influence of French civilization to the benefit of mankind, the monarchy somehow promoted the atheistic doctrines of the eighteenth century philosophers, who, intellectually speaking, were indeed responsible for the disorder and bloodshed of the French Revolution.

Besides, the influence of Maitre’s thought on the “utopian socialists”, such as Saint Simon and Auguste Comte, can and should be explained by means of his own analysis of the problem of authority and its legitimacy. That is why Comte acknowledged that the absolute monarchy was not abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights. It was, on the contrary, a gradual process in which feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges, as well as the respective form of government were mostly responsible for the collapse of the status quo.

At the same time, Comte also admitted that the major principles which inspired the final assault against the European feudalism – such as the principle of liberty of conscience, or the principle of popular sovereignty –, were, once having achieved the revolutionary process, no more useful to develop, scientifically, a new secular ideology in the wake of European secularization. The scientific stage[11] , meanwhile designed to come after the failure of the revolution and of Napoleon, could now be the right one wherein a special science, primarily known as “social physics”[12], would be established to dethrone the so called metaphysical stage[13]. Thereon, while Maistre’s writings, postulating a hierarchical society and a monarchical State, could influence not only “utopian socialists”, but also conservative political thinkers – such as the Spanish Juan Donoso Cortés and, later, the French monarchist Charles Maurras and his counter-revolutionary political movement Action Française –, Comte could, in turn, set his main influence on Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and George Eliot, as well on Harriet Martineau, Herbert Spencer and Émile Durkeim.

By the way, Maistre inclusively saw Bacon as an indisputable forerunner of the Enlightenment. In short, the dubbed “Father of Experimental Science” made from the very beginning a crucial influence[14] on groups of physicians and natural philosophers that finally came up, in 1660, with the “Royal Society of London”. Originally known as the “College for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning”, this Society began to be a research group with occult interests, as it can be reported by some illustrious members, among which overtops the astrologer and alchemist Sir Isaac Newton, who also became the Society’s President from 1703 until his death in 1727[15].

Regarding Bacon’s Instauratio Magna[16], it is a matter of greater importance to see how Aristotle’s physical, logical and metaphysical thought was subverted in the Modern Age. With Bacon behind the dawning of the Industrial era, nothing could now prevent the scientific revolution practically made by personalities that, generally speaking, were more interested on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics. So, even when Isaac Newton was able to conceive his theory of colour demonstrating that a prism could decompose white light into a visible spectrum of colours[17], or, eventually, shared the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus, he could really do it without discarding his religious character[18].

Having acquired many of Newton’s writings on alchemy, John Maynard Keynes stated that “Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians”. This surely explains Newton’s Hermetic ideas of attraction and repulsion in order to expound his corpuscular theory of light, or even his idea of action at a distance, without which he might not have developed his theory of gravity[19]. But, in the end, what really matters is that Newton’s conception of the Universe based upon natural and rationally understandable laws would be one step away from atheism, as largely promoted by Enlightenment ideology.

Since Bacon’s involvement in scientific inquiry, there had to be some way by which his method could become widespread. And we have already said how “The Royal Society for Improving Natural Knowledge” had started this method with the help of natural philosophers whose influence resided in Bacon’s New Atlantis. But now is time to say something about Maistre’s work titled Examen de la philosophie de Bacon (1836).

The author began to examine how Bacon’s new system of logic, as practically depicted in his new instrument of science (Novum Organum Scientiarum), pretended to be a superior one. This superiority was proclaimed on behalf of what Bacon called true induction in opposition to a pure deduction as a means of discovering truth in natural philosophy. Besides, the Baron of Verulam speaks by himself, as follows:

silogismo1-001“The syllogism is made up of propositions, propositions of words, and words are markers of notions. Thus if the notions themselves are confuse, and recklessly abstracted from things, nothing built on them is sound. The only hope therefore lies in true Induction. (I, Aph. XIV)

In front of Bacon’s eliminative induction opposed to deductive reasoning stemmed on general axioms, or first principles, Maitre argues pointing out the other side of the shield:

1. The Syllogism is profoundly connected with man in such a manner that, changing it, is like changing the real and spiritual nature of the second one.

2. Aristotle’s glory consisted on discovering different types of syllogism and its respective laws. Such discovery can be inclusively understood as a “spiritual anatomy” through which the human thought can be perpetually examined and demonstrated.

3. The inductive reasoning contains virtually the syllogistic one. So, conversely, induction is a syllogism without a middle term.

4. The tri-logical nature of syllogism has an analogical resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Bacon effectively contrasted the new method of science with that of Aristotle’s works on logic. But, in reality, he spoke of it as a great reformation of all process of knowledge, wherein most sciences and arts – optics, astronomy, music, ethics, politics and medicine – should deeply depend on natural philosophy overruled by inductive reasoning purged of opinions, idols, and false notions. So, as much as the Aristotelian syllogism had been, through the ages, applied to natural and even spiritual realms beyond the physical, Bacon’s induction should now penetrate the forms of nature concealed by the Creator (I, Aph. CXXIV, CXXIX).

The British alchemist probably wouldn’t say, like Goethe did, that “Nature conceals God”, but he certainly would say that man could become much closer with the All-Good while working as “the minister and interpreter of nature”. Besides, if the Creation of God could not be denied by the senses, the best way to contemplate it required a strict scientific study of light at varying rates of vibration as it passes through matter.

For this purpose, Bacon distinguished two types of experiments, the first of which – the luciferous onewas especially directed to the light process impressed by God upon the primary particles of matter which makes them come together to produce all the variety of nature. Most useless from a materialistic point of view, this experiment seemed to be the touchstone from which depended the collected and experimental knowledge directed to divine, natural and human fulfillments. Finally, the fructiferous one only offered particular benefits without any solid foundation in scientific inquiry about the modus operandi of Nature itself (I, Aph. XCIX, CXXI).

The Novum Organum – written in Latin and published in 1620 –, was indeed an influential work where Bacon definitely proclaimed the purpose of obtaining knowledge of and power over nature[20]. In any case, this undeniable formulation of the scientific method centered on experimental research shall not be reduced to anti-religious and materialistic concepts. Thus, it is a common mistake to consider Bacon an empiricist, especially when he states that:

1. The aim of human knowledge is to discover the primal and universal axioms regarding the hidden forms, or, more properly, the laws of nature-engendering nature as Bacon said to express the source of emanation, or true difference of a given body. Once accomplished such knowledge of the forms, the aim of human power turns on producing a new feature or property and adding it to a given body, whereas the subordinate goal rests upon the transformation of one concrete body into another within possible limits. Therewith begins the latent processes of natures related to underlying causes that are too small or fast to be perceived, as well as the latent configurations of bodies reported to the atomic structure susceptible of producing the natural world (II, Aph. I, V, VI, VII).

2. The operative process in nature can be sometimes fruitless, because there are natural recesses in which man has no power to act if not produce.

3. The interplay of forms, matter and motion are mostly invisible to the senses[21] . Natural changes are always preceded and followed by all sort of internal and translational movements which cannot be explained through anatomical research. For that reason, all body implies what in it really corresponds to the spirit, or at least to its tangible essence.

Unlike Plato, to whom the unchanging and unseen World of Forms were Archetypes on which depended the apparent world perceived by the misleading senses, Bacon remarks that forms aren’t modeled after anything else, on pain of just being “figments of the human mind…” (I, Aph. LI). The form of a nature is therefore its source for being what it is. In this sense, the form is always present when the nature is present in such a way that implies all the similar and the most unlike cases. Likewise, if the form ceases to exist, the nature infallibly vanishes or simply disappears[22] .

Considering Aristotle’s four types of causes – the efficient, material, formal and final –, Bacon argues that only the formal cause may lead to new discoveries and reach the deeper boundaries of nature. Hence, forms are also described as the laws of action in Bacon´s parlance:

«For when I speak of Forms, I mean nothing more than those laws and determinations of absolute actuality, which govern and constitute any simple nature, as heat, light, weight, in every kind of matter and subject that is susceptible of them. Thus the Form of Heat or the Form of Light is the same thing as the Law of Heat or the Law of Light» (II, Aph. XVII).

Additionally, Bacon refused Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality (dynamis) and actuality (entelecheia) in association with the matter and the form. None the less it is true that, for the Greek philosopher, all universals are instantiated for the reason that each universal can be predicated from existing things. But, if actuality is the end (telos) to which potentiality is acquired, how could Bacon receive such principle except for issues which deal with human action?

Despite Aristotle’s disagreement with Plato on the existence of universal forms that are not a part of particular things, Bacon was very clear stating that many objects in science won’t have explicit end-goals or purposes. Instead, Aristotle believed that final causes guided all natural processes in a graded scale of perfection rising from plants on up to man. In a similar fashion, Plato’s disciple also held that the level of a creature’s perfection was reflected in its form, but not preordained by that form.

For Aristotle, the motion of natural things is determined from within them, while in the classical mechanics motion is determined from without, whether it results from gravity, friction, contact, or some other source. But, unfortunately, the laws of nature became more and more subordinated to mathematical methods in which motion remained uniformly expressed, as it can be seen in Galileo’s theoretical work on falling bodies. In broader terms, Galileo clearly stated that the laws of nature were mathematical, as he wrote in Il Saggiatore, published in Rome in 1623:

«Philosophy is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth»[23].

Descartes’ influence in mathematics is equally known, especially through his development of analytic geometry. Descartes also suggested that the body works like a machine, advocating that the pineal gland is “the seat of the soul” by means of which the body interacts. In contrast, Aristotle placed the rational soul in the heart, rather than the brain.

At any rate, who did not have a human heart was José Sebastião de Carvalho e Melo, also known as the most prominent and despotic Minister in the government of D. José I from 1750 to 1777. Ironically rewarded by the King of Portugal as Count of Oeiras in 1759, as well as Marquis of Pombal in 1770, the powerful Minister was instrumental in advancing the new secularist zeitgeist of the Enlightenment at the expense of individual liberty. From this viewpoint, Pombal showed no mercy in establishing censorship on one hand, breaking the power of the aristocracy on the other, to finally consolidate personal control and profit in the name of administrative, educational, economic and ecclesiastical reforms.

Having lived in Vienna and London, the latter city in particular being a major centre of the Enlightenment[24], Sebastião José began accusing the Jesuits of having a secret code of instructions in order to gain power, wealth and influence on behalf of world domination[25]. This propaganda war[26] was inter-connected with an international campaign for the suppression of the Society of Jesus, in which the Minister of D. José I managed to be a pioneer with the help of an organized system of works, laws, libels and pastoral charters[27]. So, as soon as the Portuguese crown expelled the Jesuits from Portugal in 1759[28], most European countries went carrying on the same process, such as France (1764), Spain, Austria, Parma, Naples and the Two Sicilies (1767).

Ensuring the tyrant’s victory against his enemies, Pope Clement XIV finally issued the brief Dominus ac Redemptor (21 July 1773) to suppress the Society of Jesus. Even so, in non-Catholic nations, particularly in Prussia and Russia, the order was plainly ignored. Nevertheless, the political moves that led to it would not only inspire, in the future, the upholders of the prerogatives of kings, but also new anticlerical movements settled by a large number of Freemasons as well as monarchical and republican positivists.

In due proportion to his subtle and unscrupulous character in attaining ends, Sebastião José kept for a long time the Inquisition with the help of his brother, Paulo de Carvalho, who, in one’s possession, preserved the older stratagems of torture and physical abuse to serve the crown interest. So, for at least twenty four years under the consulship of the Marquis of Pombal, the dungeons of the Inquisition were functioning alongside with the prisons of the Bugio, Foz, Pedrouços and suchlike. In the presence of this scaring scenario, neither the Duke of Choiseul could himself believe on how the Marquis dared to keep a tribunal independently established by the papacy.

Besides, the Pombaline reform of education[29], otherwise supported by new taxes, had but one goal: the centralization of every public and particular teaching structure in order to ideologically work into shape the professorship. In one word, all the teachers of “primary and secondary” schools – exactly the same as the university ones – changed into something ruled by bureaucratic and economical profits dictated by a heavy hand. On that account, the Pombaline Canon demanded the abolition of the neo-Scholastic movement based on the Aristotelian tradition carried on by whom, from the end of the 16th century, became the intellectual leader of the Roman Catholic world[30].

It is a fact that the Marquis of Pombal considered Aristotle abominable. But, in reality, his true enemy was not the Greek philosopher, as he perfectly knew. It was, on the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Francisco Suarez whose doctrine, adopted by the Dominicans and the Jesuits, advocated, if necessary, the act of killing a tyrant.

Descartes himself was surely acquainted with the Commentarii during his passage into the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand at La Flèche (1606-1615). In truth, he was a student of Father Estevão Noel, who, apart from the Commentarii, used to teach the logic work of Pedro da Fonseca. The Météores, included with the Dioptrique and the Géométrie in the Discours de la méthod (1637), was, for instance, a Cartesian work inspired in the Aristotelian theory of meteors as exposed in the compendium (In Libros Meteororum, 1593) of Manuel de Góis.

In part, Immanuel Kant likewise developed his ideal of pure reason by studying the compendiums of the Portuguese schoolmen. In that way, Kant’s theory of transcendental idealism only proves that the previous Scholastic architecture, as taught in the European universities, became generally insufficient to elaborate a philosophical open system in which reason and faith are complementary rather than contradictory. Conceivable is thereby that Étienne Gilson, an “Immortal” member of the French Academy, would saw in Saint Thomas Aquinas the first of the modern philosophers as well as in Descartes the last of the scholastic one.

The most reliable thinker to eventually draw the inference about Aristotles’ exclusion of the Portuguese culture was Álvaro Ribeiro. Such a one has consisted above all in the outlaw of the philosophical thought from the academia establishment during the last two centuries. For that very reason, Positivism, Marxism and all forms of materialistic indoctrination have been unfortunately accepted and spread around every academic community and its subordinated educational system.

inwarAristotelian, Álvaro Ribeiro was also one of the first intellectuals able to see that the UN Organization was politically incompatible with the Portuguese spiritual ideal of a better world in support of individual freedom. For the rest, Álvaro´s criticism of the United Nations was overwhelmingly directed to the UNESCO, a specialized agency wherein the moral and the educational issues are strongly imbued of abstract and sociological methods. So, in his sharp-pointed view, the United Nations have been mostly created for the establishing of a one world government to which all the spiritual thinkers should definitely reply.

Further, the solution pointed out by Álvaro Ribeiro was basically focused on preserving and developing national tradition through philosophical thought. However, the fact is that throughout the 1960s Portugal became confronted with the armed revolutionary movements in Mozambique, Angola, and Portuguese Guinea. Salazar, firmly, resisted using, on one hand, military action against scattered guerrilla activity in Overseas Territories, while, on the other, ordered diplomatic reply in international organizations such as the UN as the most sneaky, criminal and perverted one.

Since 1945 and even before that, Salazar knew perfectly well how Western sovereign nations were eventually starting to migrate to a world government. With the UN Organization appearance, such process came into order with its parliamentary character more and more settled on abusive intervention in most countries’ policy around the world. Portugal, of course, was no exception, even when everyone knew how the terrorist attacks carefully planned and tactically perpetrated in its Overseas Provinces were equivalent to weaken the strategic fulcrum points of Western Civilization.

Comprehensively, Moscow, at the time, played this insidious game. But, unfortunately, Washington[31] , London and other leading capitals of the so called Western world also did it by means of financing, recruiting, arming and training gangs, factions and movements of guerrillas to subvert pacific populations in Portuguese Africa. Besides, being Portugal a multicultural, multiracial and a pluricontinental nation since the 15th century, it is not difficult to accomplish that, once questioned and deprived of its political rights based on historical tradition, the progress and the well-being of Africa’s continent would be forever lost.

There is a movement afoot known as the John Birch Society, founded in Indianapolis, Indiana, on December 9, 1958, by a group of 12 led by Robert Welch, Jr. (1899–1985). One of the first public activities of the society, otherwise pledged with Christian principles and conservative values, was a campaign which claimed in 1959 that the UN globalist agenda consisted of building a “One World Government”. In short form, the Bircher slogan campaign, pressing for an end to United States membership in the United Nations, was “Get US Out!”

In fact, Robert Welch denounced that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, greedy bankers and corrupt politicians whose roots could be found in the Enlightenment-age secret society of the Illuminati. Meanwhile, Welch somehow acknowledged how difficult it was to trace the Illuminati conspiracy after the Order suppression by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his preemptive campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies able to overthrow the Bavarian monarchy and its state religion: the Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, Welch referred to the Conspirators as “The Insiders”, relating them with the international financiers widely known as the Rothschild and the Rockefeller families, as well as with nongovernmental organizations such as the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission as fronts for a master conspiracy in which the Communist movement was also a very useful instrument managed by a shadow government[32].

Today, we live undoubtedly in a less free world. Reasonable doubts, however, can exist about knowing if the Illuminati survived its suppression in 1784. But, in the end, one thing can be sure: “The Insiders”, whosoever they may be, will definitely lose because All-mighty God is the greatest “Conspirator” of all.



[1] Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Clairview, 2010, p. 14.

[2] This Order was founded on 1st May 1776 as the “Order of Perfectibilists”. From 1782 “Brother Spartacus”, the symbolic name adopted by Weishaupt, recruited in Weimar the Duke Charles August (Eschylus), Goethe (Abaris), Herder (Damasus pontifex), Schardt (Apollonius), von Fritsch (Werner). By the time, he also recruited the Baron Dalberg, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, the Count and the future Prince of Metternich, and last but not least, the Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Cobourg and Gotha.

[3] Weishaupt’s radical goal was from the very beginning not only directed towards the German society but to the entire world. Besides, he had developed a Gnostic worldview in order to achieve an age of Enlightenment raised by natural reason. Thus, a welcome reform would finally come through Deistic reeducation regarding the “moral perfection of human nature”.

[4] That is the case of Nesta Helen Webster, a British feminist writer who, inclusively, considered the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an “open question”. However, the crucial point regarding the Illuminati conspiracy proceeds from her book The French Revolution: a Study in Democracy, in which she says: «The lodges of the German Freemasons and Illuminati were thus the source whence emanated all those anarchic schemes which culminated in the Terror, and it was at a great meeting of the Freemasons in Frankfurt-am-Main, three years before the French Revolution began, that the deaths of Louis XVI and Gustav III of Sweden were first planned». Curiously, Winston Churchill himself praised her in a 1920 article entitled Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People, in which he asserted: «This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution» (Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920).

On the other hand, we have also the case of William James Guy Carr, whose works were notably influenced by the writings of Nester Webster and many other authors such as Léo Taxil, l’abbé Augustin Barruel and John Robison. Carr sustained a global conspiracy theory consisting of two main subjects: international communism and international capitalism, both controlled by the Illuminati and the international bankers, mainly represented by the Rothschild and the Rockefeller families. Carr also refers to an alleged plan for Three World Wars, inspired, as he believed, by the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction, Albert Pike. Carr’s books such as Pawns in the Game (1955), The Red Fog over America (1955) or even Satan, Prince of This World (1959), were really influential among conspiracy believers like Dan Smoot (The Invisible Government, 1962), Gary Allen (The Rockefeller File, 1976; Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State, 1976; Say “No!” to the New World Order, 1987), Richard T. Osborne (The Great International Conspiracy, 1974 ; The Coming of World War III, 2006), Myron C. Fagan (Audio Document (LP) : The Illuminati and The Council on Foreign Relations, recorded in 1967-1968).

[5] In Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), there is some evidence on how the “New World Order” is being carefully prepared, especially through the international banking system by means of the US Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In his book The Anglo-American Establishment: from Rhodes to Cliveden, written in 1949 but published posthumously in 1981, Quigley also purports that a secret society, formally established in 1891 by John Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner, has played a significant role in recent world history. Curiously, it seems that this secret society, which as a whole does not have a formal name, was simultaneously based on the Jesuit and the Masonic models, due to its elaborate hierarchical structure with an inner circle (“The Society of the Elect”) and an outer circle (“The Association of Helpers”). According to Professor Quigley, the outer circle became, through Lord Milner’s initiative, the British Round Table organization in 1909, namely responsible for several historical events, including the Jameson Raid, the Second Boer War, the founding of the Union of South Africa, the replacement of the British Empire with the Commonwealth of Nations, and many of Britain’s foreign policy decisions in the twentieth century.

In addition, the American historian states, in Tragedy and Hope, that he had been in direct contact with this organization, whose nature he contrasts to right-wing claims of a communist conspiracy: «This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements…. This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies… but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known».

Yet, Antony Sutton stated in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler: «Quigley goes a long way to provide evidence for the existence of the power elite, but does not penetrate the operations of the elite. Possibly, the papers used by Quigley had been vetted, and did not include documentation on elitist manipulation of such events as the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s accession to power, and the election of Roosevelt in 1933. More likely, these political manipulations may not be recorded at all in the files of the power groups. They may have been unrecorded actions by a small ad hoc segment of the elite. It is noteworthy that the documents used by this author came from government sources, recording the day-to-day actions of Trotsky, Lenin, Roosevelt, Hitler, J.P. Morgan and the various firms and banks involved».

[6] Barruel defined “philosophism” as «the error of every man who, judging of all things by the standard of his own reason, rejects in religious matters every authority that is not derived from the light of nature…» (Vol. I, chap 1, 4).

[7] Curiously, the individuals that played a direct role in the Enlightenment and within the planned conspiracy against Christianity used secret names: Voltaire was “Raton”, d’Alembert was “Protagoras”, Frederick II was “Luc”, and Diderot was known as “Plato”.

[8] As a Freemason, Condorcet was also an influential leader who supported the French Revolution. Too many others conspired equally, as, for instance, the Baron d’Holbach, Buffon, La Mettrie, Raynal, Abbé Yvon, Abbé de Prades, Abbé Morrelet, La Harpe, Marmontel, Bergier and Duclos.

[9]Edmund Burke to Abbé Barruel, May 1, 1797, in Thomas W. Copeland, ed., The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, 10 Vols. (Chicago and Cambridge, 1958–1978), 9: 319–320.

[10] In turn, Gerard Encausse, a Parisian doctor whose esoteric pseudonym was Papus, said that Ramsay’s Scottish System was the one behind the French Revolution and the principles of atheism and materialism (cf. Martinésisme, Willermosisme, Martinisme et Franco-Maçonnerie, 1899). While claiming an alleged revenge of the Knights Templar, this System not only prepared and spread a revolutionary subversion within a great number of Masonic degrees, orders and bodies, but also applied the new dictatorial Masonic Constitutions to society. Meanwhile, a considerable opposition to such political revolving movement – and particularly to the Bavarian Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt –, came especially through Louis Claude de Saint-Martin and Jean-Baptiste Willermoz. They were both initiated in the Christian Enlightenment by Martinez de Pasqually, a Portuguese theurgical operator who founded the Ordre des Chevaliers Maçons Élus Cohens de L’Univers (Order of Knight-Masons Elect Priests of the Universe), which apparently functioned as a Masonic obedience in France.

[11] The scientific stage, rejecting introspective and intuitional attempts, resides on observation and classification of data derived from positive sense experience in order to establish cause and effect relationship. Therefore, Comte would say: “from science comes prediction; from prediction comes action.”

[12]Physique social, according to Comte, and later renamed sociology.

[13] Comte offered an account of social evolution based on the general “law of three stages”: (1) the theological, (2) the metaphysical and (3) the positive. The progression of the three stages is deeply connected with Comte’s proposal of a systematic and hierarchical classification of the sciences, developed in this order of growing complexity: mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. However, there was a seventh science, one even greater than sociology, which was Anthropology or the true science of Man as the last gradation in the Grand Hierarchy of Abstract Science.

[14] This influence can, eventually, be found in Bacon’s work titled “New Atlantis”, in which the so called “Solomon’s House” seems to have inspired an attempt, in 1667, to establish a permanent “College” for the Society. For the rest, Frances Yeats, in her book The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (1972), says that the Royal Society began to be a Masonic institution deeply influenced by figures such as Elias Ashmole and Robert Fludd identified themselves as Rosicrucians. So, the British historian not only points how Hermetic tradition and magical thinking played an important role in early modern science and philosophy, but also reveals how the “Invisible College”, exactly the same as described in the Rosicrucian Manifestos written in the early 17th century in Europe, finally became the Royal Society.

[15] Today, the Society formally acts as Her Majesty’s Government’s chief scientific advisor, and is the United Kingdom’s Academy of Sciences. Besides, the Royale Society acts as well as an advisor to the European Commission and the United Nations on matters of science.

[16] “The Great Instauration” is Bacon’s universal reform of knowledge inspired in the Work of the Six Days of Creation, as defined in the Bible, leading to the Seventh Day of Rest or Sabbath in which Adam’s dominion over creation would be restored.

[17] Regarding the refraction of light, Newton, due to his knowledge of “corpuscular alchemy”, was also capable, by using a lens and a second prism, of recomposing the multicoloured spectrum into white light. While doing so, his main conclusion was that colour is the result of objects interacting with already-coloured light rather than objects generating the colour themselves.

[18] It seems that Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. As we know, Newton’s religious view rejected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Put another way, Newton, an unorthodox Christian, held an Arian view which taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally.

Newton’s studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers become specially known in a critical dissertation titled An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, where, besides blaming the Roman Church of “pious frauds”, claims to review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two dispute Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Based on the King James Biblical Version, Newton argues that the first passage must have been “He was manifest in the flesh” instead of “God was manifest in the flesh.” As far as the second one, Newton claims that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” – which stands God in three persons co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial –, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures.

[19] It is also worth noting that Newton did not actually use the term “inertia” with regard to his First Law of Motion. In fact, Newton’s original idea, borrowed from Kepler’s definition of “inertia” in terms of a resistance to movement, was focused on “the innate force of matter” possessed by an object to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line. Given this perspective, we must conclude that Galileo and Descartes were the ones who really unified the Aristotelian principles of rest and motion into one mechanical principle subjected to mathematic analysis.

[20] For Bacon, matters of policy were likewise inseparable from a widespread science revolution (I, Aph. LXXX). During Queen Elizabeth’s Office, he even advocated for the employment of a Minister for Science and Technology, which never took place. Then it is no surprise that Bacon’s view of the theory and practice of law and his view of the theory and practice of science were strictly parallel, as Barry Gower recognized more emphatically: «Those who concern themselves with the nature of justice and its relation to legitimate authority in a state need to reflect on the ways in which justice is administered, determined and delivered. In a similar way, those who would concern themselves with nature must have, or be prepared to acquire, knowledge of the ways in which nature works. If, to have that knowledge, they need experiments to make the world reveal its secrets, then there is a continuing parallel with the law in that … lawyers need inquisitions and trials to make justice prevail. As Bacon put it when drawing King James’s attention to the expenses incurred by experimenters: “as secretaries and spials of princes and states bring in bills for intelligence, so you must allow the spials and intelligencers of nature to bring in their bills.” The value of experiments which exhibit nature under investigation lies in their ability to reveal the truths nature would otherwise conceal, just as the value of espionage and inquisition lies in their ability to reveal the truths people would otherwise conceal» (Scientific method: An historical and philosophical introduction. London: Routledge, 1997, pp. 45-46).

[21] Leaning on the “physical” theory of Democritus which says that atoms are not visible to human senses, Bacon adds that all the instruments able to amplify and accurate those senses are worthless without science’s knowledge of and over nature (I, Aph. L).

[22] For more in this matter, Bacon explains: «For since the Form of a thing is the very thing itself, and the thing differs from the form no otherwise than as the apparent differs from the real, or the external from the internal, or the thing in reference to man from the thing in reference to the universe; it necessarily follows that no nature can be taken as the true form, unless it always decrease when the nature in question decreases, and in like manner always increase when the nature in question increases» (II, Aph. XIII).

[23] In this treatise, Galileo evaluates the astronomical views of a Jesuit, Orazio Grassi, who, based on mathematical reasoning, asserted that comets move above the Moon. Galileo, in turn, countered that comets were just an optical illusion.

[24] As the Portuguese ambassador to Great Britain, Melo was especially familiar with the anti-Jesuit British tradition, and in Vienna he had made friendship with Gerhard van Swieten, a confidant of Maria Theresa of Austria and a staunch adversary of the Austrian Jesuits’ influence.

[25] Pombal inspired himself in the Monita Secreta – otherwise known as Secret Instructions of the Jesuits – to orchestrate a conspiracy theory supporting the Order’s desire for power by means of crimes and abominations of every kind – immoralities, conspiracies, murders and regicides. It is widely known that such Secret Instructions were a forgery considered to be made by one Jerome Zahorowski, a Pole, who, having been a member of the Society, had been expelled in 1611. The Secret Instructions first appeared in Krakow in 1612 in the form of a manuscript, purporting to be a translation from the Spanish, and were printed in the same city in 1614. Amongst those who have argued that the Secret Instructions are a hoax are, for instance, Bishop Lipski of Cracow (1616), Fra Paolo Sarpi (the historian of the Council of Trent), the Jansenist Henri de Saint-Ignace and Blaise Pascal.

[26] Étienne Pasquier, a French lawyer, was one of the former propaganda theorists over against the Society of Jesus. In 1565, he became famous by pleading the cause of the University of Paris against the Jesuits, and won it. Later on, was published Pasquier’s work titled Le Catéchisme des Jésuites (1602), translated in seven languages at least.

[27] Most chief European libraries preserve many of these works, mostly translated to French, Spanish, Italian, German, English, Latin and even Chinese language.

Sample 17[28] In the sequence of the attempted assassination of D. José I on September 3, 1758, Sebastião José took, at the very beginning, the opportunity to implicate the Jesuits by alleging their prior knowledge of the attempted regicide. Among those arrested and executed was Gabriel Malagrida, the Jesuit confessor of Leonor of Távora. Unfortunately, she and her husband the Count of Alvor, along with the Duke of Aveiro, the Marquis of Alorna and the Count of Atouguia, were not spared as well for the reason that they were also among the bitterest enemies of the “Prime Minister” of Portugal.

[29] The chief inspirer of such a reform was a representative of the Enlightenment: Luís António Verney (1713-1792). Owing to his anti-Jesuitical learning outlook, Portugal imported a great number of professors skilled in modern physics as thenceforth practiced in Central and Northern Europe. Thus, the Enlightenment’s entry in Portugal stemmed on denationalized professors of algebra, astronomy, surgery and natural philosophy.

[30] In Portugal, the neo-Scholastic movement was founded by the Jesuits of Coimbra, also known as the Conimbricenses. Between 1592 and 1601, they published eight voluminous commentaries on the philosophical writings of Aristotle titled Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societis Iesu. Originally, these commentaries were dictations to the students by the professors and as such were not intended for publication. But, fortunately, the Commentarii were afterwards corrected and supervised for publication through the chief work of Manuel de Góis and his auxiliaries Baltazar Álvares, Cosme de Magalhães and Sebastião do Couto.

Written in flowing Latin, the Commentarii included all the commentators of Aristotle since the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry of Tyre (232–304) to the Andalusian Muslim Ibn Rush (1026-1198), commonly known as Averroes or, inclusively, “The Commentator” with regard to Aristotle’s philosophy. On the whole they included all the Greek, Roman, Arabian and Latin medieval schoolmen for the main purpose of setting reliable explanations and exhaustive discussion of the system of Aristotle. Besides, they were translated and used in many European countries, such as Germany, France, Italy, and also printed in Jesuit schools outside Europe, particularly in Bahia (Brazil), Goa and even China.

But, for the present, let us remind the Jesuit philosopher Pedro da Fonseca (1528–1599), known in his time as the “Portuguese Aristotle”. In fact, he was one of the first school teachers selected with tree others (Marcos Jorge, Cipriano Soarez e Pedro Gómez) to realize the Commentarii project, which, in the meantime, did not proceed under the auspices of such an illustrious group. Nevertheless, Father Pedro da Fonseca wrote two masterworks worthy of memory, such as the Instittutiones Dialecticarum and the Commentariorum in Libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis. The later one included the Greek text of Aristotle, while the first one – much appreciated by Gottfried Leibniz – enjoyed great success throughout European universities well into the eighteenth century.

[31] In Interdicted Dialogues (Vol. I, 1979), Franco Nogueira – the Salazar´s Minister of Foreign Affairs between 1961 and 1969 – records what, in May 16th, 1962, was told to him in Lisbon by an American journalist, Constantine Brown: 1. President Kennedy was a weak character entirely dominated by a group of a dozen personalities in which figured Bundy, Schlesinger and Rostow as the most likely influential of all; 2. This group had an ultimate goal: a) appease Russia by all means; b) sacrifice, if necessary, all Western Europe by destroying the Governments of Adenauer, De Gaulle and Oliveira Salazar; c) submerge all sovereign nation-states, including the US one; d) bring up a single world order ruled by the United Nations.

[32] Regarding the global conspiracy, Welch also pointed the government agencies like the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Welch, inclusively, accused some collegiate fraternities (Skull and Bones) and gentlemen’s clubs (Bohemian Club) as front organizations on behalf of a “New World Order”. And more recently, the Birch’s society accused the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by favouring political and economic globalization before the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Predicting World War III

A friend in Europe reminded me that on 24 March 2011 a group of “well-known Russian astrologers, shamans and parapsychologists gathered to discuss forecasts for the near and distant future.” Since almost nothing of importance in Russia occurs without the state or the FSB having a “finger in the pie” (so to speak) it is worth taking notice of Russian predictions – whatever the source. Readers are directed to the 2011 Pravda.ru article titled Third World War to Begin during Winter Games in 2014. A wise man once said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.” Indeed, the article contains predictions that obviously did not come true. Anyone who monitors major predictions about the future will find a very poor track record in 99 out of 100 cases. What is most curious, however, is that “participants” of the aforementioned 2011 meeting offered up a date for the beginning of World War III that already has some of us jittery.

According to the article war supposedly begins in March 2014, during or shortly after the Olympic Games in Sochi. Since there have been bombings in Russia, and since Russia has threatened to take unspecified actions against Saudi Arabia if terrorists bomb the Sochi games, there may be reason to worry. We know that supposed Islamist terror bombings in Russia have, in the past, been carried out by the FSB along with other “false flag” operations. We know that Saudi Arabia is the key to the West’s oil lifeline. Is Russia setting up a pretext for war?

In the case of the assembled astrologers and parapsychologists in Russia, how did they arrive at the March 2014 date for the start of World War III? The best predictions are often made by those who have sources on “the inside.” If an astrologer is trying to boost himself, wouldn’t it be prudent to have friends in the special services or General Staff? After all, such predictions would greatly strengthen the livelihood of any self-respecting astrologer or parapsychologist. Therefore we may ask if the Russian astrologers are merely reflecting an open secret within Russia’s ruling circles. As it happens, an answer to this question is ready at hand. I received a note from a practicing non-Russian astrologer about the March 2014 time frame for World War III. Apparently, in the lore of astrology, 2014 looks rather frightening. In the previous version of this present article I had mistakenly assumed the aforementioned astrologer was concerned about events in March, and I took that to mean there was nothing else behind the Russian astrological predictions except astrology. Silly me. The story is even more interesting insofar as there are no (I am told) astrologically justified reasons for the Russian astrological prediction. found nothing especially frightening about March 2014. And this leaves me wondering out loud: why were the Russian astrologers, who regularly serve the Russian General Staff and KGB, registering concerns for March 2014? Again, we may be looking at something that has more to do with inside knowledge of intentions which, in trying to look credible, must reflect what superiors already believe is set to happen. This is significant, and perhaps other experts can contact me and weigh in on the matter. It is not a question here of believing in astrology, by the way. It is a question of why Russian astrologers and shamans would underscore the Winter Olympics and March of 2014 as the beginning of World War III.

So when is the next world war going to start?

Let us turn to someone who made 148 falsifiable predictions in his 1984 book and got roughly 94 percent of them right. I am referring to KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. His predictions were based on strategic insight, years of study, and personal knowledge. In a 1978 memorandum to the CIA Golitsyn warned that America and NATO were in grave danger because the Soviet Union had adopted a long range strategy that the West knew nothing about. According to Golitsyn, “… a trap is being laid by the Communist policymakers which will be exploited when the USSR carries out a deceptive liberalization of its regime….” Written in 1978, more than a decade before the revolutions that swept through Eastern Europe, Golitsyn’s warning was scoffed at. “With few exceptions,” the editors of Golitsyn’s 1984 book affirmed, “those Western officials who were aware of the views expressed in the manuscript [of Golitsyn], especially on the Sino-Soviet split, rejected them. In fact, over the years it became increasingly clear to the author that there was no reasonable hope of his analysis of communist affairs being seriously considered in Western official circles.”

While Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers, the White House and intelligence community weren’t touching Golitsyn with a ten foot pole. In fact, the poor man was defamed in publication after publication. The accuracy of his predictions was vociferously denied. And here we are, twenty years after the liberalization of the Soviet Bloc, with a KGB officer nominally in charge of Russia. If anyone cares to notice, the liberalization was false indeed if only because Russia has not been liberalized. Even the former satellite countries exist in a curious state between liberalization and ongoing control by hidden communist “structures.” What did this liberalization accomplish in the end? If anyone cares to notice, NATO has been gradually disarming while President Barack Obama is working to shrink the U.S. nuclear arsenal to a fraction of its current size. And why is this important? In a 1973 memorandum to the CIA Golitsyn wrote: “One can also expect a concealed Communist offensive through their agents of influence … in order further to undermine the establishment, especially the Pentagon, the so-called ‘military-industrial complex’ and the American Special Services; and further to reduce the authority of the President in the military field and to reduce expenditure on defense….” The further weakening of the United States, wrote Golitsyn, will lead to Communist Bloc military “superiority over the West through secret Sino-Soviet cooperation….”

The result of such superiority is not hard to guess. According to Golitsyn’s 1973 memorandum, “The Soviet and Chinese rocket strike units and strategic bombers will make a surprise raid on Pearl Harbor lines on the main government and military headquarters of the leading Western countries and on their missile sites. The main idea will be to knock out the primary Western sources of retaliation and to paralyze, at least for a short period, their physical ability to take a decision on retaliation.” Golitsyn further wrote: “Although, of course, this vision of a surprise attack on the West is … speculation, it is [my] belief that it is definitely in the realm of possibility, given that it has been the subject of study by the KGB, and should in any case be prepared for….”

There are a number of factors that must be clarified before we continue our analysis of when World War III is likely to begin. First, we must reckon with the diversionary role played by Arab terrorism in advance of a nuclear attack on the United States. A pre-war diversionary phase, known within Soviet military circles as “Grey Terror,” was outlined by GRU defector Viktor Suvorov in Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces. On page 196 of the book, Suvorov defined Grey Terror as “a series of large and small [terrorist] operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy’s morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets.” Suvorov further stated that Grey Terror is a kind of terror that is carried out “in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations.”

If alarm bells are not ringing in your head at this point in our discourse, then you haven’t been reading with sufficient attention. For here we have a GRU defector describing a diversionary strategy that precedes World War III. The book in which this description takes place was written 13 years before the spectacular terrorist attack of 9/11, which KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko hinted was a KGB operation. (Before his poisoning with polonium-210, Litvinenko also said that leading figures in al Qaeda were KGB agents – including Ayman al-Zawahri, the current chief of al Qaeda.) It is almost certainly not a coincidence that al Qaeda’s operations against the United States closely resemble Grey Terror. If we consider the Soviet role in creating and supporting international terrorism during the past half century, and the testimony of communist bloc defectors like Ion Pacepa, the purpose of the terror edifice comes sharply into focus.

In essence, if we are reading the situation correctly, the first act of war has already happened. It was accomplished through a covert mechanism so that the victim of the attack could not properly identify the true source of the attack. The question of when all-out war begins, however, is still not answered. In November 1999, while conversing with GRU defector Stanislav Lunev, I admitted to being puzzled by the exact mechanism of a Soviet surprise nuclear strike. How would they pull it off? Lunev said, “If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons, don’t believe it.” I asked Lunev why I should disbelieve such a thing. He replied: “Because it will be my people. It will be Spetsnaz.” I asked him what would happen after such a nuclear attack. He said that a period of weeks or months would elapse. “Then the rockets from Russia will arrive.” This last statement puzzled me a great deal at the time, but does not puzzle me today.

The United States government has sometimes (if not often) been manipulated by Russian agents of influence. Diana West has written a bestselling book to remind us of this fact. Time is always required for such agents to guide a nation’s policies toward national disadvantage. This would also be true for a country suffering a diversionary nuclear terror attack. Considering how easily we have been manipulated in the past, consider what a diversionary nuclear strike could accomplish if the right people were in the White House?

This leads me to consider another communist bloc defector. His name was Jan Sejna, and in 1982 he wrote the following words about Russia’s long-range strategy:

Soviet ambitions towards the United States were aimed at the extinction of Capitalism and the ‘socialization’ of America…. The main strategic goals on the road to their fulfillment were: the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from Europe and Asia; the removal of Latin America from the United States’ sphere of influence and its incorporation into the Socialist bloc; the destruction of United States influence in the developing world; the reduction of American military power to a state of inferiority; the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government; and the collapse of the American economy.

Before a missile can be launched the U.S. political system will be infiltrated (see the work of Trevor Loudon) and the U.S. economy will be sabotaged (see the work of Kevin Freeman). We can also see there is no reason to attack the United States with nuclear weapons until most or all of these goals have been reached. For once these goals are accomplished the United States will be “ready for the oven.” In essence, the country will be disarmed and isolated. It will only be a matter of time before the country wakes up and attempts to change course. This is when Russia’s nuclear weapons prove useful. That is when you should expect a war to start.

All of this does not render an exact date. Instead, it gives us markers on the road ahead. Through these markers we can track our progress. We can see where we are, and where we can expect to be as events unfold. The strange thing, of course, is that Socialist bloc defectors have been describing our future for decades. The reason they were able to do this is simple. Strategy works when there is no counter-strategy. The Great Game follows a pattern set by the side that holds the initiative. In the West our leaders have denied there is an enemy or an opposing strategy. They are readily diverted into the dead end policies of the present day.  The question that now cries out the for clarification has to do with domestic U.S. politics.

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.

Originally published on January 4, 2014, at jeffreynyquist.com.

Corrections have been added in red after February 8, 2014.

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

The Key to True Secession with Dr. Edwin Vieira


Alex Jones interviews constitutional scholar and IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow Dr. Edwin Vieira on the topic of secession. Watch the video of the interview below.


From Greatest Generation to Porn Generation

I This is our legacy to our children? A “porn generation”? I was talking with a sweet young 14-year-old girl the other day. She was depressed. “All the boys I’ve been friends with at school, really friends with, they’re now acting so inappropriately.”

No, she wasn’t hurt by anyone. But, she says, “I have to slap them and it’s really upsetting. I know they’re watching pornography,” she adds. “That’s where they get all that stuff from. And it hurts, also because they are ruining their own lives.” She chokes back the tears.

Don’t expect Dr. Phil or any other television maven to reveal pornography for what it is—a major erototoxic virus infecting most exposed. The virus was released into society December 1953 when Hugh Hefner used it to emasculate Joe College. Rendered impotent without fantasy sex, millions of men over time—crossing every political, racial, religious, educational and socioeconomic boundaries—lost the virility and virtue needed to protect their wives and children from the current porn deluge. And when men are emasculated, popping Viagra while lusting after tragic centerfold paper and celluloid and computer dollies, women turn away from home and embrace “work” that may be empty but is reliable.

Benjamin Shapiro, a strapping young 21-year-old author, columnist, survivor of UCLA and current Harvard Law sSchool warrior, has written the book for parents and youths—Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (published by Regnery, a Human Events sister company). Shapiro’s Judeo-Christian advocacy is sane, compassionate, documented and easy to take, although he has drawn the wrath of many suffering the pains of amorality.

Shapiro tells “the baby boomers and liberals who make up the current leadership in this country”that they need to take esponsibility for “what they’ve done to American society.”

Shapiro observes that if children infected with venereal disease from oral sodomy “at age 12” are not seen as “a broken nation,” we “aren’t looking hard enough.” The baby boomers and “grownup flower children” became the mass media and education authorities who have corrupted society, writes Shapiro.

Of course, I find this young man especially wise in his awareness of the role of Alfred Kinsey in normalizing the porn generation. Describing Kinsey’s impact he says, “Kinsey claimed that Americans were secret perverts and sex maniacs.” By lying about our parents and grandparents, Kinsey invalidated morality as a “social ideal.” Then, using the old bait and switch trick, says Shapiro, Kinsey pulls out the tattered “hypocrisy” charge.

“The only way to alleviate guilt became abdication of moral sexual standards,” he says. “And when the chief goal is erasing guilt, even for immoral actions, all that remains is narcissism.”

Shapiro argues, with strong support, that discarding traditional morality gave our children over to social liberals, who control our culture through music, film, television and other mass media so that the normal is now considered deviant. He says the effects upon his generation are“disastrous.”

I do not think Shapiro exaggerates. “Like it or not, the porn generation is the future of this country,” says Shapiro. Think of that and consider what decisions will be made by future judges, juries, legislators, prosecutors and Presidents who are pornography addicts.

It is not a good era for parents to rear their young. They try to restrict the erotically laced videos, rap, adverts and Internet porn. Now they are faced with Rainbow Party, a Simon Pulse book (a division of Simon & Schuster) by Paul Ruditis that has little girls pick out different lipstick colors to practice for some boy-girl oral sex orgies. The “me generation” led to “Gen X” that logically has produced the X-Rated Porn Generation.

Shapiro’s writing is crisp and right on target. And take a deep breath folks, because the young man is pointing his finger at most of adult society, for children now are paying with their lives for the adult selfishness and abandonment of strong moral standards.

Most parents are not nearly “in the know” enough about the problems their children face in trying to survive their toxic porn environment. Shapiro’s is a critical wake-up call for parents and it is a book that can give them the knowledge necessary to begin to turn around the amorality that is destroying their children.

“I am a member of a lost generation,” Shapiro writes. “Never in our country’s history has a generation been so empowered, so wealthy, so privileged-and yet so empty.”

Shapiro is a great spokesman for youth and for this nation. Pornography will grow in violence and degradation. Its causal role in child sexual abuse, incest and rape is real and all too well documented. It is increasingly taking the littlest ones, the most innocent.

Pornography will not go away unless we treat it like an environmental toxin. Pornography was never about sex. It was always about emasculating men and neuro-chemically linking sexual lust with shame, fear, violence and degradation.

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 National Review on June 27, 2005. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

A Dangerous Alliance: Iran and Venezuela

Read below a 2011 brifieng of The Inter-American Institute on a dangerous alliance between Venezuela and Iran.

The Destructive Fruits of Sexual Politics

It may be no accident that Dale McAlpine, the Christian arrested for street preaching in England, was nabbed for his views on homosexuality. As Melanie Phillips points out in the Daily Mail, the preponderance of cases in what she calls Britain’s “attempt to stamp out Christianity” involve homosexuality.

This is also true in the U.S. and elsewhere as Christians find their beliefs proscribed once they criticize homosexuality. “This is in contrast to other contentious issues such as abortion, where the law specifically provides exemptions for conscience,” Phillips writes.

Clichés about “inequality,” “discrimination” and other agitprop jargon borrowed largely from the American civil-rights era disguise a much deeper development. The sexualization of politics (and the politicization of sex) is the most important – and least scrutinized – political development since the 1960s. In 40 years, the political Left has transformed itself from a socialistic campaign against property and enterprise into a sexual attack on the family, marriage and masculinity.

The sexual agenda is more than a simple request for “equality” (for feminists) or to be left alone (for homosexuals). It is an ideology with no precise limits demanding an open-ended sexual “liberation” that quickly expands into demands to exercise government power over others. As Burke observed, “Liberty, when men act in bodies, is power.”

Because this power covers what was once considered private life, the potential for intrusion is also unlimited. The words “power” or “empowerment” are now ubiquitous in feminist and gay literature, describing a control over other people’s private lives as well as public policy. Voices of restraint like gay campaigner Peter Tatchell, who criticized McAlpine’s arrest, do not change the larger reality.

Like other ideologies only more so, the danger may be seen in the absence of dissent. More than any other, sexual politics neuters, literally emasculates, its opposition. Feminist and gay politics contain a hostility toward heterosexual masculinity that is increasingly shared by the mainstream culture.

But no free society can exist without masculinity. Masculine strength is the only counterweight to the power of the state.

A free society needs people who are required to show courage, risk their lives and sacrifice them if necessary for our security and freedom – not just people who will do so, but people who must, as a matter of obligation. It requires people who cannot evade responsibility and danger by claiming weakness or sensitivity, who cannot run away, cry or claim special exemptions from the responsibilities of citizenship or the rules of constitutional government based on whatever they find “deeply offensive.”

And it needs such people apart from state functionaries. Otherwise the state will wield a monopoly of these functions, which makes it total.

Men (and really men alone) are required to risk their lives for our security and freedom. Women and homosexuals may well exhibit these qualities, but women are not required to do so, and homosexuals have opted out of the requirement. The only way these groups can be “empowered” is with the backing of – rather than as an alternative to – the government machinery.

The Daily Mail recounts that McAlpine was arrested because the policeman himself claimed to be deeply offended by McAlpine’s views, apparently expressed to him alone. “I am a homosexual, I find that offensive and I’m also the liaison officer for the bisexual-lesbian-gay-transsexual community,” Officer Sam Adams apparently told McAlpine before arresting him. I find many opinions offensive, but I cannot handcuff and incarcerate the people who express them.

Do homosexuals now have their own police that protect only them? Does a “bisexual-lesbian-gay-transsexual” police force arrest only heterosexuals? Not the equal protection of the laws but the subjective feelings of the policeperson – and of the special interests on whose behalf alone he was apparently exercising his official function – determined that McAlpine would be arrested. A free society cannot exist where the police serve special interests and where no distinction is recognized between hurt feelings and crime.

The sexual agenda is the most extreme in our culture today. Here in the U.S., the Employment Nondiscrimination bill will force employers to hire not simply homosexuals who keep their private lives to themselves (and who therefore need no special provision) but cross-dressers who exhibit themselves publicly.

Homosexuality is only part of a larger politics of sex that already exercises highly authoritarian powers, and Christians are not the only ones to run afoul of it. Heterosexual fathers, who embody the hated “patriarchy,” are subject now to a panoply of summary punishments, including incarceration without trial, simply for being fathers. This is exercised mostly through the divorce machinery, but it is spilling over to target both fathers and mothers in intact families.

In “The Prison and the Gallows,” feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk has shown with forthright honesty how the rapid rise in incarceration since the 1970s results directly from the sexual agenda. The U.S. and Britain are the epicenter of the new sexual politics. It is our task to bring it under control.

The alternative is to continue mouthing platitudes, in which case we will be dismissed as a chorus of scolds and moralizers—and yes, bigots. And we will lose.

Stephen BaskervilleStephen Baskerville is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Political Science and Human Rights. He is Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and Research Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society and at the Independent Institute.

This article was originally published at newswithviews.com on July 22, 2004.

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