A Disaster

Monday, 03 February 2014 20:46
Written by Olavo de Carvalho
Hits: 933

No historian and no informed reader can conceive of the great literature of the first half of the twentieth century without the names of G. K. Chesterton, Léon Bloy, T. S. Eliot, François Mauriac, Julien Green, Flannery O’Connor, Georges Bernanos, Paul Claudel, Miguel de Unamuno, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Charles Péguy, Hugo von Hoffmansthal, Hermann Broch, Gertrud von Le Fort, Giovanni Papini, Giuseppe Ungaretti, Henrik Sienkiewicz, José Maria de Pereda. What is there in common among these authors? They are all Catholic writers, not only because they presented themselves publicly as members of the Church, but because their works reflect the themes and concerns that are typically closest to the Catholic soul, especially sin and Grace. Through their books, these themes entered the higher culture of their time and the personal conversation of millions of readers as naturally as Marxist themes entered culture through Gorki or Brecht, esoteric themes through Hermann Hesse and W. B. Yeats, psychoanalytical themes through Arthur Schnitzler, James Joyce or Tennessee Williams, and so forth.
There is no exaggeration in saying that during that half-century Catholic experience was one of the main, if not the main force inspiring literary creativity in all of the Western world.

This blossoming – uncommon even in older, more clearly Christian times – was possible because, nourished by the advent of the so-called “depth psychology,” a then growing interest of the lettered classes in the knowledge of the human soul found an extremely favorable environment in the traditional discipline of examination of conscience and confession.

Nothing is more indispensable to the writer of fiction than conquering his own voice, personal in the highest degree, which speaks from direct individual impressions and dwindles as soon as the sense of concrete experience is suffocated by the intrusion of stereotypes and “general ideas.”

The practice of Catholicism consists less in intellectual allegiance to general doctrines than in searching, with the help of those doctrines, a direct dialogue between the soul of the sinner and the sole possible source of redemption. Every faithful Catholic knows that it is only before God that the soul reaches that level of perfect sincerity that the coexistence among men seeks in vain to imitate. Hence the unusual vividness, the penetrating realism with which Catholic experience transforms itself in literary representation of life.

This also explains why, in the decades following the Second Vatican Council, great Catholic literature practically disappeared, and the average literature that has continued to exist no longer plays, nor has it the strength to play, any relevant role in the world of high culture.

The Council, as we know, divided the Church. On one side, the “aggiornamento” enthusiasts, anxious to conquer the sympathy of the world, prostituted themselves as leftist do-gooders, which may win some applause from the media, but which in the realm of literary creation, where the “war against cliché,” as Martin Amis called it, is the daily bread, can only result in the self- destruction of all talent.

The epitaph of Catholic progressivism in literature was  “Monsignor Quixote” (1982), in which, driven by the desire to turn the pompous mediocrity of a leftist bishop into a symbol of authentic holiness, Graham Greene, who excelled in the psychological truthfulness of his characters, only proved what every reader of novels already knew: that fashionable stereotypes are kryptonite to literary genius.

On the other side, traditionalists, marginalized, persecuted, and rejected by the same authority they vowed to obey, enclosed themselves in a combative and rancorous spiritual state, which may inspire fine polemical tirades, but shrivels fictional imagination at the roots. The highest literary personality of this faction in activity, Canadian novelist Michael O’Brien, has not stopped to produce works worthy of attention, but they are almost always debilitated by an overly ostensible catechetical impulse, which does not catechize anyone precisely because it does not attract non-Catholic readers. What survives as Catholic literature in the world falls into the category of “special interest,” which is the same as saying it does not have a voice in the universe of high culture. At 92, Eugenio Corti, the only great Catholic writer alive comparable to those mentioned in the beginning of this article, is hardly read outside the circle of the faithful. Another rare survivor, Walker Percy, who was born in 1919 and passed away in 1990, belongs more to the pre-Council period.

It is true that one of the fiction writers of greatest success in the last decades was the Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien. But he is a writer of the first half of the twentieth century, who was belatedly discovered by the general public.

When examined on the smaller and local scale of Brazil, the process becomes even more visible, the fall more vertiginous and depressing. Without mentioning thinkers and doctrinaires, and counting only the greatest in the area of poetry and fiction, we had Augusto Frederico Schmidt, Manuel Bandeira, Jorge de Lima, Murilo Mendes, Octavio de Faria, Lúcio Cardoso, Cornélio Penna, Alphonsus de Guimaraens Filho. All of them produced Catholic literature. And what about today? Since the death of Bruno Tolentino, having nothing would be preferable to what still goes around under that label.

If it is true that “by their fruits you shall know them,” and that something of the state of things in society can be apprehended by the highs and lows of literary creation, then it is necessary to concede, at least, that the Catholic traditionalists are a little right and recognize that Vatican II was a disaster.

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

Translation revised by Alessandro Cota.

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

Hounding the Divorce Industry

The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States, Britain, and the other English-speaking democracies. Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. “The power of family court judges is almost unlimited,” according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. “Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power,” a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power.”

The divorce regime is responsible for much more than “ugly divorces,” “nasty custody battles,” and other clichés. It is the most serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations in the Western world today. Because it strikes the most basic institution of any civilization – the family – the divorce regime is a threat not only to social order but to civil freedom. It is also almost completely unopposed. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth. A few attorneys have spoken out, but they are eventually suspended or disbarred. Some academics have written about it, but they soon stop. No human rights or civil liberties groups challenge it, and some positively support it. Very few “pro-family” lobbies question it. This is because the divorce regime operates through money, political power, and fear.

The divorce regime is much more serious than simply “unfairness” or “gender bias” against fathers in custody proceedings. It is the government’s machine for destroying the principal check on its power – the family – and criminalizing its main rival: fathers. The most basic human and constitutional rights are routinely violated in America’s family courts. The lives of children and parents are in serious danger once they are, as the phrase goes, taken into “custody.” Systemic conflicts-of-interest among government and private officials charged with child custody, child support, child protection, and connected matters have created a witch hunt against plainly innocent citizens.

The terror of the divorce regime is not a future possibility; it is a present reality. The following methods are currently employed by family courts and other government agents. These practices are now widespread in America:

  • mass incarcerations without trial or charge
  • forced confessions
  • children forcibly separated from parents who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing and parents stripped of the care, custody, and companionship of their children without explanation
  • government agents entering the homes, demanding and examining private papers and personal effects, and seizing the property of citizens who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing
  • official court records, including hearing tapes and transcripts, doctored and falsified with the knowledge of court officials and evidence fabricated against the innocent
  • defendants denied the constitutional right to face their accusers
  • bureaucratic police authorized to issue subpoenas and arrest warrants against parents, with no hearing and contrary to due process of law
  • special courts created specifically to process parents for political offenses
  • forced labor facilities created specifically for parents
  • children instructed to hate their parents with the backing of government officials
  • children forced by government officials to act as informers against their parents
  • children abused and killed with the backing of government officials
  • knowingly false allegations, for which no evidence is presented, accepted as fact without proof, overturning the presumption of innocence, and not punished when demonstrated to be untrue
  • parents ordered by government officials to separate from their spouses, on pain of losing their children
  • parents forced to pay the private fees of court officials they have not hired and whose services they have not sought or used, on pain of incarceration
  • parents suspected of no legal wrongdoing punitively stripped of their property and income, sometimes at gunpoint, and reduced to penury
  • government officials using the mass media to vilify private American citizens, and political leaders using their offices as platforms to verbally attack private American citizens, who have no right of reply or opportunity to defend themselves
  • parents jailed without trial reportedly beaten, in at least one case fatally, and denied medical attention while in police custody.

I have made these charges in some of the most reputable publications in the English language. They have never been refuted. Yet neither have they been corrected or even addressed by public officials, the media, or academics.

My site (http://www.stephenbaskerville.net) will tell you the truth about the divorce regime. It contains virtually all my published workssome 100 articles, several studies, and a book on the fatherhood crisis and the corruption of the divorce industry (except book reviews and radio commentaries) For better or worse, these are the most strongly worded writings to appear on this subject in mainstream publications.

I am heavily indebted for the many letters, stories, documents, clippings, studies, citations, books, e-mail communications, and telephone callscollected and sent to me by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. It is not possible to name all these people, and many prefer not to be named.


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 www.stephenbaskerville.net.

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

Post-Modern Despair, Apathy… …& Standing for Truth

But why reason at all? we hear from post-moderns (po-mo’s) and other believers in relative truth. Does not reasoning lead to arguing, and is that not counter-productive?

The short answer is that ideas have consequences. It makes a life-and death difference as to which religion, which philosophy, which worldview, is the truth of the matter. Either we find out or continue in our self-destructive confusion. And, no, reasoning does not need to lead to hostile confrontation.

The hostility does not come from reasoning, it comes from resistance to reasoning, resistance to being open to correction by truths. Truth (reality) does not get out of the road for anybody, truth is the road. So we had better learn how reasonably to navigate it.

The attack on reason is no longer so much from a rigidly fundamentalist Christian point of view as from post-modernism having wafted into the life of Western Civilization. If secular science has failed us, then it must be because reason itself is not a valid tool for resolving vital issues — or so we have concluded. But science is different from secularized science.

Some post-modernists are sincere, reacting to the obvious and massive failure of secularized science and reason over the 20th century. But science and secularized science/reasoning are two quite different things. Secularization is a metaphysical decision, though seldom recognized as such. And the option least imaginable by almost anyone is that reason is God’s way, and that it ought to be the Judeo-Christian way. Almost no one thinks of God as being reasonable, let alone holding the intellectual high ground.

The fate of those who believe truth to be relative, however, is to become the victims of every charlatan and manipulator coming down the road.

Advertisers, media people, lawyers, politicians, and spiritual leaders are taught how to influence persons through fundamentally dishonest means, through emotional appeal, shame, guilt by association, etc.[1]Fact and logic are intentionally and selectively factored out of the discussion. Students in captive audience classes (mandatory and coercively enforced school attendance) are taught that truth and morality are relative — and are behaving with appropriately disastrous consequences.

We must cut to the chase, and force the issue before especially the young: For what are you willing to die? For what are you willing to dedicate and sacrifice your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor…, if not for the truth? Are you willing to stand, come what may, to defend the open arena of honest public discussion and truth-testing? What do you want to pass on to your children and grandchildren…., if not a respect for truth, righteousness, and love?

Loss of truth has led directly to the lethal malaise in dying Europe. With no truth, there is nothing much left to live for, except “feeling good”, and that, after a while, gets boring. Europe is dying of boredom. The trashing of truth comes from two sources: (1) deep despair about life, and (2) willful intent to manipulate the public. In the end, it comes from the father of lies. Only dishonest persons can benefit from the trashing of truth.

And furthermore, manipulators do not really believe truth to be relative even though naive and gullible folks can be suckered in for a while. No one can live by relative truth in actual practice. Promoters of it want the rest of us to believe truth to be relative, and hence not defend our truth, only so that they can insert their version of objective truth unopposed.

That is betrayal of the most profound sort, and should be firmly treated as such. But there is a relatively easy way to find out who is and is not sincere: Ask (yourself first, then the other): If you were wrong, would you want to know? And are you willing to work together to find ways to test between our opposing views to see which is right?

If there is no reasonable and honest response, you know that you are not in an honest conversation. You are in spiritual warfare. As John Macmurray told us, all thought is for the sake of action, and all action is for the sake of relationship.[2] There is no escaping the intimate connection between what we think and how we relate. Ideas have relationship consequences. If you want your relationships to go well, as many po-mo’s do, you must clarify your ideas and commitments.



[1] Read, for example, After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, one an expert in intelligence testing, the other an expert in advertising, both well equipped to mount their self-styled “propaganda” program to convert America to acceptance of homosexuality. The Episcopal “liberal” program of the 1990’s to do the same thing in the Episcopal Church was (for anyone who had eyes to see) a blatant mind-control program. But Episcopal conservative leadership was either too ignorant, prudish, or cowardly to stand up to the nonsense. And worse, they did not want to be told how they might win the struggle for sexual sanity. They had no concept of marshalling evidence and presenting a compelling case. They had been “post-modern-ized”, and so were out-debated, out-flanked, and out-maneuvered by persons who had no intention of allowing any thing so dangerous to their program as honesty.

[2] See his two books, Persons in Relation and The Self as Agent.

Dr. Earle FoxDr. Earle Fox is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Philosophy of Science and the Worldview of Ethical Monotheism.

This article is an extract from the Preface (D-2) of Dr. Fox’s book A Personalist Cosmology in Imago Dei: Personality, Empiricism & God, Vol. I. See also Dr. Fox’s new Book Abortion, the Bible and America.

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

The Road to Serfdom in Venezuela

For the past thirteen years Venezuela has been moving away from a market economy towards a socialist economy under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. And now the future of Venezuelan socialism hangs in the balance. Or does it? A few days ago I spoke with Eric Ekvall, an American political consultant who has lived and worked in Venezuela since that country’s 1982 presidential election. Ekvall has helped with the election campaigns of such notables as Venezuela’s Jaime Ramón Lusinchi in 1983, Costa Rica’s Oscar Arias in 1985, and Brazil’s Lula da Silva in 1993. I asked Ekvall about the ongoing re-election bid of Venezuela’s ailing Hugo Chavez, especially as President Chavez has been in power for thirteen years and continues to build socialism there. Given the downgrading of the country’s economy, how could Chavez possibly expect to win yet another election?

The answer, according to Ekvall, is that Chavez cheats. “The first election we know he fixed was in 2004.” Ekvall explained. “One fifth of the population basically signed a petition to put a recall referendum on the ballot. This was delayed and delayed and the government used all kinds of mechanisms to push this back long enough for them to be able to purchase millions of dollars of electronic voting machines which had never been used in Venezuela before; we [in Venezuela] have always done paper balloting like most countries in the world…”

The significance of the electronic voting machines will be apparent to any who remember Stalin’s words from 1923: “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this – who will count the votes, and how.” The quote comes from The Memoirs of the Former Secretary of Stalin, written by Boris Bazhanov after his defection in 1928. It is one of the earliest accounts of Soviet-style political methods, showing how power may be consolidated by a dictator. According to Ekvall, Chavez’s government was also “told by their Cuban advisors to rush in a series of major welfare programs: free education programs, free food programs, appealing to lower income people to boost their sagging popularity ratings.” And how well did this work?

According to Ekvall, “Come August of 2004 the recall referendum took place … and about 75 percent of the registered voters turned out to vote and there was euphoria in the streets … that [President Chavez’s] mandate was going to be revoked …. Veteran political pollsters from the U.S. showed that the recall referendum passed 59 to 41, but to everybody’s surprise the government official figures came out 59 to 41 – but as a loss, and this raised a hue and cry among opposition politicians who basically called ‘fraud’ on the election process.” Over the years social scientists have studied the Venezuelan election of 2004, showing that 22.5 percent of the ballots had been modified. Last year six studies appeared in Statistical Science, confirming the earlier studies. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that Chavez has falsified the results of every Venezuelan election since 2004.

And now, eight years later, Chavez’s popularity has continued to fall. To counter this, an increasing number of Venezuelans have been put on the dole – to no avail. As Stalin also said, “Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.” Unfortunately for Chavez, the Venezuelan people are not dogs. “According to reliable polls,” noted Ekvall, “opposition candidateHenrique Capriles is ahead; so we have a very tense situation in Venezuela right now.” Capriles is an attractive, likable candidate – a political “rock star,” according to Ekvall. “Chavez is literally on the ropes.” – So how does Chavez get away with stealing the election this time? Will straightforward electronic vote fraud do the trick?

“This time, this year the government has come up with … a ‘hide in plain sight’ approach to vote fraud,” said Ekvall. “The vote fraud … is right in the polling booth. When you go in and vote in the elections this time, you are going to be confronted by an array of technology the likes of which no voter anywhere in the world has ever seen. First of all, you are going to have to punch into an interactive biometric apparatus, and punch in your national I.D. number, and then put your thumb print over a scanner … and your name will pop up … and you will be told that you can move two feet to the right, where there’s an electronic voting machine, and you can cast your vote with a touch-screen machine.”

And how does this translate into fraud? Ekvall replied: “The not-very-subtle aspect of this system is that the biometric system is visibly hooked up by a cable to the voting machine, giving rise to legitimate concerns that your vote is not going to be secret.”

The significance of secret balloting in a welfare state may be understood from recent Venezuelan history, Ekvall underscored. “During the petition drive in 2004 the government got the names of all five million people who signed the petition. They were immediately placed on a black list. “And five million people found themselves … at a disadvantage when it came to welfare credits, jobs from the government, when it came to loans, student loans, anything. If you had signed the petition to recall the president you were automatically a second class citizen. Some people have called this Venezuela’s ‘Political Apartheid.’”

Here is a slick way of intimidating voters. According to Ekvall, “People have every reason to fear….” Here is a country where the welfare state is used as a carrot, but only for those who consistently support the government. If readers wish to understand what socialism signifies, and whether socialism is consistent with liberty, they should study the Venezuelan election process. Not only have the socialists ruined Venezuela’s economy, the socialists have corrupted the voting system and the voters themselves.

Will Venezuela free itself from socialism in next month’s elections? Nobody knows for sure, but Ekvall is worried. And for the rest of us, Venezuela is not the only country on the road to serfdom.

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

This article was originally published on Financial Sense on September 24, 2012. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Our Lady of Fatima

Nossa Senhora do Rosário de Fátima (Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima) is the Portuguese devotional name given to the Blessed Virgin Mary who reportedly appeared to the three shepherd children at a location known as the Cova da Iria near their home village of Fatima in Portugal. These Apparitions occurred on the 13th day of five months in 1917[1], starting on May 13th. The three children were the ten year old Lúcia de Jesus dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto who were nine and seven years old respectively.

According to Lúcia’s account, the Lady, “brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal ball filled with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun”, confided to the children three secrets which expressed elements of prophecy and eschatology with regard to a possible war[2] and the conversion of Russia. Consequently, while the first secret was a vision of Hell, the second one included instructions on how to save souls and convert the world to the Christian faith, without which suffer and punishment would certainly come by means of war, famine, nations annihilated and persecutions of the Church and the Holy Father.

To prevent this, the Lady asked for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Pope Pius XII apparently did it, according to his Apostolic Letter Sacro Vergente of 7th July 1952:

«Just as a few years ago [1942] We consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today We consecrate and in a most special manner We entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart…».

In fact, Pope Pius XII had a special relation to Our Lady of Fatima. Besides, Eugenio Pacelli began his Church career when Pope Benedict XV elevated him to archbishop in the Sistine Chapel on 13th May 1917, the date of the first of Our Lady’s Apparitions. And, curiously, he was also laid to rest in the crypt of Saint Peter’s Basilica on 13th October 1958, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima.

On the other hand, the theology of Pius XII is so very deeply related with his Mariology that, on 1st November 1950, the Pope itself defined the dogma of the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary, as follows:

«By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory».

By the way, the «immaculate heart», in compliance with the Gospel of Matthew (5, 8), means the inner unity to «see God» as the perfect and harmonious centre of all existence. Thereby, we must not exclude the confluence of reason, wish and sensibility to search God’s love and His grace in order to redeem the world. Thus, the Apparitions at Fatima can be felt and understood as a miracle of God, especially when we know how they predicted the beginning of an era of error, atheism and mass destruction.

In 1917, most people ignored the true meaning of the word Communism. Even today, the general public doesn’t know that 200 millions of Russians were then delivered to a Communist tyranny which was not possible if a small secretive group with a globalist agenda worked for it. So, the head masters who financed the Bolshevik Revolution where not Russian millionaires, but especially some Anglo-American banking circles, in which we can find the brothers Warburg, the American banker Jacob Schiff and some English figures as Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner[3].

Trotsky, for instance, was living in New York at the beginning of 1917. His family, while living in a sumptuous apartment with a telephone and a refrigerator, occasionally travelled in a chauffered limousine. This was really possible because Trotsky was being financed by the brothers Warburg, who also made possible Trotsky´s return to Russia with an army supply and 275 revolutionary terrorists well trained. In turn, Lenin was, meanwhile, living in Switzerland, sponsored by the same brothers in order to prepare the destruction of Imperial Russia through the implantation of the Bolshevik Revolution.

From where else would then come the millions of dollars to finance and bankroll the Soviet Union, namely the New Economic Policy (NEP), without which the collapse of Communism would be eminent? And the answer is: from international bankers and leading businessmen such as the Rothschild[4], Rockefeller[5], Schiff, Warburg, Milner and Harriman, whose chief goal was to implant Communism to control the global economic production and, by that, to assure that no country, nation or empire could risk or put in danger the major corporations of such mega-capitalist families.

By the way, it seems that The Great War (1914-1918), as well as the Second World War (1939-1945) were both previously planned and conducted not only to insure the implantation of Communism in Russia but also its expansion into Central Europe and even into the Chinese Continent. Besides, a distinguished Professor named Antony Sutton, reveals, by original documents and eyewitness accounts, how Western technology planned an important role into the Soviet economic development[6]. In other words, the British professor carefully traces how some industrial and financial circles of the US[7] captured the huge Russian market a decade and a half before the US recognized the Soviet regime.

On the other side, we can find more unconventional views exposed by Deirdre Manifold in Fatima and the Great Conspiracy, in the following terms:

1.Towards the end of World War II the German High Command, by means of its Ambassador to Turkey, secretly requested a peace negotiation. This request was sent only to President Roosevelt, whose silence can be confirmed by Curtis B. Dall, the author of F. D. R.: My Exploited Father-in-Law. Meanwhile, the American Generals, who were commanding the European Forces, wanted to reach Czechoslovakia to finally reach Berlin. Nevertheless, they were hindered by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, since he was practically aware of the secret ultimate goal of such a war, which was the imposition of Communism in Poland[8], Pomerania and Eastern Prussia[9].

6832164 f5202.The attack on Pearl Harbor conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy on the morning of December 7th, 1941 (December 8th in Japan), was a favorable issue coming from a Machiavellian plan whose goal was to inflict a profound shock on the American people in order to accept the US entry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theatres. By this means, Roosevelt’s Administration could really find a backdoor entry to declare war to the Axis Powers headed by Germany, Italy and Japan. So, when the Japanese attack was finally launched upon the US naval base at Pearl Harbor, the US Intelligence Forces already knew the hour and the precise minute of such a sneaky attack.

3.The Japanese also tried to get a peace negotiation twelve months before their formal surrender aboard the United States Navy battleship USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. General Mac Arthur, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific Area (SWPA), received inclusively a peace offer which was practically the same achieved by the two belligerents at the end of World War II. General Mac Arthur immediately sent a memorandum to President Roosevelt, hoping to cease war operations in the Pacific theatre. But Roosevelt ignored the memorandum up to the point of not taking it with him to the Yalta Conference, held in Crimea (4-11 February, 1945) for the official purpose of discussing Europe’s post-war reorganization. An unfortunate tragedy, indeed, if we consider the nuclear holocaust in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

4.For the implementation of Communism in Eastern Asia, a secret pact was subscribed in Yalta between Roosevelt and Stalin. Alger Hiss, a Soviet secret agent, was present at that meeting[10]. Besides, the Soviet spy was also a member of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IRP), founded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations.

5.At the cost of 200 000 American soldiers killed in the Pacific War, the Soviet Union amazingly plucked the fruits coming from the capitulation of Japan. Thus, the USSR not only invaded Manchuria on 8th August 1945, but also took possession of the Kuril and Sakhalin Islands, as well as Mongolia and even of three provinces which by itself represents the third part of China, otherwise known as Sin-Kiang. In truth, China’s communization was a complete success no matter how certain periods of apparent hostility were sustained between both Russian and Chinese Powers.

6.The Soviet agents infiltrated in the US establishment orchestrated a larger propaganda against Chiang Kai-shek through mainstream media or, more properly, through editorialists, Statesmen and annalists bent on crucial disinformation about the Communist methods of Red China. Several books such as The Making of Modern China, by Owen and Eleanor Lattimore, or New Frontiers in Asia, by Mark Gayn[11], or even United States and China, by John K. Fairbank, are main examples on how these authors, as members of the Institute of Pacific Relations, were all favorable to the expansion plans of Communism in Eastern Asia. And, of course, Henry Kissinger himself performed also an important role in establishing a “New World Order” in the sequel of two trips he made to the People’s Republic of China in July and October, 1971, during Nixon’s Administration[12].

In Fatima, the Blessed Mother exhorted us to find peace in the world by giving ourselves back to God, particularly through prayer and devotion. But unfortunately, man continues to perpetuate terror and slavery around the world, by means of economical, political and psychological war. The military view is obviously a crucial part in this process, though its chief goal is especially conducted to promote chaos and anarchy through revolutionary strategy and guerrilla warfare. This aspect was eminently put in practice by Communist agents in the twentieth century, such as Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and suchlike.

Accordingly, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, Portuguese Guinea, can all be considered the paragon of how the guerrilla tactics normally operate to induce domestic subversion, treason, deception, duplicity, falsehood, hate and civil war. Stalin, for instance, had the very spitting image of a plan like Lenin’s, a revolutionary plan to conquer Europe, then the Extreme East and finally the United States corrupting the American youth through drugs, pornography, the Hollywood Film Industry and anti-Homeland propaganda.

Based upon theory, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was supported by the United States to help the European Powers against Russia’s Communist expansion. But, in practice, there were times when the US policy went on lethal contradiction, expressly during Kennedy’s Administration in what regards Africa’s destiny. In this sense, the US policy was practically parallel to Russia’s, because of its results in debilitating Europe’s strategic and economical fulcrum points.

Generally speaking, the United States certainly didn’t approve or advise terrorist action. In any case, Kennedy’s Administration supported political and financially some guerrilla movements in Angola and Mozambique[13]. And, above all, America’s influence in Congo – crucial for its frontier with Angola -, was an indubitable fact over increased by the US instruction to the UN forces, which, in turn, were also providing the leaders of guerrilla movements.

Even the Nordic countries, ideologically immersed in social democracy (socialism), financed terrorist action in Portuguese Africa, such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The Vatican itself, through His Holiness Pope Paul VI, has collaborated with the Soviet Union’s Communist strategy by receiving in Rome the African terrorist leaders in sign of political recognition. Amongst this leaders of guerrilla movements were Amílcar Cabral, from the PAIGC («African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde»), Agostinho Neto, from the MPLA («Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola») and Marcelino dos Santos, from the FRELIMO («Mozambican Liberation Front»).

Very interesting is yet the content of the verbal message from Roswell Gilpatric to Oliveira Salazar by the hand of Prince Radziwill, a well known scion of the Polish princely house of Radziwill. So, in March 2nd, 1965, Salazar was informed that the United States were available to restart the war material supply to Portugal and, at the same time, ready to guarantee that no more secret aid to terrorist leaders in Angola and Mozambique would take place coming from North American private institutions, as, specifically, the Ford Foundation.[14]. But the US President, Lyndon Johnson, did not have any interest in Portugal’s affairs, making ultimately useless the verbal message of Gilpatric[15].

In 1984, Pope John Paul II consecrated also the entire world to the Virgin Mary without explicitly mentioning Russia. Yet, there is a statement coming from Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, claiming that he had met with Sister Lúcia, who reportedly told him: «I have already said that the consecration desired by Our Lady was made in 1984, and has been accepted in Heaven». But there is more coming now from one of Lúcia’s letters (1990) in response to a question by Rev. Father Robert J. Fox: «I come to answer your question, “If the consecration made by Pope John Paul II on March 25th, 1984 in union with all the bishops of the world, accomplished the conditions for the consecration of Russia according to the request of Our Lady in Tuy on June 13th of 1929?” Yes, it was accomplished, and since then I have said that it was made».

So, the question still is: are we safeguarded against Russia’s errors and sins in the present day? The answer to such a question is a very difficult one, because there are too many difficult issues to attend in the so called Post-Cold War World. We have, for instance, what Daniel Estulin, in his work Shadow Masters, describes as new world supremacy without national frontiers, where a financial global network offers more and more opportunities to criminal organizations which conspire to carry out illegal acts merged with all types of political and economic systems. Today, Russia is more than ever a clear example of how organized crime is an institutionalized part of the administrative bureaucracy government, or, more accurately, how the Russian mafia, otherwise known as Vorovskoi Mir (“Thieves’ World”), is conducting an informal as well as a professional criminal process as it was practically developed in the Soviet era.

Unlike Colombian, Italian, Mexican, or other well-known forms of organized crime, the Russian mafia is today the most powerful enterprise on the planet. This was only possible because the old Soviet state and its command-economy system prepared secretly, through the KGB and the Soviet party’s Central Committee, an organized retreat in order to strategically preserve a kernel to, in time, return to a governmental Communist structure. Now, many of the KGB agents are not only government bureaucrats, but also the elite criminals who are responsible for perpetuating the historical symbiosis between the Soviet state and the illegal enterprises with both legal and black-market connections that were based on the misuse of state property and funds.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the author of The Grand Chessboard, considers Russia’s abundance of material resources the turning point issue to the American Foreign Policy. Thence his emphasis on Eurasia’s total control, where 75% of the world population lives wrapped up by the most material wealth in the planet, such as petroleum, precious metals, natural gas and all kinds of raw material. Moreover, Eurasia’s total control brings with it Africa’s subordination, as well as the power control in the Western hemisphere and in the Eastern one.

Between Two Ages: American’s Role in the Technotronic Era is also a Brzezinski’s book much appreciated by David Rockefeller. According to his thesis, coordinating policy among developed nations is necessary to consolidate economic and political global stability, or, in a few words, a one world government. This is why Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, serving as director from 1973 to 1976.

The Polish American was as well the responsible for selecting Georgia governor Jimmy Carter as a member of the Trilateral Commission. To play another tune, Brzezinski, as it is told by Daniel Estulin in The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, considers the US Constitution as an untimely document, thereby justifying that the old policy dominated by sovereign nation-states is incompatible with future world governance based on transnational corporations and financial, political and industrial interests. Portugal, to offer an example, has just grossly lost its nation-state’s power on behalf of a few heads of international organizations, such as the European Union, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, otherwise known as “Troika”.

Portugal, Greece and Ireland are just the first assemblage of countries in which the financial measures they have been forced to take precedes the implementation of a far-reaching authoritarian world government controlled by the United Nations and a global central bank. So, what we have in the near future is the global economy regulation especially based on a single global currency and on a compulsory taxation on individuals, such as income tax. The outcome, beyond doubt, is a forced and coercive system to create theft, slavery and the violation of property rights just like the regulation and restriction of speech through the concentration of media ownership, mass surveillance and the widespread use of world state terrorism.

1fatAs a last resource, the “Miracle of the Sun” as a divine sign promised by the Virgin Mary during her last Apparition on 13th October 1917, was indeed a dramatic affirmation of divine power in an increasingly irreligious and secular age. Nearly 70 000 people, including newspaper reporters and photographers, gathered at the Cova da Iria to witness what become known as a solar phenomenon otherwise visible from up to 40 kilometers away[16]. Some people who were in the crowd gave their written testimony of such a phenomenon, among which are the three following ones:

1.«Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws – the sun “danced” according to the typical expression of people» (columnist Avelino de Almeida of the Portuguese newspaper “O Século”).

2.«The sun, at one moment surrounded with a scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat» (eye specialist Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho in the Portuguese newspaper “Ordem”).

3.«…the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy light was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds… The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands… people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited… seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they» (the special reporter for the 17th October 1917 edition of the Lisbon daily “O Dia”).

Despite private revelations not being a part of the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church, the reported Apparitions at Fatima were officially declared “worthy of belief” after a canonical enquiry in October 1930 by the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all voiced their acceptance of the miracle of Our Lady of Fatima in unusually clear, strong and avowed terms. More broadly, the Portuguese people were not only blessed by the Holy Mother of God, but also by the Angel of Portugal who appeared in 1916 as the Angel of Peace to the most famous shepherd children the world has ever known.


[1] On 13th August the children were not able to see the Lady as she gracefully wished, because they were intercepted and jailed before they could reach the Cova da Iria that day. The responsible for such arrest was the provincial administrator of the village of Ourém called Artur de Oliveira Santos, a well known anticlerical Freemason who interrogated the children in order to get the contents of the secrets. He also threatened the seers, saying he would boil them in a pot of oil, one by one unless they confessed those same secrets. So, that month, instead of the usual Apparition in the Cova da Iria on the 13th, the children saw the Lady on 19th August, at nearby Valinhos.

[2] This refers to the Second World War, as predicted in the content of the second secret. In other words, the Lady prophesiesed a great sign given by God in the night sky which would precede the bloodiest and most destructive war of the twentieth century. And in fact, on January 25th, 1938, an “unknown light” appeared at least all over the European sky, from 20h45 till 1h15, with brief intermittences. In Paris, for instance, people believed that a great fire was burning and fire departments were called. Just over a month later, Hitler seized Austria and eight months later invaded Czechoslovakia.

[3] Cf. Deirdre Manifold, Fatima and the Great Conspiracy, Chapter VI.

[4] There is a well known expression coming from a member of the Rothschild family concerning the world domination, as follows: «Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes the laws» (Mayer Amschel Rothschild). And another major member said in his turn: «I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply» (Nathan Rothschild).

[5] Regarding this Family, there is also an interesting message coming from David Rockefeller: «We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers are surely preferable to the national auto-determination in past centuries». As for the rest, in his 2002 autobiography Memoirs, Rockefeller wrote: «For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it».

[6] Cf. Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917 to 1930, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, 1968.

[7] Regarding those circles, A. Sutton points out the case of J. P. Morgan, T. W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan Banks, among other institutions. All these aspects can be found in Sutton’s books, as, for instance, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, or, last but not least, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

[8] In 1945, Arthur Bliss Lane was the US Ambassador to Poland. He wrote a book entitled I saw Poland Betrayed, where it is described how the Polish people were abandoned and delivered to Stalin by the Allied Forces.

[9] Many historians conclude that the demands of the rival commanders to optimize the Allied Forces, such as Montgomery, Bradley, Patton and Devers, delayed the Allied victory in Europe. And in fact, Eisenhower’s high command was not able to avoid, as Winston Churchill wanted, Moscow’s maneuvers to capture Berlin in a very large-scale bloody battle.

[10] In his work The Bilderberg Group, Daniel Estulin says that Alger Hiss and his colleagues of the US State Department were responsible for writing out the United Nations Constitution. Hiss was, in the meantime, a temporary UN Secretary-General, who allegedly created the Department of Political and Security Affairs, responsible for the UN future military operations. According to the rules of this Department, the chief appointed to it could only be a soviet citizen or a military one. In fact, 14 Communists were the only ones capable of occupying the charge of Undersecretary General over the first 15 years.

Meanwhile, Deirdre Manifold relates that Alger Hiss, as many other Communist spies – such as Frank Poe, Laughlin Currie, William Ullmann -, was named to the International Monetary Fund by President Truman. In this context, it does not surprise that the architect of such a global institution was a Communist spy too, named Harry Dexter White.

12 title[11] There are FBI files which show that Gayn was working as a spy for the Soviet Union. Dick Russell argues in his book, The Man who Knew Too Much, that a deal was done and that Gayn “kept his freedom in return for serving as a “double agent” at some point in the future”.

[12] During 1955 and 1956 Kissinger was Study Director of Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy at the Council of Foreign Relations, or, rather, the shadow government created in 1921. From 1956 to 1958 Kissinger also worked for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as director of its Special Studies Project. Due to his greater influence in US foreign policy, Kissinger finally became an advisor of Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York, who sought the Republican nomination for President in 1960, 1964 and 1968. After Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968, Nelson Rockefeller made Kissinger National Security Advisor.

[13] The American secret support was firstly directed to the Union of African Populations (UPA), headed by Holden Roberto. At the beginning, the “nationalist” movement received 6 000 dollars increased after that by 10 000 dollars by year between 1961 and 1969. Guns support was also included. Secondly, the US prop was directed to the Mozambican African National Union (MANU), the foregoing movement of the FRELIMO guerrilla headed by Eduardo Mondlane, who, not surprisingly, had been a teacher in a North American university and an official of the United Nations Organization.

The penetration of missionary community was another channel of the US African policy to Covert operations in the Portuguese Overseas Territories. The Methodist together with the Baptist Church were both used by CIA agents to assure US interests in Africa, as it can be proved by John Stockwell as the chief of a task force to Angola in 1975.

[14] In exchange, Portugal should satisfy Washington interests regarding the Loran-C installation, otherwise known as a high system technology ready to locate submarines on the open sea.

[15] It is worth noting that Gilpatric was secretly invited by Oliveira Salazar to visit Angola and Mozambique in 1964. Once there, he became very impressed by the Portuguese high standard Administration, therefore denying the US Embassy statements against Portugal’s management in those territories. Giipatric, inclusively, delivered in Washington a report with his conclusions, generally favorable to Portuguese Overseas Territories. It is useless to say that the African section of the State Department didn’t approve this report at all, especially when coming from officials such as Mennen Williams and Averell Harriman.

[16] Witnesses gave widely different descriptions of the “sun’s dance”, while Lúcia, Jacinta and Francisco were seeing, through inner sight, lovely images of the Holy Family and Our Lady of Sorrows with Jesus Christ. They also saw Our Lady of Mount Carmel, besides Saint Joseph and Jesus blessing the people. Curiously, António Sérgio, a Portuguese educationist and essayist who was there to confront his attitude of disbelief, didn’t see anything from both internal and external point of view.

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.