Since When Is Joe Biden a ‘Moderate’?

by Paul Gottfried

In an exultant commentary on Joe Biden’s victory on Super Tuesday, New York Post-syndicated columnist Salena Zito tells us: “The Dems’ silent majority, which doesn’t tweet, is finally crying out for moderation from the party.” Zito also quotes Dave Saunders, “a legendary Democratic strategist in Virginia,” who “finds it ‘ironic’ that southern voters are often criticized by the national party for being too moderate, but they’re the ones who saved the party from a left-wing candidate like Sanders.” Presumably Biden is the personification of “moderation,” as I’m reminded whenever I hear the Fox News All-stars praise him, while attacking the evil Bernie as a commie-loving radical. It’s been Joe’s accomplishment to rescue his party and nation from the “leftist demagogue” who is running against him. He is helping to return the country to “moderate” government, which presumably is not something that Trump has been doing because of his divisive personality.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that Biden will be practicing any kind of “moderation” if elected. For one thing, depictions of him as a moderate overlook the inconvenient fact that he is running well to the left of former president Obama, who was our most leftist chief executive up until his election in 2008. Candidate Obama publicly opposed gay marriage, favored strict border controls, and would never have announced, in contrast to Biden, that he wished to provide ()

Read the rest in The American Thinker, March 20, 2020: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/since_when_is_joe_biden_a_moderate.html

Dr. Paul Gottfried is Distinguished Senior Fellow in Western Civilization and the History of Ideas.

The Politics of the Coronavirus

by Paul Gottfried

A friend in Germany just wrote about how political correctness has persisted in his country despite the Corona Pandemic. Although Chancellor Angel Merkel spent years responding to critics of her generous welcoming policy toward Muslim migrants by insisting that borders are fluid, she has now sealed those very borders. Apparently German borders are no longer fluid because of the coronavirus, even to fellow-Europeans. But the German administration has kept its once-fluid borders open to migrants from the Third World, although assurances have been given that these prospective “new settlers” will be “tested” to make sure they are not carrying the virus. Not surprisingly, such “testing” will not be available to Frenchmen or Austrians trying to cross into Germany.

In the United States, political biases have also been evident in responses to the virus. Republicans are stressing the dire economic consequences of the shutdown and warn about doing irreparable destruction to our material well-being. Republicans have also played down gloomy predictions about the possible spread of the pandemic and note its obviously disproportionate impact on different sections of the country. Sometimes these messages downplay what is still a serious health problem. One might also notice that much of the party’s base consists of ()

Read the rest in Chronicles magazine, March 2020: https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/the-politics-of-the-coronavirus/

Dr. Paul Gottfried is Distinguished Senior Fellow in Western Civilization and the History of Ideas.

Conservative Misconceptions about Marriage, and Why It Matters

The pivotal importance of Fatherhood needs to become increasingly evident, not only for a better understanding of some serious social problems, but also for an adequate knowledge of the real purposes of marriage, which is under attack in West’s political and cultural spheres. This was one of the main statements of Dr. Stephen Baskerville  in a lecture delivered at the Ordo Iuris Conference on “Marriage, its Identity, and Legal Recognition” (Warsaw, 29-30 September 2016).

Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Senior Fellow in Political Science and Human Rights of The Inter-American Institute, is the author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family and The New Politics of Sex.

https://www.stephenbaskerville.com/

 

Bolsonaro and the presidential election in Brazil: an interview with Olavo de Carvalho

Olavo de Carvalho is one of the primary voices of Brazil’s conservative revival. He is a writer, teacher, and critic of the political left in Brazil.

(Editor’s note: Jair Bolsonaro was elected president of Brazil 4 days after the publication of this interview in The Epoch Times, with more than 55% of the valid votes.)

J.R. Nyquist: It is a pleasure to speak with you, Olavo. Maybe you could tell us what is happening in Brazil.

Olavo de Carvalho: You know, the communists and Marxists always condemned the bourgeoisie, saying they defined democracy only by legal and formal traits, without taking into account the substance of the relations of power. They always said this. But now in Brazil, the communists are using the formal system of power and legality. They hide behind formalism to turn invisible the relations of power.

All the opinion research shows that most of the Brazilian population—around 70 to 80 percent—are extremely conservative, especially on the moral and religious points of view. In a country where the majority of the population is conservative, there is no conservative party (until recently), there is no conservative newspaper, there is no conservative TV channel, there is no conservative university, there is no conservative anything! So, most people have no way to express their opinion. This is a real relation of power. But formally, legally, we are a democracy—so the communists adopted the “bourgeois scheme” of hiding behind formalities to make the real relations of power invisible.

Mr. Nyquist: Are you saying the Workers’ Party is a front for the communists?

Mr. Carvalho: No, they are the Communist Party. We cannot hide it anymore. Recently, I read a book by the present Workers’ Party candidate, Fernando Haddad, called “In Defense of Socialism.” In 1998, he wrote a kind of update of “The Communist Manifesto.” He used some stuff from the Frankfurt School, and he proposed a new strategy for the Workers’ Party. It is not new. It is the same strategy proposed decades before by Herbert Marcuse and others. But he says it is new, and all he says is that the real practice of the Workers’ Party is following “The Communist Manifesto.” It is Haddad himself who says this, not me.

Mr. Nyquist: So Brazil is struggling against a communist power that has gotten inside the government.

Mr. Carvalho: But they don’t control only the government. They control all the media, with one or two small exceptions. They control all the universities. They control all the cultural institutions. They control practically everything. The people have no channel to express their opinion. The reason so many people went to the streets to scream and to protest is because it’s their only recourse.

Mr. Nyquist: And now Jair Bolsonaro is the candidate of a new political party, which is conservative, and he is threatening to overturn the communist control of the executive branch of Brazil’s federal government. Is that right?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, that’s right. Of course, the communists are reacting violently, accusing Bolsonaro of being a fascist, a Nazi, and so on. They are even creating some false Nazi crimes in order to accuse him. These accusations are ridiculous and childish.

Mr. Nyquist: Are these accusations fronted by the Brazilian media?

Mr. Carvalho: All the media gives space to them. It is not only Haddad who is saying this. It is all the big newspapers, the big TV channels, and so on. They say there have been more than 50 Nazi crimes in recent days. But nothing like this has happened.

Mr. Nyquist: It is a campaign of slander, then?

Mr. Carvalho: A campaign of slander, not only in Brazil, but they have support everywhere—in the United States and Europe. There is a global slander campaign underway. Someone posted on my Facebook a list of more than 200 media organizations that have slandered Bolsonaro from around the world. It is a very serious matter. On the other side, Bolsonaro suffered an attempt on his life and the investigation does not appear in any media. Total silence.

Mr. Nyquist: Media reports here in the United States did not offer much detail. They said Bolsonaro was stabbed. That was all we heard.

Mr. Carvalho: The guy who attempted the murder, Adelio Bispo de Oliveira, was a member of the PSOL, which is the Socialism and Freedom Party. It is a kind of communist party.

Mr. Nyquist: First the socialists slander Bolsonaro, then they try to murder him.

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, yes, yes.

Mr. Nyquist: What are they so afraid of?

Mr. Carvalho: They have committed so many crimes while holding power that they cannot permit another party to take power now—because they know they’ll be punished.

Mr. Nyquist: Is there a threat of civil war in Brazil?

Mr. Carvalho: No, because the people have no weapons. They will be sitting ducks. This is not a civil war.

Mr. Nyquist: The army won’t protect the people?

Mr. Carvalho: I really don’t believe they will follow orders to shoot the people. But neither will they mobilize to defend the people. All the generals of the army have been very inactive during these years. In the ’90s, I made several lectures in military institutions in Brazil. I explained everything that was happening and everything that would happen. All my warnings came true. The Workers’ Party did everything I predicted. It was useless. The military remained inactive because they were so criticized in the media that they became inhibited. They are timid now.

Mr. Nyquist: Given the situation you describe, Bolsonaro and those supporting him must be very brave.

Mr. Carvalho: Very, very brave. And another thing, they have no money! The other side has lots of money. They are financed by Brazilian banks, by international banks, and so on. There is no limit to the amount of money they can use. And Bolsonaro has no money at all! Most of his campaign was made via the internet—by blogs and by Facebook.

Mr. Nyquist: And he’s ahead in the polls?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes! He is ahead in the polls. And the first round of voting shows a larger turnout than expected.

Mr. Nyquist: Was there cheating in the first round of presidential voting?

Mr. Carvalho: There were 16,000 cases of irregularities in the voting. And all of these irregularities were against Bolsonaro. The voting machines have some prejudice against him.

Mr. Nyquist: Were those the voting machines from Venezuela?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, yes, exactly—the Smartmatic machines. And the government has announced that whoever speaks of fraud will be punished. So you dare not speak of fraud. Election fraud itself is not a crime in Brazil. The crime is in exposing the fraud. So now they will have to arrest 16,000 people for reporting election fraud.

The Workers’ Party gives itself the right to commit fraud and remain unpunished. How can people believe we are in a democracy when the government threatens to send to jail anyone who discovers voting fraud?

Mr. Nyquist: Yet Brazil has witnessed the creation of a conservative political party when none existed, and the conservative candidate is leading in the polls. It seems, despite everything, that the Brazilian people have risen to the occasion.

Mr. Carvalho: For the first time, between 2013 and 2015, the people rose as if they were one man, against all these things. It was a very heroic moment. A very beautiful thing to see. And now Bolsonaro’s candidacy is a natural continuation of that movement—a second chapter of this movement. I call this the Brazilian Revolution.

Mr. Nyquist: How did the Brazilian elite come under Marxist control?

Mr. Carvalho: In the 1960s, the communists adopted Antonio Gramsci’s strategy: Occupy the [cultural] spaces. They worked bit by bit, very patiently, occupying all the [cultural] spaces and expelling all their enemies. It took them more than 50 years. For a long time, I was a lone voice. But not anymore. Many of my readers and students write books and blogs. Some of them are very good.

Mr. Nyquist: And the elite media will not recognize them.

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, because all the history of this leftist power in Brazil is also the history of the destruction of high culture in Brazil. They destroyed everything. In the ’60s, we had great thinkers and writers.

The Workers’ Party, when it was born, promised to destroy the elite—what they called “The Establishment.” They read a book by the great Brazilian sociologist Raymundo Faoro, “The Owners of Power.” He showed that Brazil is a country where the people have no chance. And the Workers’ Party appeared promising to destroy the elite.

But, at the same time, they adopted Gramsci’s strategy. This strategy consisted of the Party becoming the elite. They wanted to make Faoro’s revolution using Gramsci’s methods. This is impossible.

Mr. Nyquist: And what about communist Chinese influence in Brazil?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, the Chinese are buying everything in Brazil. We cannot measure the extent of Chinese power in Brazil. It is something huge.

Mr. Nyquist: Are the Chinese supporting the Workers’ Party?

Mr. Carvalho: Sure, sure, and also the Iranians.

Mr. Nyquist: And if Bolsonaro wins the election, what changes will he bring?

Mr. Carvalho: First, he will have to repress the drug dealers. The drug dealers make a lot of money. They bribe everybody. They control a huge part of the country. This is the first problem. Brazil has 70,000 murders a year. This means three Iraqi wars in a year.

Mr. Nyquist: And that’s due to the [drug dealers]?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, and the [drug dealers] are protected by the Workers’ Party and the government.

Mr. Nyquist: So the communists are using drug trafficking and organized crime?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes. Almost a monopoly on drug trafficking in Brazil belongs to the FARC, [which is] the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces. The Brazilian drug dealer Fernando Beira-Mar confessed that every year, he bought weapons for the FARC and exchanged them for 200 tons of cocaine to distribute in the Brazilian market. So you can conclude that the FARC has the monopoly of the drug market in Brazil.

Well, the FARC is a member of the São Paulo Forum, which is an organization of 200 parties that are all communist. It is the new Communist International in Latin America. It was founded and presided over by Lula da Silva, the Workers’ Party president. So they are all partners—the FARC, the Workers’ Party, and so on.

Mr. Nyquist: So their objective, as the new Communist International of Latin America, is to repeat what they did to Venezuela in Brazil, and in Colombia, and in Bolivia, and in Argentina …

Mr. Carvalho: In the whole of Latin America. And no other country, after Venezuela, is in so dangerous a position as Brazil.

Mr. Nyquist: If you could advise U.S. President Donald Trump, and tell him one thing about Brazil’s situation, what would you say?

Mr. Carvalho: I would tell him that you cannot permit the whole of Latin America to fall to the communists. This would be the death of the United States. It’s a very dangerous situation, even for Americans.


J.R. Nyquist has been a columnist for WorldNetDaily, SierraTimes, and Financial Sense Online. He is the author of the books “Origins of the Fourth World War” and “The Fool and His Enemy,” as well as co-author of “The New Tactics of Global War. He is a former fellow of  The Interamerican Institute.

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

Originally published in The Epoch Times.

 

 

Opposing the Transgender Movement

by Amy Contrada

The transgender movement is one of the hammers the tyrannical elite is employing to condition us to keep silent in the face of outrageous assaults on our thoughts, speech, bodily integrity, and physical safety.

The transgender war on cultural norms is not just about restrooms and pronouns.  It’s about denying biological fact and quotidian reality.  It’s about an epidemic of irrationality, a cultural contagion, a mass delusion that is claiming more victims every day.  It’s about silencing free thinkers who refuse to bow to the radical “gender” ideology.

Absurd theories that deny scientific fact have been adopted by the mainstream press, entertainment industry, medical establishment, public schools, universities, corporate management, and government agencies.  People who fear social isolation and charges of bigotry are following along.

How do those of us still grounded in reality fight this insanity?  Not with misguided “compassion” or compromise, but with straight talk and tough love.  Let’s not waste our time analyzing or answering absurd gender theories with logical rebuttals.  Those ideas don’t deserve that respect.  And the useful idiots who swallow the trans lies – whether as promoters, allies, or victims – will not listen to reason or science.

Oppose trans activism

Refuse to go along with trans madness that declares:

  • “Sex is assigned at birth” by doctors.
  • Gender identity is inborn.
  • A three-year-old can know he’s “trapped in the wrong body.”
  • Some girls have penises; some boys have vaginas.
  • Blocking puberty in pre-adolescent trans children is sound medical practice.
  • A man can gestate and birth a baby.
  • Gender stereotypes are bad (unless you adopt one as your “authentic” trans identity).
  • A trans person’s choice of new name and pronouns must be respected.
  • A trans person determines their appropriate restroom, locker room, sports team, etc.
  • Transgender persons’ feelings take precedence over everyone else’s.

Recognize only biological sex classifications:  Male and Female.

Avoid using the politically loaded word “gender.”

Point out that there is no biological basis for transgenderism.  A trans person cannot be “trapped in the wrong body.”  We’re all in the bodies we were meant to be in.

Trust medical professional associations that oppose this anti-science ideology.  (See here, here, here, here, and here.)

Disseminate reliable research and commentary.  (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Do not affirm a person’s self-identification as transgender (or genderqueer, non-binary, gender non-conforming, neutrois, agender, two-spirit, etc.).  Affirmation normalizes this mental disorder.  True respect comes from recognizing a trans-identified person’s authentic, not costumed, humanity.

Emphasize that people who identify as transgender need psychological counseling to escape their delusion.

Show true compassion by encouraging trans-identifying persons to accept their natural bodies.  Help them avoid a lifetime of medical interventions (cross-sex hormones, surgeries, cosmetic procedures, counseling), infertility, stress-inducing efforts to “pass” as the opposite sex, suicidal thinking and attempts.

Explain there is no such thing as a transgender child.  There are children who are confused, emotionally neglected, even possibly abused.  Parents who affirm trans identities in children are themselves confused or needy, vulnerable to social pressures, or willfully misguided by health care professionals.

Speak out against the ghoulish medical procedures being inflicted on children, including puberty blockers.  To prevent puberty in a healthy young body is medical malpractice.  Halting the development of a child’s sexual organs, then adding cross-sex hormones, will guarantee sterility.  That is a violation of a child’s human rights.   “Gender” clinics for children should be shut down.

Oppose laws or policies granting special rights to trans-identifying persons.  They already have all the rights they need as biological males and females.  Non-discrimination policies protecting ill-defined “gender identity” are superfluous.

Demand that single-sex public restrooms and locker rooms allow only biological males or biological females.  Attempts at compromise (e.g., single-stall restrooms for trans-identifying persons) effectively concede that trans identities are legitimate.  And in any case, such compromise measures will be opposed as “discriminatory.”

Refuse to play trans language games, whether it’s using their new words (“cisgender”), silly pronouns (ze, zir, zirs), or saying ”they” or “he” when it’s really “she.”

Monitor and challenge trans-affirming policies in your local schools.

Schools are under “gender” assault – but there’s new hope

What’s happening in the schools is especially important.  Gender-identity non-discrimination laws or policies applied to schools are intended to disrupt and radically transform all of society, not just support “trans children” in school.  If children attend a school where boys can be girls and vice-versa, many of these future adults will have been effectively brainwashed.

The Obama administration attempted to force public schools to enforce “gender” ideology across the board (not just in restrooms and locker rooms; see here and here).  The Trump administration backed off from enforcing those regulations.  But while the tables may be turning at the federal level, this is not true in many locales.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has devised guidelines that may help restore sanity in schools.  ADF explains that there is no federal law or regulation requiring schools to make allowances for trans-identifying students in restrooms and locker rooms.

ADF’s “Student Physical Privacy Policy” for school private facilities is online here.  The document commendably uses only the word “sex”; there’s no recognition of “transgender boys” (biological females) or “transgender girls” (biological males).

The Obama administration threatened schools with loss of federal funds if they didn’t implement radical trans-affirming policies.  But now ADF warns:  “Granting students access to opposite-sex changing areas could subject schools to tort liability for violating students’ and parents’ rights.”  This could mean legal challenges even in states with laws mandating transgender-affirming school policies.

(Let the ACLU bring its “discrimination” lawsuits against schools which refuse to kowtow to transgender demands!  With more conservatives being appointed to our federal courts, there is some hope we can bring an end to supporting trans-identifying children who upend the entire school environment.)

Let’s hope ADF’s clarification doesn’t stop with restrooms and locker rooms, but eventually expands to include resistance to other trans-affirming policies in the schools.

After all, rightly understood, a child’s trans identification is a family issue.  Parents should deal with their child’s mental health problem privately, outside of school.  It is unfair to drag the whole community into a family’s distress.  Communities need more outside support for that common-sense approach.

Speak out!

Don’t try to convince brainwashed trans allies to reject trans insanity.  But do embolden people who know in their hearts and minds that trans ideology is utterly false and destructive.  They will resist if they see others doing so.

What’s really at stake is thought control.  Government and institutions are forcing people to deny reality and accept a destructive, nonsensical ideology – accustoming us to obey the most idiotic directives.  If people can accept as fact that “some boys have vaginas and some girls have penises,” they’ll roll over for anything.

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­First published at American Thinker; reprinted at MassResistance and LifeSiteNews.


Amy Contrada
is with MassResistance and author of Mitt Romney’s Deception (2011).  She has degrees from Tufts and Brown, plus a diploma in violin making.  See AmyContrada.com for some of her writing.

 

 

Swallowed by the Swamp

Watching the Trump Administration is more and more like watching a funeral procession. The Republic is dead and there follows a parade of fifty hearses for fifty states. So many obituaries, so many political death notices. “Dearly beloved, we are gathered here together to honor the memory of President Donald Trump, who was…. Well, what was he?” We are not sure. But now, of course, he is a political corpse (like the country itself).

There is so much chaos. Those who cling to hope, who believe in the billionaire hero, who believe he is politically yet alive, refuse to see what is before their eyes. They believe the Great Border Wall is going to be built. They believe illegal immigration is going to be stopped. They think the influx of Muslims will slow to a trickle.

But none of that will happen. Even if the stock market continues to climb, even if we rebuild our military, socialism will yet devour us from within; for Trump is not consistently anti-socialist. He has already compromised with elements of the socialist agenda. And such compromise must be fatal to his agenda, in the end. Because of the Republicans in Congress, it seems, Obamacare will remain the law of the land. Crony capitalism will continue to strangle us economically. Our China trade will gradually reduce us to Third World status. Political correctness will continue its march toward full blown Stalinism. The family will continue to disintegrate. The birthrate will continue to plummet. In the end, the Muslims will own it all — because even the Mexicans and Chinese will stop having babies.

So the Republic, which is dead, will not even be remembered; for the Muslims will not remember us. They will not honor our ancestors. That was our duty, which we refused to accept. Even our Constitution will be forgotten. And, of course, it already is. We have a Constitution in name only. We have Republicans in name only. Our Democrats are Bolsheviks and our Bolsheviks are doing for us what they did for Russia. They are killing us. They have eliminated all our instincts. The critical instinct, of course, is the survival instinct; and that is long gone, long erased. The younger the citizen, the less instinct remains. Finally, there is no citizen at all. There is nothing.

It is the “suicide of the West” writ large. No turning back. Because it’s all about convenience. The next generation of Americans? They are left with three ideas: (1) procreation is unnecessary; (2) having fun is all that matters; (3) don’t think about your country.

Trump was going to change that. At least he made some people think so. But we cannot return to 1955. And even if we could return, we’d just end up here again. Because 1955 logically brings us to 2017, because we never uprooted Marxism. We never stopped the subversion of our country. It has infected us. It has taken over our schools. It has defeated motherhood. It has castrated the father. We are tranvestited. We are transexualized. In other words, we are neutered.

Imagine reconstituting instinctual existence from scratch, with nothing but misguided political correctness to go by. There will be only one voice, one viable way out; and it will sound, at the eleventh hour, like the voice of Ann Barnhardt; full of contempt for what we have done to ourselves, for our weakness, for our degradation, for our fall from Grace.

Trump is not going to save us. He is too outnumbered, too outflanked, too late. He is the victim of the Big Lie. “Russia hacked the election.” He doesn’t know how to fight it. He doesn’t know what to do. Even Hannity is going to be dragged down and trampled by this unstoppable, monstrous lie. It is helpful, in this context, to read Diana West’s piece on The Seth Rich Chronology.

Seth Rich was a DNC staffer who was shot in the back twice, and died once. Evidence is mounting that he was the guy who leaked the DNC emails. The Wikileak emails. Yes, the emails that probably cost Hillary Clinton the election. These are the same emails that everyone has forgotten because “Russia hacked the election.” Clinton’s wickedness and criminality was on display in those emails. In fact, a special prosecutor should have been named to investigate Mrs. Clinton. Instead, a special prosecutor has been named to investigate Mr. Trump!

So, if you haven’t understood the game as yet: repeat this sentence, again and again: “Russia hacked the election.” Then put two bullets in the back of Seth Rich and call the Special Prosecutor in the morning. Trump is going down next! I say again, even if Trump was in bed with the Russian mafia, Russia did not hack the election. Russia did not want Trump to be president. They wanted Clinton. Those who have followed the Clinton career, with its communist ties and its trips to the Communist Bloc, knows that Russia has only pretended to dislike Mrs. Clinton. Russia only pretended to like Mr. Trump.

Russia didn’t have to hack the election. They are never so obvious, so crass. The Russians have strategic style! They have elegance! They have no economy, and their leaders are psychopaths; but hey, they’re not going to hack the DNC and get caught. It isn’t what they do. Their agents, after all, are the real rulers of America. These Marxists, these “former” Soviet sympathizers, took the United States by the throat when Obama was elected; and they continue to choke the life out of the country, holding a firm grip on the Washington bureaucracy. There is no getting them out (short of civil war).

Let’s not pretend this mess is fixable by legislative amendment. There’s going to be a hard reset, one way or another. That is because, in truth, the Constitution was mortally wounded long ago. Then Obama came and finished it off. The Supreme Court helped him. The Republicans helped him — with gay marriage and socialized medicine. The Constitution gives no power to the Federal Government to manage everyone’s Healthcare. Under the Consitution, the Federal Government does not have the power to change the meaning of common English words, like marriage, which always meant the union of man and woman. But now it means the union of man and man, or woman and woman, or man and chicken. Goodness knows what it will mean next; except, in truth, it means nothing as of this writing.

So there is no Constitution. It was dead letter long ago. All the rest is an illusion, a misunderstanding. And now the Left will be coming for us all. They are writing down our names for the Great Book of Death. And beside each name is written the “N” word. It is the word that dehumanizes as it annihilates. Here, “N” stands for Nazi, and every Nazi must be exterminated. Once you are set down as a Nazi, your freedom ends. Your rights are at an end. There is only a rope, or a firing squad, or a prison cell.

For the DNC whistle blower, Seth Rich, there were two bullets in the back. Shot down while talking to his girl friend. Dead before he reached the hospital. Code blue. Couldn’t be revived; so if you are a Democrat of conscience, and you see that Clinton cheated Bernie Saunders out of the Party nomination, and you have the emails to prove what happened, you’d better think twice. Because, regardless of Clinton’s cheating, there remains that definitive sentence: “Russia hacked the election.” Repeat after me. Say it. Come now. Say it. This is how you bend laws and break Constitutions. This is how you warp the consciousness of a generation as you build Soviet power. And then, two bullets in Seth Rich’s back.

But this is nothing new. Remember White House Council Vince Foster? Remember Commerce Secretary Ron Brown? I met one of the witnesses to the Ron Brown murder — U.S. Navy medical photographer Kathleen Janoski. “Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown’s head!” Yes, a bullet hole. And here, as I turn the pages of Terry Reed’s memoir about the Clintons, with the title Compromised: Bush, Clinton and the CIA, we find that many other assassinations are alluded to. And that was back in the 1980s, in Arkansas, when Bill Clinton was governor there.

The Clintons are not lambs. They are not well-meaning people. They are monsters. They are killers. And the people aligned with them are crooked. And the senators who voted for Bill Clinton’s innocence during his impeachment trial, were merely thinking of their own mistresses, and of their other dalliances, and recalling that Newt Gingrich resigned because the Clintons exposed his hypocrisy. And the same was true with Gingrich’s successor. Yes, the House voted for impeachment and Newt Gingrich was the guy who resigned. The Speaker of the House.

Ah, the power of a blackmail threat. The House was courageous, so the House leaders paid for their courage. But the Senate thought twice. Clinton was guilty, but they found him innocent. They did so because they were also guilty. And so the Republic ends.

This is where we have arrived. And now we have proof. Read the twelve most damaging of the Wikileaks emails at http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/. Here we find that Hillary wants to erase the U.S. border. We find that she took money from countries she knew had funded ISIS, that her lieutenants were paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies. And there’s so much more — of money laundering and lies, and fake policy positions and lawbreaking. And the Democrats never denied any of it. There was merely that sentence, the Big Lie, the Great Diversion: “Russia hacked the election.”

And two bullets in Seth Rich.

Are you angry yet? Does it make you afraid? Where is the outrage? Where is the passion? Certainly, it is no longer visible in Mr. Trump. And Jeff Session’s picture should be on a milk carton along with the faces of other missing persons (says a journalist friend). Where did they all go? Where are the treason trials? Where are the criminal investigations?

The swamp has swallowed them all. And now there is nothing left but an eruption of swamp gas, a burping of what was — only months ago — a political movement in favor of draining the swamp.

So watching the Trump Administration is like a funeral procession. And I am sickened by this procession. A procession of the damned. Not one hearse, but fifty hearses for fifty states of the Union.

 

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

Under the Command of a Corpse – Part 3

Olavo de Carvalho explains why Liberation Theology is alive and well in Latin America.

II.

Read Part II here.

Whoever reads the writings by Gutierrez, Boff, and Betto will easily find out their multiple inconsistencies and contradictions. Those flaws reveal that their thought is not the result of serious theoretical effort, but of an intention to keep the theologians from Rome busy with complex refutations, while the network of activists spread its tentacles all over Latin America, reaching, above all, poor communities that were completely deprived of any interest or ability to follow those lofty debates.

Brazilian cowboys have a name for that trick: they call it “piranha’s bullock.”  When they need to cross a river infested with piranhas, they first drive a bullock into the river a few feet downstream so as to keep those carnivore fish busy with devouring it while they take the rest of the herd across the river in safety.

The theology of Gutierrez, Boff, and Betto is so futile and empty from an intellectual point of view, whereas their political activism is so intense, well thought out, and efficient, that we can only explain the trio’s more pretentious writings as a bullock sent to be devoured by the Vatican piranhas.

A brief examination of a typical sample of the style of one of those authors will suffice to make it obvious that there is no serious and honest intellectual effort in the liberation theology, but only gibberish that is more apt to deceive an uneducated or semi-educated audience than persuade well-trained theologians.

Is the style the man himself? Yes, but that can be good or bad. It can be good when analysis reveals, behind syntax and figures of speech, a living insight into aspects of human experience which are obscure and hardly speakable. Through analysis they thus come to light out of the nebulosity where they lay and become docile objects for meditation and action, being transfigured from factors of slavery into instruments of freedom. It can be bad when there is nothing to be found underneath the verbal fabric except a perverse intention to build a “second reality” out of mere words, transporting the reader from the real world into a puppet show where everything and everybody move under the command of the author, who is raised to the heights of a little demiurge, a creator of “another possible world.”

In order to demonstrate that, I will ask the reader to have the kindness to go through an exposition by Mr. Leonardo Boff, a man who is a counsellor of rulers and of a Pope (according to some) as well as, and above all, an eminent spokesman of a “liberation theology” where neither theology nor liberation can be found,

Poverty is not confined to its main and dramatic aspect, the material one, but it unfolds into political poverty through exclusion from social participation, cultural poverty through marginalization of the production processes of symbolic goods . . . .

Pauperization generates massification of human beings. The people cease to exist as a coordinated group of communities that develop their conscience, preserve and deepen their identity, and work for a collective plan. They become a conglomerate of stray individuals deprived of their roots, an army of inexpensive and manipulable labor, according to the plan for unlimited and inhuman amassing of wealth.

That situation brings about a highly authoritarian political template . . . A minimum of cohesion can be achieved only through authoritarian forms of government, which stifle the threatening cries which come from poverty.

The excerpt is from the book And the Church Became People[i]. All that is described above really happened. Those are facts, and they are historically well-documented facts, which would leave us no other choice but to say a definitive “Amen” to Mr Boff, unless, of course, we had the horrible idea of raising the following question: Where and when did that happen?

The second paragraph tells us about something that happened in Europe in the first decades of the nineteenth century: multitudes of peasants were reduced to misery through the deprivation of their few possessions, thus having to leave their land and go to the city to make up “a conglomerate of stray individuals deprived of their roots,” a reserve of inexpensive labor to be used to fuel the prosperity of the new capitalists.  Karl Marx, in pages that have become classic, describes the formation of the urban proletariat out of the wreckage of the old peasantry at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

However, that phenomenon happened where the things that Boff describes in his next paragraph—“political poverty through exclusion from social participation, cultural poverty through marginalization of the production processes of symbolic goods”— not only never happened, but could never have happened. On the contrary, the migration of peasants to urban areas coincided with the advent of general elections, which not only invited but forced the participation of the masses in a kind of politics that was completely unknown to them when they lived on the countryside, isolated from the big urban centers. It also coincided with the creation of mandatory schooling, which removed the children of the proletarians from their local cultures and integrated them into the great urban culture of reason, science, and technology, which was essentially the same culture of the upper classes, those wicked capitalists. One can certainly bewail the dissolution of the old local cultures, but that was caused not by the exclusion, but rather by the inclusion of the masses into the urban political and cultural life.

The “exclusion from social participation” and the “marginalization from the processes of symbolic goods” did happen, but hundreds of thousands of miles away from Europe, in African, Asian, and Latin American countries, which would be later called “the Third World” precisely because no Industrial Revolution ever took place in them, neither therefore the integration of the masses into politics or urban culture. Mr Boff creates the fictitious unity of a hideous straw man out of selections he made from heterogeneous and incompatible historical processes, which occurred in places far away from one another. But Mr Boff’s historical Frankenstein has at least one thing substantially real about it: the hatred that he would like his readers to feel towards it in their souls.

But the monster’s physiognomy would not be complete without a third feature, which Mr. Boff fetches in another place,

That situation brings about a highly authoritarian political template . . . .  A minimum of cohesion can be achieved only through authoritarian forms of government, which stifle the threatening cries coming from poverty.

It is true that authoritarian governments emerged to control the famished masses, but they neither appeared in the Europe of the Industrial Revolution, nor in the United States of that same period, where democratic institutions triumphed along with nascent capitalism. Rather, and on the contrary, they came on the historical scene in countries that either were underdeveloped, or impoverished by war, in those nations that envied the prosperity of industrialized countries, but did not have a creative and puissant capitalist class, and then decided to become industrialized in a hurry and under coercion by means of the state bureaucracy, from above, so to speak, through massive government investment and planned economy. That was the formula adopted by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and, obviously, by all those socialist nations that are so dear to Mr Boff’s heart. For the same reasons and to a lesser extent, the formula was adopted in Brazil by both President Vargas during his dictatorship (1930-45) and the military government, from 1964 to 1985.

In short, if it were possible to put together all the evils that happened in the most distant countries, in the most different times, and in the most heterogeneous regimes, we would then have the ideal monster towards which Mr Boff would like to direct the hatred of his audience. Mr Boff trusts that his readers will not notice his artificial superimposition of historical events and that, impressed by the total sum of evils, will believe they are really caught up in the claws of a monster and draw the logical conclusion they need to be liberated by Mr Boff.

This is what the Boffian “liberation theology” is all about, and nothing else. His superimposition technique is, rigorously speaking, both Mr Boff’s only dialectical and stylistic procedure and the quintessential summary of his, let’s say, thought. We can find that technique in practically every page he has written, and it is pointless to look for something different.

A few lines below the paragraphs quoted above we can find another example, in the passage in which he makes use of the figure of St. Francis of Assisi as the prototype of the revolutionary man who Mr. Boff himself intends to be. My readers, so kind and generous, will do me another favor and read this other brief paragraph,

Such attitude [St. Francis’ rejection of the goods of this world] corresponds to that of the revolutionary man and not that of reformers and agents of the current system. Reformers reproduce the system, only introducing ways of rectifying the abuses by means of reforms. . . . What [Francis] did represents a radical criticism against the dominant forces of the day . . . He did not simply made an option for the poor, but for the poorest among the poor, the lepers, whom he called, lovingly, ‘my brothers in Christ.’

Here Francis appears as a revolutionary who, instead of being a servant of the system, seeks to destroy and replace it for something completely different. I will not even discuss the historical untruth of those words, which is all too obvious. St. Francis never turned against the hierarchical system of the Church, but, on the contrary, he turned his mendicant order into the most docile and efficient instrument of Papal authority. If we employ Mr Boff’s own terms, St. Francis rigorously corresponds to the definition of “reformer,” and not to that of “revolutionary.”  But that is not the point. What is truly amazing is that, according to Mr Boff, there is a clear case of protest against social hierarchy going on when Francis approaches not only the poor, but “the poorest among the poor,” that is, the lepers. But since when does leprosy choose its victims according to their social class?  Were not the king of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV, and the king of Germany, Henry VII, son of the great emperor Frederick II and Constance of Aragon, lepers either?  Would Francis refuse to kiss a leper from a wealthy family? By artificially superimposing the idea of morbid deformity onto that of economic inferiority, Mr Boff turns the least anti-social of all gestures of Christian charity into a symbol of revolutionary hatred, and the reader, stunned by the composite image, does not even realize he has been fooled once again, and ends up buying as pure Catholic theology the old Marxist distinction between reform and revolution. Once his magic trick is dismantled through analysis, Mr Boff’s “liberation theology” reveals itself as nothing more than a technique for making people stupid.

This sample is enough to show that seriously discussing the theoretical content of liberation theology has only served the purpose of diverting the attention of the Roman Curia and conservative theologians away from the true nature of the liberation movement, which thrived and grew stronger as a political power in the exact measure as its intellectual pretensions were dismantled.

Intellectually and theologically, liberation theology has been dead for three decades. But it was never meant to be an intellectual and theological movement. It was and still is a political movement adorned with artificial theological pretexts of unmatched frivolity, which were driven into the waters of Rome as a “piranha’s bullock.” The herd crossed the river, took over the whole territory, and there are no land-dwelling piranhas that can pose a threat to it.

Granted, liberation theology is dead, but its corpse, raised to the top of the chain of command, rests all its weight upon an entire subcontinent, oppressing it, choking it, and blocking all of its movements. Today, Latin America is governed by a cadaver.

 

Translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

 

[i] Boff, Leonardo, op. cit,  p. 167.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Golitsyn’s Methodology and the Trump Administration

The new methodology provides explanations for many contradictions and anomalies in the communist world on which the old methodology throws no light. It explains the confidence of the communist world and the loyalty and dedication of the vast majority of its officials. It explains the reasons for disclosures of information by the communist world about itself and relates them to the requirements of long-range policy. It explains the seeming tolerance of a totalitarian system toward dissension openly expressed by its citizens in their contacts with foreigners. It provides criteria for assessing the reliability of sources, for distinguishing genuine secret agents and defectors from provocateurs, for distinguishing genuine information from disinformation and propaganda. It provides pointers to the identification of agents of influence in the West. It suggests that disinformation, recognized as such, can provide clues to the intentions of its authors. It offers guidance on the relative importance of the official and unofficial communist sources. It diverts attention from spectacular communist polemics between parties and focuses it instead on the solid advances in the groundwork of communist cooperation and coordination. It points the way to recovery from the crisis in Western studies and assessments of communism. It could help to revive the effectiveness of Western security and intelligence services. It explains the communist victory in the Vietnam War despite the Sino-Soviet split. Above all, it explains the willingness and ability of the communist world, despite the appearance of disunity, to seize the initiative and to develop and execute its strategies in relation to the United States, the other advanced industrial countries, and the Third World in the quest for the complete and final victory of international communism.

-Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old, p. 102

 

What would Anatoliy Golitsyn, the KGB defector who correctly anticipated the fake collapse of communism, say about the Trump administration? I believe he would say that the communist strategists have launched a new provocation based upon a supposed split between the communist-dominated U.S. Democratic Party and (Soviet) Russia.

This supposed split offers some tantalizing tactical advantages to the communist side. It diverts attention from the extensive and treasonous collaboration of the American Left with Russia and the communist bloc. It also helps to camouflage future collaboration on the part of Trump’s critics. (People who warn of Russian interference with the elections will not be scrutinized too carefully themselves in this regard, especially by a media that is packed with communist operatives). To say that Trump is a Russian puppet diverts attention from the fact that those leveling the accusation have served Russia and the communist cause for many years. It weakens the authority of a president who has promised to reverse the many policies of national self-negation which have been the mainstay of the Democratic Party, and the watchword of the Republican establishment.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama continues to relay commands to his leftist cadres within the U.S. Federal Government. This is why he stayed in Washington. For all intents and purposes, he is still president; that is, he is the commander-in-chief for the communists in Washington. Their conspiracy continues, as ever, toward the “inevitable” convergence of capitalism with communism (on communist terms).

It is important (from the communist point of view) that nobody guess the actual situation, that nobody see how far the subversion has gone, or how powerful the communist side has become within the state. While Obama was U.S. President an identical circumstance played out in Washington as in Moscow. In both capitals the communists were depicted as an inconsiderable and irrelevant minority. In reality, the presidents of both countries were committed communists. The levers of power were in their hands, and the world suspected nothing. While Obama worked to disarm the United States, Putin worked to rearm Russia. While Obama undercut our allies abroad, Putin invaded Crimea and intervened in the Middle East. As the danger grew, as Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next and final president, the collaboration between Washington and Moscow was guaranteed to result in America’s defeat.

But then a miracle happened. Donald Trump was elected president; a man of impeccable nationalist instinct, of remarkable courage in the face of the enemy. The communists were aghast at his victory. And so, strange as it seems, they decided on a preposterous fraud. While they posed as Russia’s enemies, Donald Trump would be depicted as Russia’s friend.

For the leading communists to deny their communist affiliation was a preliminary strategic step in both Washington and Moscow. Freed from the label of what they had actually been, the communists were able to advance without opposition from those annoying anti-communists. And now they are compelled by the logic of their false position to paint the “patriotic American dinosaur” (Donald Trump) as Russia’s puppet. Here the real puppet points to the man and declares that he is the puppet. It is a history-making deception. It is grand and it is bold. It cynically estimates the ignorance of the populace, the corruption of the political class, and the willing treachery of the media. It relies on the fact that the smartest strategists and analysts on the American side have been sidelined or murdered. So there is nobody to call out the truth.

Who now dares say the truth about what has happened in this country? Anyone writing in this vein is committing career suicide. Therefore, only someone without a career would dare to write along these lines at all! Even then it means being assigned to a death list, like Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko. (You want a successful career? You want to live? Sing the tune that is assigned. Play a role out of the communist script. You can be a conservative if you wish, but you will be Moscow’s conservative.)

Of course, you probably think I am crazy. You think communism went away in 1991. You think that communism no longer exists. But then you will have to explain how we got here – with communist thugs using open intimidation on the streets of our cities! If communism lost the Cold War, why does it presently hold such power in government agencies, universities and newspapers? Why do you think U.S. counterintelligence is spying on the President of the United States and his staff? Who wants to bring him down? You need to explain all the variable phenomena of today: from the communist-inspired economic sabotage of global warming “science” to the insistence that our border remain a sieve. It is only our enemies who stand to gain from these policies.

But communism is dead. Nobody believes in it anymore. We are told that the last true believer in communism was Stalin’s protégé and USSR Communist Party Ideology Chief Mikhail Suslov. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and other top Soviet officials, made a show of abandoning communism. But I tell you it was only a show. Former KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn insisted that all communist sources of information are larded with falsehood; that communist officials publicly and privately make misleading statements about themselves, their thoughts and their intentions.

What do we actually know about the thinking of Mikhail Suslov or Mikhail Gorbachev (for that matter)? We only know what Communist Party officials say is true – about themselves and their party. And communists lie! There is also a more subtle point, which may seem contradictory, but is fundamental at the non-ideological level: It is irrelevant what Suslov or Gorbachev believed. Their personal beliefs would be decisive only if Marxism had been a mere belief system, if it represented a stable set of principles; but Marx himself did not believe in Marxism. He laughed at people who believed in it. Why would it matter if Suslov also did not believe?

What is decisive to understand about Marxism is its ever-shifting role as a rationale for a new kind of power. What is important here is not the particulars of the rationale itself, but the spirit which calls forth the rationale in the first place. If we want to understand how the great totalitarian machine is able to morph and shift and change with the times, we must go to its soul. At bottom Marxism is a strategy behind which stands a pathological desire for absolute power and global destruction. The outward phenomenon of Marxism is merely the intellectual camouflage of the politically self-actualized psychopath. Here is the outward expression of his rationalization for murder, for seizing power. This outward expression has changed time and time again, but its spiritual essence is always the same. And we always seem to miss the point of it. We always seem to address the inner thoughts and intentions of people who are assumed to believe or not believe in a set of “principles.” But this is an error. We do not understand these people at all! The communist does not take ideas seriously. He is serious only about power and strategy.

A mask is not an idea. A strategy is not a principle. These are tools, weapons, methods. Marx did not believe in his tools. He used them, and his followers used them, until the tools of the hour no longer served their purpose. Then the old tools, the old weapons, were discarded for a new set of weapons – “new lies for old.” Those who talk about belief or disbelief are only talking about the superficial shell of the thing, which can be replaced with a new shell – a new outward appearance. If Marx did not believe in Marxism, then the true Marxist should not believe in it either. It is a sorry swindler who believes in his own swindle. Behind the shell of the communist’s outward pretenses we find the same core phenomenon: the malevolent soul of the destroyer, the envious lusting for power and revenge, the hatred of the good for being the good. And in this soul’s self-affirmation we find, curiously, a reformulation of the same old totalitarian themes; the same old bag of tricks for debasing and leveling humanity. All that being said, the outward shell of the supposedly debunked Marxism is by no means out of the game. Out-and-out communism could return to power at any time. The various outer shells – the rationales and swindles – may change and shift as circumstances require; yet the driving force from within remains ever constant, ever alert to new opportunities. Marxism is strategy, not belief. That is why Mao Zedong said, “Marxism is better than a machine gun.” One does not believe in a machine gun. One uses it, merely, to neutralize an enemy. One must keep in mind the usefulness, in this regard, of ideological mortars and howitzers and atomic bombs – the whole arsenal of political correctness.

But you cannot get over this idea; namely, that communism is dead. You saw it die on TV. How can we talk once again about Marxism-Leninism? Or as an Estonian presidential candidate once asked in response to my discourse: “What’s Marxism-Leninism?” His pained expression relayed the idea that Marxism-Leninism was something that didn’t really exist. Nobody believed in it, so why did it matter? Even the communists don’t believe in communism anymore. It’s as simple as that! Any idiot who tells you that there are true-believing communists should wear a dunce cap. Russia a democracy. China is capitalist. Cuba is an open society with superb health care. And that nice little North Korean man is a champion of world peace!

It is merely one more ridiculous proposition out of many. In fact, it is the final ridiculous proposition. It is the proposition that crushes man’s soul. To say that communism doesn’t exist is to surrender. It means giving up your country to the communists who don’t exist. Remember the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s 1984? It was a ministry that dispensed nothing but lies. Now imagine if the Ministry of Truth disbanded itself and admitted to lying. “We are turning over a new leaf,” says the Ministry of Truth. “We are now the Ministry of the Real Truth.” Oh, it’s such a relief! Finally, we can believe in them! Marxism-Leninism is gone and the Marxist-Leninists are now honest! If they say we won the Cold war, we won the Cold War. In a world where nonsense is often believed, why would this nonsense not be accepted as the New Gospel (according to Saint Gorbachev)? The hammer and sickle comes down, the tricolor goes up. How could you question that? It’s like being against chocolate!

So where did all the communists go? Did they simply revert to Christianity? Did they become Scientologists? Stop and think for a moment. You control half the planet and you’ve been fooling people in every country for decades. And what do you do for an encore? You fall off the edge of the flat earth! Well, I guess they topped themselves after all. And then, twenty-five years later, suddenly, you discover they have taken over your child’s mind and sent him into the street to beat up an old displaced factory worker wearing a hat which says, “Make America Great Again.” You have the CIA and FBI spying on the President of the United States to the advantage of change agents. And Congress is dragging its feet on Trump’s cabinet nominees because they’ve been honey-trapped by the Satanic Pedophile communist zombie apocalypse. It is real Satanism, real pedophilia, real undead communists, and a real apocalypse.

Have you ever seen the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers? It’s an allegorical fiction about a communist takeover. Well, we’re living it. In fact, the pod people are attempting to convince the world that they are the ones fighting the alien invasion! This lie is repeated on every news channel. And you might easily believe them: First, because you did not understand who the enemy was. Second, because you don’t believe in pod people. Third, because you voted pod people into the White House in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012. And when the pod people finally colonized your government and rotted out your nuclear arsenal, the old pod president didn’t go back to Illinois. He remained in Washington to command the pod-people army inside the federal government, while Mr. Trump erroneously believes himself to be in charge.

So they don’t believe in Marxism-Leninism anymore? So why do we have socialized medicine? And why does Vladimir Lenin, who died in 1924, lie calmly with his eyes closed in his mausoleum on Red Square – not buried in a grave with a stone marker? No doubt, he is kept on display in Moscow because “nobody there believes in him anymore”! It’s a funny kind of not-believing in someone, don’t you think?

Nobody in Moscow believes in communism! They refuse to bury Lenin because he makes a nice tourist attraction. And besides, Vladimir Putin wears a cross and says he believes in God. (Well, he doesn’t really like to talk about it. But we think he believes in God.) And so, at the end of the day, we are all Kremlin puppets. We are all bouncing helplessly at the end of Moscow’s string. Even now the puppet-master appears to be at odds with his most secret creatures – the moles at CIA and FBI! Appearances notwithstanding, the puppeteer must always hide the puppet’s strings. This he accomplishes by a diversion in which he calls the man (Trump) a puppet and the puppet (Obama) he calls a man. And so, as well, he calls his friend enemy and his enemy he calls friend.

If President Trump could read one paragraph of these scribblings, I would wish that he read this last paragraph. Then he might understand, in an instant, who his enemies are – both foreign and domestic. And I say, that enemy is not an opponent, not a competitor, not a business rival. No, no. I mean – an enemy! And once our president can tell friend from foe, his strategic compass will align to true north and half the battle will be won.

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