It’s Always Darkest Before the Dawn

/0 Comments/in , /by
A common joke among Communists during the Cold War was that when they finally conquered the world, they would have to leave one country free to help them determine the prices for goods and services. Prices are determined by the law of supply and demand in a free market. Government bureaucrats do not have the ability, or the omniscient wisdom, to set the correct prices for goods. Without the marketplace, all they can do is guess or show preference for their pet projects – even if those projects are as outdated as the buggy whip.

Every day there are many anxious and accurate foreboding news stories about the collapse of capitalism and republican democracy in the wake of the first few weeks of the imposition of President Barack Obama’s socialist policies. Many pundits are saying we warned you, so now you must suffer the consequence of allowing the mass media and the nomenklatura foist this radical socialist on the electorate by pretending that he was a moderate. Many of us have been making dire predictions that prosperity precedes Almighty God’s judgment – a judgment that includes the exchange of true liberty for bondage and of values for immorality.

In fact, I have been preaching this very warning since the late 1990s. In the Old Testament, God continually tells His chosen people, the Israelites, that He wants to prosper them, but, when He does, they soon forget Him and fall for the solipsistic lie that they did it themselves – so He abandons them to stew in the juice of their own selfishness. Thus, as a result of their turning away from the perfect harmony and true liberty of His Kingdom, He relents to their demands for earthly kings who, according 1 Samuel 8, will take their sons to put in their army, force their daughters to become their servants and steal their property to turn to the king’s own profit. Eventually, God gives the selfish ingrates over to lusts that destroy the family and the fabric of society. Chapter 1 of Romans is a roadmap of a process that occurs regularly in the history of Israel and all mankind, a process that includes widespread perversion, rebellion against parents and authority, and the politics of greed and envy.

Even within this collapse of culture due to the selfishness of fallen peoples, it must be noted that the apparent triumph of tyrannical, statist bureaucracy bears its own seeds of destruction, and the current rush to socialism will bear the same fruit. Socialism, mercantilism, statism, government tyranny – whatever you want to call it – is historically, economically and spiritually untenable. When it’s been tried before throughout history – in Egypt, Babylon, Rome and Russia – it has brought about its own demise.

Why?

Because government control destroys the incentive to work. As the joke went in Communist Russia, the government pretended to pay and the workers pretended to work. Why work when all your hard labor is confiscated by the State to give to feudal bureaucrats and union lackeys living in luxury?

Slavery means having all your labor accrue to the benefit of someone else. In the United States, six months of most people’s labor goes to the State. Like a thief, the government has seized our earnings to distribute to a bloated bureaucracy, with some left over for their pet peccadilloes. When the legalized plunder of the government takes even more of our earnings, most of us will lose all interest in working for no return. We will be slaves to the Washington plantation.

But, the more power and control over you and the economy President Obama and the useful idiots around him accrue to their socialist utopia, the less they will be able to sustain it. They won’t know how to set prices and wages realistically, because they will have no objective standards to know what those wages and prices really should be. And, because fewer and fewer people will want to work hard to keep President Obama and his fellow bureaucrats in champagne and caviar, the money for their pet projects will begin to dry up.

So, people of faith and values need to be optimistically looking forward to the hope of the collapse of the tyrannical state and the triumph of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His righteousness in order to rebuild that shining city on a hill that America once was. We must preach that Gospel and prepare to rebuild the collapsed structures of society, once Obama’s socialist policies fail or he and his cronies disappear from the world stage sometime in the near or distant future. Just as they have done throughout the last 2,000 years, all of these mono-maniacal government systems come and go, and we must be vigilantly ready with the Gospel.

In spite of the recent Newsweek headline, “We’re all socialists now,” socialism is untenable. The birth dearth and the atrophy of socialist culture in Communist Russia and socialist Europe have already shown us the future of socialism in the United States. And, other forms of feudalistic, anthropocentric systems will end up in the dustbin of history, as Ronald Reagan (and the Word of God) predicted.

It may take months. It may take years. And, it may take decades. But, spring will come, winter will thaw, and liberty and truth will triumph.

Note: Dr. Tom Snyder contributed to this column.

11

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

This article was originally published at WND.com on March 07, 2009. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Abortion Is NOT Legal!

/0 Comments/in , /by

The mainstream media tell us that the Supreme Court legalized abortion with its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The media also tell us that there is nothing we can do about it because Roe v. Wade is the “law of the land.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is not legal in America! Recognition of this fact is the first step for the pro-life movement in its campaign to turn back the murderous scourge on innocent babies. Indeed, heart disease (738,781 deaths per year) is not the number one cause of death in the United States – abortion is, at well over a million deaths per year.

Article VI of our nation’s founding document declares that “[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the United States.. .made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties…made…under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.”

What is clearly missing from this Constitutional list of supreme laws is a court opinion. This was not an oversight. Our Constitution’s writers knew that a court opinion could never be law; much less the supreme law of the land. This is especially true if that court opinion contradicted the Constitution itself.

As can be plainly seen from the Constitutional text, a statute enacted by Congress is the supreme law of the land only if made “pursuant to” (in conformity with) the Constitution. If a statute passed by the people’s representatives is not law unless it conforms to the Constitution, then how can a court opinion decided by unelected judges be given a higher status?

When Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review-the right of the court to review a statute to see if it conformed to the Constitution-he said that the written Constitution was just as binding on the courts as it was on Congress. Marshall, then, did not establish the supremacy of judges over the Constitution-but the supremacy of the Constitution over Congress, the President and the courts.

Our Founding Fathers resoundingly rejected the idea of judicial supremacy. They did not empower judges to usurp a power, rightfully belonging to the people and thereby become a law unto themselves. That is why they put the Constitution in writing-so that the original founding laws and principles would not be mistaken or forgotten. In this way they believed that the Constitution would become the fixed law of the land.

Just a little more than 100 years ago, the American people knew that Supreme Court opinions did not become the law for the whole country, but bound only the parties to the case. That is why Abraham Lincoln rejected the Supreme Court’s decision in the infamous Dred Scott case. Lincoln knew that even though the Court declared-in the name of the Constitution that black people had no rights that white people were bound to respect, that ruling was not the law of the land.

What has happened to America since the days of Lincoln?

Things began to change when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ascended to the Supreme Court. He introduced the idea that law changed with changing times, and that it was the business of judges to make the necessary changes.

Holmes’s evolutionary philosophy of law soon transformed the Constitution from a document of fixed rules and principles to one reflecting the latest court pronouncements. In this way, the judges became the nation’s supreme lawmakers, displacing the Congress and legislatures on matters ranging from abortion to pornography.

But judges have no right to make law. Their job is to discover the law, state it and apply it. Their role is like that of an engineer who designs a bridge according to the

discovered laws of the natural world, not according to “laws” that he has made up.

If an engineer should design a bridge contrary to natural law, there is no question that the government officials who employed that engineer would reject his design. So it should be with a court opinion. If it is contrary to the Constitution, then the president, the Congress and the fifty states’ governors and legislators should reject that opinion.

This is what their oath of office demands. The president takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” not Supreme Court opinions. Further, Article II, Section 3 states that the president is duty-bound to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Any court opinion that is contrary to the Constitution is, by definition, not law. Therefore, the president must not enforce it.

That was what President Lincoln did with the Dred Scott decision. He refused to enforce it as the law of the land.

That is what presidents today should do about Roe v. Wade. Pursuant to his Constitutional oath, the president should issue a proclamation declaring Roe v. Wade to be illegal, and declaring that the human fetus is a person entitled to the full protection of the right to life by the states.

At the state and local level, the people should insist that the laws that are still on the books be enforced against abortionists. In Virginia, for example, abortion is still a Class 4 felony. While other Virginia statutes have incorporated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, those statutes are unconstitutional. They violate Article 1, Section 1 of the Virginia Bill of Rights which denies to the state legislature or any other civil authority any power to deprive the state’s “posterity” (the yet-to-be-born) of their “inherent” rights to “life, liberty, and property.”

In Virginia, then, pro-lifers do not have to change the state law to protect innocent life. They don’t have to look to the president or Congress for action. They don’t have to elect a pro-life governor or state attorney general. They can act now, petitioning their local Commonwealth’s Attorney to prosecute abortionists under the state law and defend the right to life of the preborn under the state Constitution. And if the Commonwealth’s Attorney chooses not to prosecute, then the people can vote him out of office and elect another who will do his prosecutorial duty consistent with his Constitutional oath.

A petition drive has already begun in Virginia. The governor and the attorney general have been petitioned to speak out, urging the Commonwealths’ Attorneys to prosecute the abortionists. While neither office has the authority to command such prosecutions, such a statement would have a profound moral impact. Some local prosecutors have also been petitioned to take action now.

As concerned citizens, it is our duty to petition the Commonwealth’s Attorneys to make decisions according to what the Constitution demands, and not according to what the Supreme Court decides. And it is our further duty to continue to seek justice until we receive it.

Herbert W. TitusDr. Herbert Titus is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, and Public Policy.

This article by Herbert W. Titus, JD, and Christine Ross first appeared in the May/June ‘99 issue of “Life Advocate” magazine.

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

No More Striking Down Constitutions

/0 Comments/in , /by
Conservatives contemplating George Bush’s judicial legacy — and his bizarre vision of Harriet Miers among the nine highest potentates in the democratic world — should expect no counter-revolution. True, he promised constitutionalist judges. But talking constitutionalism (like talking Christianity) is easy.

Our governing elite punishes unvarnished clarity about our Constitution. Intellectual honesty, for lawyers, schoolteachers, psychologists, professors and actors, is costly. Most lie low or join the enforcers. Surely even Roberts, Scalia, and Alito see the gap between them and the Founding Fathers, for whom precedent was impotent against the Constitution.

Absurd though it is, only “constitutional” conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal “mainstream” savors precedents they’ve shot down — or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent. But the obvious is hard to see, especially as monumental, abstract questions are addressed in isolation from thoughts of personal advancement. The realm of the mind and methodology that do this are not the pragmatic part that wins court cases, campaigns, and useful friendships. The former withers when neglected for the latter. Even “all star” conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.

Righteous refinement obliges conservatives (holy and secular) to treat these points as uncouth. They are not. They address why Republicans are winning elections and “conservatives” are losing the Culture War, waiting for strict constructionists to fix everything. If we want to preserve for our children what was handed to us we’ll need to stop describing things in grays that are actually black and white.

Let’s drop the talking points about “conservative,” “constructionist” and “originalist” nominees. Such language obscures what’s going on. These nuances are a polite way of pretending that the mainstream in law and government interprets the Constitution differently than we do. No. They are oblivious to the actual content of the Constitution, or they are anti-constitutional. A polite term would be “post-constitutional.”

If Ginsburg, Souter, and friends have a “theory” of constitutional interpretation, they’re keeping it to themselves. When they shake the foundations of the earth from their bench it is neither theory, nor constitutional, nor interpretation. They are, wrote Jonah Goldberg after one heinous ruling, “making it up as they go along.”

We could also call this school of jurisprudence “striking down the Constitution.” “Interpreting” is not “striking down.” Opposite concepts. Conservatives desperately need to call things what they are.

While we’re at it, Roe v. Wade is not “bad law” or “settled law” or any other kind of law. It’s a court opinion on one case. Calling it “law” is a way of reassuring Chuck Schumer that he is a direct spiritual descendant of the Founding Fathers and Justice Thomas is not.

Signers of the Declaration and the Constitution and justices until FDR’s time would cringe to hear constitutionalists call rulings “law” — binding though illegal. Citizens and officials are to reject unconstitutional rulings. Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln did, citing their sworn oath. It is no accident that judges have no army.

If constitutions count, homosexual marriage remains illegal in Massachusetts. John Adams’s constitution says explicitly the people are “not bound” by any law not ratified by their Legislature. Four Boston judges struck down a constitution that stood in their way — one they’ve sworn to uphold. The word “treason” comes to mind — a strong word that Liberals would use lustily if they could, but then the Left is all about winning and conservatives are about slowing them down.

Has “conservative” governor Mitt Romney refused to enforce a ruling dissenting justices and Harvard law professors say is bogus? His oath compels him to refuse the court its pleasure. He pleads impotence. Do constitutionalists demand that the outlaw justices resign? Silence. Or Romney? No, they fancy him in the White House. At what point will “constitutionalists” stop siding with the establishment against the Constitution?

CONSERVATIVES JUST don’t get it. In a republic judges don’t get to make laws and others are sworn to stop them when they try. Yet we speak as if this is splitting hairs. Jefferson wrote that an unconstitutional ruling is null and void. What part of “void” can’t we understand? Why are “conservative” presidents, governors, legislatures, mayors, sheriffs and school committees siding with Laurence Tribe against Jefferson and Lincoln?

Law schools haven’t taught the Constitution for years. They teach precedent. Conservatives dignify mockery of the Constitution by pretending it’s a matter of dueling legal theories. “We respectfully disagree with the court’s interpretation…”

No. That ain’t interpretation. “Impeachable” is what it is — prestigious degrees notwithstanding. Respect swindlers in high places?

Subjecting Americans to foreign laws, as our Supremes have proudly done, is an impeachable act. That needs no debate and should have been unanimously stated by respectable conservatives when the Supremes announced that we are under nihilist European rulers whom we did not elect and cannot impeach.

We need no nuanced legal taxonomy to tell the White House what we expect in our judges. There’s an oath involved in the job. “Support and defend” does not mean “subvert and pretend.” If that excludes everyone in what liberals call the “mainstream,” fine. If the mainstream is post-constitutional we’ll take someone outside the mainstream.

Lifelong legal conformists need not apply. We want someone who can read the instruction book and for whom a solemn oath does not expire when their fanny hits the bench.

18 John Haskins is IAI’s Senior Fellow for the Public Understanding of Law, Propaganda and Cultural Revolution..

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

Kinsey Film Lies, Defames World War II Americans

/0 Comments/in , /by
In 1948, “illegitimacy,” abortion and rape rates were some hundreds of percentiles less than today, when even elementary school children are sexually “literate.” Yet that year, an impotent, closeted bi-homosexual pedophilic psychopath “proved” to the world that American GI’s and Rosie the Riveters were wildly randy adventurers who were also so sexually witless that they often didn’t even know where children came from.

It is shameful to see how the courageous men and women who gave their lives for our freedom in World War II continue to be defamed as sexually immature Neanderthals in the artsy film flop, “Kinsey,” written and directed by homosexual swami, Bill Condon.

However, largely due to the efforts of “The Kinsey Truth Coalition” – over a dozen key conservative organizations – these reprehensible lies have caused a backlash, even in Tinseltown. One film critic despaired that “Kinsey” was not only “shut out at the Golden Globes,” Liam Neeson (who played Alfred Kinsey) was not even nominated for an Oscar.

Another film lush whined that “any other year, “Kinsey” could have won an Oscar, for “Condon’s Kinsey had … something to say about sexual politics and identity. Its sole major nomination, for Laura Linney [as Mrs. K.] is perhaps insufficient recognition.”

The American public snubbed “Kinsey”! Despite its Ford Foundation financed media blitzkrieg, “Kinsey” did not even recoup investments. It racked up $9 million at the box office vs. Mel Gibson’s “Passion” at $400 million sales.

Condon complained that the primitive public – like the New Jersey women who picketed the “Kinsey” filming last August – objected to Kinsey’s “methodology” and sex life. No matter. I am told that the Kinsey Institute propaganda flick will tour our campuses – largely gratis. This will be easier pickings.

Since Fox barred me twice from its early screenings, I finally saw “Kinsey” locally. So, here are a few observations.

Kinsey’s “research” for “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) took place at the height of World War II. Condon, like Kinsey, obliterated the entire war era. Women were running the nation’s industries. Nearly every able-bodied father, husband and son – except Kinsey and his sexually willing boy toy team – was overseas fighting for our liberty.

Condon hides the war as well as Kinsey’s snaring scarce gas and tire rations for himself and his draft-dodging young mates. Thus did their gay little band travel widely to “study” prisons, lavender bathhouses, bars and such.

Condon also hides the fact that Kinsey, a eugenicist, was intimate with several Nazis, a convicted traitor and another helpful pedophile in Frankfort, whom he cautioned to “watch out” for the authorities.

Until Kinsey “enlightened” us, Americans called sex “the marital act” and thought you should see the person you did “it” with (that is, eye-to-eye, lip-to-lip, breast-to-chest, and all the rest).

Before I discuss additional “documentary” lies, let briefly note key players in this recent attempt to reconstruct Kinsey’s credibility by the Kinsey Institute, Ford Foundation, Indiana University and others:

  • First: Kinsey film distributor Fox Searchlight. Fox trafficked in “youthful” frontal male nudes in “The Dreamers” and drug-using 13-year-old girls having sex with old men in “Thirteen.” Fox seems prepared to promote wide-scale pubescent pornography.
  • Next: “Kinsey” Executive Producer Frances Ford Coppola. Hollywood director and child pornographer Victor Salva sodomized 12-year-old boys on a Coppola-Salva film he directed. When Salva was released from prison, Coppola immediately rehired the molester for another homoerotic teen horror flick.
  • Then: Homosexual propagandist Bill Condon wrote and directed “Kinsey,” the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” mentor. Follow the lust and then the money.
  • Finally: Lead actors Neeson and Linney. They claim theirs was a labor of love – that they want to promote Kinsey’s message of sexual tolerance.

Now, the hagiodrama.

Fox-Coppola-Condon claimed that Kinsey’s books “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” (1951) launched the sexual revolution. This was true – triggering worldwide sexual promiscuity.

But, so many lies. How may we count the ways? Here are a few. See my book, “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences,” for full documentation.

  • The film implies that Kinsey was a flawed genius “scientist” who just “worshiped data.” No. A “the ends justifies the means” Machiavellian, Kinsey cooked up phony data in his lab. Statistics in hand, he goose-stepped behind Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels with lies so big few could challenge them.
  • The film implies that Kinsey had a population sample. No. Kinsey manufactured a “10 to 37 percent” homosexual male population in order to normalize homosexuality. He manufactured a female promiscuity myth that led to “no fault divorce,” resulting in collapsed marriages and largely victimized women and children.
  • The film lied that Kinsey was hounded to an untimely death by dumb, religious Americans. His untimely death was surely exacerbated by his traumatized immune system compromised by an often fatal venereal disease called “Orchitis.”
  • The film lied that until Kinsey, Americans were “hypocrites” who went to church on Sunday, were afraid of sex, were commonly unfaithful, had sex before marriage and regularly aborted.
  • The film lied that Kinsey proved solo sex creates happy marriages. Kinsey was impotent, relying on pornography, masturbation and homosexual adultery for virility.
  • The film lied that Mrs. K’s physiology blocked Kinsey’s consummation of their marriage. Even Condon’s hagiographical expert, Gathorne-Hardy, said the gynecological problem did not prevent intercourse.

Condon puts the couple in a cozy honeymoon bed with white linen sheets and plump, inviting pillows. Kinsey hagiographer Cornelia Christenson documented the truth. Kinsey planned a dangerous, freezing hiking honeymoon to break in and control his bride – no linen sheets or fluffy comforters:

[They hiked] … straight up … Mount Washington in a blizzard. Clara had never seen a mountain before … Alfred … led the way, with his new bride lagging behind … The evening routine was to take off their boots and belts and to put on clean socks, plus all the extra clothing available, before climbing into their blankets.

Kinsey deliberately fashioned a honeymoon to deter “the marital act” – a hiking expedition that risked his young wife’s life. Why? Decades of “nudist” pornography and brutalizing self-abuse are crippling.

Kinsey later added college boys to his sadomasochistic rituals. He would always battle his impotence.

Moving right along, Condon’s own homosexuality dominated “Kinsey.” He has Mrs. Kinsey explain that Kinsey was huge. So, following a little nip below, Condon has the young bride grip the bedstead as Kinsey did what he knew best, homosexual sodomy.

Although we don’t see the anatomical parts of the act, this was not quite champagne and roses. (Pre-“Kinsey,” the scene would be illegal.)

  • The film lied that Mrs. Kinsey was a spunky sexual savant. She did what Kinsey wanted just as Laura Linney did what Condon wanted. Kinsey was the ultimate control freak, dominating everyone. Wife “Mac” needed Kinsey’s approval when buying groceries. She dutifully typed up the ghastly records of rape and torture of infants and children regularly sent to Kinsey by his New Mexico pedophile, Rex King. The little woman was expected to sexually perform when and with whom Kinsey wanted. He prostituted her and she obeyed, lying to the world. Likewise, Condon has Linney laugh gaily, just oh-so happy to be sodomized – a painful, debauched and disembodied homosexual act that leads to incontinence, AIDS, etc.
  • The film lied that Kinsey or Pomeroy abhorred the men who raped children for Kinsey. Instead they lauded these men and urged them on.
  • The film lied that Kinsey “interviewed” just one mass child rapist. Kinsey had dozens of men sexually abusing children for his “science” and he encouraged them all.
  • The film lied that Kinsey hated force. Kinsey was a sadomasochist, a psychopath who had to give and receive pain. Remember, Kinsey reported that children who fought to escape the rapist “partner” and who had convulsions “enjoyed” the “experience.”
  • The film lied that Kinsey had only one homosexual “lover” and that the young Clyde Martin seduced Kinsey. Kinsey seduced this boy and others.
  • The film lied that only “conservatives” and religious objected to Kinsey’s bogus research. Many leftist scientists like Abraham Maslow, Lionel Trilling and even Margaret Mead, condemned Kinsey for betraying science by creating false data about American sexual life.
  • The film lied that World War II Americans were sexually ignorant. In 1948, as Kinsey’s “Male” volume hit the nation, a campaign to control the nation’s two sexually transmitted diseases was launched to inform the public that chastity and fidelity would ensure sexual health. It did.

By 1957 America reached its lowest rate of 3.9 new STD cases per 100,000 adults. By 2000, 20- to 24-year-old men had a gonorrhea rate of 589.8 cases per 100,000 and females 656.6 per 100,000. In 1957, children did not show up in rates of venereal disease. Today, STDs infect 8,000 teenagers daily and one in four of sexually active youngsters.

Annually, we record 70,000 new cases of syphilis; 650,00 gonorrhea; 64,000 AIDS; 3 million Chlamydia; 5 million trichomoniasis; 1 million genital herpes; 5.5 million human papillomavirus, plus roughly 20 other STDs. Gone are the pre-Kinsey days of “only” syphilis and gonorrhea. Millions needlessly die due to Kinsey’s sexual frauds glamorized in the Condon film.

Condon – like Kinsey – lied. Who is insane enough to say Kinsey was a sex scientist when his claims wrought such human destruction?

Talk about myths! If children were embarrassed about solo sex in Kinsey’s era, many youth today think they’ll go insane if they don’t self stimulate; that having sex with friends is emotionally and physically harmless; that oral sodomy cannot cause oral venereal disease; that abortion extracts no physical or emotional penalty; that homosexual sodomy (I can’t “see” you) is the same as the marital act and does not contribute to STDs – including the fatal AIDS – and that pornography is non-addictive and helpful sex education.

Condon flashed viewers close-ups of male and female sex organs wrapped in pompous “scientific” overtones. After their marital humping scene, Neeson et al. do a quick, sweaty threesome grind.

Neeson passionately kisses Martin (in one article, Neeson puzzles over why Condon demanded such a long kiss). This is Condon’s “art” as it was Kinsey’s “science.”

Kinsey brought homosexual pornography and sodomy into the bedroom, classroom and courtroom. And just in case someone missed out, Condon showed us how.

Kinsey’s son lives in Indiana. At the film opening at Indiana University he is on record as confirming the description of his parents’ conduct.

Kinsey’s two daughters insist mom and pop were apple-pie conservatives who never made sex films in the family attic and never did anything, well, unusual. One wonders about the life the Kinsey children really led.

Such lies: Fox, Coppola, Condon, Neeson and Linney unite to give us a romantic fade out into the forest, with Kinsey and wifey walking arm in arm into the sunset.

Anybody ready to make an honest film about this anti-American sexual psychopath should check out my website.

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

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

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was oiginally published at WorldNetDaily.com on February 11, 2005. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Brazilian Paratroopers on Exercise.

What Crime?

/1 Comment/in , /by
At a time when FARC narcoguerilla fighters invade our schools to teach their genocidal doctrine to Brazilian children, at a time when an organization involved in doing propaganda for guerrillas tries out its power of strategic action, blocking almost every road in the country simultaneously—at a time like this, journalists and public prosecutors gather together in an operation designed to criminalize and abort the investigations that the Army carries out about the illegal activities of the Landless Movement and left-wing NGOs.

If this is not an act of revolutionary disinformation, in the best KGB style, then at least this is a substantial support that is offered, with prodigious unconsciousness and levity, to Fidel Castro’s plan of “reconquering in Latin America what was lost in Eastern Europe.”

The “cultural revolution,” without encountering the the slightest resistance, has easily duped public opinion (after having numbed it for 40 years). So much so that the public now seem to take the allegations against the investigation at face value, without even wondering whether the crime under investigation is not a million times more serious than mere words, however offensive, found in an investigator’s report.

In protesting against the use of the term “adverse force,” Flávio Bierrenbach, a Justice of the Superior Military Court and a man who owed his political career to leftist support, shows that he does not find that propaganda in favor of guerrillas or preparation for guerrilla warfare are adverse to democratic rule.

If the Army consents to “give explanations,” instead of accusing those who tie the hands of the legal forces to give leeway to Communist aggression, then, a new legal order will be introduced in this country overnight, as if by magic; an order in which the preaching of guerrillas will be done under the protection of the state, and to oppose it will be a crime. We fall asleep in the arms of a decaying democracy; we will awaken in the claws of a nascent Communist dictatorship.

A question that I ask myself is whether the newspaper that, in partnership with the public prosecutors, has created this Kafkaesque situation is not aware that, in doing so, it has gone far beyond mere journalistic defamation of the Armed Forces and become an instrument of the revolutionary mutation of the regime. I ask myself this question and I answer it myself: the newspaper cannot be unaware of what it does because, in its issue of July 7, 1993, it reported, in alarming tones, the infiltration of leftist agents in the Federal Police and the Ministry of Justice. What excuse does this newspaper now have for not knowing that it became itself an accomplice of those same people in the doing of what it feared they would do?

Instead of stopping its investigations, intimidated by the media, the Army must carry them further. It must investigate who are these prosecutors who, in a police investigation conducted under a “judicial secrecy” order, invite reporters to violate the order. What connection do these people have with The Brazilian Central Workers’ Union, the Workers’ Party, the Landless Movement ? Did the Landless Movement’s own spy service not cooperate in the operation? Or is it lawful for the Landless Movement to spy on the Army, but not the Army on the Landless Movement? And are those reporters not collaborators, militants, or “fellow travelers” of those same organizations accused in the Army’s report? In short: under the guise of a mere journalistic scandal, is what we are seeing now not a deathblow to neutralize in advance any possibility of national anti-Communist resistance?

Or is it forbidden to ask these questions? Does the simple fact of raising them make me an “adverse force”? Are we already in the new Brazil announced by Fidel Castro in which to oppose Communist action will be a crime?

Two promising reactions suggest that the answer is no. The courageous pronouncement by an army commander on Soldier’s Day shows that the ground forces are not willing to make themselves complicit in the plot hatched against them. And the judicial decision, which ordered the documents seized in Marabá to be returned to the army, shows that the judiciary does not want to be an instrument of its own destruction either.

But—have no doubt about it—the scandal surrounding the Marabá documents may be just the beginning. After all, it was through the scandal industry that Adolf Hitler put the German Armed Forces on its knees and transferred the control of the intelligence service to his party. And if there is an unmistakable trait that defines the mentality of the revolutionary movements of all stripes, it is their ability to try again.

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

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Jornal da Tarde on August 30, 2001, and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

 

 

 

Making Essential Information Available Again

/1 Comment/in , /by

One of the essential items of the Gramscian menu that now regulates the Brazilian mental diet is information control, which entails the suppression of all facts that could bring harm to the Communist revolutionary project. It took forty years of “occupation of spaces” (a Gramscian technical term) in newspapers editorial departments, publishing houses, and cultural institutions in general to produce this effect, which today can be considered satisfactorily achieved. Inconvenient news, books, and ideas were so effectively removed from the market that the simple possibility that they may actually exist has already disappeared from popular imagination.

If we mention, for example, the Communist aggression that triggered the conflict in Vietnam, nobody knows what we are talking about, because the silly lie that the United States started the war has taken root in public opinion as an unshakable dogma. If we speak of a “revolutionary strategy,” everyone’s eyes fly open, because they are sure that such a thing does not exist. If we allude to plans, already in full swing, to restore in Latin America the empire that has been lost in Communist Eastern Europe, we are immediately labeled as fantasists and paranoids, even though that goal was proclaimed to the four winds by Fidel Castro in the São Paulo Forum.

Of course, all information that could give credibility to our words has been suppressed from the media, bookstores, and ultimately from national memory. Courses on “Revolutionary War”— a subject whose study used to make the Brazilian Army the last stronghold of an alert consciousness against Communist advance—have been abolished even in staff colleges.

Dozens and dozens of books published in the last decade about the new strategies of the Communist revolution have been placed out of reach of the population by an effective cordon sanitaire around the publishing market and cultural media, which today have been almost completely reduced to the status of auxiliary instruments of the leftist strategy of domination. Acting with stealth, getting around direct confrontation, avoiding explicit preaching, that strategy succeeded so completely in dominating people’s minds that many in the news media and cultural milieux repeat slogans without having the slightest idea that they are actually using Communist watchwords.

There are, of course, conscious collaborators. More than conscious: professional collaborators. The Brazilian Central Workers’ Union, the Workers’ Party, the Landless Movement have on their payroll thousands of media communications professionals. It is an army of reporters and editors larger than that of Globo network, Abril publishing house, and of the newspapers Folha de São Paulo and Estado de São Paulo taken together. They suffice to make those leftist organizations the largest journalistic and editorial industries in the country. But the fact is that they do not get paid to write: they get paid not to write. They are paid to “occupy spaces” in newspapers, book, and magazine publishing companies, blocking, by their mere presence, inconvenient words, and spreading, by their everyday conversation alone, convenient ones. Even in this activist elite, few are aware that their function is that of censors and manipulators. Such is the subtlety of Gramscism, which always relies on the effect of that which is implicit and unstated. It is not even necessary to tell these professionals what to do: imbued with the desired beliefs, placed in decisive positions, they will always go in the expected direction, like water down the drain. And all people who simply repeat what they say have no idea of ​​the overall project with which they are collaborating. So automatic and thoughtless is this mechanism that one of the leading experts in manipulation of intellectuals in the Soviet world, Willi Münzenberg, called it “rabbit breeding:” to get it started, you just need to have a couple. The rest comes by virtue of nature. But what has been planted in the newsrooms, with money received from abroad, by the way, was not a couple of rabbits, but rather some thousands of couples. The multiplier effect is irresistible.

Today, it is in the assuredness, in the pompous and arrogant ease with which people who do not know anything about the subject assure us that Communism is a thing of the past while slavishly repeating Communist slogans (being unaware that they are Communist slogans) lies the best guarantee that the plans announced by Fidel Castro in the São Paulo Forum will be conducted with the foolish complicity of millions of quiet and self-satisfied fools.

There is nothing more urgent than making available information that has been suppressed. Only that can restore the possibility of a realistic debate on issues that are now left to be dealt with by the banal imagination of uneducated dilettanti and the consensual engineering of those strategists who manipulate them.

This book is destined to become a memorable milestone in the recovery of this possibility. Here, for the first time, broad enough documentation has been gathered to demonstrate the inescapably conspiratorial, revolutionary, and Communist character of an organization that, in the eyes of the uninformed, still passes off as the embodiment par excellence of a left that is renewed, democratic, and purified of all contamination with the totalitarian past.

The courage, patience, and determination with which its author, Adolpho J. Paula Couto, gathered and arranged all these fulminating pieces of evidence of the leftist perfidy will make him forever target of hatred of the current masters of morals. I think anything more honorable could be said of a good man.

 

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

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

 

Hilaire Belloc

Anti-Capitalist Capitalism

/0 Comments/in , /by
When I say that capitalist democracy can hardly survive without a culture of traditional values, many Brazilian classical liberals, crazy about economics and devotees of the magic omnipotence of the market, assume an expression of horror, of scandal, as if they were facing a heresy, an intolerable aberration, an iniquitous and morbid thought that should never occur to a normal member of the human race.

In so doing, they are only showing their complete ignorance about capitalist economic thought. That modest opinion of mine, in fact, is not mine. It only reflects and updates concerns that have been tormenting the great theorists of capitalism since the beginning of the twentieth century.

One of the first to express it was Hillaire Belloc, in his memorable 1913 book, The Servile State, reprinted in 1992 by Liberty Fund. Belloc’s thesis is simple, and the facts have not ceased to bear it out: unleashed from moral, cultural, and religious control, and elevated to a supreme and autonomous dimension of existence, the market economy destroys itself, entering into symbiosis with political power and ending up transforming free labor into servile labor, private property into a temporary concession from a voracious and controlling state.

Tracking the origins of the process, Belloc noted that, ever since the Tudors’ plunder of the Church’s goods, every new attack on religion had been accompanied by one more wave of state attempts upon private property and free labor.

At the time he was writing The Servile State, the two most successful economic formulas embodied that dreadful evolution whose next step would be World War I. The roots of the conflict were most succinctly expressed by Henri Massis (who seems to have never read Belloc). In Défense de l’Occident (1926), he remarked that, in a despiritualized Europe, all mental space available had been filled up by the conflict “between Prussian Statism or Socialism and English anti-statism or capitalism”. Capitalism beat Germany in the battlefield, but was defeated by German ideas in the long run, bending ever more to the demands of statism, chiefly in the following war, when, in order to face Hitler’s National Socialism, it had to yield up everything to Stalin’s International Socialism.

Défense de l’Occident is a forgotten book today, smeared by the slander of charlatans like Arnold Hauser—who goes to the absurdity of classing the author among the protofascists—, but its diagnosis of the origins of the First World War remains unbeatable, having received ample confirmation from the most brilliant contemporary historian alive, Modris Eksteins, in his Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age, published in 1990 by Doubleday (This is not to mention the prophetic accuracy of Massis’ warnings about the oriental invasion of Europe, which I will treat in a future article.) According to Eksteins, the Kaiser’s Germany, founded ona highly nationalized and bureaucratized economy, embodied the modernist rebellion against the free market-based Anglo-French parliamentary democracy. The latter emerged only apparently victorious: the war itself, above winners and losers, shattered the European order and wiped off the map the last remaining vestiges of the traditional culture in the liberal-capitalist scenario.

Another thinker who perfectly understood the conflict between market economy and the spiritless culture that this very same economy fostered more and more after World War I was Joseph Schumpeter. Capitalism, he said in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), would be destroyed, although not by the proletariat, as Marx’s prophecy had it, but rather by the capitalists themselves: insensitive to traditional values, they would ultimately let themselves be seduced by the charms of protective statism, the Siamese twin of the new modernist and materialist mentality.

That in the Roosevelt era and in the 1950s the statist proposal was personified by John Maynard Keynes, a refined homosexual bon vivant and protector of communist spies, is an eloquent symbol of the indissoluble union between anti-liberalism in economics and anti-traditionalism in everything else.

In the United States of the 1960’s, this union became patent in the “counterculture” of the youthful masses who substituted the old Protestant ethic of work, moderation, and parsimony for the cult of pleasure—pompously camouflaged as liberation of the mind—, while at the same time assailing, with unheard-of violence, the very same capitalism that furnished them with pleasures and the very same American democracy that secured them the right to enjoy these pleasures as they could never have done in their beloved Cuba, or in the North Vietnam they idolized. But the realm of the market is the realm of fashion: when fashion becomes anti-capitalist, the only idea that ever occurs to capitalists is to make money by selling anti-capitalism. The American culture industry, which in the last half century has probably grown more than any other branch of the economy, is nowadays a headquarters for communist propaganda more virulent than the KGB of the Cold War times. Here, the moral excuse is that the force of economic progress will ultimately absorb the enragés, emptying them little by little of all ideological presumption and transfiguring them into peaceful bourgeois. The individualist and consumerist hedonism that came to take over the American culture from the 1970s onward is the result of this disastrous alchemy, which is all the more disastrous because consumerism itself, instead of producing well-adjusted bourgeois, is a potent lever for revolutionary change, viscerally statist and anti-capitalist: a generation of voracious individualists, of leeches pretty well swollen with rights and insensitive to any moral obligation, is not a guarantee of peace and order, but rather a powder keg ready to explode in a chaotic irruption of impossible demands. By 1976, sociologist Daniel Bell wondered, in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, about the maximal lifespan of a capitalist economy founded on a crazed culture that hated capitalism to the point of demanding from it the fulfillment of all desires, all dreams and all whims, and at the same time of accusing capitalism of all crimes and iniquities. The answer came in 2008 with the financial crisis. The crisis resulted from the organized cynicism of the likes of Alinsky and Obama who consciously, coldly, planned to deplete the resources of the system, promoting, under the protection of the Nanny State, the most impossible ambitions, the most unfulfillable promises, the most extravagant expenses, in order to later blame the disaster on the system itself and prescribe as medicine more expenses, more state protection, more anti-capitalism and more hatred of the American nation.

In 1913, Hillaire Belloc’s previsions could still seem premature. It was legitimate to doubt them, for they were based on nebulous and virtual tendencies. In view of the fait accompli on a worldwide scale, the refusal to see the weakness of capitalism left to itself, without the defenses of traditional culture, is nothing but criminal obstinacy.

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

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on May 13, 2009 and translated from the Portuguese by Maria Inês de Carvalho and Alessandro Cota.