Olavo de Carvalho on socialism: A thousand combat fronts which do not advance the socialist cause ostensibly, but erode the moral and cultural values of capitalist society

Olavo de Carvalho, President of The Inter-American Institute, is interviewed by the Patrick Henry College's Intelligencer Journal on the subjects of Latin America and Socialism (obrigado para Swimming Against the Red Tide, whose post by Luís Afonso Assumpção contains different excerpts of de Carvalho's thoughts, focusing on the role of the late Hugo Chávez, as a… decoy!).

I. The Causes of Socialism

The Intelligencer: What do you believe are the underlying causes for Latin America’s shift toward socialism/communism after the region had implemented at least forms of capitalism?

Olavo: The history of Latin America in the last half century can be divided into three stages. The first, that of military dictatorships and defeat of the armed left. The second, the return of democracy and a phase of fleeting and skin-deep enthusiasm for free-market capitalism, coinciding with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. Finally, the general rise of the left.

Clearly, the third stage was prepared during the second, when the public opinion thought that communism was dead and buried forever, when in fact it was only playing dead to catch its enemies by surprise. What happened was that, at the time, the right did not understand at all the process of internal transformation of the communist movement. First, the military had focused on combating the armed left without doing virtually anything against communism at the ideological and cultural levels, which, precisely at the time of the greatest repression, were quietly taken over by leftists. In almost all Latin American countries, leftists dominated the cultural and journalistic apparatus precisely at the moment when the fall of the USSR created among them a state of ideological confusion which is very conducive to a thorough strategic review, which occurred with remarkable speed, without the right—so drunk it was with triumphalistic delusion—even noticing it.

This review consisted of the following items: (1) an organizational reform of the communist parties, which abandoned the old vertical chain of command and adopted a more flexible form of organization based on network structures in order to provide a strategic coordination among all factions of the left, bypassing old ideological divisions, (2) a radical shift in the left’s ideological discourse, which, instead of focusing on a structural transformation of the economy, began to emphasize all sorts of group interests that were antagonistic to the system—against which the left no longer waged open war, but rather launched attacks from a thousand quarters, creating a total confusion in society.

These changes reflect what Augusto del Noce called, somewhat ironically, “the suicide of the Revolution:” once any clear vision of a socialist future was dissolved, the revolutionary struggle crumbled into a seemingly unconnected thousand combat fronts which, according to the same del Noce, did not advance the socialist cause ostensibly, but eroded moral and cultural values of capitalist society, which thus assumed increasingly malignant and odious features. The new generations of supporters of capitalism, already educated without the moral and cultural values that held up the regime, contributed to this process, surrendering themselves to an amoral pragmatism that made capitalism precisely the monster that leftists would wish it to be.

Meanwhile, leftists took advantage of this in order to promote and denounce corruption at the same time, laying all the blame on capitalism. The situation as a whole became so confusing that no one on the right understood what was going on. Stunned and paralyzed, conservatives and free-market liberals gradually yielded to an ideological advance whose communist profile they completely failed to notice. That is how a faction that seemed almost extinct in the early 1990’s became the almost absolute dominating political force on the continent.

The Intelligencer: What about the role of outside allies such as Russia, Iran, or China?

Olavo: The entire strategy of the São Paulo Forum clearly fits into the plans of Russia and China to create a “Brand New New World Order” to be built upon the devaluation of the dollar and the collapse of the American economy. … Note that, at the very moment that the United States are under threat of war, the Obama administration is all about weakening the American military and strengthening domestic law enforcement agencies (arming them even with military-style equipment) at the same time it promotes the destruction of the American economy through pharaonic borrowing and spending. To me it seems that the BRICS’ “Brand New New World Order” is already in power in Washington and sees as inevitable—if not desirable—the social crisis that will allow it to severely limit democratic freedoms.

The Intelligencer: Do you believe that the majority of citizens in socialized Latin American nations really believe in socialist policies, or are demagoguery and/or corruption driving the movement?

Olavo: You have no idea of the state of mental confusion and disconnection from reality in which public opinion finds itself in Latin America, especially in Brazil. None of the problems I have mentioned here is ever discussed in the mainstream media or in the Parliament. Most people believe they still live in a capitalist democracy and do not see the slightest danger of a communist dictatorship. It is as though the last newspaper that came into their hands were from about August 1990. Public debates do not reflect absolutely anything that is really going on. Moreover, it is necessary to understand that many of the profound changes that have been introduced into the social, economic, cultural, and educational life in Latin America have been established through administrative decrees, ministerial directives, and judicial rulings—that is, they have never gone through legislative debate, and they have rarely received any media coverage. Everywhere people understand democracy only as an electoral process, failing to notice that without access to essential information, this process is only a façade, with no reality inside. The state of political ignorance in which the population live today in Latin America, and especially in Brazil, shows that the difference between democracy and dictatorship has become relevant. In the United States, things have not yet reached that point, but they are very quickly approaching it.
  
II. The Future of Socialism

The Intelligencer: What political ideologies do you believe will dominate Latin America in the future?

Olavo: Everywhere on the continent, the political “right” is disjointed and disoriented. In Brazil, the only thing that exists under the name of  “right” is the most moderate wing of the left. In the coming decades, it is possible that some right resurfaces, not so much inspired by the traditional conservative discourse as by moral and religious grounds, since the the dominant left’s insistence on quickly modifying the country’s framework of moral values comes into direct conflict with the religious beliefs of the majority of the population. What seems that is going to happen is not a struggle between socialism and capitalism, but rather between the revolutionary spirit and Christianity.

Meta-capitalists are natural allies of the communists … What we have is a gigantic symbiosis of all globalist and statist forces around the world

As always, Olavo de Carvalho has the inside dirt on the state of communism in Latin America — and on the entire planet…

Communist and pro-communist parties rule about a dozen Latin American countries today. This fact, by itself, is enough to prove that the “end of communism,” proclaimed by the Right soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, is a myth. World communism was never only an appendix of the USSR. It actually created the USSR, not the other way around. It existed a century before the Russian Revolution and continued to exist after the nominal extinction of Soviet power.

What made the resurgence of communism easier — not only in Latin America, but around the world — was the cowardly timidity of Western right-wingers who, instead of taking the opportunity of the fall of the USSR to punish the communists for their crimes, chose instead a policy of “extending them a hand,” as if asking for their pardon for having defeated them, and offering them all sorts of aid, enabling them to reappear with a new or attenuated identity, even protecting them from being called “communists” (the fashionable euphemism is now “populism”).

I believe that this absurd surrender of the winners was also stimulated by powerful globalist circles, whose interest in establishing worldwide bureaucratic controls converges with the objectives of the communists. The number of billionaire companies which came to openly contribute to leftist parties is enormous. I call “meta-capitalists” the individuals and groups which grew so wealthy with the market economy that they can’t stand anymore being at the mercy of the free market and seek, instead, to control everything, supporting bureaucracy instead of capitalism. Meta-capitalists are natural allies of the communists. … What we have is a gigantic symbiosis of all globalist and statist forces around the world.

To the New American's question, What role have Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan Petrodollars played in this resurgence? Is the Cuban government an important player? Olavo de Carvalho answers:

Hugo Chavez is only a scarecrow that the Latin American Left waves before the world to distract the attention away from the São Paulo Forum, which is the true strategic command of the Latin American revolution. Cuba and Venezuela are important as shelters for terrorists and drug traffickers. In Venezuela and other Spanish-speaking countries ruled by the São Paulo Forum, there is strong and organized opposition, while in Brazil all that is left is the Left itself, which controls the scene absolutely.

[Indeed,] however unbelievable it may seem, there is a strong and organized resistance against the rise of neo-communism in Venezuela. Colombia, likewise, is a remarkable center of resistance. On the other hand, nowhere else has the Right been so utterly destroyed as it has been in Brazil, which is, for this very reason, the headquarters of Latin American revolution. … In this sense, American political analysts are always getting it all backwards: They are alarmed at Venezuela and do not understand that the headquarters of the revolution is in Brazil.

And what does Olavo de Carvalho think of los Estados Unidos — where he currently lives?

In 2005, as I was getting tired of receiving weekly death threats from leftist maniacs, I found it was a good idea to accept a job as a Washington foreign correspondent that was offered to me by a traditional Brazilian business newspaper, the Diário do Comércio (“Business Daily”), and here I am living in Virginia with my family. I love to be here, because Americans, though already infected by the neo-communist virus, are not yet so stupid as Brazilians have become.

Olavo de Carvalho's Open Letter to America

Jeff Nyquist has an interview with Olavo de Carvalho, in which he quotes the Brazilian philosopher's open letter to Americans

Any anti-American lie — even absurd — is taken immediately for granted, as pure truth. Any pro-American word I write is immediately explained as the deed of a professional liar "sponsored by Wall Street". … Hundreds of powerful non-governmental organizations have millions of dollars (even from the Ford Foundation) to spend in anti-American propaganda, but the Brazilian journalist who fights against them, with his own personal resources, with [no support, American or local], is accused of being "sponsored by Wall Street".

Reminder: From Brazil, More Evidence of the Left's Fight Against the Powerful, For Democracy and Objectivity, Against the Suppression of Free Speech, and For All Voices to Be Counted and Heard (not to mention the struggle against recurrent witchhunts that characterize America and the right so well…)

Could It Be that J Edgar Hoover Wasn't as Paranoid — or as Despotic — as the Former FBI Director Is Commonly Depicted?

Among the many, and totally unpardonable, sins we hear of American history in leftist history books is that of the harassment the harmless leftists and communists in America suffered unfairly from, mainly perhaps from the 1940s and 1950s. Due to "collective paranoia," we are told, McCarthyism tore apart the nation, destroying democracy in the process, with vicious witch hunts "sicced" on poor, innocent, and indeed noble victims.

Of course, t'is true that we silly paranoid Americans and Westerners had nothing, absolutely nothing, to fear from the harmless communists. Nothing other, of course, than the fact that the party members living in the West were fully supportive of their comrades in the Soviet Union, that the head of the USSR was a man named Stalin, that his Red Army was occupying half of Europe, and that the apparatus that Lenin and Stalin created was killing millions upon millions upon millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of people, Soviet and other. But apart from that, what have the communists ever done to harm us?!

But certainly, we are told, the leftists in America were (apart from that pesky little detail of supporting Stalin) different — harmless beings harassed by witch hunts for no other reason than being leftist, or different, and having different ideas and different plans. What, besides paranoia (collective or other), could possibly explain people like J Edgar Hoover (along with Joe McCarthy et al) not wanting leftists in government? (Head shakes, sighs, eye rolls…)

Well, let's take a moment to ask a few questions: what is it we have had since the 2008 election if not government by those "harmless" leftists?

Who is it who in effect are tearing apart the nation (and dare we say so?) destroying, or at least harming (viciously?), democracy in the process?


"Half the country feels — and is — beset by government," to hear Peggy Noonan say it (thanks to Instapundit).

We are suffering in great part from the politicization of everything and the spread of government not in a useful way but a destructive one. Everyone wants to help the poor, the old and the sick; the safety net exists because we want it. But voters and taxpayers feel bullied, burdened and jerked around, which again is not new but feels more intense every day. Common sense and native wit tell them America is losing the most vital part of itself in the continuing shift of power from private to public. Rules, regulations, many of them stupid, from all the agencies—local, state, federal—on the building of a house, or the starting of a business.

It's all part of the malaise, the sclerosis. So is the eroding end of the idea that religious scruples and beliefs have a high place that must culturally and politically be respected. The political-media complex is bravely coming down on florists with unfashionable views.

"The political-media complex is bravely coming down on florists with unfashionable views."

That's bad enough. Isn't it?

But isn't it far worse than that?

Unfashionable views being the mainstream, we have the government wielding its power against the average (i.e., the honest and law-abiding) citizen.

We have the government by those "harmless" leftists — I should say government by, of, and for those "harmless" leftists — which consists in the authorities going after people who have committed no crime or misdemeanor — none, that is, besides being skeptical of the very "harmless" leftists in government and/or of their policies. We have tax authorities tracking down and intimidating common citizens and we have the justice department tracking down and shaking down citizens for alleged crimes, or should we call, the worst of all possible sins.

What we have, indeed, is the leftists' government spending (wasting) colossal sums of money, on things that not only bring nothing to the average law-abiding American (whatever the color of his or her skin) but is on the contrary inimical to his or her interests as they are supposed to do little else but convince him that he or she is the product of a nightmarish society of intolerance (while showing that the leftists, and their policies, are necessary to save us from ourselves and bring about some sort of paradise on Earth).

Check out Elizabeth Price Foley's column on Peggy Noonan race-card playin' Eric "Holder’s latest foray into the intellectual tar pit of disparate impact, [the latest] the cause du jour of the political left, which isn’t interested in achieving racial harmony but racial balancing" (thanks to Glenn Reynolds).

Spending millions to collect data about racial disparities in police encounters will further various leftist political goals, including challenges to police stop-and-frisk practices. Indeed, data showing differences between whites and blacks — in virtually any situation — can provide valuable ammunition for intimidation. Under Holder’s tenure, DOJ now spends an inordinate amount of time and effort attempting to identify practices for which racial statistical differences can be obtained. DOJ then alleges racial discrimination, using the statistics as a cudgel to beat private parties and states into behaving the way the Obama administration wants. It’s Chicago Way extortion, applied nationwide.

Holder’s DOJ has used disparate impact in a mind-boggling array of situations. It has filed lawsuits — and garnered settlements — against virtually every major bank in the nation, alleging that because banks lend money to a higher percentage of white than minority applicants, they are engaging in racial discrimination. It has sued private employers for using credit and background checks, claiming that because a higher percentage of blacks than whites have poor credit or criminal records, the checks are racially discriminatory.

It has challenged competency tests for workers such as firefighters and police officers, claiming that because more whites than blacks pass, the tests are discriminatory. It has sued states that provide private school vouchers, perversely asserting that because more black children use the vouchers to escape failing public schools, the state must be trying to make public schools “more white.” It has suggested that because laws limiting felons’ voting rights impact more blacks than whites, they are racially discriminatory. It has issued threatening “guidance” to public schools, asserting that because more black than white students are disciplined by school administrators, “racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem.”

"It’s Chicago Way extortion, applied nationwide."

J Edgar Hoover was supposed to go after mobsters and gangsters, we are told, not "harmless" political operatives who were doing nothing but sharing, entirely legally, their personal opinions.

Wouldn't plans to lead to nationwide-applied "Chicago Way extortion" be a reason for Hoover to treat leftist critics of America with a measure of circumspection?

In that sense, Olavo de Carvalho's thoughts are revealing. The difference between corruption in rightist governments and leftist governments, said the Brazilian philosopher, is that when rightists know they are doing wrong, they try to hide it (and are perhaps even sometimes ashamed), leftists are proud of their doings and try to write it into law.

When reading the following, remember that the comments apply to a foreign (a Brazilian) worker's party, Lula's Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT). And yet, ask yourself if they are not — chillingly — familiar.

It is one thing, I said, remembering an old Arab saying, to steal in the weight of the flour, selling 750 grams for the price of one kilo. Another thing is to modify the scale so that never more it accuses the difference between 750 grams and one kilo.

The old corrupt politicians [of Brazil] limited themselves to stealing. The PT transformed the robbery into a system, the system in political militancy, the militancy in a substitute of the laws and institutions, lowered to the condition of temporary impediments to the construction of the great utopia.

The old politicians stole for their own good, individually or in small groups, moderating the audacity of the blows from the fear of the denunciation. PT steals with a moral authority of someone, who arrogating itself the nobleness of a hypothetical future, is already forgiven a priori from all the faults of the present; with tranquillity and fearlessness from he who uses licitly all possible means, they steal since they are the absolute master of all.

Any political party that turns against "the society", promising to rebuild it from scratch — if not to reform the human nature itself — places itself , instantly, above the effective moral criteria in this society, and it cannot submit to them unless in appearance, laughing to themselves, at the naïveté of those who take them as a regular and loyal adversary. It is not possible to destroy the system and to obey its rules at the same time, but it's possible to use these rules just as a temporary camouflage until the destruction is completed. However, the system, as everything that is human, holds equally its dose of injustices, errors, scandals, and its parcel of morality, order, loyalty. All system consists of a precarious balance between disorder and order. No sane intelligence ignores that only it is possible to restrain or to control the former by fortifying the latter. All attempts to change the system integrally, either through the abrupt revolutionary subversion, either through the slow and gradual erosion of the institutional bases, starts for destroying the balance and therefore the order, under the vain promise of a future without disequilibrium nor disorder. The modesty of the objectives, the limitation of the political program to precise points that do not affect the beddings of the system, here is the mark of the honest parties — and this is not, definitively, the make of [a party like the] PT. The dishonesty of this party is measured by the megalomaniac amplitude of its promises.

Sexual Revolution

The "harmless" leftists also brought us such cultural wonders as the sexual revolution, which is supposed to be a giant leap forward against a society of old-fashioned taboos.

Is that all that the revolution has brought us? Is it only all that is good?

We now live in a society where kids asked for directions run screaming from a stranger's car because the driver was a man; where later London mayor Boris Johnson was once asked to change his seat in an airplane (in an airliner!) because the flight attendants did not want to seat a lone-traveling boy next to a singly-traveling man; where kids in French parks are forbidden to speak with any adult (certainly with any adult male) although they are their in classes of dozens running around on the grass and supervised by a number of teachers; where over 600 mall visitors walked by two lost- and "utterly forlorn"-looking girls in a Daily Mail experiment, ignoring them because they were afraid of being labeled a pedophile; and where males are no longer trusted to be in the teaching profession. Says Good Morning America's Susan Donaldson James:

"It's very hard to change the suspicion of men who are going to elementary education when there are so few of them," [said Massachusetts psychologist Michael Thompson, co-author of the groundbreaking 2000 book "Raising Cain," which argues that society shortchanges boys]. "Schools ask me to talk to men on their faculty and when I sit with them behind closed doors, they say the moms look at them like potential pedophiles. 

"If they are too nurturing or a mother comes in and sees a teacher reading in a chair and the child is leaning against the teacher or cuddling him, they freak out," he said. "Men tell me they only have to look in the mom's face to know what they are thinking." 

The professor adds that

as I’ve noted before, is that if you watch old movies, or even cartoons, it’s regularly assumed that adult males have nurturing instincts. Only in our supposedly progressive era are men reduced to cardboard cutouts dominated by lust and Mammon.

This is the mighty good that the sexual revolution and its good riddance to taboos have brought us: where no one trusts anyone, where every neighbor is a predator, a pedophile, or suspected of being one, if "only" potentially. Or, almost just as bad, a wife-beater or a father with no love for his children, who deserves to have his wife divorce him, his family broken up, and himself left as destitute as possible. (You will notice that the "culprits" most often are men, who are part of the gender most associated with — dare we speak the truth without hysterics breaking out? — a spirit of independence, not giving in, and resistance to the authorities.)

(Question: But, but… who is one supposed to turn to, then, in all those cases? Answer: but to the government, of course — to the government led by avant-garde progressives, or to a member of their ever-growing army of beneficent we-are-here-to-help-you bureaucrats; to the government forced by our own ineptitude and/or our own criminal degenerateness to take over the totality of our lives, for our own good.)

Glenn Reynolds links a Kevin Williamson post on Instapundit, leading to another description of the "harmless" leftists (or one of their subgroups), and the suspicion that the idea of putting spoiled brats (even be they grown-ups) to lord over our fate is hardly the smartest thing to do:  It has become simply “I Want!” in the mouths of a minority of women, but the right kind of women.

Feminism is not an idea or a collection of ideas but a collection of appetites wriggling queasily together like a bag of snakes. Feminism has nothing to do with the proposition that women should be considered whole and complete members of the body politic, though it has enjoyed great success marketing itself that way. . . .

A useful definition is this: “Feminism is the words ‘I Want!’ in the mouths of three or more women, provided they’re the right kind of women.” Feminism must therefore accommodate wildly incompatible propositions — e.g., (1) Women unquestionably belong alongside men in Marine units fighting pitched battles in Tora Bora but (2) really should not be expected to be able to perform three chin-ups. Or: (1) Women at Columbia are empowered by pornography but (2) women at Wellesley are victimized by a statue of a man sleepwalking in his Shenanigans. And then there is Fluke’s Law: (1) Women are responsible moral agents with full sexual and economic autonomy who (2) must be given an allowance, like children, when it comes to contraceptives.

More generally, the leftist society is where everyone is suspected of intolerance, of partisanship, and of (supposed) racism — his own and that of his wicked ancestors — along with innumerable other ghastly sins. In France, a decades-old effort to get drivers to slow down, by installing radars all over the country (which incidentally collects millions of Euros in revenue), refers to drivers — i.e, to common citizens — as "potential assassins" (des assassins en herbe).

No wonder Obama — and, by default, the media — cheated to win the 2012 elections: how could these avant-garde visionaries even think (perish the thought) of leaving such ghastly people as we-basically-trust-the-public Republicans to take over, dropping the utopia supposed to make their lot, the lot of all of us, better?!

Perhaps what is worst in all this, the most insidious of all, is that all of this is occurring, and most of the nation is not being informed of it. Au contraire, they are being told that the Obama White House is at worst a normal administration like any other and at best one that represents a huge step forward in all manners of ways…

This is the "dream" of the left: a place where every citizen is suspected of being a doofus and/or a criminal. And therefore where he must, for his own good, be led by a group of his betters, and by their ever-growing army of bureaucrats.

That's what the vast majority of countries and societies on the rest of the planet looks like. This is what leftists — what statists — American and foreign, dream of for the United States — and indeed have dreamed of for over two centuries. (Witness the Nobel  Peace Prize for Barack Obama by the giddy Norwegians the giddy Europeans only two weeks after the apologizer-in-chief entered the White House.)

Guess what: I don't know much about J Edgar Hoover, but might it not be that in the end, he was little more was one of those average Americans who had the silly temerity to believe that the average human being, that the average citizen, is good and caring besides being trustworthy?

And might it not be that the FBI chief wasn't so far off (or paranoid) when he, like millions of people, opined that allowing progressives into government would ruin the country, while tearing apart society and harming democracy? When he opined that, in the words of Olavo de Carvalho, the Left would place itself "above the effective moral criteria in this society," pretending to be "a regular and loyal adversary" in order "to use these rules just as a temporary camouflage until the destruction is completed"?

Update: Obrigado per o link, Sarah

The Revolutionary is a chameleon who disguises himself as one of us until such time as he springs into action and attacks our way of life

Something we can call the Revolution has gutted the West – absconded with its treasure, destroyed its cultures and faith in God, enslaved it to sex and drugs, stolen democracy, replacing it with a dictatorship indifferent – and impervious – to individual needs, desires and strivings, and reduced us to the lowest common denominator

writes Don Hank (obrigado para Luís Afonso Assumpção), quoting Olavo de Carvalho and his identification and definition of the leftist revolutionary mentality.

It did so in the guise of “democracy,” of the UN, the EU, the IMF, the New World Order, using such revolutionary terms as “diversity,” “peace,” “multiculturalism,” “world citizen,” “saving the planet,” and yes, even “capitalism” and at each step in the Revolution, warning of an emergency and reminding us that if we failed to accept the new measures, we could be in even more trouble. And yet these emergencies were mostly orchestrated by the Revolutionaries themselves.

…the Revolutionary is a chameleon who disguises himself as one of us until such time as he springs into action and attacks our culture, economy, soul and way of life

From Brazil, More Evidence of the Left's Fight Against the Powerful, For Democracy and Objectivity, Against the Suppression of Free Speech, and…

…For All Voices to Be Counted and Heard (not to mention the struggle against recurrent witchhunts that characterize America and the right so well…)

Bad news from Brazil. The Brazilian newspaper O Globo fired me last Monday. This is not just a personal bad luck, but a political fact

writes Olavo de Carvalho (on Luís Afonso Assumpção's website, in Porto Alegre, no less — bacana!).

According to deputy Roberto Jefferson (the main witness in present investigations about PT corruption), Mr. Jose Dirceu, the former number one man in Lula government and now a very important leader in the House of Representatives, boasted often of having complete hold over O Globo board of directors, owing to the huge debt the company had to state banks.

So my dismissal was not impossible to foresee. I just fancied it would take still some months to come, but the growing tide of attacks against Lula's reputation and the starting of the electoral campaing probably accelerated it.

Hundreds of protestation letters against my dismissal are been sending to O Globo (I have copies of many of them), but none of them was or will be published. Here is the evidence of the deliberated occultation of the facts.

With muy dismissal, Brazilian big media becomes at last the conservative-free ambience it aimed to be

A View from the Southern Hemisphere

Writing from Brazil, Luís Afonso Assumpção translates an article by Olavo de Carvalho, titled ROOTS OF THE NEW WORLD which nearly represents an executive summary of the ideological struggle within Europe between social collectivists and proponents of free will. It closely follows the movements of a time only two decades behind us where the same trend began in North America, Central Europe, India, the Asian Rim, and in some ways, in China itself.

«The first half of the 20th. century witnessed the rise of planned
economy; the second saw its fall, followed by the appearance of an even more ambitious plan of domination: planned culture. Culture transcends and includes economy: it includes the entire range of human creations, language and imagination, values and feelings, intimate life and unconscious reflexes. The widening of the objectives show that the activist intelligentsia learned from the past eight decades an opposite lesson from that of non-marxist economists: the later believe that socialism's failure proved the intrisic madness of a giant state; the former learned that giant states fail for not being gigantic enough.

The final aim of socialism, as Hannah Arendt observed, is the modification of human nature. The generation of Lenin, Stalin and Hitler imagined that socialist economy would create this new kind of men. Deeper socialist thinkers like Gramsci, Lukacks and the Frankfurtians saw in this a dangerous economicist mistake. The soul of the "new man" would not be born from socialism, but should come before it and create it.»

«Today's international socialism looks less for the creation of socialist regimes and more for the installation of a global complex of mutations in civil society, morals, family relations. The change in the order of priorities caused a harmonic change in the strategy and choice of means. Formerly, the essential tool of the revolutionary movement was a ideologically monolitical party. Today, it is a variety of leftist parties, disconnected in appearance. It is the international networks of NGOs, the "social movements", the large international organs.»

He describes very accurately an assault. It is the intentful construction of these movements, not intellectually from within the cultures where they are attempting to establish them, but with their origins in the leftist elitist complex of doner organizations, influencial personalities, and institutional connections. It is worse than the pre-Luther church of Rome it intends the non-beneficial modification of human nature from which it can parasitically steer peoples lives to fit their fears, not their faith, and certainly not one which places the individual at the center of their own decision-making, or asks them to think with any great moral depth. Typically the very aid that these groups made them dependant on becomes the reason that they have to play along with hairshirt blanquitos who march the indians out in front of them for the sake of appearance.

It also explains why the engagement of the US with the world at large is so offensive and roubling to the far left.

«Once the strategic line of action is understood, it is easy to follow the players in the game, from the appearant confusion of public debates to their common origin in offices of strategic planning invariably linked to the UN and a certain number of billionaire foundations with which they are associated and even some nation States which, discretely and not without ambiguities, give support for the process. Today, there is not one "cause", or slogan for the revolutionary fight or for "social change" that has not originated in technical and consultive committees outside any popular and electoral control.

These ideas are then spread throughout the many nations as spontaneous products of nonpersonal historical movements, if not products of divine providence itself. Feminist revolt, abortism, racial quotas, gay movements, agrarian revolution, indianism, enviromentalism, antismoking, liberation of heavy drugs, all the flags that are waved in the world can be traced back from the public scene down to their discrete origins in the circles of enlightened internationalism.»

The only real internationalism is that of free though inculcated from many sources, and involving a great deal of communication and often lonely but very personal and serious scholarship - not forced on the mind from a university somewhere in the North of England of from Michigan, and certainly not fed to groups.

«And to spread them, the means are not reduced to "networks" extending up to the infinite, but there is an entire millionaire burocratic system: the UN even has college courses to form technicians in "creation of social movements" in the Third World. All of them "spontaneous movements" of course, and for a spontanous miracle, harmonized in the whole conception of a new order in civilization.»

A brave new world forced on people who dont generally see the whole picture or goal, and without their consent. No wonder theyre starting among the poorest and among the under-developed nations of the world. They are preying on the weakest the way heroine pushers do.