Thursday, September 20, 2007
There´ll be no updates in this blog until sept, 30th, cause I am out of office and the continent! (Cordoba, Argentina). See ya!
Friday, September 14, 2007
My friend James DeMeo from www.orgonelab.org/ brought me this.
"I was responsible for 9/11 from A to Z," Mohammed said in a written statement read at the closed court session. "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the American Jew, Daniel Pearl in Karachi."
Mohammed portrayed himself as Al Qaeda's most active operational planner, confessing to playing a central role in 30 other attacks and plots in the U.S. and worldwide that left scores dead.
'I was responsible for the bombing of a night club in Bali, Indonesia, which was frequented by British and Australian nationals,' the statement said. "I was responsible for the assassination attempt on President Clinton during his visit to the Philippines in 1994 or 1995."
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The video reveal the real face of this party. It´s like to see in Dorian Gray´s mirror his real face.
And the real face of PT is very different from what they sold to the country to gain the presidential elections.
In 2002 Lula denied before the country that his party was engaged with drug-smuggling terrorists FARC besides Castro, Chávez and others.
His party denied even the existence of "Foro de Sao Paulo" the mean leftist organization in Latin America.
PT has "changed" its views and beliefs in the sight of the country. They declared in a document called "Open Letter to the Brazilian People" that Worker´s Party no more was engaged in undemocratic or anti-capitalistic objectives. That they have abandoned their Utopian communist.
See this video the real objectives of this party.
It explicit cites that they want "overpass capitalism", "change the society", even the "Foro de Sao Paulo" is explicitly cited as the main force in Latin America, bringing together the leftist efforts (legal and illegal) to take over the power.
And there are many Americans and Europeans that believe Lula da Silva is a "light" social -democrat that could keep Chávez off from total communist lunacy.
See it. With english subtitles!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
They debunked all the common "truthers" theories and found out their origins: the Arab world.
They first cheered Osama for the hijacking and the attacks and after carefully created "inside job" theories that were parrotted by leftist media outlets as "truth".
And these cover-up stories came from US´ "friends" countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
One of the videos is presented by the actor Ron Silver. See it. Here´s the message I received.
Debunking Racist 911 Jewish Conspiracies
also some of this is on YouTube (at least temporarily)
Six Years in Reverse?
Today is September the eleventh. Six years ago I was on a client and people that worked on the finance department started to call us, at the IT department, to see the unbelievable images they saw at bloomenberg´s and CNN.
What I saw was odd, a “little plane” crashed into on of the towers of World Trade Center.
But what started as an “odd news” turned into a pure terror, as the second tower was hit and both tumbled down, taking 2996 persons with them.
Was in shock that US emerged from the “Mall Culture” to the “Global Terror Threat”.
For me, as a Brazilian, is difficult to understand a poll that showed that almost half of democrats voters and ten of republicans believe 9/11 was an “inside job” (read a site that debunks all of these theories here).
But “ Little Green Footballs” gave the hint: during last six years, the security measures adopted by Bush administration, eliminated the risk of another terror attack in the US. There was not a single attack, although many attempts were reported.
For me it makes all the foreign policy sounds right. I think that Iraq was the nest of terror, indeed. As Afghanistan too. Many people tell me that the terrorists were Saudi Arabians but US invaded Iraq. This is not an old war style between nations.
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor; US attacked Japan. Islamic terrorists that were born in Saudi Arabia drove three jetliners like bomb-cars killing almost 3 thousand people in US soil. It was mean to be a war between US and Saudi Arabia? No.
Nationalities do not count when you´re dealing with Islamic terrorism. You must attack and destroy their training camps. That´s where they planned those attacks. So when they begun to be attacked in their own “sanctuary” , they have no plans at all. K, there were attacks in Spain, Malasya, England, but not in US.
So I must believe that the policies facing terror threat were right.
But this success lead to the impression that there were no terrorist threat at all... If in six years you don´t have it anymore, the terror fear vanishes. As it vanished. And everybody returned to the mall culture again. Submerged in this, all the efforts against terror without terror attacks must have seemed to be excessive and “authoritarian”. So, this lead to the core: government created 9/11 to implement a “ totalitarian state”. That´s the key of understanding.
In the moment that America could be aware of the whole threat and who are their real enemies, they submerged into self-indulgence again.
These developments were described two decades ago in books that America must read like “New Lies for Old” and “Perestroika Deception” (written by Russian defector Anatolyi Golitsyn). You can read what it´s all about in blogs like “ Once Upon a Time in The West” and “ Final Phase”)
In his fake “ documentary” called Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore repeated over and over “There is no terrorist threat”. He was right, but not for the reasons he presented. (See Moores´s rebuttal here in my blog “ Celsius 41.11” and “ Fahrenhype 911”).
I think that left had (as many times before) succeeded in their attempts to twist the history and facts and use this as a tool for their agenda. It pays homage to the creator of this kind of thought Hegel, that used to say that “ If the facts don’t agree with my theory, all the worse for the facts”.
American people is in a detour: or they return to “the mall” and try to deny reality as an “conspiracy theory of the government”, or they open their eyes and see what is the real world, where old enemies still enemies, even in lamb´s fur.
Here´s my tribute to 9/11 victims: Their lives would be in vain if America keep her eyes opened...
Friday, September 07, 2007
Here´s the english translation of superb Olavo de Carvalho´s article. A must.
Read it and spread.
The Revolutionary Mentality
Olavo de Carvalho
Translated by Tiago Tondineli from "A mentalidade revolucionária", Diario do Comercio, August 13th , 2007
Since word got out that I am writing a book called "The Revolutionary Mind", I have received many requests for a preliminary explanation of such phenomenon.
The revolutionary mind is a perfectly identifiable and continuous historical phenomenon, whose developments over five centuries may be traced in countless documents. This is the subject of an investigation that has occupied me for several years now. It is not exactly a "book", as I have presented some of the results from my studies in classes, conferences and articles, and I am not sure if one day I will be able to reduce this huge material to a specific printed format. "The revolutionary mind" is the name of the subject, and not necessarily of one, or two or three books.
I have never worried much about the editorial format of what I have to say. I investigate the issues that interest me and, when I arrive at some conclusions that seem reasonable to me, I pass them on, orally or in writing, as the occasion permits. To render my conclusions in a book format is a nuisance that, if I could, I would leave for an assistant to take care of. As I have no assistant, I am postponing this work while I can.
The revolutionary mind is not essentially a political phenomenon, but a spiritual and psychological one, though its field of expression and its fundamental instrument is political action.
To make things easier, I use the expressions "revolutionary mind" and "revolutionary mentality" in order to distinguish between the concrete historical phenomenon, with its varied manifestations, and the essential and permanent characteristic that enables one to grasp its unity throughout time.
The "revolutionary mentality" is the permanent or transitory state of spirit in which an individual or a group believes himself capable of remodeling the whole society – if not human nature in general – through political action. As an agent or bearer of a better future, he considers himself to be above all judgment by present or past humanity, being accountable only to the "court of History". But the court of History is, by definition, the very future society that this individual or group claims to represent in the present. So, as future society is only able to bear witness or to judge through this same representative, it is clear that he thus becomes not only the sole sovereign judge of his own acts, but the judge of all past, present and future humanity. Able to accuse and to condemn all laws, institutions, beliefs, values, traditions, actions and works of all epochs without being subject, in his turn, to the judgment of any of them, he lies so much above historical humanity that it would not be inaccurate to call him Superman.
As the self-glorification of Superman, the revolutionary mentality is totalitarian and genocidal in itself, independently from its ideological content in different circumstances and occasions.
By refusing himself to be accountable to anything except a hypothetical future of his own invention, and firmly disposed to destroy by cunning or by force every obstacle to the remodeling of the world to his own image and likeness, the revolutionary is the worst enemy of the human species, compared to whom the worst tyrants and conquerors of Antiquity impress us by the modesty of their aims and by a notable circumspection in the use of their means.
The advent of the revolutionary to the foreground of historical scene – a phenomenon whose origins can be traced to around the XV th century, and which manifests itself with all clarity at the end of the XVIII th century – inaugurates the era of totalitarianism, world wars, and permanent genocide. Over a period of two centuries, revolutionary movements, the wars they undertook and the slaughter of civilian populations necessary to consolidate their grip on power have killed much more people than the sum of all wars, epidemics, earthquakes, and natural disasters of any kind since the beginning of world history.
The revolutionary movement is the worst scourge to befall upon the human species since its advent on Earth.
The expansion of genocidal violence and the imposition of ever more suffocating restrictions to human liberty have followed pari passu the dissemination of the revolutionary mentality among ever growing segments of the population. This way, entire masses attribute to themselves the role of avenging judges, appointed by the court of the future, and grant to themselves the right to practice infinitely bigger crimes than all those which the revolutionary promise purports to end.
Even if we do not take into account deliberate killings and consider revolutionary performance only from the economic point of view, no other social or natural cause has ever generated so much misery and brought about so many deaths due to malnutrition as the revolutionary regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, and several African countries.
Whatever the future of the human species and whatever personal conceptions we may have about it, the revolutionary mentality must be radically expelled from the repertoire of admitted social and cultural possibilities before, by so much forcing the birth of a supposedly better world, it turns it into a gigantic abortion, rendering the millennia-old journey of the human species on Earth a meaningless history crowned with a bloody ending.
Although the different revolutionary ideologies are, all of them, in greater or lesser degree, menacing and wicked, their evil does not rest so much in their specific content or in the strategies to bring it about, as in the very fact of them being revolutionary in the sense defined here.
Socialism and Nazism are not revolutionary because they propose supremacy of a social class or of a race, but because they turn these goals into principles for a radical remodeling not only of the political order, but of all human life. The evil that they foreshadow becomes universally threatening because they do not present themselves as local answers to momentary situations, but as universal commandments instilled with the authority to remake the world according the mold of a hypothetical future perfection. The Ku-Klux-Klan is as racist as Nazism, but it is not revolutionary because is does not have any worldwide project. For this reason, it would be ridiculous to compare it, in terms of its dangerousness, to the Nazi movement. The KKK is a simply a police problem.
That is why it must be stressed that the meaning here given to the term "revolution" is at once more encompassing and more precise than the one generally attributed to it by historiography and by the current social sciences. Many socio-political processes usually called "revolutions" are not actually "revolutionary", because they do not partake of the revolutionary mentality, they do not aim at the total remodeling of society, culture and the human species, but work only to modify local and momentary situations, ideally for the better. For example, the political rebellion to severe ties between a country and another is not necessarily revolutionary, and neither is the mere overthrow of a tyrannical regime with the goal of bringing a nation to the level of freedoms already enjoyed by neighboring peoples. Even though such undertakings may employ large scale warfare resources and may cause spectacular transformation, they are not revolutions because they do not aspire to anything other than the correction of immediate evils or even the return to a previous situation.
What truly characterizes the revolutionary movement is that it imposes the authority of a hypothetical future on the judgment of all the human species, present or past. By its very nature, the revolution is totalitarian and universally expansive: there is not a single aspect of human life that it does not intend to submit to its power, there is no region of the world where it does not wish to extend the tentacles of its influence.
So, according to this definition, if on one hand the concept of "revolution" must exclude several politico-military movements of vast proportions, it must, on the other hand, include several apparently peaceful movements of a purely intellectual and cultural nature, whose evolution over time may turn them into political powers aimed at universally imposing new patterns of thought and conduct through bureaucratic, judicial and police means. In this sense, the Hungarian rebellion of 1956 or the overthrow of the Brazilian President Joao Goulart in 1964 were not, in any way, revolutions. Neither was the American Independence, a special case that I will have to deal with in another article. But there is no question that Darwinism and the set of pseudo-religious phenomena known as New Age are indeed revolutionary movements. All these distinctions will later be subject of separate explanations and are mentioned here only as a sample.
* * *
Among the confusions that this study allows to elucidate is the one that dominates the concepts of the political "Left" and "Right". This confusion stems from the fact that these two words are used to designate two orders of entirely different phenomena. On one hand, the Left is the revolution in general and the Right is the counter-revolution. There seemed to be no doubt about this when these terms were used to designate the two wings of the États Généraux in revolutionary France . But later developments led the revolutionary movement itself to appropriate both terms, and to use them to designate its own internal subdivisions. The Girondins , who sat to the left of the king, became the "right-wing" of the revolution, in the same way that, once the king was decapitated, supporters of the Ancien Régime were banned from public life and had no right to their own political denomination. This retreat of what is admissible as "right-wing" by labeling as such one of the wings of the Left itself, became later a habitual device of the revolutionary process. At the same time, the remaining genuine counter-revolutionaries were often forced to ally themselves with the revolutionary "Right" and to assimilate themselves to it in order to preserve some means of action in the aftermath of the victorious revolution. To complicate things even more, once counter-revolution was excluded from the repertoire of politically admissible ideas, counter-revolutionary resentment continued to exist as a psycho-social phenomenon, and was many times used by the revolutionary Left as a pretext and a rhetorical appeal to win for its cause sectors of the population who, though deeply conservative and traditionalist, revolted against the revolutionary "Right" dominant at that moment. The appeal of the Brazilian Landless Workers' Movement (MST) to rural nostalgia or the pseudo-traditionalist rhetoric employed here and there by Fascism make us forget the strictly revolutionary disposition of these movements. Mao Zedong himself was for some time considered to be a traditionalist land reformer. It is needless to add that, in the internal disputes in the revolutionary movement, the warring factions often accuse each other of being a "right-winger" (or "reactionary"). As with the Nazi rhetoric that intended to destroy at once "reaction" and "Communism", the Communist side employed a double and successive discourse which first treated the Nazis as primitive and anarchic revolutionaries and then as members of the "reaction" devoted to "saving Capitalism" against the proletarian revolution.
The terms "Left" and "Right" only have a meaning when used in their original sense of revolution and counter-revolution respectively. All their other combinations and meanings are occasional arrangements that do not have any descriptive power, but retain casual usefulness as symbols of the unity of a political movement and as demonizing signs of its objects of hatred.
In the U.S., the term "Right" is used to describe both conservatives in a strict sense, who are viscerally anti-revolutionary, and globalist Republicans, the "right-wing" of world revolution. But much worse is the confusion reigning in Brazil, where the counter-revolutionary Right does not have political existence and the word "right-winger" is used by the ruling (leftist) party to designate any opposition it encounters, even within leftist parties, whereas the leftist opposition uses it to label the ruling party itself.
It is clear for me that it is only possible to return some objective descriptive power to these terms if we take, as a delimiting line, the revolutionary movement as a whole, and oppose to it the counter-revolutionary Right, even where it does not have political expression and is only a cultural phenomenon.
The essence of the counter-revolutionary or conservative mentality is the aversion to any project of encompassing transformation, the obstinate refusal to intervening in society as a whole, the quasi-religious respect to regional, spontaneous and long-term political processes, the denial of all authority to the spokesmen of the hypothetical future.
In this sense, the author of these lines is strictly conservative. Among other motives, because he believes that only the conservative viewpoint can provide a realistic view of the historical process, as it is based on past experience and not in conjectures about the future. All revolutionary historiography is fraudulent from its foundation, because it interprets and distorts the past according to a mold of a hypothetical and indefinable future. It is not a coincidence that the greatest historians of all time have always been conservative.
If, considered in itself and in the values it fights for, the counter-revolutionary mentality must be appropriately called "conservative", it is obvious that, from the point of view of its relations with the enemy, it is strictly "reactionary". To be reactionary is to react in the most inflexible and hostile fashion to the devilish ambition of dominating the world.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
My friend Jose Reyes analyzes the American political landscape and what led to the nowadays "split" into Republican and Democratic.
The new Clinton presidential atmosphere at the white house was about youthfulness and change, starting with the song played when the final results came in and Clinton and Gore came up on stage, it was that corny Fleetwood Mac song, "Don't Stop". On the other hand, representing the Republican party, you had a stubborn George Bush who was close to the edge of becoming a tyrant, so this made it much easier to vote Clinton's way. Clinton found the right tactic and was able to win, but it wasn't because he was loved by the American people, that's for sure. Clinton then proceeded to split the country in two, where one was forced to, by public opinion to think as a liberal or as a conservative. This was the main goal and the main objective of the Clinton camp right from the very beginning and was probably planned for many years before he even became a candidate. Clinton was the one who initiated this separation and has created a big problem and an enormous concern in the Patriotism department in America. The Conservative image makers are as much to blame, for they fell into the tender trap constructed by the Clinton Party. Although it was a big mistake by the Republican party, I think it was done in a defensive and protective manner, but contributed in the separation of the people. The exact thing happened with the US media, for this was their big chance to obtain more control of their misinformation network of reporting. Now, what is the result of Liberal and conservative thinking and what about those who do not want to be identified with either group? Before I continue, to clear things up for those who are not sure of Conservative thinking and Liberal thinking, I have the dictionary definitions and description of both here "in general"
Being so far from U.S. maybe I could give an outside view on this issue.
Recently I have read a book (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas Woods Jr.) that made me understand a little the political twists in American history between these two political visions. "Republican", "democrats", "whigs", "tories" are just labels that cristalyzed the real battle: small government versus big government and now national interests versus global government.
The strange phenomena is that Republicans, once the fortress against big government, was not even engulfed by the thesis that the "welfare state" is something that it cannot be reduced anymore - because it got deeply rooted in public sense - but many of them try to use it to push for a "conservative" agenda. Worst : many Reps, has fell in love for the "new world order" Utopia. It seems that Woodrod Wilson "spirit" still floating in the air.
They are so entertained by their own dreams that they do not see that they old nightmares are still real: while they push for world government, they undermine local government. And the old enemies, now acting together as always do (even while they seemed to be splited) are seem to finally raise from the dust of the fallen communist empire (China and Russia).
Can you see a worse picture than that? Yes. If Republican party lost most part of his "soul", Democratic party is now totally departed from the national interests. They are in fact an American enemies´ official embassy. They are used and still be using by American enemies as its proxy.
These are the things as I can see being so far from America.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
After all, the responsible --Joao Quartim de Moraes - of the American Navy´s Official (Captain Chandler) death, claims that he was not arrested because of the trial or the subsequent Chandler´s assassination, but because he was JUST THE LEADER of the revolutionary group called Vanguarda Popular Revolutionary (Popular Revolutionary Avant-Garde) or just VPR .
Yes, it was like Hitler excuse for Holocaust because was not he that killed millions of people himself. He just gave orders...Or knew the methods a revolutionary barbarian Utopian lunatic people do to pursue 'justice'.
Olavo found out the was the same Quartim that embellished the story in front of a crowd of leftist students, saying that the assassination of Chandler costed him 'two years' in prison...
Before the students it was good to show the revolutionary emotionless sense of 'duty', but when Olavo started to spread his own story, he ask for help of thousand of leftist brainless people around the world to counter attack against this 'infamous aggression' .
This is the kind of people in Brazil who proclaim themselves as incorruptibles, ethical.
They lied during their terrorist days (when justify this savage trial alleging that Chandler was a CIA agent because he fought the Vietnam war).
Below, on of the invitation to sign the petition..
The renowned Professor João Quartim de Moraes, from State University of Campinas (Unicamp), militant of the Communist Party of Brazil-PCdoB, recently is being victim of infamous aggressions by the part of an individual from the extreme right wind in Brazil. In these attacks, (see attached articles), this individual furiously rushed against an
interview given by Prof. Quartim to the Principios Review, related to the 2nd. Edition of "A esquerda militar no Brasil" , (The Military Left Wing in Brazil). In this sense, we would aks your support and solidarity to the Professor Quartim, that you can do by signing the petition
on line as follows:
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Reading the news today I found this very insteresting:
"Colombian army 'kills rebel head'
The Colombian army says it has killed a leading member of the
country's largest left-wing guerrilla group, the Farc, during an
assault against rebel troops.
The Colombian defence minister described the death of
Tomas Medina Caracas as the biggest blow ever to the group's logistical
capacity. Medina was said to control the Farc's drugs and weapons-smuggling operations."
This is why Colombian President is Uribe is so hated by the left. FARC is the drug-smuggler-terrorist-arm of the leftist organization called Foro de São Paulo.
Foro de São Paulo is on the power after the leftist surge in Latin America. Brazil (Lula), Venezuela (Chávez), Bolivia (Morales), Nicaragua (Ortega), Equador (Correa) and Argentina (Kirchner) are presidents that are controlled by the Foro.
They are the real "Mandchurian Candidates" of our time. Behind these are the Dark Side of The Foro, a group of tyrannical regimes (Cuba, China) and terrorist groups (Colombian Farc , MIR) that take part of the group.
Alvaro Uribe, by killing Medina , has killed not only the "head" but the heart of FARC´s foreign relations. Medina, known as "Black Acacio" (Negro Acácio) was the biggest Brazilian drug smuggler body guard (Fernandinho Beira Mar, now reclused on high security prison in Brazil) . Was known that Fernandinho was the FARC´s head-of-the-bridge cocaine smuggler in Brazil, intented to anihilate the competitors in Brazilian drug market and be the number one there.
It was also known that FARC was given lots of money to President Lula´s campaign in 2002. Read it here.
Presidente Alvaro is the only and lonely president that is looking only towards his people and country. He is surrounded of fake democratic regimes that intent to implement a new communist federation in Latin America.
They are closer day by day, but events like this could make it slower.
It was a little victory, but with no help by the US, this island of real democracy in Latin America will soon disappear.