Go to: => TOP Page; What's New?; ROAD MAP; Contact Us; Search Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
in The New American, March 29, 2010, p. 27
[COMMENT: The three pieces below are quoted from The Summit Journal, p. 5-7 (which quotes them from the sources indicated below.
Olavo deCarvalho is a Brazilian
seeking refuge in America from Communist threats to his life. He has
settled in Virginia where he teaches via the internet to about 1000 students
back in Brazil, preparing them to retake Brazil back from its Communist
domination. He has formed the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy,
Government, & Social Thought at
www.theinteramerican.org, with an eye to recreating the spirit of personal
growth based on truth-seeking -- which is the center of all good philosophy.
De Carvalho is right on target about the collusion of "left" and "right",
communist or capitalist, below, they are two heads on one monster. The
real enemy is not left or right, but centralization of government by anyone at
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.
An event that clearly symbolizes this union of apparent adversaries was the tributes paid to Lula de Silva, the Brazilian President, who in the same week was honored by the World Economic Forum in Davos, for his conversion to capitalism, and by the São Paulo Forum, for his allegiance to communism. The contradiction is only apparent. At the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, which for public opinion embodies the opposite of the Davos Forum, the main demand was for a greater control over the world economy by big international organizations. Nobody there asked for shutting down the IMF or the World Bank—what they wanted was the integration of “civil society”—i.e., the World Social Forum—into those organizations. Many European NGOs [non-governmental organizations] which participate in the World Social Forum have a seat at the meetings of the World Bank and other international organizations. The “ideological” contrast serves only as propaganda. What we have is a gigantic symbiosis of all globalist and statist forces around the world.
—Olavo deCarvalho,The New American,
March 29, 2010, p. 27
There is no unified answer that applies to all Latin America. The situation is different in each country. For example, 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. When former Venezuelan presidential candidate Alejandro Peña set up UnoAmerica (Association of Democratic Organizations of the Americas), the only international organization devoted to fighting communism, he found no difficulty in obtaining effective support in most of the Spanish-speaking countries, but he has always had great difficulties finding support in Brazil. . . .
In other countries, however, the Left is not so culturally hegemonic, which has made possible the organization of an effective and strong anti-communist action. From this point of view, then, Venezuela is in a better situation than Brazil, for if in the former country, the Right has been oppressed, in the latter it has already died, being now necessary to create a new Right out of nothing. 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.
—Ibid., p. 30
[Comment: Here is an example of socialism/communism in America, centralization of government by whatever name you like. Also from The Summit Journal. P. 7
of people who do the sorts of deception described below ought never, never,
never to be elected to public office. But that takes a population with an
honest moral consensus -- which has been long lost in America. We must
have a revival in our pulpits, at our altars, and in our seminaries. But
that begins with a revival in our families, with fathers taking their
assigned role as spiritual leaders, and mothers their role as life-givers and
life-stabilizers. E. Fox]
The Senate can pass only one reconciliation bill per year, which is why the Democrats—who seem to intuit that they won’t be so numerous next year—want to combine the health-care reconciliation bill with legislation that would make the government the direct provider of most student loans.
The combination is poetic: American college loan policy offers an illustration of how the government can absorb an activity incrementally, claiming to cherish the benefits the private sector provides until the bait has worked and it’s time for the switch. Government support for student loans began in the form of subsidies for private loans, much as the Democrats’ health-care bill would succor the insurance industry by subsidizing its product while forcing people to buy it. In the 1990s, Democrats added a “public option”—making government the direct provider of some student loans—with the Clinton administration claiming that “students and schools are served by healthy competition” between the private sector and the government.
This is the same rhetoric Obama used when he tried to sell us a public option for health care. And now we see how quickly Democrats dispense with the rhetoric of competition when a government takeover seems viable: The new student-loan bill would make the public option the only option, thus completing the absorption of the activity. In a similar way, the current health-care legislation isn’t the endgame.
—National Review, April 5, 2010, p. 4, 6
Editor’s Note: Socialists/Communists/Statists (call them whatever) continually seek to sweep as much under the government rug as the populace allows. Nationalizing the student loan industry is but another proof that we are dealing with all three of the above labels!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Date Posted - 06/09/2010 - Date Last Edited - 07/07/2012