OLAVO DE CARVALHO PDF

adminComment(0)

Read {PDF Epub} Download O imbecil coletivo by Olavo de Carvalho from the story See by bealnakamura79 with 43 reads. less, young, sometimes. Simple. OLAVO L. P. DE CARVALHO bestthing.info bestthing.infoecarvalho. org/english/ bestthing.info bestthing.info Title: Para Compreender a Politica Brasileira - Olavo de Carvalho In case you do not found a download as pdf button on the site it means that the author do not .


Olavo De Carvalho Pdf

Author:AYANNA SUNDERMEYER
Language:English, French, Japanese
Country:Sweden
Genre:Health & Fitness
Pages:653
Published (Last):06.03.2016
ISBN:732-1-61468-791-4
ePub File Size:27.64 MB
PDF File Size:14.68 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Downloads:44984
Uploaded by: SUELLEN

Title: Hegemonia e Cultura - Olavo de Carvalho. Page number ISSUU Downloader is a free to use tool for downloading any book or publication on ISSUU. Olavo de Carvalho reúne neste livro o essencial do que tem ensinado sobre René Descartes em Read Online Visões de Descartes (Portuguese Edition) pdf. A Nova Era e a Revolução Cultural (Portuguese Edition) Olavo de Carvalho. “A ' Nova Era' da qual Fritjof Capra se tornou festejado porta-voz e a 'Revolução.

And this presupposes the final destruction of nations, as vestiges of a bygone era, as the last hurdle to the irresistible expansion of globalization. It is the end of nations and of all traditional spirituality, the former being replaced by a global scientific-technocratic administration, and the latter by a mix of scientism, materialism and relativistic subjectivism that inspires the globalist elites of the West.

Since the United States is the main rant focus of this project, and Russia its main focus of resistance for motives we shall see later , the clash is inevitable: The main thesis of the neo-Eurasianism is that the struggle between Russia and the United States is inevitable, since the United States is the engine of globalization seeking to destroy Russia, the fortress of spirituality and tradition.

Dugin come true? The description cannot in any way be applied to the United States, a nation where Popperianism is a recent implant, which has no local roots and is totally hostile to American traditions. The United States are not the command center of the globalist project, but on the contrary, its prime victim, marked for death.

The globalist elite is not an enemy of Russia, China or the Islamic countries potentially associated with the Eurasian project, but, rather it is their collaborator and accomplice in the effort to destroy the sovereignty, the politico-military power and the economy of the United States.

Far from favoring free-enterprise capitalism, the globalist project has supported statist and controlling policies everywhere.

And in this, it does not differ from the interventionism advocated by the Eurasianists. However, as Eurasianism is not only an abstract ideological model, but a geopolitical strategy, it is obvious that it fires at the Popperian ideology to reach, beyond it, a specific national power, that of the United States, which has nothing to do with the Popperian ideology and can only expect evil from it.

Even worse: American nationalism is a powerful Christian resistance to the globalist ambitions which have been trying to take over the country in order to destroy it as an autonomous power and use it as a tool for their essentially anti-national plans. The destruction of American power will remove the last reasonable hurdle to the establishment of a world government. Then all that will be left is the sharing of the spoils among the three globalist schemes, the Western, the Russian-Chinese and the Islamic one.

If Russia today, through the medium of Prof. Dugin, presents to the world as the bearer of a great redeeming spiritual message, we need only recall that she has done so twice before: All it managed to do was to create a totalitarian inferno of which neither Attila nor Genghis-Kahn could have glimpsed in a nightmare.

It would be wonderful if each country learned how to exorcise its own evils before pretending to be the savior of humanity. The basis of NWO was presumably realization of the convergence theory predicting the synthesis of Soviet socialist and Western capitalist political forms and near cooperation of the Soviet Union and USA in the case of regional issues—for example first Gulf War in the beginning of Hence, as the Soviet Union split soon after, this project of NWO was naturally set aside and forgotten.

After the other World Order was considered as something being created under our eyes—Unipolar World with open global hegemony of USA. The skeptics thought that it was rather illusion and the differences between the countries and people would reappear in other forms for example, in the famous clash of civilizations of S.

Huntington or ethnic or religious conflicts. Some experts regarded unipolarity not as the properly speaking World Order but as the unipolar momentum J. In any case, what is questioned in all these projects is National Statehood. The Westphalian system did not correspond any more to the present global balance of powers. New actors of transnational or subnational scale affirm their growing importance and that was clear that the World was in need of new paradigm of International Relations.

So our actual contemporary world cannot be regarded as properly realized NWO. There is no definitive World Order of any kind at present. There is a Transition from the World Order we knew in XX century to the some other paradigm whose full features rest to define. Will the future be really global? Or the regionalist tendencies will win?

Will there be a unique Order? Or there will be different local or regional Orders? It is not clear yet, the Transition is not accomplished. We are living in the middle of it. If the global elite first of all the United States political elite has the clear vision of the desired future that is rather doubtful , even so the circumstances can prevent the realization of it in practice. If the global elite lack the consensual project—the issue is much more complicated. So only the fact of Transition to some new paradigm is certain.

The paradigm as such is on the contrary quite uncertain. The USA undergoes now the test of global imperial rule and they have to deal with many challenges—some of them quite new and original. They could proceed in three different ways: It seems that USA tries to go by these three ways simultaneously promoting all three strategies at the same time.

Beyond the evident differences of these three images of future they have some essential points in common. So we are in the contemporary world in strong and permanent geopolitical field where in the Core is situated USA and where the rays of its influences strategic, economical, political, technological, informational and so on permeate all the rest of the World depending of the grade of the will to accept it in the case of different countries, ethnic or religious ambiances.

This USA-centric global geopolitical field can be described on different levels: The USA considers itself to be the logical conclusion and the peak of the Western civilization. Now they speak in the terms of human rights, promotion of the democracy and of technology, free market institutions and so on.

But in the essence, we deal with a new edition of the Western universalism that passed by Roman Empire, Medieval Christianity, the Modernity with the Enlightenment and colonization and up to present day postmodernism and ultra-individualism. The history is considered to be univocal monotone process of technological and social progress, the way of growing liberation of individuals from all kind of collective identities.

The tradition and conservatism are regarded as the obstacles for the freedom and should be rejected. The USA is in vanguard of this historical progress and has the right and obligation mission! The historical existence of USA coincides with the course of the human history. We watch the passage from the liberalism becoming global and only possible political option as the peak of the political thought of Modernity won the victory over alternative political doctrines—fascism and socialism to the post-modern and post-individual concept of politics generally described as post-humanism.

The USA plays again here the key role. The politics promoted by USA globally is liberal democracy. So USA supports the globalization of the liberalism preparing thus the next step to the political post-modernity described in the famous book of A. Negri and M. There is important testimony of dual use of promotion of democracy explicitly described in the article of American military and political expert Stephen R.

Mann1 who affirms that democracy can work as self-generating virus strengthening the existent and historically rife democratic societies but destroying and immersing in chaos the traditional societies not properly prepared for it. So democracy is thought to be an effective weapon to create the chaos and to govern the dissipating world cultures from the Core emulating and installing everywhere the democratic codes. We see how it works in the last events in the Arabic countries.

After the accomplishing the full fragmentation of the societies to the individual atoms there will begin the second phase: That can be described as the post-politics as the last horizon of the political futurism.

There is the tendency in the case of the USA to link more the ideology and politics in the zone of the periphery. Before, USA acted on the basis of the pure realism: The Saudi Arabia represents the net example of that. So some features of the double morality were ideologically accepted.

It seems that recently the USA have began to try to deepen the democracy, supporting popular revolts in Egypt and Tunis whose chiefs were trustfully friends of USA being at the same time corrupted dictators. The double standards in the ideology is vanishing and the deepening of democracy progresses. The culminant point will be reached in the case of the probable unrest in the Saudi Arabia.

In this moment this trend of promoting the democracy on the ideological basis— including in the politically difficult circumstances—will be tested. The overgrowth of American financial institutes and the delocalization of the industry have created the discontinuity between the sphere of the money and the sphere of the classical capitalist balance of the industry and demands.

It was the main cause of the financial crisis of The Chinese economical politics tries to 1 Stephen R. The Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan and some other relatively independent from USA countries control over the huge amount of the natural resources puts the limits to the American economical influence.

The economy of European Community and the Japanese economic potential represent the two poles of competition inside the strategic partners and military allies of USA.

So the USA tries to solve all these problems using not only purely economic instruments but also politics and sometimes military power. We could interpret in this manner the intrusion in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possible intervention in Libya, Iran and Syria. Indirectly promoting opposition in Russia, Iran and Chine and trying to cause some problems with Turkey and radical Islamism in general for Europe USA wants to reach the same goal.

But these are only technical solutions. The main challenge is how organize the post-modern and financially-centered economy with granted growth overcoming the more and more critical gap between the real sector and the financial instruments whose logic become more and more autonomous. So we have observed the main and asymmetric actor USA situated in the center of the present Transition state of world affairs.

This actor represents the true hyperpower H. Vidrine and the strongest geopolitical field that includes all the levels revised before is structured around this American Core, representing its multilevel networks. The question can be raised here: It seems that the opinions on this most important point are divided: At least theoretically is has some positive point: The multilateralists are more cautious and insist on the necessity to invite the other regional powers to share with the USA the burden of the planetary rule.

It is obvious that only similar regarding the USA societies can be partners, so the success of promoting democracy becomes here the essential care. The multilateralists act not only in the name of USA but also in the name of the West, considered as something universal. The image of the future World Order is foggier. The fate of the global democracy is misty and not so clearly defined as the image of American Empire.

It could effectively overthrow the existing national states but in some cases it will only open the way to much more archaic, local, religious or ethnic forces. So the earth-scale open society is such fantastic a perspective that it is much easier to imagine the total chaos and the war of everybody against everybody. So the image of the future World Order differs with regard to the group of American ideologists and decision makers.

More consequent strategy is at the same time more ethnocentric, openly imperialistic and hegemonic. It is unipolar World Order. The other two versions are much more dim and uncertain. Up to certain point they can give way to world disorder.

So the Transition in question, in any case, is Americano-centric by its nature and the global geopolitical field is structured so that main global processes would be moderated, orientated, directed and sometimes controlled by the unique actor performing its work lonely or with the help of the essentially pro-American Western or at least pro-Western allies.

The World Order from the non-USA point of view The Americano-centric world perspective described above being the most important and central as global tendency is not the only one possible. There can be and there are the alternative visions of World architecture that can be taken into consideration. There are secondary and tertiary actors that are inevitable losers in the case of the success of USA-strategy: They are multiple and heterogeneous.

We could group them in the different categories. These countries in general hardly possess the alternative vision of the future World Order.

What they want—it is to preserve the status quo and national States in the present form adjusting and modernizing them if necessary. Between the members of this national Statehood clubs there are three kinds of actors: All these groups lack the global alternative strategy that could be symmetrically comparable with the American there is not even a consensual or clear vision of the future. Everybody acts by themselves and in their own direct interests.

The difference consists only in the radicalism of the rejection of Americanization. We could define their position as reactive. This strategy of reactive opposition varying from the rejection to adaptation is sometimes effective, sometimes it is not. The future of the World Order is considered as eternal conservation of status quo—Modernity, national Statehood, Westphalian systems, current ONU configuration and so on.

The Second category of actors who reject the Transition consists of subnational groups, movements and organizations that oppose Americanism as the structures of the global geopolitical field by ideological, religious or cultural reasons. These groups are quite different and vary from one concrete state to another.

They are mostly based on the religious faith incompatible with the secular doctrine of americanization, westernization and globalization. But they could be motivated by the ethnical or ideological for example, socialist or communist doctrines. Some other act on the regionalist grounds.

So in these circles we could find some alternative vision of the future World Order that can be opposed to the Transition and its structures. This project is as opposed to the American architecture as to the status quo of the modern national States. This is roughly a new edition of Marxist critic of capitalism strengthened by nationalist emotion and in some cases Bolivia, Zapatistas ethnic sentiments. Some Arab regimes as Libya of Kaddhafi until recently can be considered in the same line.

The next World Order here is presented as global socialist revolution preceded by the anti-USA liberation campaigns in every country. The Transition is identified by this group as the incarnation of classic imperialism criticized by Lenin. It presupposes the creation of different transnational political strategic and economic entities united by community of civilization and main in some cases religious in some—secular and cultural values.

They should consist of integrated States and represent the poles of the multipolar world. European Union could be example of such a form. The North-American great space can be regarded as one of the several other more or less equal poles, nothing more. We could add some other theories but they are of smaller scale. There is, in the present state of affair, a serious gap between the national States and ideological movements mentioned above operating on the different levels.

So the national States lack the vision, and movements lack sufficient infrastructure to put their ideas in practice. There is something very symbolic in the accentuation of a certain asymmetry in our mutual positions, noted by Professor de Carvalho at the beginning of his introductory text. Describing this asymmetry, he defines himself as a pure individuality that can speak only in his own name, expressing a highly personal point of view.

At the same time he tries to construct the opposite image of my person, underlining the fact of my implication in the political, public and scientific circles and my involvement in concrete politics and in the process of decision making and ideological struggle.

Title: Para Compreender a Politica Brasileira - Olavo de Carvalho

It seems to be a correct observation, but it has one less evident dimension. Speaking so, Professor Olavo de Carvalho drives our attention to the really existing differences between the Western and the Russian Eurasian civilizations. The metaphysical basis of the West is individualism.

For the Western man a declaration of individualism is 1 Louis Dumont, Essais sur l'individualisme. Le Seuil, In other words, individualism is a common feature of the West. The same stereotype is clearly seen in the projection of the opposite identity on the representatives of Russian Eurasian society.

This identity should be collectivist a priori, manifesting holistic or totalitarian in the case of pejorative attitude features. And Professor de Carvalho finds easily the confirmation of such projection in the biographical details of his vis-a-vis.

The context is thus well defined and the mutual photos add to it more visual expression. I accept it fully and agree to recognise the fact that our Russian Eurasian individuation consists in the desire to manifest something more general than our individual features.

The more holistic is my position, the better it is. That is precisely the symbolic dimension mentioned earlier. In the debate of two personalities there are two massive structures of different civilizations, different systems of values that affront each other through us. The Western individualism confronts the Russian Eurasian holism. Here we need to make one precision. As far as I understand, Brazilian society and Brazilian culture are not fully Western and individualistic. There are many collectivist and holistic features in them.

So, Latin America and Brazil in particular have some social and cultural differences in comparison with the European or North American societies and cultures. And in the case of Professor de Carvalho, the fact of his living in the USA, plays an important role. Not his geographical residence, I mean, but his cultural identification. Three global projects First of all let us consider the three projects of global dominance, described by him.

Not being convinced that they give the correct vision of main geopolitical trends in the contemporary world, I can recognise some realistic features in that picture. Professor de Carvalho describes it explicitly: The agents that personify these projects today are respectively: The ruling elite of Russia and China, especially the secret services of those two countries.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of several Islamic countries and some Muslim countries governments. Later on in his exposition Mr. Carvalho points out that each of the three global projects reflect three kinds of global weapons—the military force, the market economy and strong religious creed fundamentalism. We can easily remark that this hypothetic structure, consisting of three main forces, represent three classical functions of a hierarchic traditional society: Accepting this vision we could evaluate the three forces in different ways.

For the materialists and the pacifists, the capitalist market society of the West USA and its allies would be preferable. But that is not the case for those who defend other sets of values—spiritual and immaterial ones.

Fayard, The Free Press, The rule of the warriors and of the priests, for me personally, and implicitly for the majority of Eurasian people is much better than the order of merchants. So, in the terms of Professor Olavo de Carvalho, every consequent traditionalist should be on the Eurasian and Islamic side against materialist and capitalist decline of the castes. Professor Olavo de Carvalho recognised the fact that Western financial elite is concentrated in some global organizations, such as the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, which serve as the headquarter of capitalism and North American imperialism.

So we have real enemy in front of us that should be attacked. If we consider the circumstance that globalization process is far more powerful now than two other forces and the might of USA is nearly unchallenged, we arrive at the conclusion that precisely the globalist project is much more dangerous and realistic than the two other projects are. So we are dealing not with three more or less equal trends, but with the only one that is absolutely leading and dominating and the two others that try to challenge the first one successfully or not.

In such a situation the question is posed in the following way: If we could imagine some other doctrine as an alternative, it would be a good thing, but it is not so easy.

The choice is clear and everyone is invited to make it by himself. It seems that Latin America is more and more inclined to choose the alternative approaching the Eurasian and Arab camps. This is the difference in our approaches, but that is not crucial. We could include this Latin neosocialist trend approximately in the camp of the Eurasian militarism and Islamic fundamentalism. The West against the Rest. The critical and pejorative description by Professor Olavo de Carvalho of the Russian-Chinese and Islamic project makes me suggest that his own choice is quite different and opposite to mine.

If we remain in the limits of the Global World Map, proposed by him, the only logical solution is the choice of the global West and the hegemony of the Western global financial elite. If there are only three forces it is Professor Olavo de Carvalho who affirms it, not me the realistic choice should be made accepting one of them as a position. It is explicit. So, from this point of view we are waiting for the next step—the defense of the West. But some remarks of Professor Olavo de Carvalho indicates that it is no so.

He treats the Western globalization in skeptical and critical terms as well. So we rest perplexed and hope he would make this point clear in the future.

Theoretically we could suggest that he is against any kind of global project whatsoever and rejects them all, hating all scenarios of globalistic visions and praxis. If that is the case, he should attack first of all heaviest, most serious and most impressive one—the USA hegemony, the unipolar world and the rule of the financial elite. This is the first and most powerful trend—much more effective than two others. But Prof. Carvalho lives in the USA and in his introductory texts fiercely attacks the Eurasianism and Islamic fundamentalism before anything else.

So his position rests a little bit enigmatic and intriguing. For his style of discussion this seems to be a rather clever stylistic step—so that the observers would follow the discourse with closer attention, being intrigued as me myself. Simon and Schuster, The validity of the classical geopolitics Second point: Carvalho affirms: Even though in current debates these three blocks are almost invariably designated by names of nations, States and governments, to depict their interactions as a dispute among nations or national interests is a residual habit of the old geopolitics that does not help us at all to understand the present situation.

The modern and postmodern as well USA global power and its allies in Europe or elsewhere during the last centuries up until nowadays manifested themselves as the direct incarnation of the Sea Power, exposed by Halford Mackinder,7 Nicholas J.

Spykmen,8 K. Haushofer9 and all other geopolitical thinkers and analysts. The Atlantic localization of the Core of the global world the Rich North , the capitalist essence of its rule, the material innovative technology as the basis of the conquest of the colonies, the strategic control of the sees and oceans with the NAVY forces—all these features of the globalization and present days unipolarity sometimes in the soft version, presented as multilateralism are the classical characteristics of the Sea Power.

And the Sea Power is in the permanent quest against the Heartland, being on its direct way to the world domination. Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality: National Defense University Press, Harcourt, Brace and Company, Zentral-Verlag, It reflects perfectly the main goals of the implementation of the thallassocratic world system.

What are Russia and Chine geopolitically? So, we deal with tellurocracy in its essence. Geopolitics allows the visualization of both political-geographical and sociological spheres. So the hostility between USA-unipolarity-globalization-financial oligarchy- modernization-capitalism and Russia-Chine-militarism- sovereignty of state- traditional society- crypto-socialism is perfectly geopolitical.

Where is the place of Islam in classical geopolitical vision? It corresponds to the Rimland, precisely to the large part of Rimland going from the Maghreb through Middle East to the Central Asia and further to Islamic societies of the Pacific. Geopolitical nature of Islam opens to it two options: Sea Power or Land Power, the thallassocracy or tellurocracy? The radical Islam rejecting the West, the USA, the globalization and consequently the thallassocracy, is logically inclined to the alliance with the Land Power.

But this zone as a whole can optionally make the other decision, preferring the alliance with the West as some Arab regimes. The balance between the thallassocracy and tellurocracy today is in favour of the first.

Further, I have myself read hundreds of Western sociologists and philosophers that gave different description of the basic Western values, but the fact of the profound individualism in all those authors remains their main feature especially in the Modernity. That is the point of view of Max Weber or of the excellent French sociologist Louis Dumont, already mentioned.

I could accept the fact that Popper as such is dear only to Mr. Soros and to the CFR people, but that is not little. The elite, that understands the essence of values, can not be too large. The most important moments in the West are individualistic. The East, on the contrary, is holistic.

The Eurasian society is a holistic one. If there are other holistic cultural or political movements, they should be logically allies of the Eurasianism. The Western traditionalists R. Guenon, for example 11 were on the side of the East. Evola12 was the partisan of the Western tradition but in absolute opposition to the Modernity and to the USA. There may be another America, but that does not change anything in general. The real America we know well. The other thesis of Professor Carvalho also sounds a bit strange to me: The globalist elite is not an enemy of Russia, China or the Islamic countries potentially associated to the Eurasian Project, but, on the contrary, it is their collaborator and accomplice in the effort to destroy the sovereignty, the politico-military power and the economy of the United States.

What can that mean? The contamination of Russian society by decadent consumerist individualist patterns, the support for the anti-Russian regimes in the post-soviet space is nothing. New York: Vega, The globalist elite of the USA is the absolute enemy of the Russia, China and Islamic countries, it corrupts our political elite, the society, the country. For us it is obvious. There are many other important and interesting points in the text of Professor Olavo de Carvalho that I would like to discuss in details but I will have stop here and to return to the topic in the next round.

It is true that political agents may, over time, learn how to use certain instruments of scientific discourse for their own ends; it is also true that the scientific observer may have preferences for the politics of this or that agent.

But this does nothing to alter the validity of the initial distinction: The function of the scientific observer becomes even more distinct from that of the agents when he neither wishes nor can take sides with any of them and keeps himself at a necessary distance in order to describe the picture with the maximum realism available to him.

From the outset of this exchange of messages with Professor Dugin, I have tried to make two points clear: He is declaredly a political agent, and all the description he presents of the state of things is determined by the practical objectives that he seeks to achieve. It is therefore natural that he sees the world as divided in two, with a good and a bad side, and that he strives to win sympathies for the side he considers to be good, while at the same time throwing the maximum amount of hatred available against the side he considers to be bad.

On the other hand, my description of the picture presents a world divided among three main disputing forces, neither of which enjoys the least sympathy on my part, though, in terms of immediate physical danger to the human species, one of them has already demonstrated overwhelming superiority over the other two.

Killing an approximate total of million people in a few decades—more than all wars, epidemics, and natural catastrophes of any kind had ever killed at least since the beginning of the Christian Era—the Russians and Chinese have already proved to have a degree of truculence, wickedness, and disrespect for human life that transcends the possibilities of the most odious Islamic suicide bomber or the coldest, Machiavellian Western banker.

This is a pure and simple fact, and not even all the Eurasian blather in the world can ease the scandal of the two hordes of murderers who, instead of paying for the crimes they committed against their own people, now demand, with an air of innocence, of sanctity and even of divine authority, a chance for extending those crimes to a global scale. Nevertheless, the two other globalizing currents do not seem to me to be worthy of greater admiration and respect—at the very least for having been accomplices in the Russian-Chinese genocide, one, between the 30s and the 60s, favoring with money aplenty and paternal diplomatic concessions the building of the two most deadly tyrannies of all time, the other even now, walking hand in hand, in the World Social Forum and everywhere, with the ostensible or disguised spokesmen of an ideology that their very religion condemns.

The photos that I attached to my first message, by way of a humorous synthesis, document all the difference between the political agent invested with global plans and means of action of imperial scale and the scientific observer not only divested of both, but firmly decided to reject them and to live without them until the end of his days, since they are unnecessary and inconvenient to the mission in life that he has chosen and that is for him the only reasonable justification for his existence.

Both professor Dugin and I are performing our respective tasks with utmost dedication, seriousness and honesty. But these tasks are not one and the same.

His task is to recruit soldiers for the battle against the West and for the establishment of the universal Eurasian Empire. Mine is to attempt to understand the political situation of the world so that my readers and I are not reduced to the condition of blind men caught in the gunfire of the global combat; so that we are not dragged by the vortex of history like leaves in a storm, without ever knowing whence we came or whither we are being carried. The difference between the missions we have embraced determines the intellectual and verbal means used in our respective accounts.

He employs all the usual instruments of political propaganda: Manichean simplification, defamatory labeling, perfidious insinuation, the phony indignation of a culprit pretending to be a saint and, last, not least, the construction of the great Sorelian myth—or self-fulfilling prophecy—which, while pretending to describe reality, builds in the air an agglutinating symbol in hopes that the false may become true by the massive adherence of the audience.

For my part, all I can do is use the means of analytic clarification created by philosophy through the millennia—beginning with the very distinction between the discourses of agent and observer—, applying them to a multitude of facts gathered from the most varied sources, including those remote and poorly known to the public, and not from those of the popular media, which reflect rather the persuasive and manipulatory effort of one of the agents than a serious intent to apprehend reality.

Of course, I do not say that Professor Dugin is dishonest. But he is honestly devoting himself to a kind of combat that, by definition and ever since the world began, has been the embodiment par excellence of dishonesty. In view of this, one should not find it surprising that he attempts to remodel the debate situation itself in order to force it to take his side in the great combat, such as he conceives it.

Not satisfied with this, he has to throw against me the hostility of my compatriots, insinuating that, for living in the USA and having written some pieces in favor of American conservatism, I am something like a traitor of my homeland.

Latin America and Brazil in particular have some social and cultural differences in comparison with the European or North American societies and cultures. And if Professor Dugin mentions my place of residence while at the same time affirming that it plays no role, what does he mention it for? It serves only as an excipient for the venomous insinuation that comes next: In economic policy the last Brazilian governments have done nothing but faithfully follow the instructions of the World Bank.

In the area of healthcare, all reforms adopted were express recommendations from the World Health Organization. And I do not need to mention the obscene joy with which the Lula Administration relinquished even parts of the Brazilian territory to international administration, against the express will of the local population.

All this is widely-known in Brazil, but news does not seem to have made it to Russia. That such an abject servitude comes together with histrionic demonstrations of anti-Americanism is the most evident proof that one can be against the USA and in favor of the globalist elite at the same time.

How could it be any different if for the past half century worldwide anti- Americanism has been widely financed by this same elite? As a matter of fact, in the Brazilian big media I have been practically the only columnist to protest against the globalist arrogance which considers itself the owner of our territory. If, on the one hand, he pretends to minimize the importance of my place of residence, while at the same time stressing it to insinuate that I am anti-Brazilian and pro-American, all I have to declare is that the very contradiction of his discourse on this point reveals that hide-and-seek game typical of demagogical labeling.

After having confused social position and ideological belief, Professor Dugin confuses the latter with geographical residence, to which he, at the same time and paradoxically, denies any importance. It would be nice if he could decide by which means he intends to damage my reputation: I do not take any of this as offense—I do not know a slower soul in taking offense than mine—, I only judge that the problem we are discussing is already complicated enough without these feinting and dodging that only serve to confuse the readers.

If he would say that I defend one-half of the West against the other half, and that I accuse the latter of complicity with Eurasianism, Professor Dugin would be closer to the truth. But the value of this reasoning is demonstrated by him later, when he says that, from the three globalist groups I distinguished, only one is politically active and relevant, while the other two, poor things, are only striving to defend themselves. If being limited to defensive attitudes before a greater power is the same that being only a possibility, then this reasoning should not apply only to conservative America, but to the Russian-Chinese and the Islamic blocks.

The globalist elite is not only a vague social class of capitalists and bankers. It is an organized entity, with continuous existence for over a century, which meets periodically to ensure the unity of its plans and the continuity of their implementation, with the minuteness and scientific precision with which an engineer controls the transmutation of his blueprint into a building.

Much better is the name suggested by the title of the book by Nicholas Hagger, The Syndicate. There are so many documents and studies that meticulously depict its origin, history, membership, and modus operandi that no excuse can be accepted for ignorance in this matter, most of all from people who intend to opine about it.

No, this is not an insinuation against Professor Dugin. He is perfectly informed about it, and if he commits errors in the conclusions he presents, it is not due to ignorance. It is because the essentially bellicose nature of his approach impels him to divide the panorama into two symmetrically opposed halves, falsifying the whole picture and sending to the limbo of non-existence all the facts that refute this Manichean simplification.

So abundant is the bibliography on the Syndicate that any attempt to summarize it here would be vain. All that can be done is to indicate some essential titles, which the reader will find mentioned here and there in this by a faction does not turn it into a merely possible faction, because it is from the weaker factions that comes, in the course of time, the great historical changes.

If the two anti- Western blocks are fighting to dislodge a more powerful enemy, the same is being done by conservative America, comprised today of at least half of American voters. O-Books, The Syndicate was formed more than a hundred years ago by initiative of the Rothschilds, a mutlipolar family, with branches in England, France, and Germany since at least the eighteenth century.

The Syndicate gathers a few hundreds of billionaire families for the accomplishment of global plans that ensure the continuity and expansion of their power over the entire terrestrial orb. These are very long-term plans, transcending the duration of the lives of individual members of the organization and even of the historical existence of many states and nations involved in the process.

The Syndicate is a dynastic organization, whose continuity of action is secured by the succession from parents to children since many generations. The Syndicate acts through a multiplicity of subsidiary organizations scattered around the world, as for example the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations, but it does not have itself a legal identity.

This is an essential condition for its agency in the world, enabling it to command innumerable political, economic, cultural, and military processes without ever being held directly accountable for the results or by the iniquity of the means , be it before the courts, or before the court of public opinion. Having most faithful agents spread out in various governments—and in the command of some of them—it is upon these governments that falls, in the public debate, the responsibility for the decisions and actions of the Syndicate, so that states and nations used as tools become also, automatically and without the least difficulty, their scapegoats.

Lyndon Johnson did not do anything different than this when he dispatched American soldiers to war while at the same time tying up their hands so that they could not possibly win it, thus becoming, in the eyes of the leftist media, the supreme imperialist aggressor, when in truth he was the best secret friend of the Vietcong.

Examples could be multiplied ad infinitum. Formed by families of diverse nationalities, the Syndicate is a characteristically supra-national entity, being independent and sovereign in face of any possible or imaginable national interest. A brief survey of the list of these families is enough to demonstrate it with abounding evidence.

The 5 And these are not only isolated examples. This has been the overall strategy of the Syndicate in its relations with the American government since many decades: See for instance the succession of global monetary agreements celebrated since Bretton Woods All of them are explained as stages in the process of domination of the world economy by the USA.

It is nothing more than an interpretation, but one that for being so often repeated conceals and makes invisible the hard fact that, when these agreements began, the USA was the largest creditor in the world; today it is the largest debtor, at the brink of bankruptcy. But people who do not know this bibliography and who, in addition, are used to reasoning based upon the usual meaning of words, without considering the dialectic tension between them and the real objects they designate, find it frightfully hard to understand that capitalists and bankers may desire socialism.

After all, is socialism not the state property of the means of production? Is capitalism not private property? How could capitalists want the state to take their property away from them? Based upon this cute reasoning, which a computer program would perform as well as they, if fed with the respective terms and definitions, those creatures then deny that the Syndicate exists or resolutely affirm that it is pro-capitalist, anti-Communist, pro-American, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese and anti-Islamic.

Apeirokalia (Olavo de Carvalho)

Having done that, they are ready to admit that the division of the world as it is delineated by Professor Dugin is a pure expression of reality.

Yet, the millennial philosophical technique, which those people are totally ignorant of, teaches that the definitions of terms express only general and abstract essences, logical possibilities and not realities. From a definition it is never possible to deduce that the defined thing does exist. In order to do this, it is necessary to break the shell of the definition and analyze the conditions required for the existence of the thing. If these conditions do not reveal themselves to be self-contradictory, excluding in limine the possibility of existence, even then this existence is not proved.

In order to arrive at that proof, it is necessary to gather from the world of experience factual data that not only corroborate the existence, but that confirm its full agreement with the defined essence, excluding the possibility that the existing thing is something very different, which coincides with the essence only in appearance.

It is not mere possession; it is legal property, the acknowledgement by legitimate state authority of the right of the owner to make use of his property as he wishes, within, of course, the limits of the law. The structure of power—the order of terror—is the reality behind the legal camouflage.

This means, first of all, that the shift of the control of the means of production, from the bourgeois class to the revolutionary vanguard, cannot ever, in any hypothesis, be a legal transfer of property. This transfer would presuppose the existence of a legal order that would legitimate it, and the socialist revolution cannot destroy only private property: The revolution has to admit, frankly, ostensibly, that the new order is not a legal order, but raw and naked power of revolutionary force.

In socialism there is no legal order above the power of the Party. This is not only so in reality, but revolutionary socialists are proud to proclaim it is so. In addition, in the bourgeois context, property entails some legal responsibility. But to whom will an authority that is above the legal order itself be accountable?

They were proprietors for the legal order, guaranteed by it and accountable to it. Socialist government is not a proprietor: Many decades ago the greatest minds in the socialist field already realized that this placed before them an unavoidable choice: Which of these paths was chosen?

Both, with only a territorial distinction: In socialist dictatorship, there was the brutal, direct control immune to the legal responsibilities of a proprietor. Karl Marx also predicted this possibility when teaching that the transition of property from the bourgeoisie to the state 6 This alternative entailed, in addition, the creation of a more powerful and indestructible ruling class than the bourgeoisie itself ever was.

In spite of sporadic conflicts, the two strategies have always worked in a convergent fashion. With time, though, those who favored the radical strategy had to agree that the growth and development of the modern state apparatus of social and economic control —under the inspiration, by the way, of socialism itself—rendered unfeasible the takeover of power through insurrectional means. Moreover, the complete nationalization of the means of production by the state proved to be unfeasible not only in practice, but even in theory.

In the economist Ludwig von Mises explained that, by eliminating the free market, all prices would have to be determined by the state. Yet, on the one hand, the number of products in circulation at any given moment was too large for a state agency to calculate their prices in advance.

Only a divine intelligence could overcome this vicious circle. Price control being impossible, there was no general control of the economy; therefore there was no socialism at all. The maximum that could be achieved was a nominal socialism, with a vast residual freedom of the market which could never be abolished.

Though some theoreticians of socialism cried out, as for example Edvard Kardelj, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, the majority had to admit, growling between their teeth, that von Mises was right.

Until the end, all communist economies in the world had to bear a clandestine capitalism that came to reveal itself as a sine qua non condition for the survival of the regime. From this, two consequences followed unavoidably: The definition of socialism as state property of the means of production is self-contradictory, and every attempt to implement in practice a self-contradictory theory ends up generating insoluble real contradictions.

So is the fatal dialectics of the relations between thought and reality. The cute mechanic reasoners I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph will never understand this. The result: If the Medieval system lasted ten centuries, Absolutism did not last more than three. Even shorter will be the reign of liberal bourgeoisie. One century of economic and political freedom was enough to make some capitalists so formidably rich that they no longer wish to submit to the whims of the markets that made them rich.

They want to control them, and there are three instruments for this: In this new world, the economic freedom indispensable for the functioning of the system is preserved in the strict measure necessary to subsidize the extinction of freedom in the political, social, moral, educational, cultural and religious domains.

This way, metacapitalists change the very basis of their power. They do not rely on wealth as such, but in the control of the socio-political process. They are no longer megacapitalists: Eternally guaranteed by the state bureaucracy against the freedom of the market, and by the intrinsic unfeasibility of socialism against a definitive nationalization of the means of production, they are still helped in both directions by a faithful ally: Thus one can clearly understand why the mega-fortunes of the Syndicate have stimulated and subsidized socialism and leftist subversion in such a universal, obsessive, and systematic fashion, since at least the s.

It is an undeniable fact that the building of the Soviet industrial park, as well as its military force, was substantially due to American money of Consortium members , which flowed there expecting never to return. Whoever has any doubt about it should check the three volumes of the classic study by British economist Antony C.

Western Technology and Soviet Technological Development, 3 vols. Hoover Institution Publications, , as well as his books National Suicide: Liberty House Press, That the findings of the Committee would not result in any measure being taken, be it punitive, or aimed to stop the flow of money to subversion, is the most evident proof of the power of the Syndicate to manipulate American resources against the most obvious national interests of the USA.

Finally, the industrial blossoming of China since the s and its transfiguration from continental slum quarter into the most powerful potential enemy of the USA would be unthinkable without the investments of the USA and without the planned self-destruction of the American industrial park. It is true that, after the liberalizing economic reforms of Yeltsin, Russia entered into accelerated economic decadence, from which some American capitalists profited a lot.

Yet, what were Russian leaders expecting after the extinction of the communist regime? To be awarded with fantastic economic progress? The normal thing would be, instead of this, that the nation be put to work hard, with low wages, in order to pay compensation to the families of the sixty million victims of communism, like the Germans did and do with the victims of Nazism.

Who prevented this from taking place? The Syndicate. The Russians, who are most responsible for the advent of communism, were treated in the last decades with a scandalous generosity— and they still complain that, once the murderous regime was extinct, they did not get as much money as they wanted.

They did not receive, for their heinous crimes, the award they expected from the West. Of course, this does not mean that I am in favor of nothing, or that I do not see positive forces acting in the world. Yet, precisely, these forces cannot be counted among the main agents in dispute, and do not have, at least at the moment, any global plan or strategy that may neutralize or disarm the three monsters. Among them I would single out: Neither of the three is fighting for world domination.

But the reality is quite different: If my sympathy goes to anyone, it is to these three who are sentenced to death. Not that I wish to oppose to the three projects of global domination three alternative projects which are presently anemic.

If there were plans for the establishment of a Christian or Jewish or redneck world dictatorship, I would be among the first to denounce them, as I denounce the Russian- Chinese militarists, the Western oligarchs, and the apostles of the Universal Caliphate. But these plans do not exist. The fight of the three disadvantaged factions that I mentioned is not for world power: That the extinction of Catholic-Protestant Christianity, of the state of Israel and of nationalist America is on the program of the three globalist blocks is something that does not need to be proved, so blatant is the cultural, media-driven, political and legal assault at work against these entities from three diverse and convergent directions I will return to this on one of the next messages.

It is also needless to prove, since it is too evident, that up to now these three communities have only responded to the attack by occasional, sporadic and totally unconnected reactions, without any comprehensive strategic coordination, be it within each of those blocks, be it, even more so, among the three of them. A worldwide united front of Christians, Jews, and American nationalists would not be a bad idea, but for now I do not see any sign pointing in this direction.

It seems that the representatives of the three communities are afraid of thinking about it, imaginarily anticipating the brutal reaction of their enemies. On the other hand, it is known that Russia and China are the largest suppliers of weapons to terrorist movements. Why does the American government not denounce this and force the two powers, under the penalty of economic sanctions, to stop it?

It is simple: Finally, it is not necessary to highlight all the initiatives undertaken by international organizations and by various Western governments—beginning 8 Particularly those in Africa and Asia, which today flow to Europe and North America, in a heroic effort to re-Christianize those who one day had Christianized them. By the way, the priest of my parish is an African from Uganda.

If confronted with all this facts Professor Dugin still insists that the Syndicate is the great enemy of the Russian-Chinese and Islamic blocks, it can only be for two reasons: But one thing is certain: Professor Dugin saw in this the symbolic crystallization of the opposition between individualism and collectivism, West and East.

A genuine symbolism must respect the borders between different planes of reality instead of confusing them. Where Professor Dugin saw a symbol, I see only a metaphor, and a rather far-fetched one.

Individualism as the name of an ideological current is one thing; something entirely different from, and having no connection with it, is the position of a human being at the bottom, middle, or top of a hierarchy of command. The transcript of the lecture is available at www. Otherwise, every writer without support in a political organization would necessarily be a follower of ideological individualism, including the founders of National-Bolshevism, Limonov and Dugin at the time when they began to form their first ideas, alone and ignored by the world.

Moreover, instead of forcefully attaching to my lapel the badge of a follower of Western individualism, Professor Dugin could have asked what I think about it. After all, freedom of expression in a debate does not consist only in the power each of the opponents has to give this or that answer to a certain question, but also, and eminently, in his possibility of rejecting the formulation of the question and reshaping the whole question from its foundations, as he sees fit.

Now, political science, as I already affirmed, was born at the moment when Plato and Aristotle began to understand the difference between the discourse of the various political agents in conflict and the discourse of the scientific observer who tries to understand the conflict the fact that political agents would later learn to imitate the language of science does nothing to invalidate this initial distinction. Thus, our main duty in an intellectually serious debate is to analyze the terms of political discourse, to verify what real actions insinuate themselves underneath them, instead of naively taking them as direct and frank translations of effective realities.

First of all, and to remain only in the most simple and banal aspects of the matter, each of these terms immediately evokes a morally positive meaning along with a negative one, and it is not possible, not even in the realm of pure semantics, to separate one meaning from the other in order to assign to each one of the terms an invariably good or bad connotation. Old Hegel already taught that a concept only transmutes itself into concrete reality through the inversion of its abstract meaning.

Navigation menu

This transmutation is one of the most notable constants of human history. Nominally incorporating into his person the transcendent forces that unify the mass of nobodies and legitimize as many sacrifices as are imposed on it, this creature, in reality, not only retains in himself all the weaknesses, limitations, and defects of his initial individuality, but almost invariably lets himself be corrupted and degraded to a point which is below the level of moral integrity of the common individual, transforming himself into a despicable mental patient.

Hitler rolling on the floor in trances of persecutory mania; Stalin delighting himself in the sadistic pleasure of condemning to death his most intimate friends on the allegation of crimes they had not committed; Mao Dzedong sexually abusing hundreds of peasant girls who he had promised to defend against the lubricity of landowners, show that the political power accumulated in the hands of these individuals did not increase in a single milligram their power of self-control, it only put at their disposal the means to impose their individual whims upon the mass of de-individualized subjects.

Absolute collectivism is the triumph of Absolute Egoism. Individualism taken in its negative sense, on its turn, not only can never reach its ultimate political consequences, but it cannot even be put in practice in the realm of the most modest individual actions.

It is not only Haddad who is saying this. It is all the big newspapers, the big TV channels, and so on. They say there have been more than 50 Nazi crimes in recent days. But nothing like this has happened. Nyquist: It is a campaign of slander, then? Carvalho: A campaign of slander, not only in Brazil, but they have support everywhere—in the United States and Europe.

There is a global slander campaign underway. Someone posted on my Facebook a list of more than media organizations that have slandered Bolsonaro from around the world. It is a very serious matter. On the other side, Bolsonaro suffered an attempt on his life and the investigation does not appear in any media. Total silence. Nyquist: Media reports here in the United States did not offer much detail.

They said Bolsonaro was stabbed. That was all we heard. It is a kind of communist party. Nyquist: First the socialists slander Bolsonaro, then they try to murder him.

Carvalho: Yes, yes, yes. Nyquist: What are they so afraid of? Nyquist: Is there a threat of civil war in Brazil? Carvalho: No, because the people have no weapons.

They will be sitting ducks. This is not a civil war. But neither will they mobilize to defend the people. All the generals of the army have been very inactive during these years. I explained everything that was happening and everything that would happen. All my warnings came true. It was useless. The military remained inactive because they were so criticized in the media that they became inhibited.

They are timid now. Nyquist: Given the situation you describe, Bolsonaro and those supporting him must be very brave. Carvalho: Very, very brave. And another thing, they have no money! The other side has lots of money. They are financed by Brazilian banks, by international banks, and so on. There is no limit to the amount of money they can use.

And Bolsonaro has no money at all! Most of his campaign was made via the internet—by blogs and by Facebook. Carvalho: Yes! He is ahead in the polls. And the first round of voting shows a larger turnout than expected.

Nyquist: Was there cheating in the first round of presidential voting? Carvalho: There were 16, cases of irregularities in the voting. And all of these irregularities were against Bolsonaro. The voting machines have some prejudice against him. Nyquist: Were those the voting machines from Venezuela? Carvalho: Yes, yes, exactly—the Smartmatic machines. And the government has announced that whoever speaks of fraud will be punished.

So you dare not speak of fraud. Election fraud itself is not a crime in Brazil. The crime is in exposing the fraud. So now they will have to arrest 16, people for reporting election fraud.

Nyquist: Yet Brazil has witnessed the creation of a conservative political party when none existed, and the conservative candidate is leading in the polls. It seems, despite everything, that the Brazilian people have risen to the occasion. Carvalho: For the first time, between and , the people rose as if they were one man, against all these things.

It was a very heroic moment. A very beautiful thing to see.

Olavo de Carvalho English

I call this the Brazilian Revolution. Nyquist: How did the Brazilian elite come under Marxist control? They worked bit by bit, very patiently, occupying all the [cultural] spaces and expelling all their enemies. It took them more than 50 years. For a long time, I was a lone voice. But not anymore. Many of my readers and students write books and blogs. Some of them are very good. Nyquist: And the elite media will not recognize them.

Carvalho: Yes, because all the history of this leftist power in Brazil is also the history of the destruction of high culture in Brazil. They destroyed everything. This strategy consisted of the Party becoming the elite. This is impossible. Nyquist: And what about communist Chinese influence in Brazil? Carvalho: Yes, the Chinese are downloading everything in Brazil. We cannot measure the extent of Chinese power in Brazil. It is something huge. Carvalho: Sure, sure, and also the Iranians.

Nyquist: And if Bolsonaro wins the election, what changes will he bring? Carvalho: First, he will have to repress the drug dealers. The drug dealers make a lot of money.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They bribe everybody. They control a huge part of the country. This is the first problem. Brazil has 70, murders a year. This means three Iraqi wars in a year. Nyquist: So the communists are using drug trafficking and organized crime? Carvalho: Yes. The Brazilian drug dealer Fernando Beira-Mar confessed that every year, he bought weapons for the FARC and exchanged them for tons of cocaine to distribute in the Brazilian market.

It is the new Communist International in Latin America. Carvalho: In the whole of Latin America. And no other country, after Venezuela, is in so dangerous a position as Brazil. Nyquist: If you could advise U. Carvalho: I would tell him that you cannot permit the whole of Latin America to fall to the communists. This would be the death of the United States. Email a link or print out a copy of this web page to your clergy, family, friends and relatives. Email this page to a friend.

DARKNESS OF THE SPIRIT "My children of the world, you stand now upon a hill, a hill that you have built upon humanistic values and materialistic manners, as you sought to build a world of your own, cutting off the light, and building a utopia, built with humanism and socialism, and communism-all under the heading of love and brotherhood, but covered with a blanket of darkness of the spirit.

For this, the Eternal Father has allowed you to pursue your own course. The awakening shall come in shock to many. Also, email or mail a copy of this web page to the news media and as many other people as possible.

Email a copy of this page to everyone you know. We urgently need your prayers and financial support to be able to continue to create these web pages.

Click here Thank you in advance.Professor Dugin saw in this the symbolic crystallization of the opposition between individualism and collectivism, West and East.

So the hatred that tears Mr. Geopolitical nature of Islam opens to it two options: So we rest perplexed and hope he would make this point clear in the future. The culminant point will be reached in the case of the probable unrest in the Saudi Arabia.

TOBIAS from Mesquite
Look through my other articles. I absolutely love sketching. I love reading books brightly .
>