Yearly archive for 2001

Um apelo em favor dos cidadãos hindus do Afeganistão

Olavo de Carvalho

10 de outubro de 2001

Recebi de meu amigo José Paulo Carneiro (jpqc@uninet.com.br) o seguinte e-mail, que acho de meu dever reproduzir nesta homepage. – O. de C.

Por favor use alguns minutos e LEIA ESTE e-mail.

Em 23 de Maio de 2001 as autoridades do Taleban no Afganistão confirmaram que todos os Hindus terão de usar uma fita amarela de pano costurada no bolso de suas camisas para que sejam identificados. Eles alegam que a medida é para “sua proteção. O mundo já viu isto antes. Em 1939 o mundo foi chamado, com um alto custo, a livrar-se da tirania de Hitler, e agora é fácil ver seu discipulo. Lembre-se que aquêles que deixam de aprender da história ficam condenados a revivê-la.

O histórico do Taleban de desrespeito às outras religiões nos dá altos motivos de preocupação em relação a sua real motivação que, parece-nos, seja a “limpeza religiosa”. Eês já têm demosntrado seu desdém e intolerância para com outras religiões e tradições através da violação e destruição das antigas estátuas Budistas, parte da herança universal, dentro do Afganistão.

Seja lá qual for sua religião – ou até mesmo caso você não tenha nenhuma -, esperamos que você concorde que isto é basicamente errado. “Tudo o que é preciso para que o mal triunfe é que os Homens de Bem nada façam”.

Por favor não seja um dos que nada fazem. Por favor, acrescente a sua voz.

INSTRUÇOES: Por favor copie este e-mail em uma nova mensagem, adicione seu nome no fim da lista e encaminhe-a a todos de sua lista de e-mail.

CASO VOCÊ FOR O nome de número 251, por faor envie uma cópia do e-mail desta mensagem para: alastair@om-int.com Nós o re-enviaremos para as Nações Unidas. Então, apague todos os nomes e reininicie uma cadeia tendo seu nome como número 1 e siga repassando.

MESMO QUE VOCÊ DECIDA NÃO ASSINAR, por favor tenha consideração e não mate esta petição – reencaminhe-a a seus amigos para permitir que eles mesmos decidam se devem incluir sua voz. Não negue-lhes este direito. Se, em última instância você não quer re-enviaR, por favor ENCAMINHE COMO ESTÁ DE VOLTA PARA alastair@om-int.com  – PELO MENOS NÃO PERDEREMOS A S ASSINATURAS COLETADAS ATÉ AQUI.

Obrigado
===========
Ao Secretário Geral, Conselho de Segurança e Assembléia Geral das Nações Unidas:

Nós, os abaixo-assinados estamos estupefatos pela decisão do governo do Taleban no Afganistão de exigir que todos os Hindus usem uma fita de pano amarela costurada no bolso da camisa para que sejam identificados. A comunhão individual com D’us, seja lá como cada um O define, é questão de consciência pessoa e não deve ser sujeita a intimidação ou perseguição. O direito de cada um de orar como queira é fundamental e inalienável. As Nções Unidas forma fundadas para derrotar Hitler e seus lacaios os quais exigiam o mesmo de outras religiões com tôdas as terríveis consequências. É totalmente inacieitável que passados 60 anos a história se repita.

Nós pedimos o seguinte:

  1. Que o governo do Taleban seja notificado de forma mais forte possível e inequivoca que o mundo não aceitará esta perversão dos Direitos Humanos.
 
 2. Que antes das Nações Unidas ou seus membros outorgarem ao reconhecimento do Governo do Taleban, esta política obcena seja revertida .

   3. Que as Nações Unidas ampliem os termos de sanções econômicas correntemente em vigor.

  1. Alastair Mitton – London UK
  2. Robert Mitton – London UK
  3. Paulette Budd – London UK
  4. Andrew Peake – London UK
  5. Pippa Howell – London UK
  6. Cecile Kusters – Arnhem, the Netherlands
  7. Sarah Malpas – London UK
  8. Susan Donnelly – Newcastle UK
  9. Paul Donnelly – London UK
  10. Pauline Bartholomew – London UK
  11. Is0bel McMillan London UK
  12. Fiona Adamson
  13. Minka Emina Kulenovic La Jolla, US
  14. Cath Dolan, London, England
  15. Liz Murphy, Murcia, Spain
  16. William M. Rueter, Wisconsin, US
  17. Jaclyn A. Knapper, Tennessee, US
  18. Louise Morris, Tennessee, US
  19. Joe Stoud, Matsuyama, Japan
  20. Keiko Stroud, Matsuyama, Japan
  21.Larry Asher, Nepal
  22. Phyl Asher, Nepal
  23. Reiny de Wit, Nepal
  24. Helen Johnston, Nepal
  25. Isaac Thompson, Northern Ireland
  26. Anne Thompson, Northern Ireland
  27. Paul Carter, Vancouver, Canada
  28. Lois Carter, Vancouver, Canada
  29. Bronwyn Short, Vancouver, Canada
  30. David Short, Vancouver, Canada
  31. Mark Calder, Sydney, Australia
  32. Graham Wintle, Surbiton, UK
  33. Geoff Chivers, Surbiton, UK
  34. Derek Nathan New Malden UK
  35. Mary Nathan New Malden UK
  36 Rosalind Preston, London UK
  37 Marlena Schmool, UK
  38 Jack Album, Reading UK
  39. Louise Creme, Reading, UK
  40. Barbara Stern, UK
  41 John Stern, UK
  42. Suzie Greene Tedesco, USA
  43. Isabella Tedesco, USA
  44. Alan Cumming, USA
  45. Nick Philippou, USA
  46. Eddie Roche, USA
  47. Kenny Goss ,USA
  48. KIm Bowen, USA
  49. Sterling Anderson,USA
  50. Maia Anderson, USA
  51. Asa Anderson, USA
  52. Adrian Anderson, USA
  53. Peter Bowen, UK
  54. Molly Bowen, UK
  55. Phillip Hinton, UK
  56. Elizabeth Hinton, UK
  57. Makaela Gilchrist, UK
  58. Carol Eden, UK
  59. Rachel Horner, UK</DIV>
  60. Peter Jones, London, UK
  61. Christopher Corner London UK
  62. David Salter, London UK
  63. Michelle Kirschner, London UK
  64. David Wise. London UK.
  65. Ric Cantor, London UK
  66. Laurence Sassoon
  67. Alan Levy, London, UK
  68. Barbara Desborough London UK
  69. Sue Alhadeff, London UK
  70. Noelle Ferris, London UK
  71. Henrietta Bisgood, Ireland
  72. Shane Bisgood, Ireland
  73. Mary Ryder, Ireland
  74. Ben Ryder, Ireland
  75. Audrey Bisgood, Ireland
  76. Katie Dehaene, Ireland
  77. Edward Bisgood, Ireland
  78. Sandra Iggulden, Ireland
  79. Richard Iggulden, Ireland
  80. Alexander Bisgood, Ireland
  81. Louisa Bisgood, Ireland
  82. Kate O’Toole, Ireland
  83. Bill Whelan, Ireland
  84. Paul Brady, Ireland
  85. Liz Devlin, Ireland
  86.  Dick Clement, Los Angeles, USA
  87. Jonathan Lynn
  88. Paul Hirsch, Pacific Palisades, USA
  89. Stephen Gyllenhaal, Los Angeles, USA
  90.  Robert Achs, New York, USA
  91. Joan Reibman, M.D., New York, USA
  92. Lori Stevenson, MPH New York , USA
  93. Sebastian Bonner, New York City, USA
  94. Karen Levine, Brooklyn, USA
  95. Dick Koral, Brooklyn, USA
  96. Penny M. Polokoff, Brooklyn, USA
  97 – Marcos L. Susskind, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  98. – Leia Susskind, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  99. Jose Paulo Carneiro

Old Wounds

Olavo de Carvalho
O Globo, October 6, 2001

To deny a victimized country the right to react, force it to submit to the decision and command of foreign organisms over its defense operations, is certainly a more devastating attack on its national sovereignty than would be the destruction of a thousand World Trade Centers.

In toppling the towers, Osama Bin Laden is accused around the world of a colossal crime. But much more to blame are those who take advantage of the victim’s momentary disorientation to attack on all sides and demand it not only to abdicate its elementary right to self-defense but to abdicate to it on its knees, with humility and contrition, accepting the terrorist attack as a divine sentence, whose superior justice is not minimally affected by the accidental detail of being implemented through criminal means.

With the smoke barely cleared from the crumbled towers, thousands of voices have raised up in order to turn around the spontaneous indignation at terrorists against the U.S. In unisonous, like a well-disciplined chorus, leftist leaders and intellectuals dedicated themselves to complete in legal, political, and diplomatic arenas, the work Bin Laden started on the battlefield. Yes, what other objective could Bin Laden have had in the September attacks if not to bend the U.S. spine, humiliate and weaken the strongest and most prosperous nation? And how best to reach this objective than by stealing its right to respond and forcing it to weaken itself in an extemporaneous “mea culpa” at the very moment it most needs to concentrate its forces and national pride in defense from its aggressor?

The logic articulation of the attacks and of the much too artificial wave of anti-American sentiment in the following days is so clear, that all affectation of good sentiments on the part of the supporters of this perverse campaign unmasks itself, right away, as the patent hypocrisy of the greatest and, in fact, only real benefactors of the crime.

Yes, the only ones. What benefit could Islamic countries reap from Bin Laden’s attacks? Expose themselves to the world as barbaric nations, murderers, fanatics? Welcome the cannons and nuclear warheads of the U.S.? Only if they’re crazier than the most hateful anti-Islamic sentiment could picture them.

What benefit could Israel expect? Position itself between two fronts in a war of global proportions? Expose New York, London, Paris Jews to the vengeful anger of Muslims who live in these places in greater numbers than they? Unthinkable.

And what could the U.S. expect to gain, whether with the September attacks or with involvement in a war that could spread and attract the animosity of half the world?

No, the U.S. has nothing to gain, Israel has nothing to gain, and Islamic countries have nothing to gain.

The only ones to gain, which by the way is already gaining, is a well defined class of people who are unidentified with any one particular nation but united under a common ideology and strategy. It’s  the International Leftist.

The indecent speed in which, following the initial shock, the global anti-American propaganda machine entered the scene to unleash a second and more powerful attack on the weakened victim cannot be explained if not by the complete continuity of aims between the first and second attacks, between Bin Laden in the Afghani mountains and the thousands of Bin Ladens in diplomacy and the media.

To suggest that Bin Laden unleashed his Boeings in pure isolation and singular, anarchic initiative and with no overarching political support, is so childish as not to merit discussion. Even more so when the unity of the motives no longer hides himself, rather, without fearing countermeasures, impundently shows off the similarity in speeches from Kofi Annan to Fidel Castro, passing by an infinitude of helpful Baltazars Garzons.

I don’t know if these forces armed Bin Laden. But, armed by him, these forces present a much more fearful threat to the U.S. than all the kamikazes and Talibans of a thousand and one nights full of nightmares.

What is undeniable is that something is learned in the urgency of these events. They destroy in one fell swoop the myth of a uni-polar world. A uni-polar world never existed. The Cold War was simply replaced by a new duel of giants: on one side the U.S., and on the other a multinational collection of powers including the world leftist intelligentsia, international organizations (UN, Unesco, IMF, World Bank), thousands of NGOs, and a handful of financial conglomerates that, even when mostly owned by Americans, have interests far from those of the U.S.  nation and often against them. This collection clearly represents the nucleus of the New World Order, a controlling and socialist force that exists from sucking the vital energy of the U.S., use it in megalomaniacal projects of universal control that restrict U.S. national sovereignty and that of other countries, and finally lay the blame on the U.S.

I know no more than three or four Brazilians who are aware of the mortal conflict today waging between American interests and those of globalism. Common people and the elite, not only in Brazil but in all other countris of the Third World, are fooled into believing that international organisms, for example, represent branches of American power while they actually choke, subjugate, and weaken this power each day. I know no more than three or four Brazilians who are aware of the desperate protests by U.S. nationalists against global oppression, which represents to us the supreme incarnation of American national ambition.

The sudden and unified mobilization of spokespeople from this collective in an apparent attack on U.S. national sovereignty serves to show this long hidden conflict to the world. There has never been a uni-polar world. The opposing pole was merely invisible because it had no state identity; its cohesion, camouflaged in plurality of its faces spread all over the world could only be captured in an effort of abstraction, which is difficult to most, repugnant to others. The sudden radicalization resulting from the attacks has forcibly brought forward this unity. Before, anyone could refuse to see it, for fear of opening up old wounds from the Cold War. Now, those wounds have opened again.

The Logic of Terrorism

It is not hard to understand it once you uncover its premises

By Olavo de Carvalho
“Época” (São Paulo, Brazil), Oct 6th 2001

In every terrorist plan that is worth its name there is a continuity between the advance preparation of the atmosphere, the attack itself, and then the taking advantage from its effects. Communist jargon calls such attacks “armed propaganda”. The reason is obvious: their goal is not as much a specific military result as the spectacular ostentation of fear. In order to achieve this goal, the attacks must articulate themselves with unarmed propaganda, which anticipates, guides and multiplies its effects.

The biggest discharge of armed propaganda of all times has been flung against the WTC and the Pentagon a few days after the première, in the other side of the planet, of the unarmed propaganda show promoted by the United Nations, at the Conference of Durban, to demoralize Israel and the United States. Once the towers had fallen, it was time to start taking advantage from it. So a worldwide campaign was set up, with Fidel Castro on board, to cast upon the victim the responsibility for the attacks and to deny — for the first time in human history — the right of an attacked country to react, by pressing it to relinquish to the UN the authority to decide about its own national destiny.

The ideological identity of scene directors in both shows, in the one preceding the attack and in the one that followed it, is exactly the same: the international left, entrenched in the UN and strengthened by the exclusion of the U.S. of the Human Rights Committee. Thus, the major premise and the conclusion of the syllogism are very clear. Bringing to light the implicit minor premise is an easy task, but one that becomes difficult when so many voices, exploiting the inherent ambiguity of Islamic terrorism, strive to stress its religious identity in order to cover up its political one. From a religious point of view, bin Laden’s group belongs to one of the last bulwarks of religious conservatism in the world. Politically, it teams up with the international left. If the political face of terror reveals the unity between armed and unarmed propaganda, completing the syllogism, its religious face differentiates and separates them, disguising the minor premise. That is why so many people in the media rather try to associate bin Laden to Islam, which has nothing to gain from its terrorist actions, than to the world left, which has everything to gain from those actions.

When bin Laden says that there is a plot to initiate a war between the West and Islam in order to benefit Israel, he lets the truth be seen at the bottom of his lie. The plot does exist, but from such a war Israel could not expect anything but its own destruction. The same goes to the U.S. and to Islam. The only one who stand to benefit is the international left, and it does not even have to wait to reap its profits. By hitting with an Islamic hand and by pretending to be a friend of the victim in order to usurp its right to react, it is already winning fivefold: it shuns its guilt from unarmed propaganda; it throws one against the other the Jewish-Christian and Muslim religious conservatisms; it gains ammunition for new media campaigns; it wins another round in its five-decade fight to give the UN the status of world government, and still writes on the U.S. account the debts for its monstrous global ambitions — all this without the need for showing itself upon the stage except in the role of guardian of peace. Never before the question “Quia bono?” (“Who stands to gain from the crime?”) had such an eloquent answer.

Some additional data might contribute to make it even clearer. Why organize a Conference against Racism in a country which is undergoing “ethnic cleansing” against the white minority, if this very item was excluded from the agenda? Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? But there is a method in apparent absurdity. South Africa, governed by a communist party, has very close connections to the Taliban and to Cuba, headquarters of world terrorism. And according to Anthony LoBaido — one of most experienced foreign correspondents in the country –, Durban’s elite is infested with Muslim radicals who sympathize with bin Laden, among which the chief of police and the local Interpol agent. The outflow of unarmed propaganda could not have sprung from a more fertile ground.

Veja todos os arquivos por ano