SAPIENTIAM AUTEM NON VINCIT MALITIA

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.

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.