Sapientiam Autem Non Vincit Malitia - Foto da águia: Donald Mathis Mande um e-mail para o Olavo Links Textos Informações Página principal

 

Arm wrestling

Olavo de Carvalho
Jornal do Brasil, November 27, 2008

 

Joseph Farah, the editor of WorldNetDaily, says that only three reasons can account for the cover-up operation set up to deny the public Barack Hussein Obama’s documents: either the guy was really born in Kenya and will not confess to being ineligible, or he has something else to hide, or what he intends to do is to break the backbone of the American nation, spreading to the four corners of the earth that he, the anointed by fate, lies above the Constitution, above the law, above the right to information, and above national pride. It is clear to me that the latter hypothesis, regardless of the veracity or not of the other two, is not a hypothesis at all: it is an absolute certainty. It expresses not what Obama “intends” to do, but what he has already been doing. To show himself in public with a biography full of inconsistencies and to refuse haughtily to present any explanation, any proof, any document is already an exaggeration of petulance rarely seen. If Obama did that only as a writer or a show business figure, it would already be an at least disturbing case of megalomaniac autolatry. But to do it at the very moment of his seeking the highest office, extorting from the electorate a vote of confidence grounded on blind faith, cannot be explained by mere insanity. Here is a plan, a method, an inbuilt machiavellianism.

While the declared goals of the Obama presidency are cloudy and contradictory, the tacit logic of his actions is quite clear, and becomes even more evident by the massive presence of Clintonians in his team. It is all about carrying on faithfully Bill Clinton’s destructive work, inspired in Scott Talbot’s formula: to foster with American taxpayers’ money the growth of rival powers and to debilitate the military, economic, and diplomatic power of the United States, selling the surrender to “multilateralism” as if it were of the highest national interest, while in internal politics the state control over the citizens’ lives is increased, and the country’s cultural defenses are diluted into a hallucinogenic potion made out of politically correct trash.

The greatest obstacle to the docile insertion of the United States into the new globalist order is the American Constitution. That is why the likes of Obama or Al Gore never speak of it without snarling and giving a glimpse of their intention to tear it to pieces. But to alter the Constitution, just like that, would be too reckless. It is necessary to create the cultural and psychological atmosphere which makes the change acceptable. The classic method of doing so is to impose ostensive disobedience as commonplace routine from the upper classes down, desensitizing the public through the peremptory denial that something abnormal may be going on. This is precisely what the Democratic Party did throughout the campaign. For this reason I foresaw that, even if Obama had lost the election, he would have been the winner of the arm-wrestling match against the Constitution: immunized by racial blackmail and the media’s barefaced adulation, not only was he exempted from the minimum of transparency which no candidate before him had ever dared to evade, but even the trivial request for a proof of identity on his part began to be treated as a racial insult and a symptom of paranoia, while his opponents, guilty until proven innocent, were forced to explain themselves, with witnesses and documents, even upon irrelevant details of their personal lives. The Obama campaign debased and corrupted the American electoral system to the point that conservatives themselves, afraid of acknowledging the reality of the decay, averted their eyes and consecrated by omission the normalcy of the absurd. While they discussed the proposals and perils of a possible Obama presidency, they blinded themselves to the candidate’s actual behavior, which, without a word, already put those proposals into execution with an overpowering prepotency and an irreversible force. When the faith in the soundness of institutions becomes a pretext for not defending them against a real and immediate danger, it is precisely because that soundness no longer exists, except as a pretext.

Translated by Alessandro Cota and Bruno Mori