By Olavo de Carvalho *
It is not hard to understand it once you uncover its premises.
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.
In any terrorist mindset, there is some continuity between preparing the environment, carrying out the attack, and reaping the results. Communist jargon calls such attacks “armed propaganda.” The reason is obvious: the goal is not a specific military achievement, rather the spectacular display of whatever there is to be feared. To this end, agents must act with unarmed propaganda to prepare for, orient, and multiply the impacts.
The greatest outlay of armed propaganda of all times was cast on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a few days after the unarmed propaganda show debuted on the other side of the world with the demoralization of Israel and the U.S. by the UN at the Durban Conference. After the towers had fallen, the mobilization to make good use of the results followed: a global campaign, punctuated by Fidel Castro, to single out the victim for the responsibility of the attacks and, the first time in human history, to denie a victimized country the right to react, pressuring it to hand over to the UN the authority to decide its national destiny.
The ideological identity of the scene directors in both shows, before and after the attacks, is very much the same: the International Leftists, entrenched in the UN and empowered by the exclusion of the U.S. presence in the Human Rights Commission. The primary premise and the conclusion of the syllogism are, therefore, much clear. Uncovering the secondary implicit premise is a simple task, but becomes complicated when so many voices, exploiting the congenial ambiguity of Islamic terrorism, dedicate themselves to underline its religious identity in order to cover up its political identity. Religiously, Bin Laden’s squad is part of one of the last vestiges of religious conservatism in the world. Politically, it sides with the International Leftist. If the political face of terror reveals the unity of armed and unarmed propaganda, by similar reasoning, the religious face distinguishes and separates them, camouflaging the secondary premise. This is why so many people in the press attempt to associate Bin Laden with Islam, which only has to lose with terrorist actions, rather to link him with the leftists, who have only to gain.
When Bin Laden said there is a plot underlying the war between the West and Islam at the benefit of Israel, he allows one to glimpse the truth in the bottom of all lies. The plot exists, but Israel can expect from this war nothing but its own destruction. As for the U.S. and Islam. The only ones to expect something better are the International Leftist. In fact, they don’t have to wait. Beating with the Islamic hand and, at the same time, pretending to befriend the victim only to manipulate their right to respond, they’re already winning by five times over: they escape the blame of unarmed propaganda, play one side of Judeo-Christian and Muslim conservatives against the other, receive new ammunition for additional press campaigns, win yet another round in its decades old battle to make the UN the global government, and push the debts of its monstrous global ambition on the U.S. account – all this, while staying out of the spotlight except to play guardian of peace. And never has the question Quia bono? (Who benefits from this crime?) been so eloquently answered. Some additional data may make this even clearer. Why hold a conference against racism in a country engaged in ethnic cleansing against a white minority if this exactly this issue were excluded from the schedule of debates? It seems absurd, doesn’t it? But there’s a method to the appearing madness. South Africa, ruled by a Communist party, has tight links to the Taliban and Cuba, headquarters of global terrorism. And according to Anthony LoBaido, one of the experienced correspondents in the country, the Durban elite is infested with Muslim radicals sympathetic to Bin Laden, including the police chief and local delegate of Interpol. The dissemination of unarmed propaganda could not spring from more fertile soil.
* Olavo de Carvalho, philosopher, journalista e writer brazilian.
1. Article originally published in Portuguese by Magazine Época – São Paulo, Brazil
2. Translation: Fábio Lins – Proof Reading: Jacqueline Baca
3. Originally this articvle was publihge in two parts
4. Published in this Blog by permission of the author