A revolução é, por sua própria natureza, totalitária e universalmente expansiva: não há aspecto da vida humana que ela não pretenda submeter ao seu poder, não há região do globo a que ela não pretenda estender os tentáculos da sua influência.

A mentalidade revolucionária

Escrito por Olavo de Carvalho





Desde que se espalhou por aí que estou escrevendo um livro chamado “A Mente Revolucionária”, tenho recebido muitos pedidos de uma explicação prévia quanto ao fenômeno designado nesse título.

A mente revolucionária é um fenômeno histórico perfeitamente identificável e contínuo, cujos desenvolvimentos ao longo de cinco séculos podem ser rastreados numa infinidade de documentos. Esse é o assunto da investigação que me ocupa desde há alguns anos. “Livro” não é talvez a expressão certa, porque tenho apresentado alguns resultados desse estudo em aulas, conferências e artigos e já nem sei se algum dia terei forças para reduzir esse material enorme a um formato impresso identificável. “A mente revolucionária” é o nome do assunto e não necessariamente de um livro, ou dois, ou três. Nunca me preocupei muito com a formatação editorial daquilo que tenho a dizer. Investigo os assuntos que me interessam e, quando chego a algumas conclusões que me parecem razoáveis, transmito-as oralmente ou por escrito conforme as oportunidades se apresentam. Transformar isso em “livros” é uma chatice que, se eu pudesse, deixaria por conta de um assistente. Como não tenho nenhum assistente, vou adiando esse trabalho enquanto posso.

A mente revolucionária não é um fenômeno essencialmente político, mas espiritual e psicológico, se bem que seu campo de expressão mais visível e seu instrumento fundamental seja a ação política.

Para facilitar as coisas, uso as expressões “mente revolucionária” e “mentalidade revolucionária” para distinguir entre o fenômeno histórico concreto, com toda a variedade das suas manifestações, e a característica essencial e permanente que permite apreender a sua unidade ao longo do tempo.

“Mentalidade revolucionária” é o estado de espírito, permanente ou transitório, no qual um indivíduo ou grupo se crê habilitado a remoldar o conjunto da sociedade – senão a natureza humana em geral – por meio da ação política; e acredita que, como agente ou portador de um futuro melhor, está acima de todo julgamento pela humanidade presente ou passada, só tendo satisfações a prestar ao “tribunal da História”. Mas o tribunal da História é, por definição, a própria sociedade futura que esse indivíduo ou grupo diz representar no presente; e, como essa sociedade não pode testemunhar ou julgar senão através desse seu mesmo representante, é claro que este se torna assim não apenas o único juiz soberano de seus próprios atos, mas o juiz de toda a humanidade, passada, presente ou futura. Habilitado a acusar e condenar todas as leis, instituições, crenças, valores, costumes, ações e obras de todas as épocas sem poder ser por sua vez julgado por nenhuma delas, ele está tão acima da humanidade histórica que não é inexato chamá-lo de Super-Homem.

Autoglorificação do Super-Homem, a mentalidade revolucionária é totalitária e genocida em si, independentemente dos conteúdos ideológicos de que se preencha em diferentes circunstâncias e ocasiões.

...................

Read more: liceu-aristotelico.blogspot.pt

Solo l’amore per l’intelligenza mia e tua, solo l’ancoraggio alla realtà dei fatti ci consente di dialogare.

Dialogare si può. Ma a due condizioni

di Giorgio Carbone


l dialogo oggi sembra essere un’arte difficile e rara. Le stesse persone, autorevoli e altolocate, che da qualsiasi area invocano di non contrapporsi, di non creare muro contro muro, ma di dialogare e di testimoniare, sembra che abbiano dimenticato i presupposti del dialogare. Dialogare deriva dal greco dia-lego, dove la preposizione dia significa tra, e quindi indica la relazione, e il verbo lego significa parlo. Quindi il dialogare è un’attività tipica dell’uomo, come animale razionale e sociale. Suppone la relazione tra persone e l’intelligenza come facoltà che conosce la realtà delle cose, cioè tende al vero.

Perciò il dialogare è una vocazione dell’uomo in quanto tale. Ipresupposti del dialogo sono almeno due. Il primo è essere ancorati alla realtà, ai fatti, alle evidenze. Questo ancoraggio è indispensabile, altrimenti cado nella negazione della realtà o nella censura di qualche suo aspetto. Il secondo presupposto è parlare la stessa lingua, cioè usare le parole secondo la stessa accezione, perché se in una frase usassi una parola secondo un suo significato e in una seconda frase usassi la stessa parola secondo un significato diverso dal primo produrrei nel mio interlocutore un grande equivoco, giocherei con le parole, e il nostro dialogare sarebbe fuorviato e non approderebbe a nulla se non all’inganno.

I due presupposti, cioè essere ancorati alla realtà e usare le parole secondo significati costanti,possono essere ricondotti al principio primo del nostro conoscere, cioè al principio di identità e di non contraddizione. Questo fonda la nostra attività raziocinativa, e quindi anche la nostra vita associata. Quando il mio interlocutore spara dei numeri non fondati sulla realtà, esempio: in Italia i bambini adottati dalle coppie dello stesso sesso sono 100.000, quando invece secondo l’Istat 2012 le coppie conviventi dello stesso sesso sono 5.713 e i bambini presenti in queste coppie non arrivano ai 100. Se il mio interlocutore nega che il tasso di incidenza di suicidio nelle coppie conviventi dello stesso sesso aumenti del 300% rispetto alle coppie conviventi di sesso opposto, quando invece si tratta di una semplice evidenza statistica. Se il mio interlocutore nega di poter godere dei diritti civili, quando invece l’ordinamento giuridico vigente glieli riconosce già. Il dialogo manca del primo presupposto: non è ancorato alla realtà e alle evidenze.

Quando poi il mio interlocutore invoca l’uguaglianza e la non-discriminazione, ma con queste parolenon vuole dire «a situazioni uguali trattamento uguale; e a fattispecie diverse trattamenti diversi», ma vuole dire omologazione e standardizzazione, allora sta giocando con le parole, mi sta ingannando. Manca quindi il secondo presupposto del dialogo. Se poi il mio analizzare criticamente un disegno di legge è visto come una forma di contrapposizione, allora non ci siamo proprio. Nella cultura relativista pare che si possa interpretare tutto, ma non alcuni disegni di legge. Le persone umane vanno non rispettate, ma amate come noi stessi per il semplice fatto che sono persone, e non per le loro qualità, opinioni o idee. Ma la mia intelligenza se vuole compiere la sua missione di conoscere, di dialogare, allora è chiamata a valutare con criterio, cioè criticamente, le proposte, gli enunciati e gli scritti del mio amico.

..........................

Leggi tutto: www.lanuovabq.it

The new literalism and fundamentalism, it fixates on part of a particular Scriptural account, absolutizes it, and ignores the rest

The New Literalism and Fundamentalism

by Stephen M. Krason


Catholics—even more so liberal Catholics—are usually quick to criticize anyone who seems to interpret Scripture too literally. Indeed, liberal Catholics often don’t even want to view a lot of it as historical. Liberal Catholics and leftists generally are also ready to rebuke people who adhere to aspects of traditional Christian morality, especially sexual matters, as “fundamentalists” (they don’t say much about Islamic fundamentalism, however, which is the truly dangerous expression of religious fundamentalism in our day). So, it’s interesting that among liberal Catholics, and even others who are well-meaning (including some Church leaders), we witness a kind of literalism with reference to certain biblical statements and Church teachings that expect people to surrender their reason, good judgment, and attentiveness to context and the realities of nuance. This can be observed especially when they consider certain public policy issues.

A good example is the immigration question. We are told that the various passages of Scripture, such as Matthew 25, that exhort us to “welcome the stranger” require us to accept immigrants without question, even those who are here illegally. Some regard the law as irrelevant or unjust—without ever taking the time to show how it can be judged to be unjust from the standpoint of ethics or moral theology—because, after all, the people who come here are just looking for a better life. They often don’t want to consider issues related to border security, such as: criminal gangs that have implanted themselves in the U.S. because of the ease of coming here; the troubling level of crime among illegal immigrants; the reports of terrorists who have used the southern border as a gateway to enter; the corruption, selfish, and irresponsible elites in Latin American countries that have deprived the masses, and tempted them to leave; the diseases that have appeared or recurred in the U.S. because of so many unscreened entrants; the financial burdens on state social services and educational systems that have to be borne by already-overtaxed American citizens; the fact that many corporate cheerleaders for illegal immigration like it because it gets them off the hook from paying a just wage (which is, by the way, a central mandate of Catholic social teaching); the general undermining of respect for the rule of law, because it is permissible to flout it on this subject; and the possible weakening of a political community’s civic bond as a result of the entry of many people who do not share its common vision or basic principles (this is especially acutely with Islamic immigration).

To insist that this range of issues concerned with illegal immigration be ignored, simply because Scripture says to “welcome the stranger” is not just a literalism impervious to context and qualification, but asks people to surrender their minds. Catholicism, however, is not a “blind faith” religion, but one in which faith and reason work in harmony. Such Catholic “immigration literalists,” who suggest that their fellow Catholics who want to stop illegal immigration are somehow not upholding Church teaching, don’t seem to remember that Pope St. John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in Terris, says that one has the “right to emigrate” when “there are just reasons for it”(#25), and that “as far the common good rightly understood permits” nations have a duty to accept immigrants (#106). The liberal Catholics among these immigration literalists have seldom been concerned about dissent on contraception, but are ready to point the finger regarding something that in no way involves such an unconditional and uncompromisable moral teaching.

Illegal immigration is hardly the only issue where we see such literalism. Scripture tells us to “feed the hungry,” and Christians understand that they have an obligation to assist those in need. What this has too often come to mean, not just for Catholic “social justice” activists but also for many in the institutional Church in the U.S., is to endorse and push for more government programs—to expand the welfare state. While one can understand the temptation to “grab for what is there,” it is negligent to ignore the countervailing problems of the welfare state—such as bureaucratic inefficiency, runaway costs, the increasing burden on taxpayers, the growth of government dependency and suppression of incentive, and the violation of subsidiarity. To claim that people who refuse to lend wholehearted support for it are somehow not acting as Christians should is another example of asking people to surrender their reason and good judgment. Here, too, we see a cherry-picking of the principles of Catholic social teaching. Pope St. John Paul II’s trenchant critique of the Western “social assistance” state in the encyclical Centesimus Annus (#48) is not paid attention to. The new literalism and fundamentalism doesn’t understand—or want to consider—that howsomething is done is often as important as what is done. It also seems easier to just to expand or set up a government program to address human needs, instead of working to build up the civil society sector, as Catholic social thought had stressed so strongly until recent decades.

Similarly, when the Church speaks in her social encyclicals about the obligation of better-off countries to assist poor ones, she does not say that the funds have to be forked out without conditions or accountability, or that giver nations must deprive their own citizens in order to do this. In fact, Blessed Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressiospecifically says, “the superfluous wealth of rich countries should be placed at the service of poor nations” and stresses accountability (#49, 54). Also, when the Church speaks of the necessity and value of international organizations and increasing their authority, this doesn’t mean that they should be given a blank check, or the rights to violate subsidiarity or national sovereignty (see Pacem in Terris #132-141). In fact, in light of problematic developments, John Paul said international organizations were in need of reform (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis #43). When one listens to both liberal Catholics and their secular compatriots, it seems as if they are impervious to such qualifications and realities.

The way some Catholics interpret the Church’s teaching with regard to relations with other religions, as set out in such Vatican II documents as the Decree on Ecumenismand Nostra Aetate, also rings of literalism and fundamentalism. They think the Church simply says to accept other religions with no questions asked, so that something like a searching examination and critical assessment of, say, Islam is to be avoided. It becomes what Fr. Kevin M. Cusick has called “ecumania.” At its worst, it slips toward syncretism for some among the liberal Catholic crowd.

..............................

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

Today taking doctrine seriously is often enough called “fundamentalism.”

Why Doctrine and Pastoral Practice are Indivisible

by James Kalb


There has been a great deal of talk in the Church lately about a supposed opposition between rules and reality, theology and life, doctrine and pastoral considerations. Some of the talk has gone to extremes, suggesting that rules, doctrine, and organized thought matter little in comparison with the pastoral needs of the immediate situation.

Such talk, like other extreme positions, can sometimes be useful to make a point, but made habitual the approach would destroy order and rationality by substituting the Deed for the Word. Within the Church it would lead to a combination of willfulness and tyranny, since those in authority and those on the spot could do whatever seemed good to them at the moment, while in relation to the world at large it would deprive the Church of her specific mission, which has to do with things that rise above immediate goals, and reduce her to a humanitarian NGO with unusual rituals and a quirky way of talking about things.

The Church’s pastoral approach and ways of thinking should of course be based on reality, but what reality? Are we speaking of the reality of people’s situations as they interpret them, or perhaps of secular trends or sociological studies? Or are we rather speaking of the realities with which the Church has always been most concerned, for example the reality of what men and women are, of what marriage is, and ultimately of the Most Real Being?

With respect to marriage, for example, it seems that the key point is not rules proposed by Pharisaical doctors of the law, but the reality marriage brings into being, the physical, social, and spiritual union of man and woman, which is the basis of the family and therefore as real, permanent, and undeniable as the relation between parent and child or brother and sister. To detract from that reality would not only promote falsehood but attack the position and dignity of ordinary people in their family connections. For the rulers of the Church to do so would be a betrayal that would help the wealthy and powerful reduce the people to an aggregate of production and consumption units, with no connections among themselves that need be respected. Why would that be pastoral?

Still, talk that sometimes suggests practical antinomianism, like most talk among experienced people in responsible positions, points to genuine issues. There is always a gap between the formal teachings of the Church and the actual or at least practical beliefs of her members, including many hierarchs. That gap seems unusually wide today, but even with the best will it could not simply be abolished, since there is always a tension between theory and practice.

It’s an awkward tension to deal with, in part because it’s so resistant to clear understanding. As someone said, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. That means theory can’t see the issue, so it can’t comment on it, but practice can’t explain it either, because practice acts rather than explains.

The awkwardness becomes all the greater in a religious setting. Religion must be practical, because it must transform life, but it can’t be merely pragmatic, because it transforms it by reference to realities that go beyond what is visible. It tells us that this-worldly ways of grasping reality fall short, and we must supplement them with faith, “the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” Doctrine articulates faith, and makes it usable as a path to truth, so the Church must take it very seriously even in the face of difficulties. As Paul said, she must preach the Word in all patience—reprove, entreat, rebuke—even out of season.

.......................

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

Russia: the situation looks inescapable

Confrontation With the West Becomes Personal for Putin—and Inescapable

by Pavel K. Baev


Last week’s (January 26) reporting in the Western media that the United States government was linking Russian President Vladimir Putin to corruption has rocked Russian domestic politics. Specifically, a recent BBC documentary carried remarks to this effect by Acting US Treasury Department Under Secretary Adam J. Szubin, who heads the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Slon.ru, January 26). The real shock came, however, when the White House rather matter-of-factly confirmed Szubin’s stated opinion that the Russian president was personally involved in shady deals (Kommersant, January 29). Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov called these allegations “unacceptable” as well as “outrageous and insulting” (RIA Novosti, January 29). While Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in a telephone conversation with US State Secretary John Kerry, described the accusations as “fanciful and rude” and complained about a “deliberate escalation of tensions” coming from Washington (Newsru.com, January 29). The resonance of this scandal is bolstered by the fact that it exploded only a week after British judge Sir Robert M. Owen announced the conclusion of the United Kingdom’s investigation into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, which established that Putin himself had “probably” ordered it (Ezhednevny Zhurnal, January 22).


..........

Read more: www.jamestown.org

The internationalist establishment is now exploiting the chaos it unleashed to push more globalism and statism

Soros and CFR Exploit Refugee Crisis for New World Order

by Alex Newman


After having literally created the refugee crisis from start to finish — destroying multiple Middle Eastern nations and then demanding that Europe accept the millions of displaced victims — the internationalist establishment is now exploiting the chaos it unleashed to push more globalism and statism. Europe, Africa, and the Middle East are all in the cross-hairs of billionaire George Soros (shown), the global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, and other key globalist forces. Among other efforts, therefugee-crisis instigators are using the horror they unleashed as a pretext to erode what remains of national sovereignty in those regions — all while further empowering supranational institutions such as the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union, and even a globalist-backed “Middle East Union” yet to be formally unveiled. A new “Marshall Plan” and even an EU paramilitary force with unprecedented powers are also on the agenda, all on the road toward what establishment voices regularly refer to as a "New World Order."

With the refugee situation quickly spiraling out of control across parts of the continent — the mass sexual assaults on New Year across Germany and beyond, the implosion of law and order around Calais in France, the widely reported overrunning of Stockholm's central station by refugee youths, and more — the public is now growing increasingly outraged. Indeed, as The New Americanreported last week, even the establishment forces responsible for unleashing the chaos are now loudly denouncing it. The New York Times, an establishment mouthpiece that dutifully promoted the globalist wars that sparked the refugee crisis, and then the subsequent flooding of the West with the victims of those wars, ran an op-ed pointing out that Germany was “on the brink” due to the crisis. Top European political bosses have also been sounding the alarm.

...........................


Read more: www.thenewamerican.com

8 février : conférence de Marc Fromager à Versailles - Les chrétiens d´Orient pris en étau

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com