Interview with Eustace Mullins about Ezra Pound and the New World Order
Sunday, October 4, 2015
O Verdadeiro Significado do “Adeus”
Link
Steve Hearts
Estava sentado no saguão do aeroporto me sentindo bem como o tempo lá fora—sombrio e melancólico. Meu pai e eu voltávamos para casa depois de uma reunião de família. Tínhamos acabado de dizer adeus à minha avó, tia e irmão. Eu nunca gostei de dizer adeus desde que me entendo por gente, mas sempre escondi minhas emoções muito bem durante as despedidas. Naquele dia, porém, eu estava todo emotivo, tanto por dentro como externamente.
Disse silenciosamente ao Senhor que precisava de Seu consolo. Admitir isso não foi fácil para um cara durão e orgulhoso como eu. Mas eu não queria passar as várias horas da viagem de avião debaixo de uma nuvem, e sabia que teria que sair daquele triste estado de espírito em algum momento seguir com a vida, de modo que fui sincero com o Senhor. “Sei que Você prometeu que não nos desampararia e que enviaria o Espírito Santo para nos consolar,” orei. “Eu também sei que Você passou pelas mesmas batalhas terrenas que nós. Mas Você realmente sabe o que é dizer adeus a alguém, Senhor? Se sabe, não me lembro de ler nem ouvir sobre isso.
A resposta veio quase que imediatamente. Não era uma sucessão de palavras, mas sim um entendimento simples e claro de que, claro que Jesus sabia como era dizer adeus. Ele teve que deixar Seu lar celestial para vir para o mundo e nos salvar. Dizer adeus a Seu Pai não pode ter sido algo fácil. E depois, quando Sua missão terrena foi cumprida, Ele teve que dizer adeus à Sua família terrena e Seus seguidores. Eu não entendia como que isso podia ter me escapado, mas certamente compreender isso me consolou.
Eu então me perguntei o que foi que consolou Jesus quando era difícil dizer adeus. A resposta me veio quase que antes de eu perguntar. Era o conhecimento de que um dia Ele estaria reunido com todos aqueles que estiveram um dia com Ele. Ela sabia que voltaria a ver os Seus amados, e lhes disse isso para consolá-los. “Assim também vós agora, na verdade, tendes tristeza; mas outra vez vos verei, e o vosso coração se alegrará, e a vossa alegria ninguém vo-la tirará.”[1]
Justo então me lembrei de algo que aprendera quando era pequeno, que a palavra “good-bye” (adeus) era originalmente a contração da frase “God be with you” (Fique com Deus). Percebi como essa palavra tem um contexto diferente hoje, que lhe dá uma conotação triste e pesarosa. Hoje em dia, geralmente removemos o “good” (bom) e simplesmente dizemos “bye” (tchau), que enfatiza ainda mais o contexto triste. Não é de admirar que muitas vezes seja tão penoso dizer adeus (good-bye). Contudo, posto de volta em seu contexto original, o termo deveria me dar certeza e consolo—me lembrando que Deus estava tanto comigo como com meus amados. Sabendo também que “aqueles que amam a Deus nunca se encontram pela última vez” só serviu para me consolar ainda mais e me deixou mais certo sobre isso.
É claro que é perfeitamente normal e aceitável sentir-se emotivo quando dizemos adeus àqueles que amamos. É um sinal claro de que nos importamos com eles e sentimos saudades quando estamos ausentes. O Senhor nos fez assim. Contudo, por outro lado, podemos minimizar a tristeza e o pesar nos lembrando que um dia estaremos num lugar onde não haverá mais despedidas.
Sem dúvida, a coisa mais difícil e dolorosa de dizer adeus é quando uma pessoa amada passa desta vida para a próxima. Mas até mesmo este adeus não é permanente. Pensando nisso, o verdadeiro significado do adeus é expressado claramente na frase do velho hino: “Fique com Deus até nos encontrarmos novamente.”[2] De agora em dia, quando chegar a hora de dizer adeus a alguém, ou de ouvir alguém dizer adeus para mim, vou tentar me lembrar que o que está sendo dito não é nada triste nem digno de lágrimas, mas sim uma mensagem reconfortante: “Fique com Deus.”
[1] João 16:22 KJV.
[2] http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/g/b/gbewiyou.htm.
Steve Hearts
Estava sentado no saguão do aeroporto me sentindo bem como o tempo lá fora—sombrio e melancólico. Meu pai e eu voltávamos para casa depois de uma reunião de família. Tínhamos acabado de dizer adeus à minha avó, tia e irmão. Eu nunca gostei de dizer adeus desde que me entendo por gente, mas sempre escondi minhas emoções muito bem durante as despedidas. Naquele dia, porém, eu estava todo emotivo, tanto por dentro como externamente.
Disse silenciosamente ao Senhor que precisava de Seu consolo. Admitir isso não foi fácil para um cara durão e orgulhoso como eu. Mas eu não queria passar as várias horas da viagem de avião debaixo de uma nuvem, e sabia que teria que sair daquele triste estado de espírito em algum momento seguir com a vida, de modo que fui sincero com o Senhor. “Sei que Você prometeu que não nos desampararia e que enviaria o Espírito Santo para nos consolar,” orei. “Eu também sei que Você passou pelas mesmas batalhas terrenas que nós. Mas Você realmente sabe o que é dizer adeus a alguém, Senhor? Se sabe, não me lembro de ler nem ouvir sobre isso.
A resposta veio quase que imediatamente. Não era uma sucessão de palavras, mas sim um entendimento simples e claro de que, claro que Jesus sabia como era dizer adeus. Ele teve que deixar Seu lar celestial para vir para o mundo e nos salvar. Dizer adeus a Seu Pai não pode ter sido algo fácil. E depois, quando Sua missão terrena foi cumprida, Ele teve que dizer adeus à Sua família terrena e Seus seguidores. Eu não entendia como que isso podia ter me escapado, mas certamente compreender isso me consolou.
Eu então me perguntei o que foi que consolou Jesus quando era difícil dizer adeus. A resposta me veio quase que antes de eu perguntar. Era o conhecimento de que um dia Ele estaria reunido com todos aqueles que estiveram um dia com Ele. Ela sabia que voltaria a ver os Seus amados, e lhes disse isso para consolá-los. “Assim também vós agora, na verdade, tendes tristeza; mas outra vez vos verei, e o vosso coração se alegrará, e a vossa alegria ninguém vo-la tirará.”[1]
Justo então me lembrei de algo que aprendera quando era pequeno, que a palavra “good-bye” (adeus) era originalmente a contração da frase “God be with you” (Fique com Deus). Percebi como essa palavra tem um contexto diferente hoje, que lhe dá uma conotação triste e pesarosa. Hoje em dia, geralmente removemos o “good” (bom) e simplesmente dizemos “bye” (tchau), que enfatiza ainda mais o contexto triste. Não é de admirar que muitas vezes seja tão penoso dizer adeus (good-bye). Contudo, posto de volta em seu contexto original, o termo deveria me dar certeza e consolo—me lembrando que Deus estava tanto comigo como com meus amados. Sabendo também que “aqueles que amam a Deus nunca se encontram pela última vez” só serviu para me consolar ainda mais e me deixou mais certo sobre isso.
É claro que é perfeitamente normal e aceitável sentir-se emotivo quando dizemos adeus àqueles que amamos. É um sinal claro de que nos importamos com eles e sentimos saudades quando estamos ausentes. O Senhor nos fez assim. Contudo, por outro lado, podemos minimizar a tristeza e o pesar nos lembrando que um dia estaremos num lugar onde não haverá mais despedidas.
Sem dúvida, a coisa mais difícil e dolorosa de dizer adeus é quando uma pessoa amada passa desta vida para a próxima. Mas até mesmo este adeus não é permanente. Pensando nisso, o verdadeiro significado do adeus é expressado claramente na frase do velho hino: “Fique com Deus até nos encontrarmos novamente.”[2] De agora em dia, quando chegar a hora de dizer adeus a alguém, ou de ouvir alguém dizer adeus para mim, vou tentar me lembrar que o que está sendo dito não é nada triste nem digno de lágrimas, mas sim uma mensagem reconfortante: “Fique com Deus.”
[1] João 16:22 KJV.
[2] http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/g/b/gbewiyou.htm.
The Mind of Mr. Putin
By Patrick J. Buchanan, Creators Syndicate, October 2, 2015
So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.
Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces for control of Kunduz. Only 10,000 U.S. troops still in that ravaged country prevent the Taliban’s triumphal return to power.
A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us–to Tehran.
The cost to Iraqis of their “liberation”? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.
How has Libya fared since we “liberated” that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist “Libya Dawn” in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt’s dictator.
Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world.
Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a “humanitarian catastrophe.”
“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross on his return.
On Monday, the wedding party of a Houthi fighter was struck by air-launched missiles with 130 guests dead. Did we help to produce that?
What does Putin see as the ideological root of these disasters?
“After the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think they were strong and exceptional, they knew better.”
Then, adopting policies “based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity,” this “single center of domination,” the United States, began to export “so-called democratic” revolutions.
How did it all turn out? Says Putin:
“An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.
Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.”
Is Putin wrong in his depiction of what happened to the Middle East after we plunged in? Or does his summary of what American interventions have wrought echo the warnings made against them for years by American dissenters?
Putin’s concept of “state sovereignty” is this: “We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the right one.”
The Soviet Union tried that way, said Putin, and failed. Now the Americans are trying the same thing, and they will reach the same end.
Unlike most U.N. speeches, Putin’s merits study. For he not only identifies the U.S. mindset that helped to produce the new world disorder, he identifies a primary cause of the emerging second Cold War.
To Putin, the West’s exploitation of its Cold War victory to move NATO onto Russia’s doorstep caused the visceral Russian recoil. The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government led straight to the violent reaction in the pro-Russian Donbas.
What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:
If America’s elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America’s moral imperialism.
Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying.
They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.
Wednesday and Thursday, Putin’s forces in Syria bombed the camps of U.S.-backed rebels seeking to overthrow Assad. Putin is sending a signal: Russia is willing to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States to prevent us and our Sunni Arab and Turkish allies from dumping over Assad, which could bring ISIS to power in Damascus.
Perhaps it is time to climb down off our ideological high horse and start respecting the vital interests of other sovereign nations, even as we protect and defend our own.
So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.
Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces for control of Kunduz. Only 10,000 U.S. troops still in that ravaged country prevent the Taliban’s triumphal return to power.
A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us–to Tehran.
The cost to Iraqis of their “liberation”? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.
How has Libya fared since we “liberated” that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist “Libya Dawn” in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt’s dictator.
Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world.
Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a “humanitarian catastrophe.”
“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross on his return.
On Monday, the wedding party of a Houthi fighter was struck by air-launched missiles with 130 guests dead. Did we help to produce that?
What does Putin see as the ideological root of these disasters?
“After the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think they were strong and exceptional, they knew better.”
Then, adopting policies “based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity,” this “single center of domination,” the United States, began to export “so-called democratic” revolutions.
How did it all turn out? Says Putin:
“An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.
Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.”
Is Putin wrong in his depiction of what happened to the Middle East after we plunged in? Or does his summary of what American interventions have wrought echo the warnings made against them for years by American dissenters?
Putin’s concept of “state sovereignty” is this: “We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the right one.”
The Soviet Union tried that way, said Putin, and failed. Now the Americans are trying the same thing, and they will reach the same end.
Unlike most U.N. speeches, Putin’s merits study. For he not only identifies the U.S. mindset that helped to produce the new world disorder, he identifies a primary cause of the emerging second Cold War.
To Putin, the West’s exploitation of its Cold War victory to move NATO onto Russia’s doorstep caused the visceral Russian recoil. The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government led straight to the violent reaction in the pro-Russian Donbas.
What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:
If America’s elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America’s moral imperialism.
Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying.
They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.
Wednesday and Thursday, Putin’s forces in Syria bombed the camps of U.S.-backed rebels seeking to overthrow Assad. Putin is sending a signal: Russia is willing to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States to prevent us and our Sunni Arab and Turkish allies from dumping over Assad, which could bring ISIS to power in Damascus.
Perhaps it is time to climb down off our ideological high horse and start respecting the vital interests of other sovereign nations, even as we protect and defend our own.
So far in 2015, we’ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings
By Christopher Ingraham, Washington Post, October 1, 2015
Today a shooter opened fire at a community college in Oregon. Early media reports indicate numerous fatalities and a number of additional people wounded. That brings the total of mass shootings this year–incidents where 4 or more people are killed or injured by gunfire–to 294.
There have been only 274 days this year. The shootings are captured in this calendar, drawn from the Mass Shooting Tracker. The tracker draws some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI’s definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence–like the Lafayette theater shootings–that don’t meet the FBI’s criteria.
Charleston. Lafayette. Virginia. Now, Roseburg Oregon. But beneath the steady drumbeat of these high-profile cases lay the hundreds daily mass shootings that most of us never hear about. 11 wounded in a Georgia barroom. Six shot outside a Tulsa nightclub. A pregnant mom and grandmother killed, an infant wounded in Chicago.
We’ve gone no more than eight days without one of these incidents this year. On six days in September, there were 3 mass shootings or more. If the initial casualty figures in Oregon hold up, that would bring the total of deaths by mass shooting this year to 380 so far, with well over one thousand injured.
And of course, there’s the broader universe of nearly 10,000 people killed and 20,000 wounded in nearly 40,000 gun violence incidents so far this year.
These numbers only tell the smallest part of the story. And these very numbers will need to be updated again tomorrow. And the day after. And the day after that.
Today a shooter opened fire at a community college in Oregon. Early media reports indicate numerous fatalities and a number of additional people wounded. That brings the total of mass shootings this year–incidents where 4 or more people are killed or injured by gunfire–to 294.
There have been only 274 days this year. The shootings are captured in this calendar, drawn from the Mass Shooting Tracker. The tracker draws some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI’s definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence–like the Lafayette theater shootings–that don’t meet the FBI’s criteria.
Charleston. Lafayette. Virginia. Now, Roseburg Oregon. But beneath the steady drumbeat of these high-profile cases lay the hundreds daily mass shootings that most of us never hear about. 11 wounded in a Georgia barroom. Six shot outside a Tulsa nightclub. A pregnant mom and grandmother killed, an infant wounded in Chicago.
We’ve gone no more than eight days without one of these incidents this year. On six days in September, there were 3 mass shootings or more. If the initial casualty figures in Oregon hold up, that would bring the total of deaths by mass shooting this year to 380 so far, with well over one thousand injured.
And of course, there’s the broader universe of nearly 10,000 people killed and 20,000 wounded in nearly 40,000 gun violence incidents so far this year.
These numbers only tell the smallest part of the story. And these very numbers will need to be updated again tomorrow. And the day after. And the day after that.
