By: Jutta Schmitt

From the Bolivarian Studies Circle "El Momoy" we report that we have been holding our study and discussion sessions throughout 2005, but for reasons beyond our control it wasn't possible for us to elaborate the summaries in the form of our usual protocols, which are available for all on the Internet, beginning with last Sunday's session of January 22.

January 22's session was focused on the subject of mental programming and manipulation of world population by the global elite and its mass media, as a result of the most recent news: the sudden reappearing of the “messages

In order to understand the underlying ideology of the domestic and the foreign policy of the US government, which needs a high degree of open manipulation in order to be applied without big resistance and which can be qualified as fascist, we have been trying to research the political thinking of those philosophers and thinkers that constitute the ideological support of the so-called "neoconservatives," which currently occupy the White House and follow the guidelines traced in their Project for a New American Century, in perfect match with the interests of the post-industrial and energy military complex.

We have done this research, among other goals, in order to analyze and measure if we really are at the theoretical height of our class adversary, or if we perhaps are even superior, when we're proclaiming "Socialism of the 21st Century" from Venezuela and Latin America, which until now has been nothing but a colorful mixture of good ideas and serious proposals, but lacking theoretical stringency.

Hence, we have discovered that the conceptions of the German Carl Schmitt, a political philosopher and state jurist, who died in 1985, a notorious racist and apologist of the Nazi regime, seem to be decisive in the cosmo-vision of the "neoconservatives" that currently conform the Bush Administration.

Specifically, it's his conception of "the political" that powerfully has attracted our attention, because according to Schmitt, the field of politics is the differentiation between good and bad, friend and enemy, the latter being always understood as the "public enemy."

In detail, as Schmitt says, the sovereign -- preferably one single person who reflects the "general will" -- is not only in charge of establishing and preserving the internal political order, but when it is in danger, of declaring any adversary as the "absolute enemy," in order to ensure the stability and continuity of the internal political order.

Besides, Schmitt considers that in order to successfully eradicate the enemy it is perfectly legitimate to do away with the limits imposed by the legal order to accomplish that.

We have observed that this definition of the political