More on the Revolutionary Mentality

As an addition to my August 13 article, here are some other traits that define the revolutionary mentality:

1. A revolutionary does not understand injustice and evil as factors inherent in the human condition that can be attenuated but not eliminated, but rather as temporary anomalies created by a segment of humanity—the bourgeoisie, the Jews, Christians, etc.—which can be identified and punished, thereby extirpating the root of evil.

2. The guilty segment of mankind spreads evil and sin by exercising a power—economic, political, military, and cultural. Hence, it must be eliminated by means of a superior power, the revolutionary power, deliberately created to achieve this purpose.

3. Evil power dominates society as a whole, molding it after the image and likeness of its own interests, ends, and purposes. The eradication of evil must therefore take on the form of a radical restructuring of the entire social order. Nothing can remain untouched. The revolutionary power, like the Biblical God, “makes all things new.” There are no limits to the range and depth of revolutionary action. It can reach even the victims of a previous situation of oppression by accusing them of having become so used to evil that they have become its accomplices, thus requiring purifying punishment to the same or greater extent than the old power elite.

4. Though brought about by a specific segment of the human race, evil has spread everywhere so thoroughly that it has become difficult to conceive of life without it. Therefore, the new society of order, justice, and peace can be imagined only in very broad outlines, so different will it be from everything that has existed thus far. Revolutionaries therefore have no obligation—not even the possibility—to explain in plain details the plan for the new society, let alone to prove its viability or demonstrate, in terms of cost vs. benefit, the advantages of the transformation. These are given as fundamental premises, so that the demand for proof is automatically impugned as a subterfuge for avoiding change and condemned ipso facto as an element to be eliminated. The revolution is its own foundation and cannot be questioned from the outside.

5. Though known only as a very general vague image, the future society puts itself above all human judgment and itself becomes the fundamental premise of all values, all judgment, all reasoning. An immediate consequence of this is that the future, which cannot be conceived of rationally, can be known only via its image in the current revolutionary action, which in its turn, for this very reason, removes itself from all human judgment, except from that of revolutionary leaders who incarnate and personify that action. But even these people may represent it imperfectly, by virtue of their being children of the old society and of their carrying within themselves, at least partially, the germs of the ancient evil. The prophetic and intellectual authority of revolutionary leaders is therefore provisional and only lasts as long as they have the material power to secure it. The capacity of leader of nations towards a beatific future is therefore uncertain and revocable, depending on the irregularities of the revolutionary pathway. The crimes and mistakes of a fallen leader, not imputable to the future society, nor to the revolutionary process as such, nor to the revolutionary movement as a whole, can therefore only be explained as a residual effect of the condemned past: a revolutionary, by definition, sins only by not being sufficiently revolutionary.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on October 10, 2007 and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

One World

Freedom as a Servant of Tyranny

For at least the past forty years, the political debate in Brazil has been reduced to a choice between free market and state interventionism, identified with the “Right” and the “Left,” respectively, and charged with automatically defining, on that economic basis, all other human alternatives in all fields of culture, legislation, morality, etc. When a person identifies himself as a “free-market advocate,” he is immediately classed among rightists, conservatives, and reactionaries, becoming, on the other hand, a socialist, a progressive, and a revolutionary as soon as he switches to the field of state interventionism. Roberto Campos and Celso Furtado, both Brazilian economists, are the icons of the first and second factions, respectively.

When factors—of a moral, cultural, military, geopolitical, or any other nature—interfere in the dispute, complicating the picture and depriving the honorable public of the comforts of that primary schematism, the only reaction the Brazilian mind is capable of is an attempt to quickly retrieve its state of homeostatic equilibrium by proclaiming that  Left and Right no longer exist, that the world has entered a stage of paradisiacal unanimity, and that, to sum up, there is nothing left to be discussed, except for the names of those who will fill out the offices in the hierarchy of universal peace.

Transitioning thusly from a silly schematism to an even sillier one, they believe to have overcome all ideological conflict and risen to the heights of some sublime pragmatism, where, with the lower passions already extinguished, techno-scientific reason reigns supreme, nothing else being important but the objective calculation of costs and benefits.

Unfortunately, these are all self-flattering illusions, designed to protect the human mind from a conflict with the painful complexities of the real world.

First of all, the choice between free market and state interventionism is one thing when regarded as a theoretical alternative, or as an abstract model of an ideal society, and a completely different thing when placed in a specific historical and geopolitical context. The banner of economic freedom was first raised against monarchic despotisms. At that time, it was identified with the forces of revolution. A free-market supporter was closer to a socialist than to an ultramontane monarchist. Later on, with the rise of the Russian and German statist totalitarianisms, free-market advocacy became “reactionary.”  By then, free-market proponents would team up with their former enemies, monarchists and Christian conservatives, against the socialist threat. This second form assumed by the ideological debate, upon which the usual Brazilian distinction between Left and Right is based, has long been absorbed and transcended by a third equation. Free market has become the pretext upon which the globalist forces interested in building a controlling and despotic world government have been undermining national sovereignties and inducing entire nations to abdicate all other liberties in exchange for the mere power of buying and selling. The argument that economic freedom brings with it all other freedoms is therein used as an excuse to bring about the opposite result: the suppression of all freedoms but one. Concomitantly, those very globalist forces have been giving billionaire support to all leftist and revolutionary organizations in the world, in order to make them work against the nation-states, causing many supporters of the free market, who nonetheless fancy themselves as men of the “Right,” to ultimately join forces with the leftist rebellion against moral and cultural traditionalisms, which, to some, are obstacles to the revolution, and to others, are impediments to the free market. United by their clinging to old stereotypes dislocated from the present situation, both fail to perceive that, in their fight against the nation-state, which some hate as reactionary, and others as interventionist, they are only aiding the Great Leviathan of the world state to rise upon the ruins of many lesser Leviathans.

The ideological conflict is not over. It is just formidably more complicated. The struggle between freedom and tyranny has taken on a new format, in which the engineers of tyranny, by playing with the conventional symbols of political debate, have managed to enlist to their service even the very supporters of freedom.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on May 25, 2009 and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

Ignoring the Essential

There are some elementary historical data about the communist movement which are ignored by most people and less known or well forgotten by the leading cultivated minorities, but without which it is literally impossible to understand anything whatsoever about recent world history. If you try to inform yourself and to take these data into account, you’ll realize how many obscure issues become automatically transparent, with little interpretative effort.

1. Communism has been, throughout human history, the only – I repeat: the only – globally organized political movement, with ramifications and agents in the most remote places of the Earth, all disciplined and prepared to immediately, coordinately and simultaneously spring into action upon the first call issued from their command centers.

2. Although it has at its disposal a huge number of organizations and mass parties, Communism is substantially a clandestine movement, whose command and action plans must remain invisible to the masses, even in such periods of lawfulness when many communist organizations can move publicly without being persecuted. The primacy of the clandestine elite over the visible leadership has been, at least since Lenin’s time, a keystone clause of the communist strategy. It is impossible to understand this strategy and the tactics that implement it by taking into account only the undisguised role of the most visible communist leaders in each country, and without having access to the internal discussions and the international connections of each organization.

3. Communism has been, throughout the world and throughout the ages, the only political movement that has at its disposal unlimited financial resources, far superior to the West’s biggest known fortunes and to the combined budgets of many governments. Its potentials of action must be measured according to the level of its resources.

4. Only a tiny part of the communist activity consists of directly or indirectly recognizable doctrinarian propaganda. The main and most significant part consists of infiltrating and blending into all sorts of organizations – political parties (liberals and conservatives alike), media, unions, government and private enterprises, cultural, educational and charitable institutions, the armed forces, Freemasonry and so on – it is an endless list – in order to turn them into useful tools for the communist strategy, through which it is possible to control the entire society, making the Party an “omniscient and invisible power” (the phrasing comes from Antonio Gramsci, but the idea itself existed much earlier). It is infantile to believe that, once implanted in those entities, the Communists will then turn to indoctrination or proselytism, as if they were protestant shepherds preaching the Gospel among infidels. Co-opting all forces that may serve the communist strategy is an extremely subtle and complex mechanism, which requires massive doses of camouflage and deceptiveness, with many contradictory moments on its way.

5. It is foolish to imagine communism as a “doctrine” or an “ideal”, particularly when it purports overtly preaching the abolition of private property. The communist movement has never had nor needed any doctrinal unity, and has proved one thousand times its capacity to tactically adapt to the most disparate ideological formulas, either sequentially or simultaneously, thus leaving the uninformed observer (including politicians in general and the near entirety of liberal and conservative intellectuals) completely bewildered. The most aggressive atheistic campaigns, for instance, coexist pacifically, in the midst of the communist movement, with the practice of taking advantage of the religious discourse to reach the heart of the masses. Mutatis mutandis, exploring radical nationalistic feelings goes side by side with the effort to dilute national sovereignties into bigger, regional or world unities, so that, behind the scenes, the communist movement benefits from the patriotic resistance as well as from the ascendant global power. The unity of the communist movement is strategic and organizational, not ideological. Communism is not a set of theses: it is a power scheme, the most flexible, vast, integrated and efficient one that ever existed. Even Islamic radicalism, which is so quickly expanding nowadays, would be powerless without the support of the world network of communist organizations.

6. An even more egregious form of foolishness is to believe that the logical-formal opposition between the abstract concepts of capitalism and communism can be translated, in the field, into a mortal conflict between capitalists and communists. To the multiple local and temporal situations corresponds a countless number of shades and transitions, which leaves much room for the apparently strangest arrangements and complicities (but only apparently so). No one will understand anything whatsoever about the historical world we live in without taking into consideration the enduring collaboration between the communist movement and some of the West’s greatest fortunes, Rothschild’s and Rockefellers’s for instance. The classic books on this matter are those from the English economist Anthony Sutton, but already in 1956 the US House of Representative’s Reece Committee gathered substantial proof that some billionaire foundations were using their huge resources “to destroy or discredit the same free market system that gave rise to them.” Today these foundations rank among the most solid pillars supporting the socialist government of Barack Obama.

Ignoring or misunderstanding these facts lies at the root of liberals’ and conservatives’ incapacity to resist the triumphant march of communists in Latin America. Many still believe, for example, that democracy will win a big victory by forcing the FARC to abandon the armed struggle and to constitute a legal party. They can’t understand that to create a recognized political force is the final purpose of any armed struggle – in Colombia or anywhere else. Guerrillas don’t win wars: all they want is a politically advantageous defeat. That’s the reason why they open fire on the government forces, in the jungle and in the city, and, at the same time, place their agents in key posts of the legal leftist parties, where they protest the blood shed and appeal dramatically for a return to lawfulness. They did it in Brazil, and they are doing it now in Colombia.

While liberals and conservatives can’t attain a clear vision of the whole and complex phenomenon of communism, while they insist on fighting the most immediate and repugnant aspects of this movement, if not only communist doctrines in abstract, they are doomed to defeat even as they claim victory.

The fact that no international anti-communist movement has emerged makes it difficult for many people to put together this whole picture, which communists themselves so easily get. But the absence of social support cannot work as a pretext for intellectual laziness. There will always be some individual minds capable of thinking above group prospects, when they exist, or without them, when they don’t exist. Nothing justifies that these minds be kept aside from the public discussions, while the ignorant hold the monopoly of the microphones. In this as in all other human affairs, those who have studied nothing are full of simplistic certainties and proclaim them with a huge sense of superiority, totally unaware of their ridiculous role. Those who have studied the issues may look deranged or eccentric, but after all, why do we study if not to learn something that most do not know?

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on April 3, 2009.

Weapons of Freedom

The most obvious thing about the analysis of history and society is that when a situation changes considerably, you can no longer describe it with the same concepts as before: in order to account for unheard-of facts, not classifiable under known categories, you have to create new concepts or perfect the old ones through criticism.

With the stage of world government implementation already in full swing, it is pathetic to notice that political analysts, whether in academia or in the media, continue to offer the public analyses based on the old concepts of “national state,” “national power,” “international relations,” “free trade,” “democracy,” “imperialism,” “class struggle,” “ethnic conflicts,” etc., when it is clear that none of those bear much relation to the facts of today’s world.

The most basic events of the last fifty years are: first, the rise of the globalist élites, detached from any identifiable national interest and engrossed in the building not only of a world state, but a unified and entirely artificial planetary pseudo-civilization, conceived not as an expression of society, but as an instrument for the control of society by the state; second, the fabulous advancements of the human sciences, which have placed in the hands of those élites means of social domination never dreamed of by tyrants of other times.

As early as several decades ago, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), the creator of general systems theory, aware that his contribution to science was being used for undue purposes, warned, “It is perhaps the greatest danger of the systems of modern totalitarianism that they are so alarmingly up-to-date not only in physical and biological, but also in psychological technology. The methods of mass suggestion, of the release of the instincts of the human beast, of conditioning and thought control are developed to highest efficacy; just because modern totalitarianism is so terrifically scientific, it makes the absolutism of former periods appear a dilettantish and comparatively harmless makeshift.”

In his 1998 book, L’Empire Écologique: La Subversion de l’Écologie par le Mondialisme (The ecological empire: the subversion of ecology by globalism), Pascal Bernardin explained in detail how the general systems theory has been used as a basis for the construction of a world totalitarian system, which in the last ten years has definitively gone from blueprint to patent reality—a reality which is clear to all but those who do not want to see. Von Bertalanffy, however, was not referring only to his own theory. He speaks of “methods” in the plural, and ordinary citizens of democracies cannot have any idea of the plethora of scientific resources now at the disposal of the new lords of the world. If von Bertalanffy had to mention names, he would not have omitted Kurt Levin, perhaps the greatest social psychologist of all times, whose Tavistock Institute, in London, was founded by the global élite itself in 1947 for the sole purpose of creating means of social control capable of reconciling the permanence of formal legal democracy with the total domination of the state over society.

Just to give you an idea of how far all this goes, the educational programs of almost all nations of the world—which have been in force for at least twenty years now—are determined by homogeneous rules directly imposed by the United Nations, and calculated not to develop children’s intelligence or conscience, but to make them docile, malleable, morally characterless creatures, ready to adhere enthusiastically and without discussion to any word of command which the global élite may deem useful for its objectives. The means used to achieve this are “non-aversive” control techniques conceived to make their victim not only feel as if he is acting of his own free will when he yields to impositions from authority, but also to develop an immediate reaction of irrational defense to the mere suggestion that he should critically examine the subject in question.

It would be a euphemism to say that mass application of such techniques “bears influence on” public education programs: these techniques are the whole content of current schooling. All disciplines, mathematics and science included, have been reshaped to serve psychological manipulation purposes. Pascal Bernardin himself meticulously described this phenomenon in his 1995 book Machiavel Pédagogue (Machiavelli the Educator). Read it and you will find out why your child cannot solve a quadratic equation or finish a sentence without lapsing into at least three solecisms, even though he comes back from school bossing you around like a people’s commissar, demanding “politically correct” behavior of his parents.

The quickness with which sudden mutations of mentality—many of which are arbitrary, grotesque, and even absurd—are universally imposed without meeting the least resistance (as though they had emanated from an irrefutable logic and not from despicable Machiavellianism) could be explained by the simple school brainwashing that prepares children to accept new fashions as divine commands.

But obviously, school is not the only agency engrossed in producing such results. Big media, now massively concentrated in the hands of globalist mega-corporations, play a fundamental role in dumbing down the masses. In order to achieve this, one of the most widely employed techniques nowadays is cognitive dissonance, a discovery made by psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-1989). This is how it works. If you read today’s newspapers, you will see that Tiger Woods, the golf champion, one of our most beloved citizens of late, is now under heavy attack by newspapers and TV news shows because the poor man has been found to have mistresses. Scandal! Horror! General indignation threatens to drop half of the adulterer’s sponsorship deals and strike him off of the list of the “beautiful people” who appear on advertisements for sneakers, bubble gums, and miracle diets. But there is a telltale detail: beside the protests against the sportsman’s immorality, there are fierce attacks on “right-wing extremists” who do not accept abortion, gay marriage, or the inducing of children to premature sexual delight. The two moral codes, mutually contradictory, are simultaneously offered as equally obliging and sacrosanct. Excited and impelled to all kinds of sexual debaucheries, while at the same time threatened with character assassination in case he may practice them even to a modest degree, the anguished citizen reacts through a kind of intellectual breakdown, becoming a servile fool who no longer knows how to orient himself and who begs for a voice of command. The command can be empty and meaningless, as for example “Change!,” but when it is uttered, it always sounds like a relief.

Blaming scientists for this state of affairs is as idiotic as pinning the blame for murders on weapons. Men like von Bertalanffy, Levin, and Festinger created instruments that can serve both the building up of tyranny and the reconquest of freedom. It is we who have the obligation of taking those weapons out of the hands of their monopolistic owners and learning to use them for the opposite purpose, freeing our spirit instead of allowing it to be enslaved.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on December 17, 2009 and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.

Charles Darwin

Why I Am Not a Fan of Charles Darwin

The billion dollar festivities commemorating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth make some essential facts about the life and works of this man of science momentarily invisible.

To begin with, Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution: He found it ready-made, under the form of an esoteric doctrine, in the work of his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and as a scientific hypothesis in innumerable mentions scattered in books by Aristotle, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Goethe, among others.

All he did was to venture a new explanation for that theory—and his explanation was wrong. No one else, among the self-proclaimed Darwin’s disciples, believes in “natural selection.” The theory in vogue, the so-called neo-Darwinism, proclaims that, instead of a selection mysteriously oriented toward the improvement of the species, all that happened were random changes. As far as I know, mere chance is precisely the opposite of a rationally expressible regularity founded on natural law. Darwinism is a slippery and proteiform idea, with which one cannot seriously discuss: as soon as it is pushed against a wall by a new objection, it does not defend itself—it changes its identity and walks away crowing about victory. Many theories worshipped by the moderns do this, but Darwinism is the only one that is barefaced enough to transform itself into its contrary and go on proclaiming it is still the same.

All the celebrants of the Darwinian ritual, the new-Darwinists inclusive, reject as pseudoscientific the theory of “intelligent design.” But it was Charles Darwin himself who made up this theory. It becomes very clear in the final paragraphs of The Origin of Species, which I read from cover to cover in my teenage years with so much enchantment and which made me a fanatic Darwinist, to the point that I hung a picture of the author on my bedroom wall, surrounded by dinosaurs (only now I realize that he is one of them). Now, thanks to the kindness of a reader, I got acquainted with the studies of John Angus Campbell on the “rhetoric of science.” He studies scientific books from the vantage point of their strategy of persuasion. In a fascinating video that you can see at, he demonstrates that “intelligent design” is not only the final touch of the Darwinist theory, but also its fundamental premise, discreetly spread throughout the whole argumentative edifice of The Origin of Species. “Intelligent design” is therefore the only part of the Darwinian theory that still has advocates: and those are the worst enemies of Darwinism.

It is certainly a paradox that the author of a false explanation for a preexistent theory should be celebrated as the creator of this theory, though an even greater paradox is that the founding premise of the Darwinian argument should be repelled as the very denial of Darwinism.

Purely farcical, however, is the general attempt to camouflage the genocidal ideology that is embedded in the very internal logic of the theory of evolution. When the apologists of the British scientist acknowledge, against their will, that evolution was “used” to legitimize racism and mass murders, they do so with a monstrous hypocrisy. Darwinism is genocidal by itself, from its very roots. It did not have to be deformed by disloyal disciples to become something it was not. Just read the following paragraphs by Charles Darwin and tell me honestly whether racism and apology of genocide had to be grafted onto an innocent theory afterwards:

      “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”

Imagine if, during the American presidential elections, John McCain’s campaign declared that Barack Hussein Obama was closer to the gorilla than the republican candidate!

And there is more: “Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world!”

To finish the point, an unequivocal appeal to the extermination of the undesirable:

      “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

Notice well: I am not against the evolutionist hypothesis. From what I have observed thus far, I must conclude that I am the only human being, in my inner and outer circle, who does not have the least idea whether evolution happened or not. Everyone has beliefs about it and seems willing to die or kill for them. I have none.

However, my abstinence from opinion with regard to a problem that I consider unsolvable does not forbid me to perceive the absurdity of the opinions of those who hold one. I understood a long time ago that scientists are even less trustworthy than politicians, and the paradoxes of Charles Darwin’s fame do nothing but confirm it. My malign instincts compel me to grab Darwinists by the throat and ask them:

“Why so much fuss about Charles Darwin? He invented “intelligent design,” which you hate, and natural selection, which you say is false. He overtly preached racism and genocide, which you proclaim to abhor. To celebrate him, you must create out of nothing a fictitious character that is the opposite of whom he was historically. Can’t you see that all of this is just buffoonery?”

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on February 20, 2009.

Brazilian Paratroopers on Exercise.

What Crime?

At a time when FARC narcoguerilla fighters invade our schools to teach their genocidal doctrine to Brazilian children, at a time when an organization involved in doing propaganda for guerrillas tries out its power of strategic action, blocking almost every road in the country simultaneously—at a time like this, journalists and public prosecutors gather together in an operation designed to criminalize and abort the investigations that the Army carries out about the illegal activities of the Landless Movement and left-wing NGOs.

If this is not an act of revolutionary disinformation, in the best KGB style, then at least this is a substantial support that is offered, with prodigious unconsciousness and levity, to Fidel Castro’s plan of “reconquering in Latin America what was lost in Eastern Europe.”

The “cultural revolution,” without encountering the the slightest resistance, has easily duped public opinion (after having numbed it for 40 years). So much so that the public now seem to take the allegations against the investigation at face value, without even wondering whether the crime under investigation is not a million times more serious than mere words, however offensive, found in an investigator’s report.

In protesting against the use of the term “adverse force,” Flávio Bierrenbach, a Justice of the Superior Military Court and a man who owed his political career to leftist support, shows that he does not find that propaganda in favor of guerrillas or preparation for guerrilla warfare are adverse to democratic rule.

If the Army consents to “give explanations,” instead of accusing those who tie the hands of the legal forces to give leeway to Communist aggression, then, a new legal order will be introduced in this country overnight, as if by magic; an order in which the preaching of guerrillas will be done under the protection of the state, and to oppose it will be a crime. We fall asleep in the arms of a decaying democracy; we will awaken in the claws of a nascent Communist dictatorship.

A question that I ask myself is whether the newspaper that, in partnership with the public prosecutors, has created this Kafkaesque situation is not aware that, in doing so, it has gone far beyond mere journalistic defamation of the Armed Forces and become an instrument of the revolutionary mutation of the regime. I ask myself this question and I answer it myself: the newspaper cannot be unaware of what it does because, in its issue of July 7, 1993, it reported, in alarming tones, the infiltration of leftist agents in the Federal Police and the Ministry of Justice. What excuse does this newspaper now have for not knowing that it became itself an accomplice of those same people in the doing of what it feared they would do?

Instead of stopping its investigations, intimidated by the media, the Army must carry them further. It must investigate who are these prosecutors who, in a police investigation conducted under a “judicial secrecy” order, invite reporters to violate the order. What connection do these people have with The Brazilian Central Workers’ Union, the Workers’ Party, the Landless Movement ? Did the Landless Movement’s own spy service not cooperate in the operation? Or is it lawful for the Landless Movement to spy on the Army, but not the Army on the Landless Movement? And are those reporters not collaborators, militants, or “fellow travelers” of those same organizations accused in the Army’s report? In short: under the guise of a mere journalistic scandal, is what we are seeing now not a deathblow to neutralize in advance any possibility of national anti-Communist resistance?

Or is it forbidden to ask these questions? Does the simple fact of raising them make me an “adverse force”? Are we already in the new Brazil announced by Fidel Castro in which to oppose Communist action will be a crime?

Two promising reactions suggest that the answer is no. The courageous pronouncement by an army commander on Soldier’s Day shows that the ground forces are not willing to make themselves complicit in the plot hatched against them. And the judicial decision, which ordered the documents seized in Marabá to be returned to the army, shows that the judiciary does not want to be an instrument of its own destruction either.

But—have no doubt about it—the scandal surrounding the Marabá documents may be just the beginning. After all, it was through the scandal industry that Adolf Hitler put the German Armed Forces on its knees and transferred the control of the intelligence service to his party. And if there is an unmistakable trait that defines the mentality of the revolutionary movements of all stripes, it is their ability to try again.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Jornal da Tarde on August 30, 2001, and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.




Making Essential Information Available Again

One of the essential items of the Gramscian menu that now regulates the Brazilian mental diet is information control, which entails the suppression of all facts that could bring harm to the Communist revolutionary project. It took forty years of “occupation of spaces” (a Gramscian technical term) in newspapers editorial departments, publishing houses, and cultural institutions in general to produce this effect, which today can be considered satisfactorily achieved. Inconvenient news, books, and ideas were so effectively removed from the market that the simple possibility that they may actually exist has already disappeared from popular imagination.

If we mention, for example, the Communist aggression that triggered the conflict in Vietnam, nobody knows what we are talking about, because the silly lie that the United States started the war has taken root in public opinion as an unshakable dogma. If we speak of a “revolutionary strategy,” everyone’s eyes fly open, because they are sure that such a thing does not exist. If we allude to plans, already in full swing, to restore in Latin America the empire that has been lost in Communist Eastern Europe, we are immediately labeled as fantasists and paranoids, even though that goal was proclaimed to the four winds by Fidel Castro in the São Paulo Forum.

Of course, all information that could give credibility to our words has been suppressed from the media, bookstores, and ultimately from national memory. Courses on “Revolutionary War”— a subject whose study used to make the Brazilian Army the last stronghold of an alert consciousness against Communist advance—have been abolished even in staff colleges.

Dozens and dozens of books published in the last decade about the new strategies of the Communist revolution have been placed out of reach of the population by an effective cordon sanitaire around the publishing market and cultural media, which today have been almost completely reduced to the status of auxiliary instruments of the leftist strategy of domination. Acting with stealth, getting around direct confrontation, avoiding explicit preaching, that strategy succeeded so completely in dominating people’s minds that many in the news media and cultural milieux repeat slogans without having the slightest idea that they are actually using Communist watchwords.

There are, of course, conscious collaborators. More than conscious: professional collaborators. The Brazilian Central Workers’ Union, the Workers’ Party, the Landless Movement have on their payroll thousands of media communications professionals. It is an army of reporters and editors larger than that of Globo network, Abril publishing house, and of the newspapers Folha de São Paulo and Estado de São Paulo taken together. They suffice to make those leftist organizations the largest journalistic and editorial industries in the country. But the fact is that they do not get paid to write: they get paid not to write. They are paid to “occupy spaces” in newspapers, book, and magazine publishing companies, blocking, by their mere presence, inconvenient words, and spreading, by their everyday conversation alone, convenient ones. Even in this activist elite, few are aware that their function is that of censors and manipulators. Such is the subtlety of Gramscism, which always relies on the effect of that which is implicit and unstated. It is not even necessary to tell these professionals what to do: imbued with the desired beliefs, placed in decisive positions, they will always go in the expected direction, like water down the drain. And all people who simply repeat what they say have no idea of ​​the overall project with which they are collaborating. So automatic and thoughtless is this mechanism that one of the leading experts in manipulation of intellectuals in the Soviet world, Willi Münzenberg, called it “rabbit breeding:” to get it started, you just need to have a couple. The rest comes by virtue of nature. But what has been planted in the newsrooms, with money received from abroad, by the way, was not a couple of rabbits, but rather some thousands of couples. The multiplier effect is irresistible.

Today, it is in the assuredness, in the pompous and arrogant ease with which people who do not know anything about the subject assure us that Communism is a thing of the past while slavishly repeating Communist slogans (being unaware that they are Communist slogans) lies the best guarantee that the plans announced by Fidel Castro in the São Paulo Forum will be conducted with the foolish complicity of millions of quiet and self-satisfied fools.

There is nothing more urgent than making available information that has been suppressed. Only that can restore the possibility of a realistic debate on issues that are now left to be dealt with by the banal imagination of uneducated dilettanti and the consensual engineering of those strategists who manipulate them.

This book is destined to become a memorable milestone in the recovery of this possibility. Here, for the first time, broad enough documentation has been gathered to demonstrate the inescapably conspiratorial, revolutionary, and Communist character of an organization that, in the eyes of the uninformed, still passes off as the embodiment par excellence of a left that is renewed, democratic, and purified of all contamination with the totalitarian past.

The courage, patience, and determination with which its author, Adolpho J. Paula Couto, gathered and arranged all these fulminating pieces of evidence of the leftist perfidy will make him forever target of hatred of the current masters of morals. I think anything more honorable could be said of a good man.


Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.


Hilaire Belloc

Anti-Capitalist Capitalism

When I say that capitalist democracy can hardly survive without a culture of traditional values, many Brazilian classical liberals, crazy about economics and devotees of the magic omnipotence of the market, assume an expression of horror, of scandal, as if they were facing a heresy, an intolerable aberration, an iniquitous and morbid thought that should never occur to a normal member of the human race.

In so doing, they are only showing their complete ignorance about capitalist economic thought. That modest opinion of mine, in fact, is not mine. It only reflects and updates concerns that have been tormenting the great theorists of capitalism since the beginning of the twentieth century.

One of the first to express it was Hillaire Belloc, in his memorable 1913 book, The Servile State, reprinted in 1992 by Liberty Fund. Belloc’s thesis is simple, and the facts have not ceased to bear it out: unleashed from moral, cultural, and religious control, and elevated to a supreme and autonomous dimension of existence, the market economy destroys itself, entering into symbiosis with political power and ending up transforming free labor into servile labor, private property into a temporary concession from a voracious and controlling state.

Tracking the origins of the process, Belloc noted that, ever since the Tudors’ plunder of the Church’s goods, every new attack on religion had been accompanied by one more wave of state attempts upon private property and free labor.

At the time he was writing The Servile State, the two most successful economic formulas embodied that dreadful evolution whose next step would be World War I. The roots of the conflict were most succinctly expressed by Henri Massis (who seems to have never read Belloc). In Défense de l’Occident (1926), he remarked that, in a despiritualized Europe, all mental space available had been filled up by the conflict “between Prussian Statism or Socialism and English anti-statism or capitalism”. Capitalism beat Germany in the battlefield, but was defeated by German ideas in the long run, bending ever more to the demands of statism, chiefly in the following war, when, in order to face Hitler’s National Socialism, it had to yield up everything to Stalin’s International Socialism.

Défense de l’Occident is a forgotten book today, smeared by the slander of charlatans like Arnold Hauser—who goes to the absurdity of classing the author among the protofascists—, but its diagnosis of the origins of the First World War remains unbeatable, having received ample confirmation from the most brilliant contemporary historian alive, Modris Eksteins, in his Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age, published in 1990 by Doubleday (This is not to mention the prophetic accuracy of Massis’ warnings about the oriental invasion of Europe, which I will treat in a future article.) According to Eksteins, the Kaiser’s Germany, founded ona highly nationalized and bureaucratized economy, embodied the modernist rebellion against the free market-based Anglo-French parliamentary democracy. The latter emerged only apparently victorious: the war itself, above winners and losers, shattered the European order and wiped off the map the last remaining vestiges of the traditional culture in the liberal-capitalist scenario.

Another thinker who perfectly understood the conflict between market economy and the spiritless culture that this very same economy fostered more and more after World War I was Joseph Schumpeter. Capitalism, he said in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), would be destroyed, although not by the proletariat, as Marx’s prophecy had it, but rather by the capitalists themselves: insensitive to traditional values, they would ultimately let themselves be seduced by the charms of protective statism, the Siamese twin of the new modernist and materialist mentality.

That in the Roosevelt era and in the 1950s the statist proposal was personified by John Maynard Keynes, a refined homosexual bon vivant and protector of communist spies, is an eloquent symbol of the indissoluble union between anti-liberalism in economics and anti-traditionalism in everything else.

In the United States of the 1960’s, this union became patent in the “counterculture” of the youthful masses who substituted the old Protestant ethic of work, moderation, and parsimony for the cult of pleasure—pompously camouflaged as liberation of the mind—, while at the same time assailing, with unheard-of violence, the very same capitalism that furnished them with pleasures and the very same American democracy that secured them the right to enjoy these pleasures as they could never have done in their beloved Cuba, or in the North Vietnam they idolized. But the realm of the market is the realm of fashion: when fashion becomes anti-capitalist, the only idea that ever occurs to capitalists is to make money by selling anti-capitalism. The American culture industry, which in the last half century has probably grown more than any other branch of the economy, is nowadays a headquarters for communist propaganda more virulent than the KGB of the Cold War times. Here, the moral excuse is that the force of economic progress will ultimately absorb the enragés, emptying them little by little of all ideological presumption and transfiguring them into peaceful bourgeois. The individualist and consumerist hedonism that came to take over the American culture from the 1970s onward is the result of this disastrous alchemy, which is all the more disastrous because consumerism itself, instead of producing well-adjusted bourgeois, is a potent lever for revolutionary change, viscerally statist and anti-capitalist: a generation of voracious individualists, of leeches pretty well swollen with rights and insensitive to any moral obligation, is not a guarantee of peace and order, but rather a powder keg ready to explode in a chaotic irruption of impossible demands. By 1976, sociologist Daniel Bell wondered, in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, about the maximal lifespan of a capitalist economy founded on a crazed culture that hated capitalism to the point of demanding from it the fulfillment of all desires, all dreams and all whims, and at the same time of accusing capitalism of all crimes and iniquities. The answer came in 2008 with the financial crisis. The crisis resulted from the organized cynicism of the likes of Alinsky and Obama who consciously, coldly, planned to deplete the resources of the system, promoting, under the protection of the Nanny State, the most impossible ambitions, the most unfulfillable promises, the most extravagant expenses, in order to later blame the disaster on the system itself and prescribe as medicine more expenses, more state protection, more anti-capitalism and more hatred of the American nation.

In 1913, Hillaire Belloc’s previsions could still seem premature. It was legitimate to doubt them, for they were based on nebulous and virtual tendencies. In view of the fait accompli on a worldwide scale, the refusal to see the weakness of capitalism left to itself, without the defenses of traditional culture, is nothing but criminal obstinacy.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on May 13, 2009 and translated from the Portuguese by Maria Inês de Carvalho and Alessandro Cota.