Olavo de Carvalho explains Lula and the Sao Paulo Forum

V-Crisis (Alek Boyd) interviews Olavo de Carvalho

October 22, 2009

Alek Boyd: Perhaps you remember Olavo that, in November 2005, we were part of a small group of people who were invited to brief former US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon, about the political situation in our respective countries. I do remember, very vividly, your warnings about Lula during that particular meeting. With the passing of time, I must say how pleasantly surprised I am with the turn of perception vis-a-vis Hugo Chavez. Mind you, in November 2005, the DoS still harboured the notion that he was a democrat, purportedly just like Lula. However, recent developments in Honduras show that Lula is as keen on interfering in other countries internal affairs, as his Venezuelan counterpart. Yet one would be hard pressed to conclude, by way of how mass media portrays the Brazilian president, that such is in fact the case. For this reason, taking into account that you are Brazilian, and that you have been following your country’s politics for longer than most reporters are aware of Lula’s very own existence, I would like to ask you a few things about him, starting with: why do you think the media is given him such benign treatment? Most analysts and media types believe that Lula is a moderate, a democrat. How do you reconcile that with, for instance, the foundation by Lula, at Fidel Castro’s personal request, of the Foro de Sao Paulo (FSP)?

There is nothing there to be properly reconciled. The image and the reality, in that case, are in complete contradiction to each other. The legend of Lula, as a democrat and a moderate, only holds up thanks to the suppression of the most important fact of his political biography, the foundation of the São Paulo Forum. This suppression, in some cases, is fruit of genuine ignorance; but in others, it is a premeditated cover-up. Council of Foreign Relations’ expert on Brazilian issues, Kenneth Maxwell, even got to the point of openly denying the mere existence of the Forum, being confirmed in this by another expert on the subject, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, also at a conference at the CFR. I do not need to emphasize the weight that CFR’s authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States. When such an institution denies the most proven and documented facts of the Latin American history of the last decades, few journalists will have the courage of taking the side of facts against the argument of authority. Thus, the São Paulo Forum, which is the vastest and most powerful political body that has ever existed in Latin America, goes on unknown to the American and, by the way, also worldwide public opinion. This fact being suppressed, the image of Lula as a democrat and a moderate does indeed acquire some verisimilitude. Note that it was not only in the United States that the media has covered up the existence and the activities of the Forum. In Brazil, even though I published the complete minutes of the assemblies of that entity, and frequently quoted them in my column in the prestigious newspaper O Globo, from Rio de Janeiro, the rest of the national media en masse either kept silent, or ostensibly contradicted me, accusing me of being a radical and a paranoid. When at last President Lula himself let the cat out of the bag and confessed to everything, his speech, published on the president’s official website, was not even mentioned in any newspaper or TV news show. Shortly afterwards, however, the name “São Paulo Forum” was incorporated into video advertisements of the ruling party, becoming thus impossible to go on denying the obvious. Then, they moved on to the tactic of harm management, proclaiming, against all evidence, that the São Paulo Forum was only a debate club, with no decisional power at all. The minutes of the assemblies denied it in the most vehement manner, showing that discussions ended up becoming resolutions, unanimously signed by the members present. Debate clubs do not pass resolutions. What’s more, the same presidential speech I have just mentioned also disclosed the decisive role that the Forum played in the sense of putting and keeping Mr. Hugo Chávez in power in Venezuela. Nowadays, in Brazil, nobody ignores that I told the truth about the São Paulo Forum and the rest of the media lied.

On the other hand, it is clear that Lula and his party, being the founders and the strategic centre of the Forum, had to keep a low profile, leaving to more peripheral members, like Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, the flashiest or most scandalous part of the job. Hence, the false impression that there are “two lefts” in Latin America, one democratic and moderate, and the other radical and authoritarian. There are two lefts, indeed, but they are rather the one that commands, and the other that follows the first’s orders and thereby risks its own reputation. All that the Latin American left has done in the last nineteen years was previously discussed and decided in the Forum’s assemblies, which Lula presided over, either directly until 2002, or through his deputy, Marco Aurélio Garcia, afterwards. The strategic command of the Communist revolution in Latin America is neither in Venezuela, nor in Bolivia, nor even in Cuba. It is in Brazil.

Once the fact of the existence of the São Paulo Forum was suppressed, what has given even more artificial credibility to the legend of the “two lefts” was that the Lula administration, very cunningly, concentrated its subversive efforts upon the field of education, culture, and custom, which only affect the local population, prudently keeping, at the same time, an “orthodox” economic policy that calmed down foreign investors and projected a good image of the country to international banks (a double-faced strategy inspired, by the way, in Lenin himself). Thus, both the subversion of the Brazilian society and the revolutionary undertakings of the São Paulo Forum managed, under a thick layer of praise for President Lula, to pass unnoticed by the international public opinion. Nothing can illustrate better the duplicity of conduct to which I refer than the fact that, in the same week, Lula was celebrated both at the World Economic Forum in Davos, for his conversion to Capitalism, and at the São Paulo Forum, for his faithfulness to Communism. It is quite evident, then, that there is one Lula in the local reality and another Lula for international consumption.

Alek Boyd: Could you expand a bit on the sort of organization the FSP is, and the democratic credentials of some of its members?

The São Paulo Forum was created by Lula and discussed with Fidel Castro by the end of 1989, being founded in the following year under the presidency of Lula, who remained in the leadership of that institution for twelve years, nominally relinquishing it in order to take office as president of Brazil in 2003. The organization’s goal was to rebuild the Communist movement, shaken by the fall of the USSR. “To reconquer in Latin America all that we lost in East Europe” was the goal proclaimed at the institution’s fourth annual assembly. The means to achieve it consisted in promoting the union and integration of all Communist and pro-Communist parties and movements of Latin America, and in developing new strategies, more flexible and better camouflaged, for the conquest of power. Practically, since the middle of the 1990’s, there has been no left-wing party or entity that has not been affiliated with the São Paulo Forum, signing and following its resolutions and participating in the intense activity of the “work groups” that hold meetings almost every month in many capital cities of Latin America. The Forum has its own review, America Libre (Free America), a publishing house, as well as an extensive network of websites prudently coordinated from Spain. It also exercises unofficial control over an infinity of printed and electronic publications. The speed and efficacy with which its decisions are transmitted to the whole continent can be measured by its ongoing success in covering up its own existence, over at least sixteen years. Brazil’s journalistic class is massively leftist, and even the professionals who are not involved in any form of militancy would feel reluctant to oppose the instructions that the majority receives.

The Forum’s body of members is composed of both lawful parties, as the Brazilian Workers’ Party itself, and criminal organizations of kidnappers and drug traffickers, as the Chilean MIR (Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria) and the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). The first is responsible for an infinity of kidnappings, including those of two famous Brazilian businessmen; the latter is practically the exclusive controller of the cocaine market in Latin America nowadays. All of these organizations take part in the Forum on equal conditions, which makes it possible that, when agents of a criminal organization are arrested in a country, lawful entities can immediately mobilize themselves to succour them, promoting demonstrations and launching petition campaigns calling for their liberation. Sometimes the protection that lawful organizations give to their criminal partners goes even further, as it happened, for example, when the governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Olívio Dutra, an important member of the Workers’ Party, hosted a FARC commander as a guest of state; or when the Lula administration granted political asylum to the agent of connection between the FARC and the Workers’ Party, Olivério Medina, and a public office to his wife. Sometime before, Medina had confessed to having brought an illegal contribution of $5 million for Lula’s presidential campaign.

The rosy picture of Brazil that has been painted abroad is in stark contrast with the fact that from 40,000 to 50,000 Brazilians are murdered each year, according to the UN’s own findings. Most of those crimes are connected with drug trafficking. Federal Court Judge Odilon de Oliveira has found out conclusive proofs that the FARC provides weaponry, technical support, and money for the biggest local criminal organizations, as, for instance, the PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital), which rules over entire cities and keeps their population subjected to a terror regime. Just as I foretold after the first election of Lula to the presidency in 2002, the federal administration, since then, has done nothing to stop this murderous violence, for any initiative on the government’s part in that sense would go against the FARC’s interest and would turn, in a split second, the whole São Paulo Forum against the Brazilian government. In face of the slaughter of Brazilians, which is more or less equivalent to the death toll of one Iraq war per year, Lula has kept strictly faithful to the commitment of support and solidarity he made to the FARC as president of the São Paulo Forum in 2001.

Alek Boyd: Why do you think worldwide media didn’t pick up on the fact that Lula’s presidential campaign was illegally funded, to the tune of $3 million, by Fidel Castro, as exposed by Veja?

In face of facts like these, it is always recommendable to take into account the concentration of the ownership of the means of world communication, which has happened over the last decades, as it has been described by reporter Daniel Estulin in his book about the Bilderberg group. Even the more distracted readers have not failed to notice how the opinion of the dominant world media has become uniform in the last decades, being nowadays difficult to perceive any difference between, say, Le Figaro and L’Humanité concerning essential issues, as, for example, “global warming,” or the advancement of new leaderships aligned with the project for a world government, as, for example, Lula or Obama. Never as today has it been so easy and so fast to create an impression of spontaneous unanimity. And since the CFR proclaims that the São Paulo Forum does not exist, nothing could be more logical than to expect that the São Paulo Forum disappears from the news.

Alek Boyd: Other analysts have made the preposterous argument that foreign intervention, imperialism by any other word, has never characterized Itamaraty’s policy. In light of “union leader” Lula’s direct intervention in helping Chavez overcome the strike in 2002-03 by Venezuelan oil workers, by sending tankers with gasoline, how would you explain such blatant ignorance?

Itamaraty’s traditions, however praised they were in the past, no longer mean anything at all. Today, the Brazilian diplomatic body is nothing but the tuxedoed militancy of the Workers’ Party. At the same time, the intellectual level of our diplomats, which had been a reason of pride since the times of the great baron of Rio Branco, has formidably declined, to the point that nowadays the intellectual leadership of the class is held by geniuses of ineptitude, such as Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães. No wonder then that everywhere now our ambassadors are simple agents of the São Paulo Forum. It cannot be said that this properly expresses Brazilian imperialism, for our Ministry of Foreign Relations does not hesitate to sacrifice the most obvious national interests before the altar of a more sublime value, which is the solidary union of the Latin American left. There is no Brazilian imperialism, but rather São Paulo Forum’s imperialism.

Alek Boyd: Do you think Marco Aurelio Garcia is behind Zelaya’s return to Honduras, as has been alleged? If yes, it is evident that is a matter of a FSP member coming to the rescue of a fallen comrade, but what’s in it for Brazil?

The Brazilian government denies having something to do with that, but Zelaya himself confessed that his return to Honduras had been previously arranged with Lula and his right-hand man, Marco Aurélio Garcia. The most evident thing in the world is that this grotesque installation of Zelaya in the Brazilian embassy is an operation of the São Paulo Forum.

Alek Boyd: Given that Tom Shannon is now US Ambassador to Brazil, would you reiterate what you told him about Lula, and his partners in crime, in November 2005, or would you advise differently?

Tom Shannon did not pay due attention to us in 2005 and this was, no doubt, one of the causes of the aggravation of the Latin American situation since then. It is likely that he read Maxwell’s and Alencastro’s speeches at the CFR, and thought that such a prestigious institution deserved more credibility than a handful of obscure Latin American scholars with no public office or political party. Unfortunately, we, not the CFR, were the ones who were right.

Alek Boyd: Finally, as in the case of Chavez, has Lula done enough institutional damage to remain in power, or will he hand over power democratically?

The alternation in presidential power no longer has any great meaning, for the two dominant parties, the Workers’ Party and the Brazilian Social Democratic Party, act in concert with each other and, despite minor differences in the administrative economic field, they are equally faithful to the overall strategy of the Latin American left. Lula himself has celebrated as a big victory of democracy the fact that there are only leftist candidates for the 2010 presidential elections, as if the monopoly of the ideological control of society were a great democratic ideal. On the other side, the most celebrated of the so-called “opposition” leaders, former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has already acknowledged that between his party and the Workers’ Party there is no substantive ideological or strategic difference, but only a contest for offices. It matters little who will win the next elections, for, in any event, the orientation of the Brazilian government must remain the same: in the social and juridical field, overpowering subversion; in the economic field, moderation to anesthetize foreign investors. The only difference that may arise is in the field of security, in the case that the candidate of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party, José Serra, wins, for his party, despite being as much a left-wing party as the Workers’ Party, does not formally belong to the São Paulo Forum, being therefore free to do things against organized crime, which Lula himself could never do. As governor of the state of São Paulo, Serra showed to be the only Brazilian political leader who pays attention to the slaughter of his fellow-countrymen. It is still early to know whether or not he will be able to do what he did in his state, but it is certain that he would wish to do it.

Africa inside out

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, September 14, 2009

The Third World movement, an invention of Stalin, turned out to be, and is still today, one of the major sources of the authority of the revolutionary spirit, instilling in the soul of Western civilization an inextinguishable guilt complex and obtaining from it every kind of moral, political and financial profit. Subscribed by international organizations, nourished by billionaire foundations and dozens of governments, trumpeted by indefatigable blabbermouths like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, enshrined as official doctrine by all big media in Europe and the US, this ideology entirely made of opportunistic mendacity ended up impregnating itself so deeply in public opinion that any attempt at confronting it, even in a neutral and academic tone, is considered today as unequivocal proof of “racism”.

One of its main dogmas is exactly the charge of racism, thrown generically at the face of all Christendom by innumerable armies of activist intellectuals and, in the last decades, by all the speakers for radical Islam. Imbued with the belief in the innate inferiority of blacks, white European man would have been, according to this doctrine, the slave-master par excellence, decimating the African population and financing, through the disgrace of the black continent, the industrial revolution which made the West wealthy.

Everything in this theory is a lie, beginning with the chronological inversion. Europeans only arrived in Africa around the middle of the 15th century. Well before that time, racist contempt for blacks was common sense among Arabs, as one can see in the words of some of its most prominent intellectuals. I draw these examples from Bernard Lugan’s book, Afrique, l’Histoire à l’Endroit (Paris, Perrin, 1989).

Ibn Khaldun, the Tunisian historian (1332-1406), assures us that if the Sudanese are characterized by “levity and inconstancy”, in the more Southern regions “we only find men who are closer to animals than to an intelligent being. They live in wild places and in caves, eat herbs and raw grains and sometimes they eat each other. We cannot consider them human beings.”

The Egyptian writer Al-Abshihi (1388-1446) asks: “What can there be that is worse and more vile than black slaves? As for the mulattos, be good to them every day of your life and in every possible way, and they will have no gratitude for you: it will be as if you had done nothing for them. The better you treat them, the more they become insolent; but if you mistreat them, they will show humility and submission”.

Iyad Al-Sabti (1083-1149) writes that the blacks are “of all men the most corrupt and the most disposed to procreation. Their life is like that of an animal. They have no interest in any matter of the world, except for food and women. Apart from that, nothing merits their attention.”

Ibn Butlan, recognizing that black women have the rhythmic sense and the resistance for hard work, observes: “But one cannot obtain any pleasure from them, such is the odor of their armpits and the roughness of their body.”

In contrast, theories affirming the racial inferiority of blacks were not disseminated in cultured Europe before the 18th century (cf. Eric Voegelin, The History of the Race Idea. From Ray to Carus, vol. III of his Collected Works, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1998). That is to say that Europeans of the literate classes became racists almost at the same time as the slave trade declined and abolitionist movements began, of which there is no equivalent in the Arab world, as slavery is permitted by the Islamic religion, and nobody would dare to directly confront a commandment from the Koran.

Anti-black racism is a total Arab creation and in Europe it did not contribute at all to encourage slave trade.

Another typical inversion of historical time is the universally held stereotype of the European colonialist invading Africa with a crucifix in his hand, firmly resolved to impose the white man’s religion on defenseless populations. Christianity was the religion of blacks long before it was the religion of white Europeans. There were churches in Ethiopia during the time when the English were still pagan barbarians. More than a thousand years before the great navigations, it was in Africa that one could find the oldest Christian kingdoms, some of them very cultured and prosperous. It was the Arabs who destroyed them, in their craving to islamize everything by force. A good part of the region that stretches from Morocco, Libya, Algeria and Egypt to Sudan and Ethiopia was Christian until the Muslims arrived, burned down the churches and sold Christians as slaves. 80% of the prestige of the tales of the Third World movement lie on the occultation of this fact.

As it invariably occurs with the revolutionary discourse, the chronological inversion is accompanied by the inversion of moral responsibility. It is not necessary to say that the verbal fury of Arabs today against the “slave-trading Christian civilization” is purely projected guilt: if the Europeans brought between 12 and 15 million slaves to the Americas, Arab merchants took to Islamic countries approximately the same amount, with three differences: (1) the Arabs would capture them, something which the Europeans never did, except in Angola and for a brief period; (2) the Arabs castrated at least ten percent of the slaves, a custom that was not known to European slave-traders; (3) the Arabs continued to practice slave trade up to the 20th century. The slavery practiced by the Arabs was a forbidden subject for a long time, but the taboo can be considered broken since the publisher Gallimard, the most prestigious in France, agreed to publish the excellent study of the African author Tidiane N’Diaye, Le Genocide Voilé (2008), which I will comment some other day.

But it is not only the Arabs that have to cover up their guilt behind a discourse of resentful accusations. Slavery was the general norm in Africa well before the Arabs arrived there, and today we know that the largest part of captured slaves was sold in the internal market, while only a smaller number was taken abroad. When the apologists of African civilization praise the great black kingdoms of the past, they generally omit mentioning that these States (especially Benin, Dahomey, Ashanti and Oyo) owed their prosperity to the slave trade, on which their economy was entirely dependent. Particularly the kingdom of Oyo, writes Lugan, “developed a notable military imperialism since the end of the 17th century, seeking to reach the ocean in order to establish direct contacts with the white men. Even before this, the warring strength of the Oyo, especially their cavalry, enabled them to reap an abundant harvest of slaves which it imprisoned in the south, among the Yoruba, and in the north, among the Bariba and the Nupe. Traditionally the numerous captives became slaves in the victors’ society. With the establishment of European slave trade a part – but only a part – was sent to the coast.”

In a forthcoming article I will show some other prodigious inversions that the discourse of the Third World movement operates in the history of African slavery.

Why I am not a fan of Charles Darwin

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, February 20, 2009

The billionaire 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_esXHcinOdA, 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?”

Veja todos os arquivos por ano