SAPIENTIAM AUTEM NON VINCIT MALITIA

Growing in silence

Em 16 de junho de 2001 / English

OLAVO DE CARVALHO

Época, June 16, 2001

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

The stronger communism becomes in Brazil, less can we
talk about it

Never have so many and such good books about communism been published in the world as in these years that followed the dismantling of the URSS. The reason is obvious: the opening, even if partial, of the Files of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, a never-ending treasure for the scholars. It is not amazing that, the barrier of state secret being broken, so many investigators throw themselves into these registers of a dark past to decipher what certainly was one of the greatest mysteries of Human History: the voluntary genuflection of millions of cultured men before the altar of a grotesque, assassin and intrinsically absurd doctrine.

All the paradoxes, all the contradictions of the human soul press and fuse together in the composition of this mystery of iniquity; to understand it so we do not have to relive it is the number one duty of whomever has assimilated Socrates’ lesson, according to which “a life that has not been examined is not worthy of being lived”.

But the amazing thing is not the international wave of curiosity that turned Moscow into historian’s Mecca. It’s the absolute lack of interest that, in Brazil, opposes itself to the divulging of these discoveries.

Faster than thought, in the beginning of the nineties, communism was decreed a thing of the past in Brazil. Whoever had any interest in reminding its crimes and atrocities became suspect of Macarthist fanaticism, or even of monomaniac obsession worthy of psychiatric care. To forget, to silence – or rather, at best, dismiss the matter with half a dozen clichés accepted as the definitive explanation – became a natural law to which only the abnormal could escape from.

But I say that abnormal is a mind capable of judging mere coincidence the fact that this decade of forgetfulness was also the one of greatest expansion of communist influence over the destinies of the country.

I am not referring only to the electoral growth of the left. I refer to the conquest of the monopoly of political preaching in schools (where today the hypothesis of an anticommunist discourse is today inconceivable) and to the consolidation of certain acquired moral rights that are ostensibly denied to the rest of the population.

An openly violent communist movement is accepted today as a partner of the State, without the need even of legal registration. Communist politicians can associate to drug-dealing organizations without ever being investigated. Communist groups can block at will the freeways without anyone seeing in this the obvious exercise in insurrection training it is.

Ostensibly supported by the government, the communists put themselves above the law and besides that detain the almost complete monopoly of the means to investigate, denounce, judge, and condemn. Even before they nominally occupy governmental power, they already are a special class, an omnipotent, arrogant, and intolerant nomenklatura. As consequence, the simple act of writing some articles against them became an insult, a threat, and an unbearable abuse.

This is the reason of the lack of interest I referred to. There is a direct connection of cause and effect between the wordless prohibition of looking at the past and the lightning speed with which it repeats itself before millions of ignorant eyes that, not having known it, cannot recognize it. Communism is “out of fashion” as the clothes that move out of the catwalks to enter general daily use. It was simply needed to keep it out of the horizon of national consciousness so that, without being bothered by inquisitive eyes, it could grow on the shadow of the general indifference of its victims.

That is exactly why I interpret as opposite the inhibiting counsel that recommend that I speak less of communism to look less crazy or fanatic. Before the great tragedy that prepares itself, only a morbidly intimidated observer would abstain from touching the subject not to give the impression he is seeing things. And, honestly, it is not worth it to let yourself go crazy for mere obsession of looking normal.

A transfiguração do desastre

Em 16 de junho de 2001 / Artigos

Tags: 2001, Direitos Humanos, homossexualismo, O Globo, Partido Comunista, URSS

Olavo de Carvalho

O Globo, 16 de junho de 2001

Sempre que os esquerdistas querem impor um novo item do seu programa, alegam que ele é a única maneira de curar determinados males. Invariavelmente, quando a proposta sai vencedora, os males que ela prometia eliminar são agravados. O normal seria que, em tais circunstâncias, a esquerda fosse responsabilizada pelo desastre. Mas isto jamais acontece, pois instantaneamente o argumento legitimador originário desaparece do repertório e é substituído por um novo sistema de alegações, que celebra o fracasso como um sucesso ou como necessidade histórica incontornável.

Ninguém compreenderá nada da história do século XX — nem deste começo do XXI — se não conhecer esse mecanismo de justificação retroativa pelo qual se leva o povo a trabalhar em prol de metas não declaradas, que o escandalizariam se as conhecesse e que por isto só podem ser atingidas pela via indireta da cenoura-de-burro.

Alguns exemplos tornarão isso bem claro.

1) Quando o Partido Comunista lançou seu programa de destruição das instituições familiares “burguesas”, consubstanciado no que mais tarde viria a ser a “liberação sexual”, sua alegação principal, elaborada pelo dr. Wilhelm Reich, era que homossexualismo, sado-masoquismo, fetichismo etc. eram frutos da educação patriarcal repressiva. Eliminada a causa, essas condutas desviantes tenderiam a desaparecer do cenário social. Bem, os últimos residuos de valores patriarcais foram suprimidos da educação ocidental entre as décadas de 70 e 80, e o que se viu em seguida? A disseminação, em escala apocalíptica, daquelas mesmas condutas que se prometia eliminar. Obtido o resultado, essas condutas começaram a ser celebradas como saudáveis, dignas e meritórias, e toda crítica a elas passou a ser condenada — às vezes sob as penas da lei — como abuso intolerável e atentado contra os direitos humanos.

2) Quando a esquerda mundial começou a lutar pela legalização do aborto, um de seus argumentos principais era que o grande número de abortos era causado pela proibição, que facilitava a ação de charlatães, intrometidos e gente não habilitada em geral. A legalização, prometia-se, obrigaria a realizar o aborto em condições medicamente aceitáveis, portanto diminuindo o número de casos. Qual foi o resultado? No primeiro ano, o número de abortos nos EUA subiu de 100 mil para um milhão e não parou de crescer até hoje. Pelo menos 30 milhões de bebês já foram sacrificados, ao mesmo tempo que os apologistas da legalização, em vez de admitir a falácia do seu argumento inicial, festejam o fato consumado, tratando de marginalizar e criminalizar qualquer crítica ao novo estado de coisas.

3) Quando os esquerdistas norte-americanos inventaram a política de quotas e indenizações conhecida como “affirmative action”, alegavam que ela diminuiria a criminalidade entre a população negra. Oficializada a nova política, o número de crimes cometidos por negros contra brancos aumentou significativamente, segundo estatísticas do FBI. Que fizeram então os apóstolos da “affirmative action”? Reconheceram humildemente que reforçar o sentimento de identidade racial era alimentar preconceitos e conflitos de raça? Nada. Celebraram o aumento da hostilidade racial como um progresso da democracia.

4) Quando, querendo destruir a tradição norte-americana que considerava a educação um dever da comunidade, das igrejas e das famílias antes que do Estado, a esquerda norte-americana reivindicou a burocratização do ensino, um de seus argumentos básicos era que a delinqüência juvenil só poderia ser controlada mediante a ação educacional do Estado. Com Jimmy Carter, em 1980, os EUA passaram a ter pela primeira vez um Ministério da Educação e programas de ensino uniformes. Duas décadas depois, a delinqüência entre crianças e adolescentes não apenas vem crescendo muito mais que antes, mas adotou como seu quartel-general as escolas públicas, hoje transformadas em áreas de risco, ao ponto de que no começo do ano a prefeitura de Nova York estava privatizando as suas por não ter meios de controlar a violência nelas. Em resposta, que faz a esquerda? Admite que errou? Não. Luta pela uniformização estatal do ensino em escala mundial.

5) No Brasil, a única maneira de diminuir a violência nas áreas rurais, proclamavam os esquerdistas, era dar terras e dinheiro ao MST. Pois bem, as terras foram dadas — foi a maior distribuição de terras de toda a história humana, com muito dinheiro atrás. A violência não diminuiu: aumentou muito. A esquerda confessa que errou? Não. Trata de organizar a violência e celebrá-la como a conquista de um novo patamar histórico na luta pelo socialismo.

Os exemplos poderiam multiplicar-se “ad infinitum” — e notem que propositadamente evitei mencionar os casos extremos, sucedidos no próprio âmbito dos países socialistas, como a coletivização da agricultura na URSS, o Grande Salto para a Frente e a Revolução Cultural na China, a revolução cubana, etc. limitando-me a fatos sucedidos no mundo capitalista.

A promessa salvadora transfigurada em desastre e seguida da troca de discurso legitimador foi, em suma, o “modus agendi” essencial e constante da esquerda mundial ao longo de um século, e não se vê o menor sinal de que algum mentor esquerdista tenha problemas de consciência por isso. Ao contrário, todos continuam prometendo a solução dos males, ao mesmo tempo que já têm pronta, na gaveta, a futura legitimação dos males agravados. Prometem diminuir o consumo de drogas mediante a liberalização, controlar a corrupção mediante o “orçamento participativo”, reprimir a delinqüência mediante o desarmamento civil ou mediante o “direito alternativo” leninista que criminaliza antes a posição social do acusado do que o seu ato criminoso. Sabem perfeitamente aonde tudo isso leva — mas sabem também que ninguém os apoiaria se proclamassem em voz alta o que desejam.

PS – O pedido de impeachment do governador Olívio Dutra passou pela Comissão de Constituição e Justiça da Assembléia gaúcha. Vai a plenário. Mas a imprensa nacional continua ignorando o caso.

The right hand of the left

Em 9 de junho de 2001 / English

OLAVO DE CARVALHO

O Globo, June 9, 2001

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

Since the fall of the URSS, our national left has made efforts day and night to warn our nationalists — especially those from the Armed Forces — against the danger of the unipolar world, and to persuade them to become leftist for the sake of patriotism. There are people that make a living of this, and there are people — even in the Armed Forces — who believe in them. But only a perfect idiot does not realize that the dominant world power that imposes on us the economic policies against which the left fights is the same one that imposes on us the politically correct concepts, abortion, feminism, ecology and all the cultural models that constitute the program of the left itself.

It is much less possible for an average sane mind to avoid noticing that the multimillionaire foundations and multinational companies that subsidize the diffusion of these new models of conduct are the same that, on the other hand, support the implementation of the New World Order and of the economic policies that the apostles of these models claim to execrate.

And whomever notices these two things cannot but reach the conclusion that the unipolar world is even more unipolar than the spokesmen from the left would wish to be known. It is so unipolar that from it come not only the proposals the left hates, but also the ones it loves and personifies. And from it, equally, comes the money used to subsidize the implementation of one thing and the other.

The left, in sum, utilizes a stereotyped vocabulary from the time of bipolarity to deceive the nationalists, disorient them and subjugate them to the global strategy, attracting their attacks to a false target so that they do not realize where the real one is. The essential component of this vocabulary is the old identification of “North-American” with “conservative-capitalist”, of which we derive, automatically, the confusion of nationalism with statism, the Welfare State and, last not least, Socialism.

It is with the aim of legitimizing this brutal farce that the current discourse of men from the left against the IMF and the New World Order presents these two phenomena as if they were the quintessence of conservative-capitalism and not precisely the opposite — as history demonstrates — just pure socialist inventions destined to strangle, together with economic freedom, political freedom in the world. The IMF and the New World Order are chapters in the history of an overwhelming centralization that sacrifices all in the altar of bureaucratic control and planned economy, idols a thousand times denounced, whose mystical powers the socialist propaganda promises will heal all maladies. Of the first, its own inventor, Lord Keynes, said it was “essentially a socialist conception”. As to the second, it was from beginning to end the creation of the famous Londoner “think tank” of gradualist socialism that, after passing through several denominations, ended up becoming notorious as the Fabian Society. It was one of its most illustrious members, the writer H. G. Wells, who delineated, in 1928, the entire program of the New World Order and published it in his book “Open Conspiracy”.

“Open” is poetic license. So is “conspiracy”. The Fabian socialism never got involved in attacks, gatherings, or manifestations, much less in basement conspiracies. All it did was to prepare intellectuals to be placed in high-level assessorial positions from which they could, discreetly but without any secrecy, inoculate socialist ideas inside the minds of government leaders. This scheme was invented by the theoretician Graham Wallas, who, five decades in advance, formulated the Gramscian strategy of the “occupation of spaces” and of “passive revolution” (and to think that Gramsci even poses as a genius!). The magnitude of the effects of this things contrasts singularly with the circumspection of the means. Practically all the great turns of modern economy towards the centralizing and socializing trends of the welfare State were planned by Fabian socialists. Just to give you an idea of the reach of their influence, the government plans from three of the most powerful — and the most state-centralizing — among the presidents of the USA, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson, were directly copied from works of Fabian authors, and even adopted their titles: Roosevelt’s “New Deal” comes from a Stuart Chase book, Kennedy’s “New Frontier” from a book by Henry Wallace, and Johnson’s “Great Society” from a book by Graham Wallas himself.

Regardless of their soft style, rather social-democratic than communist, the Fabian always considered the URSS a valued ally in their fight against conservative-capitalism. Deep down, it was much more than this: deserters from KGB informed that at least one of the books by Sidney Webb, the most famous president of the Fabian Society, was not written by him, but came already written from the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Relations. It is understandable. Much earlier than Gramsci, the URSS had also discovered the virtues of reformist gradualism that, from above and without hardness, socializes the world faster than thousands of Che Guevaras could — these being the authentic scapegoats of the only socialism that always ends victorious.

The supreme advantage of the discreet method is that, when the ingenious state-centralizing plans from unknown socialist intellectuals from the people at last weigh heavily in the pockets of the masses with the immeasurable cost of their foolishness, there always are in the market radical left intellectuals who, ignoring or pretending to ignore all the work of their Fabian partners, lay all the blame of the disaster on… conservative capitalism!

Let not thy left hand see what thy right hand does, teaches the Bible. Socialism has its own demoniacal version of this teaching: let not thy noisy masses see what thy silent allies do — and thus, not knowing who oppresses them, they will detonate their fury on the scapegoat that is most convenient to the strategy.

All that is left to know is whether our nationalists — specially the ones from the Armed Forces — will consent to reduce themselves to playing the part of manipulated masses.