Olavo de Carvalho on the revolutionary mind

Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind

 

By Donald Hank

Even the best of observers have trouble figuring out what the Left is, or what the difference between left and right is, or what these concepts even mean any more.

Great strides have been made recently, however, with the recognition, among the most astute observers, that Hitler’s Third Reich is by no means an example of rightwing ideology and policies in action, contrary to current political doctrine.

Many conservative writers have already concluded that Hitler was not a rightwinger, based mostly on his National Socialism.

Indeed Mr. de Carvalho’s (as yet unpublished) lecture “The structure of the revolutionary mind,” cites the recent book “The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia” by Richard Overy, which demonstrates the parallels between Hitler and Stalin.

I had noticed that the compatibility of Hitler’s ideology with today’s European relativism was brilliantly highlighted in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, and most poignantly in the scene in a former Third Reich mental “hospital” where patients deemed to be of no value to society were gassed (I couldn’t help but think of Terri Schiavo). When Stein asked the tour guide at the museum what she would say if she could talk to the perpetrators of that horror, she simply said that was another era and they had their reasons for doing what they did. Thus she clearly would not feel justified in judging these criminals by her standards (assuming she had any). Here was a woman who had certainly been educated in Germany, either the communist East Germany or the socialistic West Germany. Neither system prepared her to condemn Hitler’s actions because these actions were based on the same world view that Germany embraces today, atheistic humanism based on a tenacious belief in Darwinist principles of natural selection, and the correlative notion that man has a moral right and even obligation to support natural selection with his laws under which a race can be culled of inferior elements. Neither socialism nor “national” socialism reject this out of hand. Only Christianity does, and that religion is fading fast in Europe (while here Christianity is being absorbed by the Left. See here, here and here).

All this helps clarify the compatibility between two world views that our education system and mainstream press insist are opposites.

But surprisingly, despite a lot of keen observation, before Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture, no one had yet managed to credibly characterize the Left in all of its main facets.

I have personally grappled with this for many years and had all but despaired of finding an adequate definition. And yet, how can a good American be a good American if he can’t identify the enemy of his way of life? How can he stand athwart history and shout stop if he doesn’t know what it is he must stop?

At the top of the first page of each issue of Izvestia was the slogan “Workers of the world unite!” Thus to people of my era, the Left portrayed itself as a system of social justice that aimed at creating a level playing field between workers and their bosses and attempted to share the wealth equally with a view to building a world free of poverty.

Yet today, we see the Left working hard to make fuel more expensive for the poor, not in any attempt at social justice but rather to “save the planet.” The main area where social “justice” is sought is between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the current thrust is toward legalizing same-sex “marriage” which, if it triumphs, will trivialize traditional marriage, ultimately prompting fewer to marry and bear children, since part of the attractiveness of marriage has been a sacred religious ceremony affirming one’s faith, encouraging people to wait until marriage to enjoy sex, and therefore fostering heterosexual purity based on a biblical world view. None of this is apparent in the “gay” community with its emphasis on promiscuity (broad daylight naked orgies) and its rejection of the biblical view of homosexuality. This focus on discouraging child birth is mightily supported by Planned Parenthood. Thus, ultimately, the leftist vision seems to be a world with more poverty and fewer children born to shoulder the burden of caring for the elderly, for example, by paying into the social services system. The once-proud vision of a world of strong healthy workers receiving equal pay for a better, more prosperous life, is quickly giving way to a vision of a world impoverished for the sake of an impersonal planet to whose riches mankind must increasingly forfeit its claims. We are taught that to consider humanity’s needs is to be selfish, that we must sacrifice our children’s future for the sake of a planet. And yet we are being asked to sever ties to that planet as if our destiny were separate from its.

Thus, obviously, the old left and the new left are different ideologically and many ordinary people are confused (particularly since an astounding percentage of Republican politicians embrace the Left’s policies). Some are confused into thinking that the new Left is more benign. These are the ones who believe the myth that communism is dead.

In fact, communism never died, it merely metamorphosed.

How to explain that the Left can completely substitute its original ideology and still be the Left?

Olavo de Carvalho had wondered the same thing. But he was born into a South American environment where leftism was the air they breathed. It was the worldview in academe and on the street and there was no other box to think outside of. Therefore, as a philosophy student, he was steeped in the literature of the Left, not just Marx and Hegel but the entire pantheon of leftist gods writing the blueprints for society. Thus he had read an enormous amount of this literature and is today one of the few living conservatives-having had his epiphany-who now truly understands the Left, something like David Horowitz, except that de Carvalho had the additional benefit of seeing a much more virulent leftism in action and up close.

Even so, Mr. Carvalho had to read and reread the old (and new) revolutionary literature to find a common thread, and what he found is surprising:

The Left (which he calls the “revolution”) is not a unified ideology or agenda at all, but rather a way of seeing the world, and specifically it is an inversion of what normal people call common sense. And this inversion is the sole unifying factor, the one common thread running through the revolution since the 13th and 14th centuries

According to de Carvalho, revolutionary thought as we know it did not exist before about the 13th century; nor is it a function of chronological age. The myth that the young tend to be revolutionaries arises from the Left itself and serves the purpose of making the Revolution appear to be a natural phenomenon.

Instead, this revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:

1-Inversion of the perception of time.

Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it).

Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it.

One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral.

While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist.

2-The inversion of morality

De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.

The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale.

Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion.

De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority!

To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine).

By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” the American revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts. 

3-Inversion of subject and object

When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.

De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out.

You will be a better American for having read the writings of – a great American.

 

Olavo de Carvalho is a well-known Brazilian philosopher and writer, many of whose articles have graced the pages of Laigle’s Forum.

 

Obama’s “gotcha” effect on America

The American Lula

Olavo de Carvalho

Jornal do Brasil, July 24, 2008

 

Besides listening to the national anthem with his hands over his genitals instead of his heart, Barack Hussein Obama has adulterated the presidential seal so as to make it into one of his campaign logos, declared that the American flag is “a symbol of oppression,” and, as a finishing stroke, removed the stars and stripes from the tail of his campaign jet, replacing them with the “O” that stands for. . . himself.

 

More than plain and simple contempt, this attitude denotes a conscious effort at destroying the national symbols. This effort, in turn, does not invite symbolic interpretation: its meaning is self-evident. It gives electoral expression to the cultural war that has been waged against the United States, from within and from abroad, ever since the sixties: the point is to erect, upon the rubble of patriotism and sovereignty, a new system of loyalties, based on the alliance between every anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Christian hatred and the billionaire interests engrossed with the implementation of the world government. The clearest token of such an alliance are the candidate’s sources of funding: radical and pro-terrorist groups, on the one hand, and the globalist megafortunes plus the mainstream media in full, on the other. Hence the vigor of his campaign, which has three or four times as much money as his opponent’s and-without any exaggeration-gets twenty or thirty times as much media coverage.

 

With this backup, he presumes not only to defy every convention but also to trample on the most elementary of legal requirements: after withholding for months his birth certificate, he at last produced a manifestly spurious one (see http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm). The original document, which is still missing, is necessary to clear up an essential question: Is Obama an American citizen, or is he an alien, and therefore ineligible? The concealment and the subsequent fraud speak in favor of the latter hypothesis, but the steadfast enthusiasm of Obamaniacs, contrasting with their absolute lack of interest in clarifying this question, shows that they would rather demolish the American electoral system in a single blow than allow Republicans to stay in power: the new system of loyalties is already in force, placing the partisan ambitions of the Left over national integrity.

 

With the same self-confident insolence, Obama’s government plans run flagrantly counter to the will of the majority, without the candidate’s having to fear the loss of even a single vote. The nation wants gas prices down; Obama promises to send them up, by maintaining the ban on new oil drilling. America wants to see illegal immigrants gone; Obama promises not only to grant them amnesty but also to give them taxpayer-funded health care. The nation wants fewer taxes; Obama promises to create a few more. If millions of American citizens who think and want the opposite of what Obama does have sworn to vote for Obama for president, it is not on account of what he promises, but in spite of his promising them hell itself. The attraction of the hypnotic image is stronger than the cost-benefit analysis.

 

Obama’s campaign is a work of precision psychological engineering, planned not to win over voters through rational persuasion, but to weaken, shock, and stupefy them to the point of making them accept any loss, any humiliation, any defeat, just so as not to contradict the assumed moral obligation to elect him, it being of little importance whether he actually is an enemy in disguise. Here is what Obama is demanding-and obtaining-from voters: that they sacrifice everything to a fetish, and that they do so to some extent consciously, sharing therefore all blame for the operation and being rendered, in advance, unable to fight against it once it has been accomplished.

 

We have already seen this operation carried in Brazil, on the basis of the stereotypical image of the “worker president,” against whose crimes and perfidies no one can raise an audible voice any more, for everyone, coerced by psychological blackmail, became an accomplice in some way or another in the rite of sacrifice before the altar of the idol.

 

 

 

Translated by Alessandro Cota and Bruno Mori

Transfiguring the disaster

A reader left a comment at a recent column of mine saying she was offended that I dared to suggest that the Left’s support for “gay marriage” was similar to their refusal to allow the free market to work in the extraction of oil on US territory. How does one go about compressing the distillate of a century of history in a paragraph? I told her simply to pay attention to the columns by Olavo de Carvalho, who arguably knows more about the Left than any other living human being. Perhaps this column will help broaden Americans’ view of what the Left is really all about, namely, that it is not about human rights for anyone but rather sowing disaster. When you hear someone pushing a new “right,” look out for that disaster!

Reader Hermes de Alzevedo recently suggested I read the following article. When I did I couldn’t help but think of how Bill Clinton shamelessly took credit for reforming welfare, when in fact it was his party that had caused the disaster in the first place and the opposition who forced him to reform it. At no time did any Democrat admit that welfare was a disaster. Instead the emphasis was on how their party had so brilliantly achieved this wonderful victory over the monster that no one dared to say was of their own creation.

As Mr. de Carvalho shows elsewhere, and as Paul Weyrich lately pointed out, the main reason the Left can do its dirty work almost unopposed is the cooperation it receives from mainstream “conservatives.”

The column was written in 2001, but is as timely now as ever.

Remember this quote:

“…but they [the Left] also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire.”

I know, folks, it is absurd that any group, especially one this large and powerful and as college “educated,” could actually want to destroy all that is good and decent, and most of you will steadfastly refuse to believe it. Just as Neville Chamberlain and the flower children of his day refused to believe that Hitler could be such a monster.

And by the time they did it was too late.

Donald Hank

 

 Transfiguring the disaster

OLAVO DE CARVALHO
O Globo, June 16, 2001

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

Every time the Left wants to impose a new item of their program, they say it is the only way to cure certain maladies. Invariably, when the proposition wins out, the maladies it proposed to eliminate become worse. The normal thing to do under such circumstances would be to lay the responsibility for the disaster on the Left. But this never happens, for at once the original legitimizing argument disappears from the repertoire and is substituted by a new system of allegations, which celebrates failure as success or as a historical necessity that could not be avoided.

No one will understand the first thing about the history of the 20th century – or the beginning of the 21st – if they do not know this retroactive justification mechanism by which the Left makes the people work for non-declared goals that would scandalize them if they knew their identity and that can only be reached through the indirect route of dangling the carrot in front of the donkey’s nose.

Some examples will make this clearer.

1) When the Communist Party released its program for the destruction of the “bourgeois” family institutions, laying the groundwork for what would later be “sexual liberation,” its main allegation, elaborated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, was that homosexuality, sadomasochism, fetishism etc. were fruits of repressive patriarchal education. Once the cause were eliminated, these deviant behaviors would tend to disappear from the social scene. Well, the last remnants of patriarchal values were expelled from western education between the seventies and the eighties, and what did we see right afterwards? The dissemination, on an apocalyptic scale, of the same behaviors they promised to eliminate.  Once the results were obtained, these behaviors started to be celebrated as healthy, honorable and meritorious, and all criticism of them is now frowned upon – sometimes even under penalty of law – as an intolerable abuse and attack against human rights.

2) When the international Left started to fight for the legalization of abortion, one of their main arguments was that the great number of abortions was due to the prohibition thereof, which facilitated the action of charlatans, crooks and all kinds of untrained individuals. Legalization, it was promised, would force the abortion to be performed under medically acceptable conditions, thereby lowering the number of cases. What was the result? In the first year, the number of abortions in the USA went from 100 thousand to 1 million, and it never stopped going up to this day. At least 30 million babies were already sacrificed, while at the same time, the apologists of legalization, instead of admitting the fallacy of their initial argument, now celebrate the fact, working to eliminate and criminalize any criticism of the new state of affairs.

3) When the North-American left devised the policy of quotas and indemnification known as “affirmative action,” they alleged it would diminish crime in the black community. After the new policy was made official, the number of crimes committed by black men against white men arose significantly, according to statistics from the FBI. What did the apostles of this “affirmative action” do then? Did they recognize that to reinforce the feeling of racial identity was to stimulate prejudices and racial conflicts? Nah. They celebrated the increase in hostilities as progress in democracy.

4) When, in an attempt to destroy the North-American tradition of considering education a duty of the community, the churches and the family rather than of the State, the North-American left demanded bureaucratization of teaching, one of its prime arguments was that juvenile delinquency could be controlled only by an educational action of the State. Under Jimmy Carter, in 1980, the USA had for the first time a Department of Education and uniform teaching programs. Two decades later, delinquency among children and adolescents is not only growing much faster than before, but has also adopted the public schools as its headquarters, which have now become danger zones, to the point where, at the beginning of the year, the Mayor’s office in New York was privatizing its schools because of the impossibility of controlling the violence inside them. In answer to that, what did the left do? Did it admit failure? No. It is fighting for State uniformity of teaching on a world level.

5) In Brazil, the only way of lowering violence in the rural areas, so said the Left, was to give land and money to the MST (Movimento Sem Terra, or Landless Movement). Very well, the land was given – it was the greatest distribution of land in all human history, with lots of money behind it. Violence has not lessened: it has increased a lot. Does the Left admit its mistake? No. It organizes violence and celebrates it as the attainment of a new historic stage in the fight for socialism.

The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum – and notice I deliberately avoided mentioning extreme cases that occurred inside socialist countries themselves, such as the collectivization of agriculture in USSR, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in China, the Cuban Revolution, etc., sticking to facts originating in the capitalist world.

The promise of salvation, transfigured into disaster and followed by a change in the discourse to legitimize it, has been, in sum, the constant and essential modus agendi of the international Left for a century, and we see no sign of any leftist mentor having any conscience problems with this. Au contraire, all of them continue to promise the solution to maladies, while having readied in their portfolios the future legitimization of the enlarged maladies. They promise to lower drug consumption through liberalization, to control corruption through “participative budgeting,” to repress delinquency through the disarming of civilians or through Leninist “alternative law,” which incriminates the social status of the defendant rather than his criminal act. They know perfectly well where this all will take us – but they also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire. 

What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that?

 Olavo de Carvalho

 Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), July 9th 2008

             Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin.  The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.

            For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience – and with below-minimal political experience – to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.

            With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office.  In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?” 

            Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?

            Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols – the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed – Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?

            Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths.  Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system – which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”

            Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it

The formula for poverty, by Olavo de Carvalho

Want to know the fate of the US in a few years? Just watch Brazil.  The similarity in the trends are astonishing, particularly the way the parties of the “right” grovel before the Left.

Brazilian President Lula has the reputation in the US of being something of a moderate, supporting leftist ideals on the one hand while maintaining the free market on the other. This little sop thrown toward market economics has enabled Lula to fly under the same radar that exposed the antics of the more flamboyant Hugo Chavez.

But behind the Lula mask is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.

On the surface, one might think what is happening in Brazil has nothing to do with us.

One would be dead wrong.

As Olavo de Carvalho has pointed out before on this site, what is happening in Brazil today is a depressing reflection of what can easily happen in the US tomorrow, ie, the loss of the free market – and it will, unless we wake up promptly.

What Mr. de Carvalho has noticed and so many others are missing, is that our nemesis is not the hard Left, but rather the lukewarm right.

Look at the unmistakable similarity between Brazilian and US politics, for example. Quote:

At variance with the general chatter of those who fancy themselves the keepers of public opinion, all research shows the decidedly conservative preferences of the Brazilian people, who, thanks to a gross miscalculation of the parties on the “right,” are excluded from political representation.  The votes of the silent majority are up for grabs for any candidate with the courage to speak on its behalf.  Meanwhile, the politicians who should do this prefer to make like good little boys for the beautiful people on the left, in exchange for nothing more than minimal guarantees for the free market. 

The Brazilians are a dead ringer for us, only just a few years further Left. The only thing that may save us is taking a lesson from what has happened there (and, for that matter, in Europe). But will we? American conservatives are becoming so isolationist that many refuse to pay attention to what is happening elsewhere in the world, in the false belief that the universal laws that govern human behavior will somehow spare us.

To borrow from Ben Stein: is anyone paying attention out there? Anyone? Anyone?

Donald Hank

The formula for poverty

by Olavo de Carvalho

In 2003, Brazil ranked number 58 in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.  In 2008 it ranks 101. The direct relationship between economic freedom and prosperity is the most obvious thing in the world.  Anyone who doubts this need only check out the 10 first and 10 last ranked on the heritage list.  At the top, Japan and Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Australia, United States, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.  At the bottom, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, Burma, Turkmenistan, Iran, Belarus, Bangladesh and Venezuela.  And Brazil is much closer to the latter than to the former, because this scale goes from one to 157 and Brazil has the uneasy distinction of being at the bottom third of the list.  Above Brazil we find Japan, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Taiwan and Spain.  Below us are Bolivia, Angola, Vietnam, Nigeria and Rwanda.  Now I finally understand the slogan of the late Dom Helder Camara, who became the world icon of leftist generosity:  “preferential option for poverty.”  It doesn’t mean helping the poor – it just means staying poor.

The Heritage Foundation Index demonstrates with utmost clarity that the Lula administration is strangling Brazilian capitalism even as it banks on it to finance its social programs and guarantee the good image of the government among international investors.

Meanwhile, in liberal circles, there are still those who swear that the socialist option of the governing party is only a stage prop to placate the “radicals,” and that Lula is at heart a proponent of the market economy.

Obviously, neither Lula nor anyone in the PT (Workers’ Party) is socialist enough to believe in the complete suppression of private ownership of the means of production.  The international Left has long desisted from this idea, one of the most idiotic ever to occur to the human mind.  What the left wants now is direct control of the economy, through taxes and restrictive regulations, and even so, only enough to guarantee the main thing: domination of the public mind, the dictatorship of psychological engineering.  But the Brazilian government has already exceeded this minimum.  On the other hand, the prudence and circumspection with which the cultural controls it wants are slowly, gently, almost imperceptibly imposed is remarkable.

In truth, it does not have to show its hand very much in this area.  The so-called “opposition parties” are surpassing it, imposing, on their own initiative, the politically correct regulations required by leftwing trends.

Depressing example: even before the PT came to power, when “anti-homophobic” policy was still only a faint suggestion in the federal sphere, the governor of São Paulo, Geraldo Alckmin, took the pains to endorse state law No. 10.948 of 2001, which penalizes “offensive or discriminatory action practiced against the homosexual, bisexual or transgendered citizen.”  This law has just been enforced against the citizen Juliano da Silva of the city of Pontal, who called a homosexual with whom he was arguing a “fag.” The law does not stipulate against calling a non-homosexual this, making it clear that the insult will be punished only if it has a foundation in truth.  Thus, before calling someone a “fag,” you had better make sure he’s not one.  Politically correct legislation is transforming the Justice Department into a travesty, catering only to the despotism of activist groups.  The leftist groups that propose these bills know perfectly well that their only objective is to dismantle the system from within, creating the atmosphere of chaos and anarchy necessary for the total takeover of power by one of the factions – to the exclusion of all others – to go unnoticed, and this is exactly what is happening.

The “liberal”[1] opposition takes the bait and winds up serving as a channel to implement these policies, either because it is fool enough to take seriously the moral pretexts adorning them or because it believes political correctness pays off in terms of votes.  In the first case, it is a victim of moral naïveté, but in the second case, it lapses into political stupidity that is hardly excusable in individuals who have any experience with elections.

 In Brazil, gay activism, the abortion platform and things of that kind never garner votes for anyone.  They may guarantee some applause from the media, but who says the media are as influential as they give themselves credit for?  At variance with the general chatter of those who fancy themselves the keepers of public opinion, all research shows the decidedly conservative preferences of the Brazilian people, who, thanks to a gross miscalculation of the parties on the “right,” are excluded from political representation.  The votes of the silent majority are up for grabs for any candidate with the courage to speak on its behalf.  Meanwhile, the politicians who should do this prefer to make like good little boys for the beautiful people on the left, in exchange for nothing more than minimal guarantees for the free market.  It is clear that the more moral and cultural ground they give, the more minimal these guarantees become.  The free market is never a law unto itself.  It depends on cultural, moral and psychological conditions that, once they are annulled in favor of political correctness, provide a left wing government with all the means of bringing capitalism to its knees without the capitalists themselves daring to complain or even figuring out what is happening, namely, cultural hegemony and ultimate control over consciences, especially those of the adversary.  The alacrity with which so-called liberal politicians sign on to the cultural propaganda of the left illustrates the success of the Gramscian strategy of “passive revolution” in Brazil, defined as a dialectic opposition in which “only the thesis develops all of its potentials in the struggle until the supposed representatives of the antithesis are captured”

The furious regulatory activity of the Lula government in the Heritage Foundation’s list points to something the whole world ought to know: when you give up everything in exchange for the free market, you wind up losing the free market as well.

Translated by Donald Hank (zoilandon@msn.com)

The author, Olavo de Carvalho is a noted correspondent for several major Brazilian newspapers. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

To comment or schedule an appearance, contact the author at: olavo@olavodecarvalho.org



[1] The term “liberal” in Brazil is used to mean what in America is referred to as “conservative” or “libertarian.”-Tr.