A Friend Who Warns You Is a True Friend – Folha de S. Paulo, July 7, 1979

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

I do not consider myself a centrist but a man of the right. “Are you with the extreme right?” some prejudiced reader will hastily ask. For leftists and many centrists, the mere word right-wing immediately conjures the specter of the far right. Symmetrically, many right-wingers and centrists cannot hear the word left-wing without instantly suspecting the speaker of being at least crypto-communist. In this respect, centrism itself is split down the middle: on one side, those centrists who distrust the right and incline toward collaboration with the left; on the other, those who distrust the left and incline toward collaboration with the right.

I am not writing this article to argue with leftists or with those who spiritually inhabit the center-left. In the present circumstances, that would be a waste of time. I am addressing right-leaning centrists—not to dispute with them, but to offer a disinterested, friendly warning.

“Disinterested”? Yes, in the sense that this gesture entails no personal advantage, only the desire for Brazil to have a coherent center capable of exerting real influence on public opinion. Among our people—most of whom are, by temperament and conviction, centrists—a strong and coherent center could immediately serve as a powerful bulwark against communism. Yet in my view, this bulwark is undergoing a shift, perhaps inadvertent, that places it in contradiction with itself. Such a contradiction can only diminish its density and, consequently, its influence.

Let me explain. Centrists ground their ideas in the maxim that the sovereign people possess the right, the knowledge, and the power to decide all matters of public life. For them, a debate of opinions is a fundamental condition of popular sovereignty. Everyone must be free to say what they wish, and at the moment of suffrage, the majority will decide. This debate, they hold, must be conducted through syllogisms: whoever is right and can demonstrate it will persuade public opinion. From this perspective, it is neither legitimate nor coherent to forbid anyone from “syllogizing” as they please. The people, regarded as coherent and discerning judges, will know how to recognize where the truth lies. It is on this basis, for example, that the current argument for political openness has been successfully advanced.

However, I see that a certain apprehension is emerging, even among the most prestigious proponents of the opening process. Once unleashed, will communists take over the country? Hence, after expressing themselves in favor of opening, they conceptualize it in a closed way, which constitutes a “contradictio in terminis.”

I offer a striking example. In a newspaper that often exerts decisive influence on the nation’s direction, I read the following headline: “The country is plunging deeper into economic crisis every day, which could become a social crisis, and is calling for the disarmament of spirits so that a great political project can be built on free and frank debate between doctrinally discordant currents, but substantially agreed on making Brazil a democracy worthy of the name.”

As is evident, this so-called openness occurs within a closed circle—the democratic one—outside of which no one has a voice or a say. This is the opposite of democracy, which, by its very nature, recognizes the right to disagree with it.

I note this contradiction without intending to criticize. For this reason, I do not even cite the source of this symptomatic topic. I only emphasize that this topic came to light at a gathering of “ultras” of centrism, which many consider to be the center of the center. Like the crest of a wave – to use my earlier metaphor – equidistant from centrists leaning to the right and those leaning to the left. That this contradiction should arise right there is symptomatic.

I point out the contradiction. However, I understand it. It seems to me to have arisen from an unknown factor that modern life has installed at the very heart of political reality and, therefore, of centrist issues.

In centrist conceptions, logic and dialectics are fundamental to debate, which, in turn, is the lifeblood of democracy. Now, a putrid morbus is creating a growing risk of the total degeneration of democratic debate. It is revolutionary psychological warfare.

In fact, this latter power is inherently illogical. It consists of a bundle of subdolous processes designed to steal the minds of individuals, social groups, and even entire crowds—not through sophistry, which logic can detect and destroy, but through a whole game of impressions, pressures and counter‑pressures, panics, chimeras, ambiguities, and deliberately manufactured excitements and apathies. This game operates chiefly in the subconscious and leads its victims to attitudes that are, in full daylight, plainly absurd. One of its great beneficiaries is Ayatollah Khomeini, who performs the most astonishing acts without provoking even a tenth of the indignation that would normally be due to him. I do not know who manipulates opinion in his favor in this way. In any case, contradictions of this sort are produced in a chain reaction by revolutionary psychological warfare. Russia, of course, makes extensive use of this same juggling act. Hence, for example, the strange apathy with which the world greeted the “Munich” that was the SALT II Agreement. Once this illogical power is unleashed, what becomes of the logic of democratic debate? What remains of the authenticity of democracy?

I understand that, in an instinctive act of self-defense, democratic centrists tend to protect themselves by excluding anyone who is not a centrist from the debate. But they seem not to realize that this leads them into a flagrant contradiction.

To preserve centrism from danger, its mentors—its thinkers, its leaders, its politicians—must confront and resolve a fundamental question: how to immunize the public mind against the gangrene of revolutionary psychological warfare? How to safeguard the people’s capacity to gather, deliberate, and reason together about their own affairs? How to protect public opinion from the thousand tricks, the countless seductions, the ceaseless witchcraft of an adversary who, like a suffocating gas, infiltrates without shock, conquers without arms, and treats the onslaught of logic as a modern tank would the graceful yet futile charge of a Roman chariot? This is the great problem the center must address—thoroughly, not with mere palliatives.

A friend who warns you is a friend indeed. So I leave this cordial yet concerned warning with my friends at the center, with whom I wish to collaborate against the onslaught of revolutionary psychological warfare.

Summary

Most Brazilians are centrist by temperament and conviction. Thus, a strong and coherent center can be a powerful bulwark against communism here.

However, this bulwark is undergoing a shift that puts it at odds with itself: faced with the apprehension that, once unleashed, communists could take over the country, many speak up in support of political openness yet conceptualize it in a closed way.

Thus, openness would occur within a closed circle—the democratic one—outside of which no one has a voice or a say. This is the opposite of democracy, in which the right to disagree is inherent.

This contradiction seems to stem from an unknown factor that modern life has instilled at the very core of political reality: revolutionary psychological warfare.

It is up to centrists to resolve this problem thoroughly, not with mere palliatives.