Bangladesh, Watergate, and Nudism – Folha de S. Paulo, August 19, 1973
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
As President Nixon’s personal intervention transforms the Watergate affair from political exploitation into a highly colorful drama, it is worth reflecting on this important issue in the context of American politics.
As an introduction to this reflection, it occurs to me to address a very different topic.
I read in the press that Russia sold 200,000 tons of wheat to Bangladesh’s government. How can it make such a sale when it does not have nearly enough wheat to supply its own population, forcing it to import wheat from the United States? This contradiction can be explained by only two hypotheses.
This wheat is sold to Bangladesh at a price higher than the United States charges Russia. So Russia would have made a good deal at the United States’ expense. If so, one wonders why the United States did not supply this wheat directly to Bangladesh?
Russia sold the wheat to Bangladesh not for economic gain but solely for political propaganda. In that case, it can be deduced that Russia bought more wheat than it needed for domestic consumption. It used American grain to exert political pressure on Bangladesh.
On Bangladesh alone? The same commercial or political trickery that Russia used in the small Asian state was presumably applied on a larger scale in other states as well.
In any case, this episode clearly shows Soviet disloyalty and the unique advantage it gains from Nixon’s radical pacifist policy.
This episode is telling. It clearly shows the extent to which Nixon’s policy of détente favors communism and harms America.
Given these sales, one might wonder what Nixon’s reaction was. Some readers may say it was one of indignation and protest. Not at all. The same news report states that Bangladesh turned to Russia to buy wheat on Nixon’s recommendation!
This detail needs no comment. It is the syndrome’s most significant feature and the most exquisite note of absurdity. This raises an important question: Who is Nixon? Where is he headed? Where is he taking us all?
This question concerns the fate of the entire West and, in its wake, the fate of the whole world.
Having examined all this, let us return to the Watergate affair. It is clear that it presents reprehensible and even repugnant aspects. However, it is no less clear that it is nowhere near as interesting as what we might call the “Bangladesh affair.”
That is the central question remaining.
Why do public figures and leaders of major American media outlets waste so much time on the Watergate scandal instead of promoting a proper investigation into the Bangladesh scandal and, in connection with it, into the unconditional policy of détente that Nixon is pursuing? Why all the fuss about fixing a burst, polluted water pipe, and such profound apathy in the face of the fire engulfing the city?
* * *
Socialism and state monopoly are related terms. The fixed idea of the socialist is to monopolize everything he can.
The general public may not realize how broadly the word “everything” applies in this context. It means absolutely everything.
The reader can get an idea of this from the fact that Swedish Congressman Sten Sjoholm presented a bill to Parliament establishing a state monopoly on prostitution. From then on, the Swedish state would officially assume the shameful role of exploiting this vile trade!
To justify this immoral proposal, the representative cited an economic argument. This is typical of the socialist mentality, which denies the spirit and places money above all else. He says each prostitute earns 20,000 krona per month, thereby evading 13,400 krona in taxes.
In short, for this congressman, there are no moral reasons, decorum, or composure. It is about fleecing all sectors of the population in every way possible, which is why he is even laying his hands on the filthy money of prostitutes.
In a healthy democracy, one cannot deal such a blow to such a miserable form of private initiative without hearing from those concerned. A serious survey was therefore conducted among Sweden’s prostitutes. Ironically, the horror of socialization is so great that even they said they did not want to become state employees, even if they received paid vacations and retirement benefits.
I would like to believe that all this may have provoked some reaction in the Swedish Parliament, where the bill is still being debated. In any case, the climate in socialist Sweden is particularly conducive to measures that lead to the most unrestrained forms of sexual freedom. Thus, Representative Paul Dam presented a bill to Parliament, which is also among the most outrageous. It aims at the “official recognition of marriages between three, four, five, or six people, with interchangeable partners.” This bill is also being studied by Parliament…
* * *
I do not mean to express any hostility or contempt toward the Swedish people as a whole, for I have no reason to dislike them. I obtained this news from the American publication The Review of the News.
The essential interest in the subject stems from the fact that these episodes in Swedish life highlight traits inherent in the wave of socialism and sexual freedom sweeping the world, a wave whose waters are also reaching Brazil.
A telling example of the breadth of this phenomenon is the measure taken by the authorities at the other end of Europe, namely in Monaco. They have just allowed nudism on the beaches. The police are tasked with repressing the legitimate reactions of the Monegasques’ moral sense while protecting nudists from manifestations of hostility or contempt!
Is this strictly a Monegasque phenomenon?
Who could claim that? If the bikini has already spread worldwide and is now even manufactured by nuns, who can ignore the fact that, sooner or later, we will have the monokini and then total nudity?
* * *
Some may accuse me of being an unqualified pessimist. I would then ask whether this handful of news items does not provide sufficient grounds for strong pessimism.
As these events seem to show, any reason for optimism would amount to professing optimism, which is indeed unconditional.
