Centrist Tricks Favoring the Left – Folha de S. Paulo, July 2, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

A radical and cunning leftward-moving centrism is the left’s best “cheering squad.”

If Our Lord Jesus Christ appeared visibly in Brazil, our center-left critics would accuse Him of agitation. They would naturally try to portray the Man-God using the Institutional Act and the National Security Law based on their own interpretation. I came to this conclusion after considering two common and clearly center-left objections I’ve heard against the TFP’s most recent campaign.

Before analyzing these objections, I want to briefly point out a common contradiction among most of those who raise them. They are notably hostile to the Institutional Act and the National Security Law, arguing that by limiting the freedom of thought of communists, these laws inherently violate human freedom in its most fundamental form. Yet, they conveniently ignore the liberal principles they claim to uphold when it comes to the TFP, and no legal restrictions seem sufficient for them.

I highlight this contradiction to reveal the ideological beliefs that shape their attitudes. It’s evident that these protesters sympathize with the communist side, while their hostility targets areas where communism is opposed. This indicates that communism might prevail if the centrist opponents of the TFP gained control of Brazil. If you don’t want the communist bull to be hurt or subdued and try to choke the bullfighter, the bull takes over the arena.

That said, let’s respond to the two objections from some centrists.

According to the first, the TFP and the Communist Party are the two extremes of the Brazilian ideological spectrum. Every extreme is wrong. The truth is always found in the middle. Therefore, logic states that if one extreme is suppressed, the other must be limited.

The second objection argues that the TFP’s street campaign is disruptive. It angers communists and leads them to protest with riots and attacks. For example, the bomb thrown at the TFP headquarters would not have detonated if it were not so strongly anticommunist. Therefore, TFP campaigns risk inciting communist riots across Brazil. If such riots occur, the persons responsible for provoking them—the creators of the subversion—would be the TFP.

These objections are totally amoral because they ignore any moral principles.

Let us examine the first objection. Communism is atheistic, whereas the Catholic religion is on the opposite end of the spectrum because it affirms the existence of God. According to the strange logic of our opponents, the Catholic religion would therefore be as evil as communism. Communism promotes free love. In contrast, Catholicism teaches the indissolubility of marriage. Therefore, religion would be considered as an evil as severe as communism.

One only needs to consider this to see what is false in the first anti-TFP argument.

Indeed, claiming that neither of the two conflicting doctrines is correct is immoral. Good aligns with the truth. Evil involves error. When truth and error clash, condemning both is amoral. Some argue this injustice is the only way to end conflict and bring peace. I reply, with St. Thomas, that peace is the tranquility of order, not the stagnation of swamps. And there can be no order where injustice dominates.

But someone might ask, what is truth? That was the question the deeply unjust judge, Pontius Pilate, asked Jesus Christ.

Someone might still argue that, in matters of private property, the opposite extreme of communism is not the Church but the TFP.

We deny this. However, let us admit this was the case. Then, when it comes to the Church, is it lawful to be the opposite extreme of communism, and is it unlawful when it comes to the TFP? Why this double standard?

* * *

Let’s move on to the second anti-TFP argument.

If nothing that provokes the anger of communists should be allowed to exist, then it would make sense to shut down all banks, since communists clearly dislike them. No one would see this as reasonable. Now, banks are allowed to exist and operate, so why not the TFP?

In most cases, those who raise the second objection oppose any anticommunist law because they believe that the State cannot restrict free expression of thought under any circumstances. I have shown from the beginning how they contradict themselves by wanting to limit the freedom of the TFP. However, I am now interested in another aspect of the issue.

If expressing every thought that could provoke discussion, anger, or disorder must be automatically banned, then the authority to limit free speech—which our opponents deny to the government—is implicitly granted to all troublemakers.

An old saying states that a fool is the devil’s steed. Troublemakers are often agents paid by schemers. Our hyper liberals ultimately empower them to silence anyone.

It’s clear how amoral this is. There was once a man who angered the worst schemers. They stirred up the vilest riots against him. A cowardly judge then sentenced him to death. Based on the arguments I have refuted, if this man and the judge lived in today’s Brazil, center-leftists would surely distort the Institutional Act and the Security Law to get his conviction. Was he not bothering the troublemakers?

He was not just any man, but the Man-God, the Word of God made flesh.

Some might even want to reenact this two-thousand-year-old history against Christians today.

And that is not surprising. A Christian is another Christ, as Tertullian said.