Clarity and the Art of Politeness – Folha de S. Paulo, August 13, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Louis XVIII is credited with the well-known maxim that a king’s politeness includes punctuality. Likely inspired by the French monarch’s statement, Jules Renard tried to define what became the typical form of politeness for a man of letters and concluded that it was clarity. I believe he is correct. If someone wants to be understood, they should show kindness by being clear. For my part, I think clarity should also be a fundamental part of the politeness of those who serve in public roles. The first step to gaining the consideration and trust of the masses and the elites is to demonstrate consistent clarity in thought and action.

Therefore, I believe it is my duty to provide my readers with complete information about two telegrams published in the daily press that reported on a strange attitude by the Chilean government in response to my essay Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue.

I first published this study in Brazil in Catolicismo, no. 178-179, October-November 1965, with four additional editions totaling 30,000 copies by Editora Vera Cruz, São Paulo, 1966. It was then published in other languages: in Spanish by Cruzada publishers in Buenos Aires, 1966; in Spanish by Speiro, Madrid, 1966; in Mexico by Syllabus, 1966; and in German by Editora Vera Cruz, São Paulo, 1967. Criticized by some and praised by others, it circulated freely without any barriers from authorities. Nothing could be more typical in the life of a book, especially one of this kind.

In this work, I argue that dialogue can be an effective way for people with opposing beliefs to exchange ideas. However, like anything else, it can be misused for harmful purposes. I then describe the most common ways this distortion occurs and conclude by showing that communists often exploit it to “lure” many unsuspecting individuals away from their original anticommunist beliefs toward Marx’s evolutionary and materialistic philosophy. Throughout the essay, I do not attack any government or individual, nor would the purely doctrinal nature of the topic allow for such.

A few days ago, the Argentine publisher Cruzada sent about two hundred copies of my study to Chile. It was surprising to learn that Chilean customs had seized the volumes. I sent President Eduardo Frei a telegram protesting the arbitrariness of his government’s customs officials. And, with a grandeur worthy of de Gaulle—something only the very few mortals with the background of the controversial former French president can claim—he did not deign to reply, so I published the telegram in the Brazilian press.

A few days later, the Chilean government spokesman told the Associated Press the reasons for the measure. When I read about it in the Brazilian press, I couldn’t help but smile at the suspicion shown by the customs Gestapo that the Christian-Democrat Chilean regime had established.

1. The spokesman claims that I have “close and frequent contact” with Mr. Fábio Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, author of the book Frei, the Chilean Kerensky, which is considered “insulting” to Frei and his party. Therefore, my book might be “insulting” (by osmosis?) to the sensitive head of state and his supporters. I respond that, yes, I am friends with the young and talented author of Frei, the Chilean Kerensky. My readers are familiar with this work, which I discussed in this column (January 8), and it is widely circulated among us. They understand that this highly critical work on the Chilean government contains nothing “insulting.” To demonstrate this to those who haven’t read my friend’s book, he has received letters of sincere and outspoken support from the following figures: Cardinal Nicolás Fasolino, Archbishop of Santa Fe, Argentina; Admiral Augusto Hamman-Rademaker Grunewald, General Afonso Augusto de Albuquerque Lima, and Colonel Jarbas Passarinho; Governor Paulo Pimentel; Most Rev. Alfonso Maria Buteler, Archbishop of Mendoza, Argentina; Most Rev. Antônio Corso, Bishop of Maldonado, Punta del Este, Uruguay; Most Rev. Antônio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos; Most Rev. José Maurício da Rocha, Bishop of Bragança Paulista; and many other personalities from political and social circles.

Does the reader think it’s possible that people with such responsibility could applaud a work that lacks courtesy due to a foreign head of state, especially from a sister country?

Seeing insults where none exist, distrusting a book just because its author is a friend of the author of another book that one does not like: does this kind of overzealous suspicion, mistrust, and readiness to take police-like actions not resemble a Gestapo?

2. I am the president of the Brazilian TFP’s National Council. The Chilean government official mentioned claims that his country’s TFP is involved in “violent” opposition to his government, which causes Chilean customs officials to believe they have the right to seize my book. Frei’s spokesman used the word “violent,” which justifies a protest because it implies that the TFP uses violent methods to oppose Chile’s Christian-Democrat leader. This is clearly false. The courageous Chilean TFP has opposed Frei’s socialist and confiscatory land reform, but always within the law and with all of the TFP’s truly peaceful methods. Therefore, the organization operates openly, and the Chilean government has found no reason to hinder its activities. If the TFP has free movement in Chile, then by what reasoning does the Andean government want to restrict the circulation of a book simply because it was written by the president of the Brazilian TFP’s National Council?

Shortly afterward, another telegram from Chile stated that the Chilean authorities had reviewed my book and found it purely ideological, so they authorized its circulation.

I hope this explains everything to my readers with the clarity Jules Renard considered the highest form of politeness among writers.