Dissecting the Ostrich – Folha de S. Paulo, February 7, 1971

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Today, I want to explore the psychology of the ostrich.

In my latest article, I pointed out that the biggest threat to Brazil and other South American nations isn’t communism but “ostrichism.” In other words, countries with Portuguese or Hispanic roots have generally resisted communist propaganda. Therefore, Moscow or Beijing can’t conquer them through ideological means. Military force from outside also seems unfeasible at this point. For the communist world, then, there’s only one way left to dominate us: applying the principle outlined by Clausewitz, the renowned theorist of modern warfare. To defeat a people, it isn’t always necessary to physically destroy them; often, it’s enough to take away their will to fight.

Therefore, anything that strengthens people’s resolve to resist and succeed helps lead to victory. Conversely, anything that diminishes their fighting spirit results in defeat.

By definition, ostrichism is a mindset that opposes fighting. Therefore, a country’s vulnerabilities are the areas of opinion dominated by ostrichism, the mental zone that the enemy can access and manipulate to lead the victim to defeat and surrender.

Therefore, any country wanting to maintain its independence must fight against ostrichism.

It’s impossible to challenge the logic of this reasoning.

* * *

In my latest article, borrowing Churchill’s words, I defined “ostrichism” as the mindset of those who, when faced with a choice between shame and struggle, choose shame and end up having to face the fight. Indeed, I might add, it’s the worst kind of fight—one accepted without enthusiasm, carried out without courage, and ultimately ending in inglorious defeat. No other kind of combat can be expected from those who despise fighting so much that they prefer shame. If Chamberlain and Daladier—the Munich men and the epitome of ostriches—had been forced to wage war against the “Axis,” it would have surely ended in shame for France and England. This outcome was avoided because Churchill and de Gaulle took charge of the response. Churchill and de Gaulle had their flaws, and not minor ones, but they were the exact opposite of ostriches.

* * *

Why does ostrichism thrive in a country? This question is very important because addressing any problem effectively requires understanding and eliminating its causes. Only by understanding the causes of ostrichism can this serious danger be removed.

At first glance, one might think the ostrich is an optimist and that, by adjusting its optimism, any ostrich could become a strong patriot.

In my view, the psychology of the ostrich isn’t as simple as it looks. The person who closes their eyes to clear, obvious, palpable danger isn’t just tricked by a flaw in their vision. They can’t be said to be incapable of seeing the risk, but rather unwilling to acknowledge it. Therefore, at the core of ostrich behavior is a flaw in willpower rather than a defect in perception. This flaw should be addressed directly, not to torment the unfortunate ostrich, but to help him recognize the reason for his dangerous optimism, correct it, and become a worthy fighter.

* * *

The 20th-century ostrich shares a common trait with all its predecessors and successors in the long, sad line of ostriches through history: it is fundamentally selfish. However, this selfishness uniquely manifests itself in ostriches of each era. Today, it is characterized by the following view of things:

a) A man’s only reason for living is earthly happiness;

b) Man can completely achieve this happiness by using the fruits of development.

c) Thus, every nation is essentially a large enterprise responsible for fostering and organizing development and sharing its benefits.

d) Since the fruits of material prosperity are the most essential, and without them culture is meaningless, the nation-enterprise’s top goal is to promote material progress by fostering health, jobs, wealth, leisure, and pleasure.

Based on this mixture of half-truths, falsehoods, and outright errors, which also upend the hierarchy of values, one must see all actions of a nation-enterprise as a business. Is it profitable? Good, then it’s accepted. Is it a failure? Reject it. Therefore, war should also be viewed this way. Is it good business? Long live war! Is it bad business? Down with war!

From this perspective, modern war is always a poor choice. It causes suffering, destruction, and losses that no material gain can justify. Therefore—according to this flawed logic—peace must be achieved at any cost. One must avoid war, even if it means losing honor, independence, and faith. For a nation-enterprise, like any business, the goal is not honor, independence, or faith: it is profit.

Now, the ostrich usually subconsciously recognizes that the West’s stubborn ideological resistance to communism inevitably pushes communists toward subversion, guerrilla warfare, and even war. They understand that without this, they cannot force others to accept their unbelieving creed. Therefore, for the ostrich, it is best to silence ideological resistance, bury one’s head in the sand, enjoy the present, and let the communist threat grow and approach gradually. In the end, the ostrich believes that perhaps after a formal war and a quick defeat, there will be a compromise in which the communists win, but he, the ostrich, survives. Maybe even with some feathers left. In any case, the ostrich will have avoided mass destruction, which is the worst possible outcome.

“But,” someone will object to the ostrich, “wouldn’t it be lawful to resist the adversary in self-defense?”

“Lawful,” the ostrich will reply, “I don’t know. What matters to me is profitability. And war is not profitable.”

* * *

While the ostrich makes its calculations, on the other side of the Iron Curtain, methods of ideological propaganda are being refined, and the armies and armaments of powers and superpowers led by a fanatical sect are growing, whose members value neither life nor the gifts of development and progress, but only the victory of total egalitarianism. Meanwhile, in South America, the number of nations absorbed into this conquering beast through propaganda and politics is increasing.

What might happen in South America if, during a critical moment, ostriches influence the political leaders of the remaining free countries, the Church’s governing bodies, and the leaders of public opinion and the economy? (I avoid mentioning military leaders, as the military class is traditionally anti-ostrich because of their training and mission.)

The inevitable. One day, the fanatics of communist egalitarianism will demand everything, threatening to destroy it all. Then, even the “see-no-danger” ostriches will lift their heads from the sand, open their wide eyes in shock, and wonder: “All is lost, but it is bad business to resist.”

Finally, they will quietly abandon everything and insist on being praised for their wise surrender.

Is the process by which ostrichism prepares for defeat clear? Yes, it refers to the surrender described by Clausewitz, where an opponent wins simply by destroying the other side’s will to fight, without firing a single shot.

“And what about the armed forces?” someone will ask. “How can we expect them to defeat a powerful and determined external enemy against the will of a nation driven mad by leaders infected with ostrichism?”

Finally, a reader might ask me, “Don’t you want peace? Are you, then, in favor of war?”

When it comes to war, I only support legitimate self-defense.

I consider peace, which St. Augustine defined as the tranquility of order, an invaluable good. Our Lord Jesus Christ said of it: “I leave you my peace. I give you my peace” (Jn 14:27). This is the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ, which I, therefore, love with all my heart.

Because of this, I also detest its opposite with all my heart: the tranquility of shame under the iron rod of impiety.