Empty Tanks, Empty Heads – Folha de S. Paulo, January 27, 1974

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Last month’s 23rd was a day of no small importance in the history of Brazilian advertising. It was an “anniversary”—a one-month anniversary—of the publication of one of the most astonishing pieces of news in these astonishing times. Even more astonishing was what followed the publication. That is, nothing.

Let me explain.

* * *

On December 23, Folha de São Paulo reported that, according to the influential British magazine The Economist, the oil crisis was nothing more than a huge bluff. The shortage of this indispensable liquid, which had been felt in so many countries and had subjected the entire Western world to nervous pressure bordering on the tragic, did not originate with King Faisal and the other Arab princes. They issued a threat to the West to gain advantages in the political and economic arenas. At the same time, however, committed to not disrupting the world economy, they would have continued to supply oil as usual.

The reader may then ask how this shortage can be explained. The Economist cites numerous striking facts suggesting that the commercial companies responsible for distributing the product in the West deliberately rationed oil to drive up its price.

They, not King Faisal, the emirs, or the sheiks, are responsible for this great tragedy.

The oil crisis exists, but the real culprits—the oil companies—are bluffing when they claim that Arab rulers are behind this terrible blow against the West.

* * *

If fully confirmed, this news is more important than the oil crisis itself—at least from a certain point of view. It suggests that macro capitalists have taken their greed and power to the point of triggering a crisis across the West without alerting the public. Therefore, television stations, radio stations, newspapers, pulpits, tribunes, and professors should demand, in unison, a complete and thorough explanation of this astonishing problem and then put pressure on the oil companies that hide behind the oil princes—or the princes who hide behind the companies. This would be the best way to end oil blackmail. However, none of this has happened. Some people groan at the prospect of what will happen to them, while others groan at the harsh reality of what is already happening to them. Yet few voices are raised to clarify and resolve this dramatic situation.

However, this near-total silence cannot be explained by a lack of information. The Economist has considerable influence. Normally, the serious suspicions raised by the publication would have sparked widespread speculation, passion, investigations, criticism, and responses in political and economic circles. Given this, the mainstream media could not have failed to give the problem wide coverage. Faisal, the emirs, sheiks, and companies should have come forward to clarify the situation, and either the crisis would have ended or, at least, those genuinely responsible would have been identified. But none of this happened.

Why this indifference from the world’s public opinion? To answer this question, let’s take a look around us. On the 23rd, Folha de São Paulo—one of Brazil’s largest newspapers—devoted considerable space to the subject, perfectly summarizing and substantiating the British magazine’s suspicions. One or two other newspapers also covered the subject. This should have been enough to set the issue alight not only in the relatively limited circles of politicians and experts but also among the general population. However, it did not happen.

We thus have before us a sample of what has happened on a global scale. This month of semi-silence on the matter indicates a crisis more alarming than the oil crisis. I am more frightened by the apathy, listlessness, and emptiness of minds bewildered by contemporary chaos than by empty gas tanks. In this sense, the 23rd has marked a sad “anniversary.”