by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In these days when the year turns, I turn to consider the situation in Poland.

This topic is quite thought-provoking. Among the complex issues it raises, some may prove crucial to many events in the upcoming year. For instance, what exactly is the socio-economic model that the main group of discontented Poles is turning to? Would this model involve a system of small rural properties and a more or less genuine self-management of industrial and commercial enterprises by those who work in them? This is what I gathered from a newspaper article I came across.

In any case, it seems unlikely that the model of discontented Poles would be very different from this. Otherwise, this model would either allow medium-sized agricultural properties and some form of individual ownership in urban enterprises or align with communism at the opposite extreme.

In the first case, it is hard to see how the discontented Poles can keep the communist label that still applies to them and that they don’t seem willing to reject. In the second case, it is hard to see how their discontent turns into a specific program.

But if this is the new Polish model, it’s unclear how it differs from the Yugoslav regime. Therefore, it’s difficult to see what’s new about the Polish model.

Most importantly, it’s unclear why the presentation is so vague. The news coverage of the Polish case is extensive. However—at least from what I understand—it doesn’t go into much detail. In other words, they say little or almost nothing about the positive goals of the discontented.

Some may argue that popular movements, and many others, are just like that. They are confused at first and become more precise as they go. Why demand greater accuracy from Lech Walesa and his comrades in arms?

This initial inaccuracy could indeed explain the omission in the news reports. However, it raises another question. In many media outlets and across different ideological sectors of public opinion, there is noticeable, vocal “cheering” for discontented Poles. At first, John Paul II seemed to support them against the Warsaw government. Then he appeared to side with the government… and Walesa, against them. And now he seems to be shifting back to support them against the government. In any case, the “cheering” is in favor of Walesa.

The “cheering crowd” reveals the conviction among many supporters that the time has finally come for their dreams to be realized: the arrival in Poland of an essentially egalitarian regime—liberal in religious and political matters, yet strongly interventionist in economic ones. And all of it seasoned with pontifical texts, skillfully cut and pasted from documents of John XXIII and his successors. Such a regime would fulfill both the most discreet and the most emphatic hopes of the extreme Christian Democratic left.

Only this perspective explains the cheerful undertones, the festive implications, and the “cheering” of many people in favor of Walesa’s discontented Poles.

While I disagree with various shades of Christian democracy, especially its more leftist versions, I do recognize that these groups often include educated individuals who, above all, are very well informed. They are not people who “root” for mere whims or trivial ramblings.

This raises a question: What exactly do they know about Polish discontent that makes them so hopeful? How can we explain that this movement, which claims the right to remain vague, is fueling specific hopes in some ideologically defined sectors of the West?

This is the question full of possibilities that I leave with my readers at the start of this New Year. I offer you my best wishes that Our Lady will help you in 1981.

L'articolo As 1981 Begins, Eyes on Poland – Folha de S. Paulo, December 31, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In these days when the year turns, I turn to consider the situation in Poland.

This topic is quite thought-provoking. Among the complex issues it raises, some may prove crucial to many events in the upcoming year. For instance, what exactly is the socio-economic model that the main group of discontented Poles is turning to? Would this model involve a system of small rural properties and a more or less genuine self-management of industrial and commercial enterprises by those who work in them? This is what I gathered from a newspaper article I came across.

In any case, it seems unlikely that the model of discontented Poles would be very different from this. Otherwise, this model would either allow medium-sized agricultural properties and some form of individual ownership in urban enterprises or align with communism at the opposite extreme.

In the first case, it is hard to see how the discontented Poles can keep the communist label that still applies to them and that they don’t seem willing to reject. In the second case, it is hard to see how their discontent turns into a specific program.

But if this is the new Polish model, it’s unclear how it differs from the Yugoslav regime. Therefore, it’s difficult to see what’s new about the Polish model.

Most importantly, it’s unclear why the presentation is so vague. The news coverage of the Polish case is extensive. However—at least from what I understand—it doesn’t go into much detail. In other words, they say little or almost nothing about the positive goals of the discontented.

Some may argue that popular movements, and many others, are just like that. They are confused at first and become more precise as they go. Why demand greater accuracy from Lech Walesa and his comrades in arms?

This initial inaccuracy could indeed explain the omission in the news reports. However, it raises another question. In many media outlets and across different ideological sectors of public opinion, there is noticeable, vocal “cheering” for discontented Poles. At first, John Paul II seemed to support them against the Warsaw government. Then he appeared to side with the government… and Walesa, against them. And now he seems to be shifting back to support them against the government. In any case, the “cheering” is in favor of Walesa.

The “cheering crowd” reveals the conviction among many supporters that the time has finally come for their dreams to be realized: the arrival in Poland of an essentially egalitarian regime—liberal in religious and political matters, yet strongly interventionist in economic ones. And all of it seasoned with pontifical texts, skillfully cut and pasted from documents of John XXIII and his successors. Such a regime would fulfill both the most discreet and the most emphatic hopes of the extreme Christian Democratic left.

Only this perspective explains the cheerful undertones, the festive implications, and the “cheering” of many people in favor of Walesa’s discontented Poles.

While I disagree with various shades of Christian democracy, especially its more leftist versions, I do recognize that these groups often include educated individuals who, above all, are very well informed. They are not people who “root” for mere whims or trivial ramblings.

This raises a question: What exactly do they know about Polish discontent that makes them so hopeful? How can we explain that this movement, which claims the right to remain vague, is fueling specific hopes in some ideologically defined sectors of the West?

This is the question full of possibilities that I leave with my readers at the start of this New Year. I offer you my best wishes that Our Lady will help you in 1981.

L'articolo As 1981 Begins, Eyes on Poland – Folha de S. Paulo, December 31, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

“When a man does not act according to his thoughts, he ends up thinking according to his actions,” wrote the French novelist Paul Bourget.[1] Though somewhat forgotten today, he once played a central role in the cultivated world of the avant‑guerre and the entre‑deux‑guerres.

Bourget was correct. Such is the inherent authority of thought in all human affairs that man cannot tolerate conflict with it for long. Either he chooses to be guided by his reasoning and finds the right way, or he twists his thinking to justify his actions and falls into the abyss. That’s why most non-Marxist historians see the history of thought as the main thread in mankind’s history.

Today, however, the number of people who simply don’t think is increasing every day—not those who are right or wrong, but those who just don’t think.

People today think less and less, and the void left by thought in their minds is being filled by I don’t know what despotic and subtle psycho-levers manipulated by I don’t know what fingers.

Therefore, it’s definitely worthwhile to help thoughtful minds avoid falling into indifference.

So, reader, I present you with some texts that will help you foster the habit of thinking in the people around you, support those sinking into mental emptiness, and uplift those who have fallen into it.

You can do this good work almost like a parlor game. If you want, cut out a clipping on each of these topics and show it to some friends, asking your interlocutor:

1. Whether what the clipping says is accurate.

2. Who does he think is the author of each topic?

3. How would a “Catholic leftist” respond to each clipping if it were attributed to another leftist or an anticommunist?

This simple game will encourage your interlocutor, whether leftist or not, to think. In doing so, you will help pull someone out of the abyss of thoughtlessness or stop them from falling into it.

I will now present a few excerpts:

1. The support of religious sectors for the revolution is very important.

“If the revolution in Latin America took an anti-religious stance, it would cause division among the people.

“There is no doubt that the revolutionary movement would benefit greatly—the socialist, communist, and Marxist-Leninist movements would all gain if honest leaders of the Catholic Church and other churches returned to the Christian spirit of the time of Roman slavery. And I say, not only would socialism and communism benefit, but Christianity would also gain.

“I am absolutely convinced that the recipe is highly explosive” (Vida Nueva, Madrid, October 11, 1980).

Thus, Catholics are taking an explosive stance by cooperating with communists.

2. The progressive sectors of the clergy, who fight for freedom and protect the interests of the people, “are now allies” of the Brazilian Communist Party. Recently, the Church has become concerned “with those who live on earth.” For this reason, the clergy has come into conflict “with the exploiters.” Now, “it is better for citizens to enter heaven healthy than sick.” In this context, the Church’s new stance “is fair and correct” (A Tarde, Salvador, November 2, 1980).

If the author of these statements is a communist, the “explosive recipe” would already be underway. But is this author really a communist?

3. The Church has been infiltrated by non-Catholic organizations that are politically working to overthrow the regime and replace it with a socialist, centralized economic and political system. Bishops and cardinals are aware that, by advocating for their dioceses’ demands, they align themselves with the MR-8, the Communist Party of Brazil, and their counterparts. They know this and are comfortable with it because they have never denounced the situation. On the contrary, some bishops admit they have participated in practical meetings with representatives of these organizations and saw nothing wrong with it” (Jornal do Brasil, October 31, 1980).

Now, let’s focus on the authors:

1. Who is the person in topic number 1? Fidel Castro. I would add that Vida Nueva is one of Spain’s leading “Catholic left-wing” magazines. If I or any of my fellow thinkers or activists had made similar statements about the current socioeconomic stance of so many leaders of the Catholic left, they would have branded us as irreverent, slanderous, etc. Since the statement comes from Fidel Castro, to our knowledge, no one from the Catholic left has protested. “Tell me who you go with, and I’ll tell you who you are,” says the old adage. “Tell me who you are inclined to fight with, and I’ll tell you who you are. Tell me who you are inclined not to fight with, and I’ll also tell you who you are.” I leave these two corollaries here as comments.

2. This analysis of the “progressive sectors of the clergy” and the “new position of the Church” is by Mr. Giocondo Dias, secretary-general of the Brazilian Communist Party, and it echoes similar, even more forceful statements by Luís Carlos Prestes. Many “left-wing Catholics” would quickly dismiss a similar statement by the TFP as slanderous. However, coming from the leader of the BCP, it doesn’t matter because he’s a close friend (“tell me who you’re inclined to fight with, and who you’re not…”).

3. The author is Mr. Elio Gaspari, deputy editor of Veja magazine. In quoting him, I do not mean to judge his ideological stance. However, his statements, made in an article for Jornal do Brasil, have certainly gone unchallenged by the “Catholic left.” If some anti-communist Catholic had said these things…

Now, dear reader, if you enjoy this game, simply cut out some clippings, ask questions, listen, discuss, and meditate.

[1] Le démon de midi, by Paul Bourget (1852-1935).

L'articolo Cut, Ask, Meditate – Folha de S. Paulo, December 2, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

“When a man does not act according to his thoughts, he ends up thinking according to his actions,” wrote the French novelist Paul Bourget.[1] Though somewhat forgotten today, he once played a central role in the cultivated world of the avant‑guerre and the entre‑deux‑guerres.

Bourget was correct. Such is the inherent authority of thought in all human affairs that man cannot tolerate conflict with it for long. Either he chooses to be guided by his reasoning and finds the right way, or he twists his thinking to justify his actions and falls into the abyss. That’s why most non-Marxist historians see the history of thought as the main thread in mankind’s history.

Today, however, the number of people who simply don’t think is increasing every day—not those who are right or wrong, but those who just don’t think.

People today think less and less, and the void left by thought in their minds is being filled by I don’t know what despotic and subtle psycho-levers manipulated by I don’t know what fingers.

Therefore, it’s definitely worthwhile to help thoughtful minds avoid falling into indifference.

So, reader, I present you with some texts that will help you foster the habit of thinking in the people around you, support those sinking into mental emptiness, and uplift those who have fallen into it.

You can do this good work almost like a parlor game. If you want, cut out a clipping on each of these topics and show it to some friends, asking your interlocutor:

1. Whether what the clipping says is accurate.

2. Who does he think is the author of each topic?

3. How would a “Catholic leftist” respond to each clipping if it were attributed to another leftist or an anticommunist?

This simple game will encourage your interlocutor, whether leftist or not, to think. In doing so, you will help pull someone out of the abyss of thoughtlessness or stop them from falling into it.

I will now present a few excerpts:

1. The support of religious sectors for the revolution is very important.

“If the revolution in Latin America took an anti-religious stance, it would cause division among the people.

“There is no doubt that the revolutionary movement would benefit greatly—the socialist, communist, and Marxist-Leninist movements would all gain if honest leaders of the Catholic Church and other churches returned to the Christian spirit of the time of Roman slavery. And I say, not only would socialism and communism benefit, but Christianity would also gain.

“I am absolutely convinced that the recipe is highly explosive” (Vida Nueva, Madrid, October 11, 1980).

Thus, Catholics are taking an explosive stance by cooperating with communists.

2. The progressive sectors of the clergy, who fight for freedom and protect the interests of the people, “are now allies” of the Brazilian Communist Party. Recently, the Church has become concerned “with those who live on earth.” For this reason, the clergy has come into conflict “with the exploiters.” Now, “it is better for citizens to enter heaven healthy than sick.” In this context, the Church’s new stance “is fair and correct” (A Tarde, Salvador, November 2, 1980).

If the author of these statements is a communist, the “explosive recipe” would already be underway. But is this author really a communist?

3. The Church has been infiltrated by non-Catholic organizations that are politically working to overthrow the regime and replace it with a socialist, centralized economic and political system. Bishops and cardinals are aware that, by advocating for their dioceses’ demands, they align themselves with the MR-8, the Communist Party of Brazil, and their counterparts. They know this and are comfortable with it because they have never denounced the situation. On the contrary, some bishops admit they have participated in practical meetings with representatives of these organizations and saw nothing wrong with it” (Jornal do Brasil, October 31, 1980).

Now, let’s focus on the authors:

1. Who is the person in topic number 1? Fidel Castro. I would add that Vida Nueva is one of Spain’s leading “Catholic left-wing” magazines. If I or any of my fellow thinkers or activists had made similar statements about the current socioeconomic stance of so many leaders of the Catholic left, they would have branded us as irreverent, slanderous, etc. Since the statement comes from Fidel Castro, to our knowledge, no one from the Catholic left has protested. “Tell me who you go with, and I’ll tell you who you are,” says the old adage. “Tell me who you are inclined to fight with, and I’ll tell you who you are. Tell me who you are inclined not to fight with, and I’ll also tell you who you are.” I leave these two corollaries here as comments.

2. This analysis of the “progressive sectors of the clergy” and the “new position of the Church” is by Mr. Giocondo Dias, secretary-general of the Brazilian Communist Party, and it echoes similar, even more forceful statements by Luís Carlos Prestes. Many “left-wing Catholics” would quickly dismiss a similar statement by the TFP as slanderous. However, coming from the leader of the BCP, it doesn’t matter because he’s a close friend (“tell me who you’re inclined to fight with, and who you’re not…”).

3. The author is Mr. Elio Gaspari, deputy editor of Veja magazine. In quoting him, I do not mean to judge his ideological stance. However, his statements, made in an article for Jornal do Brasil, have certainly gone unchallenged by the “Catholic left.” If some anti-communist Catholic had said these things…

Now, dear reader, if you enjoy this game, simply cut out some clippings, ask questions, listen, discuss, and meditate.

[1] Le démon de midi, by Paul Bourget (1852-1935).

L'articolo Cut, Ask, Meditate – Folha de S. Paulo, December 2, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

“An extremely rare ‘Social Revolution’ is being carried out in the United States,” affirmed El Mercurio (8-25-80), the newspaper with the largest circulation in the Chilean capital, on publishing a news dispatch coming from Los Angeles, California. The dispatch gives a profound explanation to the phenomenon which so roundly contradicted the predictions of innumerable organs of the media in the whole West, that is, the defeat of Carter and the victory of Reagan.

This error of prevision was of such magnitude that J.S./R of the Folha de S. Paulo could wittily comment, in the section “Cotidiano” (11-7-80) that it destroys the credibility of “all the `analysts’, ‘interpreters’, ‘observers’, `specialists’, ‘experts’, and other rumor mongers” who wrote about the matter, as well as that of “the most respected public opinion research firms.”

It seems to me that this sadly monumental error was due to the fact that no one took into account the phenomenon, nevertheless easy to perceive, that the correspondent of El Mercurio sums up as follows: Nowadays, “the rich are becoming ‘progressivists’ and the poor are becoming ‘conservatives’.” The newspaper explains: the rich in the United States are suffering from a “poverty complex” that leads them, for example, to put aside showy and plush automobiles they used to have, and to prefer the “tiny Japanese or German cars with their noisy diesel engines.” In contrast, the poor, led by a complex of riches, are using the finest looking automobiles that they can buy.

As I see it, the “reverse revolution” described here does not exist only in the United States. One notes symptoms of it in various countries. Take Brazil, for example: Who does not remember the surprisingly leftist vote of an impressive part of the electorate in rich neighborhoods of Sao Paulo in the last election?

Therefore, it is not difficult to explain why Reagan, the conservative candidate, received more votes than Carter, the progressivist candidate. That would not have been possible without an advance of conservatism among the poor and more modest segments of the population which, by definition, are very numerous. Obviously, the position taken by these classes was not what it was in 1976 when Carter was elected.

Could it be that the professional oracles comically listed by J.S./R. did not see this change? Or could it be that they saw it but were prevented from bringing it to the attention of the public by a certain internal censorship of the liberal media?

The fact is that the West was up until then being deluded by the conviction that the poor formed an immense sea of people shaking with indignation and making rising waves of a growing aggressiveness. Supposedly, these waves had in many places already been dashing against the sullen wall of the ever more greedy and obstinate plutocrats; and at a given moment the waves would inevitably overthrow the wall; because the wall does not advance: it only resists; and winning is not merely resisting, but also, and above all, advancing. Such was the old Marxist myth of class warfare with which the international media intoxicated the West day and night.

This false version of reality would naturally lead the poor to be ever more demanding, as they enjoyed a foretaste of their victory. And it should lead the rich, finally brought into panic, to become ever more inclined to capitulate.

As far as the United States is concerned, this myth has been finally unmasked by the last elections. The poor reined in their indignation by an indisputably authentic turnabout. And this, let it be said in passing, testifies to their uprightness of soul and good sense.

What about the rich? I do not at present have information which would enable me to speak about the rich in the United States. Before my eyes, I have our Brazil, with its own rich. Through them one can make out, by analogy, something about their fabulously rich American counterparts.

Favorable as I am to a harmoniously stratified organization of society, I must nevertheless affirm that in our great urban centers, the social class with the largest percentage of leftists is that of the rich. Presumably, if all the voters had the mentality of the majority of those rich people, Brazil would already be a country in an advanced stage of socialism. What saves the more opulent segments of society from catastrophe is, as I see it, that the poor and the middle class are much more conservative than they are.

How can one explain this leftist mentality of the rich, and especially of our very rich? Look how they fight day and night to multiply their profits and pile up their fortunes. Therefore, detached they are not. How can one explain, then, their being favorable to socialism scattering what they so laboriously accumulate? Is it fear? Is it panic in the face of the waves of people whom they imagine to be infuriated? Is it a willingness to “give in a little in order not to lose all,” according to the old agrarian reform slogan of 1960? Quite probably so. But as I see it, not everything can be explained just by this…

At any rate, Carter’s gauche and jaded harangues about human rights had no greater enthusiasts in Brazil than the leftist rich; nor did his defeat cause as much sadness in any part of the population as it did among them.

The world is changing, but they are not. If only Carter’s defeat could make them see how anachronistic they are in the way they see things.

In fact, they did not need Carter’s defeat to see that. All they had to do was pay attention to the most insistently used slogan of the “Catholic left”: “Conscientize, conscientize…” “Conscientize” whom, I ask? The working class. Of what? That there are reasons for it to be indignant at its employers. I conclude: Then, its indignation is less than the “Catholic left” would like it to be; and the “Catholic left” is stirring it up as much as it can.

As a consequence, the conservativism of the common people does not seem to be merely an American reality, but also a Brazilian, South American, and perhaps, a world reality.

All of this does not amount to saying that those who are not poor can tranquilly let themselves oppress the poor who are so resigned. The truth is precisely the contrary. The poor are giving the leftist rich a very great lesson in common sense. If those who are not poor fail to respond to this lesson with a conduct imbued with respect and a spirit of justice and Christian charity, the course of History, guided by the hand of God, will overthrow these incorrigible socialist tycoons. Will it be to make a classless society? No, but a hierarchical society that may begin genuinely to deserve the noble adjective, Christian.

L'articolo Raise awareness, raise awareness… – Folha de S. Paulo, November 17, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

“An extremely rare ‘Social Revolution’ is being carried out in the United States,” affirmed El Mercurio (8-25-80), the newspaper with the largest circulation in the Chilean capital, on publishing a news dispatch coming from Los Angeles, California. The dispatch gives a profound explanation to the phenomenon which so roundly contradicted the predictions of innumerable organs of the media in the whole West, that is, the defeat of Carter and the victory of Reagan.

This error of prevision was of such magnitude that J.S./R of the Folha de S. Paulo could wittily comment, in the section “Cotidiano” (11-7-80) that it destroys the credibility of “all the `analysts’, ‘interpreters’, ‘observers’, `specialists’, ‘experts’, and other rumor mongers” who wrote about the matter, as well as that of “the most respected public opinion research firms.”

It seems to me that this sadly monumental error was due to the fact that no one took into account the phenomenon, nevertheless easy to perceive, that the correspondent of El Mercurio sums up as follows: Nowadays, “the rich are becoming ‘progressivists’ and the poor are becoming ‘conservatives’.” The newspaper explains: the rich in the United States are suffering from a “poverty complex” that leads them, for example, to put aside showy and plush automobiles they used to have, and to prefer the “tiny Japanese or German cars with their noisy diesel engines.” In contrast, the poor, led by a complex of riches, are using the finest looking automobiles that they can buy.

As I see it, the “reverse revolution” described here does not exist only in the United States. One notes symptoms of it in various countries. Take Brazil, for example: Who does not remember the surprisingly leftist vote of an impressive part of the electorate in rich neighborhoods of Sao Paulo in the last election?

Therefore, it is not difficult to explain why Reagan, the conservative candidate, received more votes than Carter, the progressivist candidate. That would not have been possible without an advance of conservatism among the poor and more modest segments of the population which, by definition, are very numerous. Obviously, the position taken by these classes was not what it was in 1976 when Carter was elected.

Could it be that the professional oracles comically listed by J.S./R. did not see this change? Or could it be that they saw it but were prevented from bringing it to the attention of the public by a certain internal censorship of the liberal media?

The fact is that the West was up until then being deluded by the conviction that the poor formed an immense sea of people shaking with indignation and making rising waves of a growing aggressiveness. Supposedly, these waves had in many places already been dashing against the sullen wall of the ever more greedy and obstinate plutocrats; and at a given moment the waves would inevitably overthrow the wall; because the wall does not advance: it only resists; and winning is not merely resisting, but also, and above all, advancing. Such was the old Marxist myth of class warfare with which the international media intoxicated the West day and night.

This false version of reality would naturally lead the poor to be ever more demanding, as they enjoyed a foretaste of their victory. And it should lead the rich, finally brought into panic, to become ever more inclined to capitulate.

As far as the United States is concerned, this myth has been finally unmasked by the last elections. The poor reined in their indignation by an indisputably authentic turnabout. And this, let it be said in passing, testifies to their uprightness of soul and good sense.

What about the rich? I do not at present have information which would enable me to speak about the rich in the United States. Before my eyes, I have our Brazil, with its own rich. Through them one can make out, by analogy, something about their fabulously rich American counterparts.

Favorable as I am to a harmoniously stratified organization of society, I must nevertheless affirm that in our great urban centers, the social class with the largest percentage of leftists is that of the rich. Presumably, if all the voters had the mentality of the majority of those rich people, Brazil would already be a country in an advanced stage of socialism. What saves the more opulent segments of society from catastrophe is, as I see it, that the poor and the middle class are much more conservative than they are.

How can one explain this leftist mentality of the rich, and especially of our very rich? Look how they fight day and night to multiply their profits and pile up their fortunes. Therefore, detached they are not. How can one explain, then, their being favorable to socialism scattering what they so laboriously accumulate? Is it fear? Is it panic in the face of the waves of people whom they imagine to be infuriated? Is it a willingness to “give in a little in order not to lose all,” according to the old agrarian reform slogan of 1960? Quite probably so. But as I see it, not everything can be explained just by this…

At any rate, Carter’s gauche and jaded harangues about human rights had no greater enthusiasts in Brazil than the leftist rich; nor did his defeat cause as much sadness in any part of the population as it did among them.

The world is changing, but they are not. If only Carter’s defeat could make them see how anachronistic they are in the way they see things.

In fact, they did not need Carter’s defeat to see that. All they had to do was pay attention to the most insistently used slogan of the “Catholic left”: “Conscientize, conscientize…” “Conscientize” whom, I ask? The working class. Of what? That there are reasons for it to be indignant at its employers. I conclude: Then, its indignation is less than the “Catholic left” would like it to be; and the “Catholic left” is stirring it up as much as it can.

As a consequence, the conservativism of the common people does not seem to be merely an American reality, but also a Brazilian, South American, and perhaps, a world reality.

All of this does not amount to saying that those who are not poor can tranquilly let themselves oppress the poor who are so resigned. The truth is precisely the contrary. The poor are giving the leftist rich a very great lesson in common sense. If those who are not poor fail to respond to this lesson with a conduct imbued with respect and a spirit of justice and Christian charity, the course of History, guided by the hand of God, will overthrow these incorrigible socialist tycoons. Will it be to make a classless society? No, but a hierarchical society that may begin genuinely to deserve the noble adjective, Christian.

L'articolo Raise awareness, raise awareness… – Folha de S. Paulo, November 17, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I just read in this newspaper (October 28, 1980) statements by Cardinal Aloisio Lorscheider, Archbishop of Fortaleza, about the now-famous speech in which General Coelho Neto, commander of the 4th Army Division, denounced the severity of communist infiltration in the Church and the Brazilian government. The cardinal states clearly and simply: “The last thing that can exist is a communist bishop.”

Is it a theological impossibility? Is it in the nature of the episcopal function that a bishop cannot be a communist? Cardinal Lorscheider does not claim so because it is well known that there can be communist bishops.

He bases this impossibility on a completely different line of reasoning. I will try to explain his reasoning using his own words.

1. “No one keeps a closer watch over bishops than the Holy See … no matter how closely the SNI [National Intelligence Service] observes them, it has never done so as closely as the Holy See.”

2. Now, “If the Holy See had doubts about any bishop, he would have been removed from his position long ago.”

3. Therefore, none of the bishops currently governing dioceses are communists.

4. Therefore, General Coelho Neto was wrong.

Undoubtedly, this way of dismissing the respected military officer gives Cardinal Lorscheider an advantage. From then on, firmly grounded in his previous beliefs, the cardinal can refuse to consider any evidence the general presents: it is unreasonable from the start. No matter how clear and conclusive it is, it still seems unreasonable.

How convenient!

Furthermore, the cardinal attempts to corner the commander of the 4th Army Division. According to his reasoning, anyone who claims there is a communist bishop is essentially rebelling against the pope himself. From a publicity standpoint, it’s a smart move. Either General Coelho Neto stays silent in shame, or he defies the pope. If he does the latter, he will turn the entire Catholic population of Brazil against him.

However, even when they are convenient and clever, a priori arguments don’t hold up under scrutiny. I believe this is true here.

I will now share my observations about the cardinal’s reasoning with the reader.

1. Clearly, the Supreme Pontiff cannot monitor everything that the approximately 350 bishops in Brazil do. He relies on informants. Among them, no one is better suited than the Brazilian cardinals.

Therefore, the pope’s judgment of a bishop mainly relies on what the cardinals observe. By stating that there are no communist bishops in Brazil because otherwise the pope would know, Cardinal Lorscheider implies that if there had been communist bishops in Brazil, he would have seen them and, as a cardinal, would have told the pope. Since he did not see any, there are none.

In short, General Coelho Neto was wrong, and the proof is that the Cardinal Archbishop of Fortaleza says so. Ultimately, his status as a cardinal automatically exempts him from any argument and makes any document invalid.

It’s exactly what I would call a vicious cycle.

2. Cardinal Lorscheider’s argument has another major flaw: the great ambiguity of the word “communist.” In today’s chaos, some Marxists reject the label of communist, even though others see them as such. Allende demonstrates this. There are also communists who refuse to identify as Marxists. Most importantly, there is a broad spectrum of semi-communist Marxists and semi-Marxist communists. Additionally, we must consider the spread of misunderstandings about communists who call themselves socialists, socialists who decline to call themselves communists, and more. In short, because the word “communist” is so broad, Cardinal Lorscheider would have been very careful if he had started by clarifying how he believed General Coelho Neto used it.

In everyday language, “communist” also refers to anyone who, while claiming not to be a communist, considers themselves an atheist and supports abolishing the family and private property.

Still using everyday language, this last point—private property—has a very clear symbolic meaning. If someone is an atheist, that alone isn’t enough to label them a communist. If someone supports weakening and ultimately dissolving the family, it will take some reasoning to convince the average Brazilian that they are a communist. But if someone advocates for the abolition of private property, the average Brazilian will see them as clearly communist.

From there, other meanings of the word expand. Anyone who does not explicitly declare themselves in favor of private property but demands such limits that it becomes bloodless and painful can be labeled a communist, either because they more or less subconsciously accept the principle of community of goods or because they are a crypto-communist who does not dare to fully reveal themselves.

That said, in everyday language, what exactly is a communist bishop? Is he necessarily affiliated with the BCP or the PC do B? Does he want the abolition of private property, or at least express himself in a way that shows his complete dislike for it?

Consider, for example, any of Bishop Pedro Casaldáliga’s poems that I transcribed in a recent book, The Church Facing the Escalating Communist Threat – an Appeal to the Silent Bishops, Editora Vera Cruz, São Paulo, 4th edition, 1977, 223 pages.

If, after reading these texts, someone gets the impression that they involve rejecting private property, whose fault is that if not the prelate’s? I, for example, feel this way, and it is not surprising that the same is true of General Coelho Neto.

In light of this, what is the point of Cardinal Lorscheider claiming we are wrong just because he disagrees with us?

3. As a Catholic, I wish the cardinal had responded differently to General Coelho Neto’s statements. Instead of saying, “It isn’t, because I said it isn’t,” Cardinal Lorscheider should have challenged him: let the general present the evidence for what he claims. Then the public, the Brazilian ecclesiastical hierarchy, and even the pope himself would have a clearer understanding of the truth.

However, I doubt that Cardinal Lorscheider will take that route. Because then, countless Brazilians and I are sure that the cardinal and eventually the other advisors and informants of the Supreme Pontiff would have a lot to read…

L'articolo Lots and Lots to Read – Folha de S. Paulo, November 1, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I just read in this newspaper (October 28, 1980) statements by Cardinal Aloisio Lorscheider, Archbishop of Fortaleza, about the now-famous speech in which General Coelho Neto, commander of the 4th Army Division, denounced the severity of communist infiltration in the Church and the Brazilian government. The cardinal states clearly and simply: “The last thing that can exist is a communist bishop.”

Is it a theological impossibility? Is it in the nature of the episcopal function that a bishop cannot be a communist? Cardinal Lorscheider does not claim so because it is well known that there can be communist bishops.

He bases this impossibility on a completely different line of reasoning. I will try to explain his reasoning using his own words.

1. “No one keeps a closer watch over bishops than the Holy See … no matter how closely the SNI [National Intelligence Service] observes them, it has never done so as closely as the Holy See.”

2. Now, “If the Holy See had doubts about any bishop, he would have been removed from his position long ago.”

3. Therefore, none of the bishops currently governing dioceses are communists.

4. Therefore, General Coelho Neto was wrong.

Undoubtedly, this way of dismissing the respected military officer gives Cardinal Lorscheider an advantage. From then on, firmly grounded in his previous beliefs, the cardinal can refuse to consider any evidence the general presents: it is unreasonable from the start. No matter how clear and conclusive it is, it still seems unreasonable.

How convenient!

Furthermore, the cardinal attempts to corner the commander of the 4th Army Division. According to his reasoning, anyone who claims there is a communist bishop is essentially rebelling against the pope himself. From a publicity standpoint, it’s a smart move. Either General Coelho Neto stays silent in shame, or he defies the pope. If he does the latter, he will turn the entire Catholic population of Brazil against him.

However, even when they are convenient and clever, a priori arguments don’t hold up under scrutiny. I believe this is true here.

I will now share my observations about the cardinal’s reasoning with the reader.

1. Clearly, the Supreme Pontiff cannot monitor everything that the approximately 350 bishops in Brazil do. He relies on informants. Among them, no one is better suited than the Brazilian cardinals.

Therefore, the pope’s judgment of a bishop mainly relies on what the cardinals observe. By stating that there are no communist bishops in Brazil because otherwise the pope would know, Cardinal Lorscheider implies that if there had been communist bishops in Brazil, he would have seen them and, as a cardinal, would have told the pope. Since he did not see any, there are none.

In short, General Coelho Neto was wrong, and the proof is that the Cardinal Archbishop of Fortaleza says so. Ultimately, his status as a cardinal automatically exempts him from any argument and makes any document invalid.

It’s exactly what I would call a vicious cycle.

2. Cardinal Lorscheider’s argument has another major flaw: the great ambiguity of the word “communist.” In today’s chaos, some Marxists reject the label of communist, even though others see them as such. Allende demonstrates this. There are also communists who refuse to identify as Marxists. Most importantly, there is a broad spectrum of semi-communist Marxists and semi-Marxist communists. Additionally, we must consider the spread of misunderstandings about communists who call themselves socialists, socialists who decline to call themselves communists, and more. In short, because the word “communist” is so broad, Cardinal Lorscheider would have been very careful if he had started by clarifying how he believed General Coelho Neto used it.

In everyday language, “communist” also refers to anyone who, while claiming not to be a communist, considers themselves an atheist and supports abolishing the family and private property.

Still using everyday language, this last point—private property—has a very clear symbolic meaning. If someone is an atheist, that alone isn’t enough to label them a communist. If someone supports weakening and ultimately dissolving the family, it will take some reasoning to convince the average Brazilian that they are a communist. But if someone advocates for the abolition of private property, the average Brazilian will see them as clearly communist.

From there, other meanings of the word expand. Anyone who does not explicitly declare themselves in favor of private property but demands such limits that it becomes bloodless and painful can be labeled a communist, either because they more or less subconsciously accept the principle of community of goods or because they are a crypto-communist who does not dare to fully reveal themselves.

That said, in everyday language, what exactly is a communist bishop? Is he necessarily affiliated with the BCP or the PC do B? Does he want the abolition of private property, or at least express himself in a way that shows his complete dislike for it?

Consider, for example, any of Bishop Pedro Casaldáliga’s poems that I transcribed in a recent book, The Church Facing the Escalating Communist Threat – an Appeal to the Silent Bishops, Editora Vera Cruz, São Paulo, 4th edition, 1977, 223 pages.

If, after reading these texts, someone gets the impression that they involve rejecting private property, whose fault is that if not the prelate’s? I, for example, feel this way, and it is not surprising that the same is true of General Coelho Neto.

In light of this, what is the point of Cardinal Lorscheider claiming we are wrong just because he disagrees with us?

3. As a Catholic, I wish the cardinal had responded differently to General Coelho Neto’s statements. Instead of saying, “It isn’t, because I said it isn’t,” Cardinal Lorscheider should have challenged him: let the general present the evidence for what he claims. Then the public, the Brazilian ecclesiastical hierarchy, and even the pope himself would have a clearer understanding of the truth.

However, I doubt that Cardinal Lorscheider will take that route. Because then, countless Brazilians and I are sure that the cardinal and eventually the other advisors and informants of the Supreme Pontiff would have a lot to read…

L'articolo Lots and Lots to Read – Folha de S. Paulo, November 1, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

1980 is coming to an end. In two months, everyone will be looking forward to the holiday season. And so, the classic and inevitable retrospectives will happen to reflect on what has been left behind. For my part, I’m starting today.

Can we genuinely describe 1980 as a journey for the world? What actually comes through is the feeling of a huge slip: a year where events staggered from one fall to another, everything unexpectedly collapsing and then rising again just as suddenly—so that, ultimately, nothing is permanently broken, but everything is clearly traumatized.

I’m not talking about myself or about ‘my’ 1980. I wouldn’t dare take up the reader’s time with such a trivial subject. I’m talking about Brazil and the world. For example, I’m talking about you, my reader.

Yes, you, because the phenomenon I describe on a global scale appears to repeat at the individual level.

When I see people on the street and look at photographs of groups or crowds in newspapers, I get the sense that countless humans are caught in this strange rhythm of daily life.

Maybe this explains why our memory of the past seems less strange.

Anyone traveling peacefully aboard a yacht, surrounded by sincere, interesting, and cheerful friends, would find their memory pleasantly filled at night with the small events of the day: the splendid blue of the sea, a particularly elegant seagull in flight, a liqueur that tasted unusually fine, a song that struck the ear with unexpected charm, the smell of the sea air or the scent of flowers delighting the senses, a picturesque story told by one companion, a revealing confidence shared by another, the sudden brilliance of a metaphor that arose in conversation, the clarity of an argument with which one instantly agreed. All of this belongs to the small and delightful realm of everyday life. Each moment is a tiny episode, a little flower. A day like this becomes a bouquet of forget-me-nots, each bloom representing an hour, a half hour, perhaps only a quarter hour. It is a long, slow, carefree day, and by its end, the events remain so vivid that they seem to have happened only a moment ago. Paradoxically, in this slow passage of time, the morning’s impressions stay as fresh as those of the afternoon. When time moves gently, the past continues to live with pleasant clarity in each new moment.

How different the passing of time feels in those phases when it hurtles toward 1980, shaken by repeated tumbles. Each shock seizes the present so completely, with such vehemence, that the mind is carried on the black wings of apprehension toward a hostile future, and the past vanishes from view. When it finally returns, it is so faded and torn that it resembles a shapeless bundle of rags—nothing like the once-pleasant bouquet of forget-me-nots.

Given this weakening of memory, what happens in the morning can seem oddly distant by evening. When you wake up facing a bill you can’t pay, or a visit to a radiologist who might tell you whether you have cancer, or walking a street infested with pickpockets because your job leaves no other choice—and how many people live with one or more of these worries at the same time—the present and the future take up your full attention so much that yesterday, half-forgotten, feels like it belonged to a year ago.

What can be observed daily can also be said of a month or even a year. When 1980 rings out its last chime and slips into the past, many of the emotions you experienced so intensely, reader, will seem so distant, so far away to you…

Yes, to you, whom I can only see as one of the countless drops that make up the sea of public opinion. How often has the media called on this sea to react passionately to some urgent issue! How relevant those issues were! Yet, how distant their echo is by the end of 1980.

In 1979, Rhodesia—along with South Africa—stood as one of the principal anticommunist bastions in southern Africa, two political dams meant to keep the advancing communist tide from reaching the Cape of Good Hope. The strategic importance of this barrier was evident: the Cape’s position made it a vital link in global maritime trade. Yet by late 1979, Rhodesia’s moderate Prime Minister, Abel Muzorewa, was swept aside [when the Lancaster House Agreement restored British authority over the territory, ending the short-lived Zimbabwe‑Rhodesia government]. In the elections that followed, the Marxist ZANU movement, led by guerrilla leader Robert Mugabe, rose to power.

One of the two bastions falls, and the world is momentarily stunned. Yet the new communist government refrains from imposing sweeping reforms, and global attention drifts elsewhere. Rhodesia, however, remains deeply traumatized: legally, everything has collapsed, while in reality, little has changed, but the shock is immense and continues to shape the nation’s inner life. Of the two anti‑communist bastions, only South Africa remains standing. Rhodesia did not fall in the literal sense, but it is finished, forgotten, and left behind. And how long it feels since all this happened!

The Moscow Olympics. No one was unaware that the communist regime was profoundly police‑like; the very existence of the Iron Curtain testified to the degree of genuine imprisonment in which those people lived. Yet the jailer suddenly decided to appear friendly and, for that purpose, disguised himself as an artist. He staged “beautiful” Olympics, and the publicity machine began to exclaim: Look how friendly, how artistic the Soviet leaders are. Such refined people cannot be harsh jailers. Surely the Iron Curtain is no longer what it once was.

It was a massive propaganda stunt—one that was hard to expose effectively at the time. Now, it’s impossible to do so because the whole topic of those Olympics has long faded into the past. So long ago…

John Paul II is coming to Brazil. Everyone has high expectations of him. The socialists want him to overthrow capitalism; the capitalists want him to condemn communism; the progressives want him to encourage the modernization of liturgy and morality with new hopes. The anti-progressives want him to approve the Tridentine Mass. Side by side, fueled by contradictory hopes, millions of people applauded him as if a new era were about to dawn. Second half of October 1980: how all this is already fading into the mists of the past…

John Paul II is visiting Brazil, and expectations are rising everywhere. Socialists hope he will criticize capitalism; capitalists hope he will condemn communism. Progressives look forward to encouragement for liturgical and moral “renewals,” while anti-progressives long for approval of the Tridentine Mass. Side by side, driven by hopes that contradict one another, millions applaud him as if a new era were about to dawn. And now, in the second half of October 1980, how quickly all of this is already fading into the mists of the past…

I set aside the less universal developments. While Iran and Iraq clash, few remember the Shah, lying on his fortune in a misery faintly reminiscent of Job on his dunghill. The last Shah—born amid the splendors of the Arabian Nights—vanished in a catastrophe that, like the year 1980 itself, proved irretrievable.

All of this took place only yesterday, so to speak—yet it already feels as though ages have passed.

L'articolo Yesterday, So Long Ago – Folha de S. Paulo, October 25, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

1980 is coming to an end. In two months, everyone will be looking forward to the holiday season. And so, the classic and inevitable retrospectives will happen to reflect on what has been left behind. For my part, I’m starting today.

Can we genuinely describe 1980 as a journey for the world? What actually comes through is the feeling of a huge slip: a year where events staggered from one fall to another, everything unexpectedly collapsing and then rising again just as suddenly—so that, ultimately, nothing is permanently broken, but everything is clearly traumatized.

I’m not talking about myself or about ‘my’ 1980. I wouldn’t dare take up the reader’s time with such a trivial subject. I’m talking about Brazil and the world. For example, I’m talking about you, my reader.

Yes, you, because the phenomenon I describe on a global scale appears to repeat at the individual level.

When I see people on the street and look at photographs of groups or crowds in newspapers, I get the sense that countless humans are caught in this strange rhythm of daily life.

Maybe this explains why our memory of the past seems less strange.

Anyone traveling peacefully aboard a yacht, surrounded by sincere, interesting, and cheerful friends, would find their memory pleasantly filled at night with the small events of the day: the splendid blue of the sea, a particularly elegant seagull in flight, a liqueur that tasted unusually fine, a song that struck the ear with unexpected charm, the smell of the sea air or the scent of flowers delighting the senses, a picturesque story told by one companion, a revealing confidence shared by another, the sudden brilliance of a metaphor that arose in conversation, the clarity of an argument with which one instantly agreed. All of this belongs to the small and delightful realm of everyday life. Each moment is a tiny episode, a little flower. A day like this becomes a bouquet of forget-me-nots, each bloom representing an hour, a half hour, perhaps only a quarter hour. It is a long, slow, carefree day, and by its end, the events remain so vivid that they seem to have happened only a moment ago. Paradoxically, in this slow passage of time, the morning’s impressions stay as fresh as those of the afternoon. When time moves gently, the past continues to live with pleasant clarity in each new moment.

How different the passing of time feels in those phases when it hurtles toward 1980, shaken by repeated tumbles. Each shock seizes the present so completely, with such vehemence, that the mind is carried on the black wings of apprehension toward a hostile future, and the past vanishes from view. When it finally returns, it is so faded and torn that it resembles a shapeless bundle of rags—nothing like the once-pleasant bouquet of forget-me-nots.

Given this weakening of memory, what happens in the morning can seem oddly distant by evening. When you wake up facing a bill you can’t pay, or a visit to a radiologist who might tell you whether you have cancer, or walking a street infested with pickpockets because your job leaves no other choice—and how many people live with one or more of these worries at the same time—the present and the future take up your full attention so much that yesterday, half-forgotten, feels like it belonged to a year ago.

What can be observed daily can also be said of a month or even a year. When 1980 rings out its last chime and slips into the past, many of the emotions you experienced so intensely, reader, will seem so distant, so far away to you…

Yes, to you, whom I can only see as one of the countless drops that make up the sea of public opinion. How often has the media called on this sea to react passionately to some urgent issue! How relevant those issues were! Yet, how distant their echo is by the end of 1980.

In 1979, Rhodesia—along with South Africa—stood as one of the principal anticommunist bastions in southern Africa, two political dams meant to keep the advancing communist tide from reaching the Cape of Good Hope. The strategic importance of this barrier was evident: the Cape’s position made it a vital link in global maritime trade. Yet by late 1979, Rhodesia’s moderate Prime Minister, Abel Muzorewa, was swept aside [when the Lancaster House Agreement restored British authority over the territory, ending the short-lived Zimbabwe‑Rhodesia government]. In the elections that followed, the Marxist ZANU movement, led by guerrilla leader Robert Mugabe, rose to power.

One of the two bastions falls, and the world is momentarily stunned. Yet the new communist government refrains from imposing sweeping reforms, and global attention drifts elsewhere. Rhodesia, however, remains deeply traumatized: legally, everything has collapsed, while in reality, little has changed, but the shock is immense and continues to shape the nation’s inner life. Of the two anti‑communist bastions, only South Africa remains standing. Rhodesia did not fall in the literal sense, but it is finished, forgotten, and left behind. And how long it feels since all this happened!

The Moscow Olympics. No one was unaware that the communist regime was profoundly police‑like; the very existence of the Iron Curtain testified to the degree of genuine imprisonment in which those people lived. Yet the jailer suddenly decided to appear friendly and, for that purpose, disguised himself as an artist. He staged “beautiful” Olympics, and the publicity machine began to exclaim: Look how friendly, how artistic the Soviet leaders are. Such refined people cannot be harsh jailers. Surely the Iron Curtain is no longer what it once was.

It was a massive propaganda stunt—one that was hard to expose effectively at the time. Now, it’s impossible to do so because the whole topic of those Olympics has long faded into the past. So long ago…

John Paul II is coming to Brazil. Everyone has high expectations of him. The socialists want him to overthrow capitalism; the capitalists want him to condemn communism; the progressives want him to encourage the modernization of liturgy and morality with new hopes. The anti-progressives want him to approve the Tridentine Mass. Side by side, fueled by contradictory hopes, millions of people applauded him as if a new era were about to dawn. Second half of October 1980: how all this is already fading into the mists of the past…

John Paul II is visiting Brazil, and expectations are rising everywhere. Socialists hope he will criticize capitalism; capitalists hope he will condemn communism. Progressives look forward to encouragement for liturgical and moral “renewals,” while anti-progressives long for approval of the Tridentine Mass. Side by side, driven by hopes that contradict one another, millions applaud him as if a new era were about to dawn. And now, in the second half of October 1980, how quickly all of this is already fading into the mists of the past…

I set aside the less universal developments. While Iran and Iraq clash, few remember the Shah, lying on his fortune in a misery faintly reminiscent of Job on his dunghill. The last Shah—born amid the splendors of the Arabian Nights—vanished in a catastrophe that, like the year 1980 itself, proved irretrievable.

All of this took place only yesterday, so to speak—yet it already feels as though ages have passed.

L'articolo Yesterday, So Long Ago – Folha de S. Paulo, October 25, 1980 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.