More Relevant Than Ever – Folha de S. Paulo, August 20, 1972
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
A high-ranking clergyman recommended that I write an article clarifying the following question: if subversion is virtually extinct in Brazil, what is the TFP still good for? Of course, the clergyman in question knows the answer. However, he notes that some people have raised this question, so clarification would be in order.
I gladly comply with this authoritative suggestion.
* * *
I raise a preliminary point. It seems that those who ask this question understand subversion to mean only terrorism, because only terrorism can be considered more or less extinct in Brazil.
If this is the case, I would point out that subversion has little to do with the TFP. Repression of terrorism is fundamentally a prerogative of the public authorities. Moreover, the facts show that they are equipped with all the necessary means to do so and require no assistance from the TFP or any other private entity.
For its part, the TFP is a civic society that is apolitical and nonpartisan. It counters the offensive by socialists and communists to extinguish what remains of Christian Civilization in society by unmasking their doctrinal errors and defending tradition, family, and property.
It should be noted that our actions are carried out at a level that has nothing to do with terrorism. The essence of terrorism is material violence, which only material repression can dismantle and defeat. We are entirely ill-equipped for this type of activity, which, as I just said, is not our goal.
Undoubtedly, our ideological and social actions undermine terrorism by creating ideological obstacles to its being viewed sympathetically by specific sectors of the population and to its recruitment of followers. We do so by attacking communist ideology and by pointing out what is reprehensible about violence.
However, this ideological support, which we give wholeheartedly to the fight against terrorism, is distinct from specifically anti-terrorist actions.
* * *
In passing, I would like to express my reservations about the claim that terror is almost extinct and out of action among us. While it is less active, I believe it would reemerge with the same force if the competent authorities were to let their guard down even slightly.
A fire cannot be considered extinguished as long as some remaining pockets could reignite indefinitely due to an oversight.
However, what I disagree with most is the confusion between violence and subversion, which is implicit in the question I have been addressing.
Not all violence is subversion, and not all subversion is violence.
Murder is essentially an act of violence. However, it may not be subversive. This occurs, for example, when one person kills another for the sake of a game. The subversive element is present in murder only when the motive is to alter the existing political, social, or economic order. This is the case of a terrorist who kills a soldier to attack a barracks.
So, what is subversion? It is, without a doubt, any violent act aimed at changing the existing regime.
But is that all?
In other words, would it be subversive for someone to use nonviolent, even legal, means to change the current regime? Could it be considered subversive in France or Italy, for example, where the law allows the Communist Party to operate?
It depends. If by “subversive” we mean only what the law declares it to be, then the French and Italian Communist Parties are not.
However, the word “subversive,” beyond the meaning it is given by contemporary legal terminology, has another philosophical and religious dimension, according to which the Italian and French Communist Parties are subversive.
The meaning of “subversion” is related to that of “order.”
If order is merely the arrangement of things according to man-made laws, then communist or socialist regimes can be in order. It suffices that they be imposed by human laws.
But if we think this way, many of the greatest crimes in recorded history would be justified: the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, the immolation of Carthaginian children in a holocaust to Moloch, the incineration of widows in India, or, in our time, the atrocities committed in communist prisons and concentration camps. All these acts were carried out by public authorities under existing laws.
However, all these acts were clearly disorderly and criminal. Why?
Because God exists and is the supreme Lord of all.
God instituted a natural order, as condensed in the Ten Commandments He revealed. Therefore, it is not lawful for any State to command or allow (note that I am not saying “tolerate”) what God has forbidden, nor to forbid what God has commanded.
From this perspective, which is necessarily that of every Catholic, order above all else is the conformity of everyone to God’s Law—including the State and society.
Now, the communist regime is, by definition, the State and society’s disposition contrary to what God commanded. It subverts the entire order willed by God. Therefore, communism is subversion, and subversion par excellence.
This is true whether it is imposed by force of arms, as in Cuba, or established through elections, as in Chile.
Therefore, subversion par excellence may not be violent. This is the distinction between the concepts of subversion and violence.
In this sense, it should be noted that not only is the communist regime subversive but also the socialist regime, insofar as it is inspired by the maxims of the former and resembles it.
This is because a regime that inherently mutilates the family and property institutions enshrined in the Decalogue is all the more subversive the more severe these mutilations are.
It is subversive on philosophical and religious grounds, for it subverts the Kingdom of Christ on earth.
* * *
To conclude, Marxism, an ideological current that seeks to establish a communist regime through peaceful means, is intrinsically subversive, at least on philosophical and religious levels.
Who would dare say that Brazil is not grappling with communist doctrinal proselytism today?
In fact, what country is not in the same situation to some extent?
Therefore, the work of the TFP remains more relevant than ever.
