Simple. Clear. Terrible. – Folha de S. Paulo, February 27, 1972

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Relations between the communist and non-communist worlds are undergoing so many changes that an overview is increasingly useful. This is especially true these days, given Nixon’s momentous visit to Beijing.

As everyone knows, this is only the first in a series of moves. After visiting Beijing, the US president will travel to Moscow, and rumors have it that he will then go to Havana.

Nixon’s actions have many aspects, including one to which he has given special emphasis: their pacifist character.

One could debate endlessly about the feasibility of Nixon’s goal. However, even his most bitter opponents do not dispute the authenticity of his desire for peace, which drives him. Thus, one can legitimately outline the entire panorama of relations between the two blocs based on this supreme goal of the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

I begin by noting that the policy developed by Nixon on a global scale is similar to that which Willy Brandt, West Germany’s Prime Minister, has been implementing on a European scale. Bonn hopes for a definitive peace on the Old Continent between the communist bloc and the Free world, first by resolving the friction between the two Berlins, then between the two Germanys, and finally between the NATO nations and those of the Warsaw Pact.

Argentina’s General Lanusse is taking action on a smaller scale. He launched his policy of “breaking down ideological barriers,” first supporting on the international stage the Marxist president who is dragging Chile into misery and chaos. Having made this inglorious move, he is now preparing to attempt to reintegrate Cuba, the former Pearl of the Antilles, which Fidel has reduced to a poor mouse, into the OAS.

As we can see, Nixon, Willy Brandt, and Lanusse are applying the same scheme in different contexts. Not to mention Trudeau in Canada.

If this is the same scheme, we can predict that it will be implemented through similar processes in Latin America, Europe, and globally.

 What exactly are these processes? At least as of this writing, Nixon’s practical plans in this regard remain secret. The same is true of General Lanusse’s plans. Thus, we must turn to Willy Brandt’s.

His plans are clear. In the first stage, he aims to unite the nations of free Europe into a single bloc. The “Europe of Six,” recently transformed into the “Europe of Ten,” should form a vast federal state. Next will come the amalgamation of the two European blocs, the free and the communist, into a single federation, the United States of Europe, analogous to the United States of America.

Applying the Willy Brandt process to relations between superpowers will result in the formation of a United States of the World, that is, a Universal Republic ruled by a world government.

* * *

The European example gives us a vivid reflection of this convergence among nations. It is a convergence between political and social regimes.

In fact, one cannot imagine a nation or a supernational entity, such as the United States of Europe, with two contradictory regimes coexisting within the same territory. This is especially true today, when cultural, social, and economic relations among the various parts of a country, even a very large one, are intensely and continuously intertwined. The fusion of all European or world nations will necessarily lead to the amalgamation of their respective regimes. In other words, convergence among nations leads to the adoption of a single, semi-communist and semi-capitalist regime.

According to communist plans, Italy was to be the pioneer country or guinea pig for this amalgamation. Its Communist Party, two Socialist Parties, and Christian Democratic Party marched arm in arm toward this goal in a joyful farandole. The “Berlinger-Amendola” formula, which I have already discussed (Folha de S. Paulo, November 21, 1971), was intended to facilitate this outcome. However, serious electoral setbacks forced the comrades to halt their march.

In this regard, I note that this entire program is unpopular in Western Europe. In Germany, Willy Brandt faces significant obstacles in getting Parliament to approve the treaties he signed with Russia and Poland, which are preliminary milestones of his convergence policy. In England, the Conservative cabinet, despite intense pressure in the House of Commons to approve the country’s entry into the “Europe of Ten,” won by a narrow majority of eight votes. In France, most professional politicians support convergence, but I am not aware of a single significant expression of public opinion in favor of it.

“How can that be?” some readers may ask. “Are these opponents of convergence crazy? Do they want another war?”

In the eyes of countless people, the fear of war is the main argument for uniting peoples and regimes. But I ask, where does this threat come from? Obviously not from Nixon. The threat comes from Moscow and Beijing.

Now, the red foxes in both capitals are well aware that these threats will accelerate the “convergence” trend among the “toadish” and ultra-pacifist sectors of the West. One can therefore infer that Moscow and Beijing are threatening war to bring the world to a convergence of nations and regimes. In other words, in their plans, this convergence is the final step toward world conquest. Either the super world government will be communist, or there will be war. Once again, the Free World will have to give in.

Therefore, the convergence of nations and regimes is clearly a result of the communist threat and suits the governments from which that threat originates. Russians and Chinese are confident that Nixon’s trips to Beijing and Moscow—sensational milestones in convergence—will bring world communist domination.

This is so simple, so clear, and so terrible! Yet it seems few people see it.