by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Last Sunday, we examined an intriguing aspect of a Pedecista’s mindset. On the surface, they appear undecided between the right and the left, making them stubborn compromisers in any ideological conflicts they encounter, and unconditional supporters of peace at any cost. However, confusing this indecision with neutrality would be a mistake. In practice, the Pedecistas’ balancing act, even when mostly expressed as abstract neutrality, consistently benefits the left. This pattern is evident at all levels—individually, within parties, and internationally.
Thus, if a communist engages in an argument with an anticommunist in front of a Christian Democrat, the latter’s response typically unfolds in three stages.
a) Initially, the Christian Democrat will claim neutrality and make a few quick interventions in the discussion to support one side or the other.
b) As the discussion heats up, the Christian Democrat will start to promote harmony between both sides and speak out against radicalization.
c) Sometime later, he shows signs of boredom, annoyance, and even irritation at the discord. He now tries to impose the peace he had only suggested. To this end, the Pedecista’s formula is always the same (note the bold face): recommending that the anticommunists make concessions to appease the communists.
I insist: Whenever a Pedecista seeks to impose peace, he proposes an agreement where anticommunists concede to communists. I cannot recall, or at least do not remember, a single instance where the opposite happens—where a Pedecista suggests that communists make concessions to appease anticommunists.
As shown, the Pedecista’s indecision always favors the left and even the most radical left.
Yet, no one is more boastful than a Pedecista when criticizing radicalization. Wouldn’t he be more consistent if he spoke out against only one form of radicalization, specifically that of the right?
* * *
What causes this inconsistency? Clearly, some Pedecistas engage in clever and deliberate politicking to gain the approval of the left’s influential publicity machines. However, in most cases, I believe the reason for this inconsistency is quite different.
More often than not, a Pedecista isn’t someone torn by inner conflict. While he secretly sympathizes with communism, his outward beliefs, habits, relationships, and perhaps even his interests link him to the non-communist side. He feels he would have to endure a thousand painful breaks if he admitted to being pro-communist. Conversely, if he suppresses his pro-communist tendencies, he’d have to give up the dreams, utopias, and illusions deep in his heart. So, what does he do? He tries to convince himself that he’s neutral. He also attempts to persuade those around him of his neutrality. Naturally, this shallow neutrality only produces superficial results. While a Pedecista’s behavior looks neutral on the surface, deep down, he only sympathizes with the left. As a consequence, his actions tend to favor the left when examined more closely.
A Pedecista seems indecisive outwardly but is fundamentally a leftist who is never fully neutral.
Pedecistas often reflect this personal attitude in the struggle between different ideological currents or political parties, between anticommunist and pro-communist groups. They act with the same apparent neutrality, strong aversion to anti-communism, and sympathy for communism that characterizes an individual Pedecista when confronting pro- and anti-leftists.
Worldwide, all Christian Democratic parties endorse a similar stance on the conflict between the communist East and the anticommunist West. This is known as the “Third World” policy.
* * *
As long as Pedecistas could persuade people of their neutrality, they gained a lot of sympathy, but their influence declined as they repeatedly took pro-leftist stances, hurting their neutral image.
As a result, Christian Democracy no longer serves as the main point of convergence for the broad family of subconscious ultra-leftists (or communists). They are scattered, aligning as best they can with liberal-democratic political currents or more or less progressive groups. In today’s chaos, you sometimes even see a Pedecista at heart, dreaming of a more or less Nasserist military regime—one that jails communists and socialists and then pushes for more leftist structural changes amid anticommunist rallies. The socialists then secretly welcome these changes as the fulfillment of their dreams, while the communists see them as necessary steps toward realizing theirs.
What do this line of thought and action, no longer called Pedecista, share in common with the Christian Democratic mentality? Its essence.
Yes, its essence is that, although it is anticommunist in name and rhetoric, it moves quickly and directly to the left; and those who always head toward the left inevitably end up at the far left, communism.
This family of souls, sometimes Pedecista without realizing it, sometimes socialist unknowingly, and often communist unaware of it, remains true to its core identity as Pedecista, socialist, and even communist. It is so consistent and well-defined that an experienced observer can identify its members by certain sure signs. Here are some:
-
Unabashedly claiming that the TFP is a right-wing extremist organization and continuing this slander despite being provided with all the evidence to the contrary.
-
Thinking that abundance and smiles alone can disarm most leftists;
-
Considering that the best way to depopulate the already thin ranks of the Communist Party is to retreat indefinitely in the face of crypto-communism.
-
Arguing that, on the contrary, anticommunism can only be eradicated through slander and defamation, if not by fire and sword.