Uninhibited Contradictions – Folha de S. Paulo, August 5, 1973
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
I am pleased to note the Vatican’s unofficial newspaper, L’Osservatore della Domenica’s position on the French nuclear test at Mururoa. In an editorial by Federico Alessandrini, its director, the paper makes clear that the Church does not condemn the manufacture and possession of nuclear weapons. For if, according to some, nuclear weapons lead to war, according to others they are an instrument of peace.
Alessandrini’s hypothesis that atomic weapons can lead to peace may seem strange. However, he substantiates this possibility by deeming plausible the common opinion that sometimes the best way to avoid war is to instill fear in those who want to provoke it.
Sometimes! I would go further and say that, in my opinion, this is almost always true.
* * *
Kierunki is a cultural magazine published in Warsaw by a group of progressive Catholics. In its April 22 issue—which, for obvious reasons, reached the free world with a delay—the magazine addresses ideological barriers.
To understand why Kierunki’s comments are interesting, one must consider that it, in every way, adopts the doctrines, spirit, and attitudes of Western progressives. In fact, if this were not the case, the communist authorities would never allow it to circulate in Poland.
However, Western progressives are staunch opponents of ideological barriers, and, by a strange contradiction, their counterparts in Poland are no less staunch supporters of those very barriers.
If progressives here and there are so similar in everything else, how can we explain their disagreement on this point?
* * *
Before answering this question, let us see what the progressive Warsaw newspaper says:
“Jerzy Łukaszewicz (secretary of the Polish Communist Party) writes in the latest issue of Nowe Drogi, in an article titled ‘Some Problems of the Party’s Ideological Front’: ‘The increase in international changes creates great opportunities for ideas foreign to socialism, pernicious social doctrines, and cultural models to infiltrate our country. … We must all be on guard to adequately immunize our ideological front against this phenomenon.”
In other words, the communist mouthpiece cited by Kierunki wants communists to oppose a strong ideological reaction to the infiltration of capitalist principles, possibly stemming from contacts with the West.
Conversely, Western progressives argue that the cessation of all anticommunist propaganda in Eastern European countries is an inevitable consequence of diplomatic and commercial rapprochement between capitalist and communist nations. This perfectly explains the contradiction between Eastern and Western progressives: both want to favor the communist regime. Since communists profit from maintaining ideological barriers in the East, progressives there support those barriers. In the West, by contrast, communists profit from abolishing ideological barriers, as this allows them to penetrate capitalist nations freely, so Western progressives are enthusiastically leading the destruction of ideological barriers in this part of the world.
Nothing could be clearer.
* * *
Not without a touch of cynicism, Kierunki, after calling on its readers to defend the ideological wall of Polish communism, explains how peaceful coexistence can expand communism in the West. It says that once the communist ideological front in Poland (and, obviously, in Russia and the other nations under its domination) has been sufficiently immunized, “the possibility of socialist influence on capitalist society increases.” It further adds: “We must prepare an effective response (to the ideological penetration of capitalism) to exploit the possibility of increasing our ideological offensive.”
If I were a progressive, I would feel deeply uncomfortable reading these indiscretions in Kierunki. How would a progressive feel?
* * *
The progressive mindset shows an enigmatic insensitivity to contradictions. While everyone else avoids contradicting themselves, progressives feel a strange apathy—or even a certain comfort—in flaunting contradictory ideas and attitudes. “Delicta quis intelligit? – Who can understand sins?” asks Scripture (Psalm 18:13). Who can understand progressivism?
* * *
A similar ease with contradiction can be seen among pacifists. In fact, pacifism is often confused with progressivism, since every progressive is a pacifist, and every pacifist, when not a progressive, at least tends to be one.
Of course, we must not confuse pacifists with peaceful people. In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord promised the latter an admirable reward: “They shall be called children of God.” A peaceful man is one who loves true peace, which St. Augustine splendidly defined as “the tranquility of order.”
On the contrary, a pacifist has little love for tranquility, whether it comes from order or disorder. Deep down, he prefers disorder. He speaks only of peace as a pretext to deceive and immobilize peaceful people who support order.
This is clearly illustrated by a report published recently by the Rio de Janeiro newspaper Diário de Notícias. Sweden will increase its annual subsidy to the Mozambique-based FRELIMO guerrilla organization from 2 to 4 million krona (about 98 million cruzeiros). The information was provided by the Scandinavian country’s pacifist foreign minister.
That public figure goes so far as to openly promote war in other people’s homes! Of course, Sweden’s pacifist government does not spend a single krona to liberate European countries that are communist satellites.
These contradictory pacifists proudly flaunt their pacifism.
* * *
According to press reports, the Spanish government abruptly severed relations with Taiwan some time ago. In this regard, Congressman Blás Piñar, director of the important magazine Fuerza Nueva, addressed a beautiful and noble letter to Mr. Yu Chi Hsueh, former Chinese ambassador to Madrid, reflecting the fire and chivalry of the Spanish soul. From it, I quote the following passage:
“The primacy of material values and profit over honor and friendship, the spirit of surrender spreading everywhere, the capitulation without defeat that characterizes the present day, the inconceivable lack of historical memory, and the absence of moral scruples in international relations do not prevent many Spaniards, myself included, from raising their voices and making their protest and disapproval of such attitudes, and, naturally, of the Spanish government’s recent adoption, heard.”
The issue of Fuerza Nueva, in which this letter was published, was seized by the Spanish police.
No one protested this arbitrary act. If any leftist publication had been seized, protests from progressives would have poured in from all sides, branding Franco’s government as tyrannical. But because the arbitrary act targeted an anticommunist magazine, progressives find it entirely normal.
Once again, we face this indifference, this lack of restraint—or rather, euphoria—that characterizes progressives when they adopt their most disconcertingly contradictory attitudes.
