To find out to what extent Brazilian intelligentzia is in the dark about what goes on in the world, just go to Walmart in any small American town.
Seventy percent of the products sold there are Chinese. The data are from China Business Weekly magazine. “If Walmart were a country” – writes Ted C. Fishman in his recent book China, Inc., “It would be the fifth largest export market in China, above Germany and England.”
Still, Walmart is not the only one: in any popular supermarket in the U.S., it is hard to find cheap furniture or appliances, from an American brand, that is not made in China.
American citizens are aware of what this means: 2,900,000 factory slots lost and a decline in old industrial cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Allentown, Bethlehem and Pittsburgh. Some military strategy scholars, like Jeffrey Nyquist – one of America’s smartest men – go a step further: they know that shoppers in America’s cheapest supermarket chains are financing the growth of the Chinese war machine, whose explicit goal, already repeated a thousand times in military publications of the People’s Republic of China, is the destruction of the U.S. (I will explain more about this in the upcoming weeks). This machine increases its stock of atomic bombs day by day, at a pace never known to the U.S. and the USSR during the Cold War, and invests massively in the production of biological weapons whose current stock would already be enough to infect the entire American population in a matter of hours. When strategists warn that American spending on Chinese products fuels the growth of a potential enemy, they are not just referring to the implicit gain that any country’s armed forces have when the national economy grows. The Army is China’s main investor: it profits directly from the sale of every TV, CD player or cell phone sold abroad by Chinese factories. And the Army gains double, since the profit is added to the amount collected in taxes by the Chinese government and transferred to the armed forces. Not double; triple, because the more Chinese products are successful in the U.S., the more American investments go to Chinese companies, that is, to the Chinese Army.
It is mainly thanks to American aid that China grows at a rate capable of making it the largest industrial power in 2012 and the largest economy in the world in 2050.
None of this, of course, results in considerable benefit to the Chinese people. Around five cities that prosper at a fast rate, there is a whole continent of poverty and suffering that the Western public can hardly imagine. A worker’s salary in China is five times less than in Mexico. And don’t you fall into the belief that public services – the ultimate excuse for socialism – stabilizes low pay. Chinese hospitals, all of which belong to the government, don’t offer childbirth services, don’t treat others with a broken arm, don’t pull out a tooth without sending the bill at the end of the month. The water and sewage network is terrible throughout the countryside, and the survival difficulties for peasant families are so great that the government becomes an accomplice to them in the so-called “war against girls”: the habit of throwing newborns to pigs (and then eat the pigs, of course). Chinese prosperity is based not only on American blindness, of course, but on the ubiquitous political police, slave labor, the forced sterilization of millions of women and the massive persecution of minorities, especially religious (the number of Christians murdered by the government goes up to twenty thousand per year). To the violence and cruelty of a police state is added to institutionalized shamelessness: out of the profits of Chinese industry, 50 billion dollars a year come from counterfeit products.
Don’t you be fooled by believing that all this monumental amount of human suffering has at least served to preserve an ancient culture. Mao Zedong’s “Cultural Revolution” devastated China’s traditional culture more intensely than any foreign activities could have done. And what was left was totally deformed by the official reinterpretations, which, incredibly, tried to give a materialistic sense to the classics of Chinese spirituality. Today, at Beijing universities, it is impossible to find a scholar who understands the meaning of Taoism or the symbolism of I-Ching. If Western scholars like René Guénon and Marcel Granet hadn’t preserved this knowledge, the Chinese spiritual treasure would have been irretrievably lost to humanity.
Also, science and technology don’t gain anything from American investments in China. Most of the Chinese knowledge in this area is simply bought in New York or Florida and shamelessly imitated. What you can’t buy in stores is obtained by espionage – sometimes under the protection of the American government itself, as in the case of the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, where President Clinton himself blocked investigations (nothing more logical, indeed, since Chinese state-owned companies had substantially contributed to his election campaign).
How was it possible that so much American money flowed to feed this monstrosity?
The culprit is called “globalization.” It is by looking at things from this point of view that one can notice the total alienation of the Brazilian media and, especially, the enlightened media intellectuals with their lessons of wisdom. “Globalization,” for those people, is the same as the American Empire. In our public debates, the triumph of the free market doctrine in the 1990s is invariably presented as a Machiavellian device invented by Wall Street strategists to implant the American way of life in the world. Some of these strategists, in fact, claimed that opening up trade borders would spread American democracy around the world. Others, however, warned that simple economic freedom couldn’t work this magic, especially if adopted up in the air, in abstract, outside a geopolitical approach that would take into account business competition and strategic competition between States. China’s economic opening, they said, was perfectly compatible with the continuation of the communist dictatorship and an aggressive, militaristic, expansionist foreign policy. This side of the American debate has been entirely ignored by our media: reasoning exclusively on the basis of the stereotype State versus market, which has become the maximum fetish of national leftist thinking, the media has identified a priori the free market dogma with American national interest, seeing a convergence exactly where the best American analysts found a contradiction. The relationship between market freedom and national interest is ambiguous, to say the least, and becomes highly problematic when there is not enough reciprocity in opening markets from side to side, that is, when one of the states bets all on economic freedom and the other in the growth of national power, using the openness offered by the first as a weapon. Economic openness is a good formula for relations between trader peoples. However, between the trader and the warrior, the advantage in favor of the latter is overwhelming. In Flaubert’s novel, Salammbo, two mercenaries talk about what they plan to do when the war between Rome and Carthage is over. One of them dreams of buying a farm and a plow and get rich in the food trade. The other replies that he doesn’t need any of that to get rich. Showing his sword, he says: “This is my plow.” Such is the difference between Americans and the Chinese: the former bets on the success of an economic system; the latter uses this success as a temporary means to grow and win in the field of weapons. Americans just want money, and delude themselves into thinking that the Chinese want the same. The Chinese feed this illusion, betting that it will help them get what they want: money and everything else – the complete cultural, political, military, and economic destruction of the enemy. In the beginning, abstract free-market apologies tended to cover up this difference. Today the difference is clear through the eyes of all, and it is in this difference, exclusively in itself, that the cause of the unusual growth of China resides, parallel to the weakening of the American industry.
The relations between ideology and power are obviously more complex than that imagined by the vain philosophy of the Brazilian speaking classes. What an attentive observer learns at Walmart is that the doctrine of liberal capitalism can help destroy liberal capitalism, fostering the growth of a communist dictatorship as aggressive, at least, as the former USSR.
Olavo de Carvalho
Diário do Comércio, June 20, 2005
Translation by Leilah Carvalho
Do you remember Morris West’s international bestseller, “The Shoes of the Fisherman,” which was later turned into a film with Anthony Quinn as the main character? I am sure most of you have never heard of it. The past vanishes from the public memory faster than ever, making it so that each of us, in our earthly existence, lives through many discontinuous and disconnected lives. World War II refugee Stefan Zweig describes it this way: “All the bridges between our today and our yesterday and our yesteryears have been burnt.” And so the lines that shape the course of history become invisible. The result is that even the most predictable consequence of the most obvious cause can easily hit like a demonic surprise to a stupefied humanity.
The story of Morris West’s novel is as follows: A Ukrainian bishop, recently freed from the Gulag, finds refuge in Rome, becomes a Cardinal, and soon after is elected Pope. Now occupying the throne of Peter, he naturally is required to take sides in all sorts of worldly issues that surround him. The gravest of these is the misery and starvation that has taken millions of lives in China and is leading the Chinese government to work on some deranged plan to destroy western civilization. After spending some time meditating, the Pope decides to sell church property to raise money to feed the Chinese population, thus assuring world peace. The decision is announced in a triumphant speech from the wide opened windows of Saint Peter.
For now, let us ignore the ludicrous assumptions that the sale of church goods could ever be enough to save the largest population on Earth from misery, and that Chinese leadership would give up their war plans at the exact moment that they are given the resources to make them a reality. The first of these assumptions is based on a complete ignorance of the fact that, in a universal banking system, the Vatican Bank is a mere nothing and is easily manipulated by large international fortunes. The second is based on the stupid idea that the Chinese war against the rest of the world is a natural and just reaction to economic tragedy brought about, as Morris West supposes, by evil westerners, not by the Chinese revolutionaries who had only recently destroyed seventy million of their fellow citizens.
Lets ignore the question of whether Morris West was a useful idiot, or one of thousands of clever agents of influence planted at all levels of western society by the intelligence services of China and the USSR. What matters is that the wild success of this book/film in 1968 was almost certainly responsible for planting the idea in the mind of the American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger to convince his boss, President Richard Nixon, to visit China in 1972, to reestablish commercial and diplomatic relations with the communist dictatorship of Beijing.
After Nixon’s visit, with the financial aid of the American government and the majestic investments of a large number of western capitalists, China finally was able to climb out of the gutter. The capitalist west enabled China to turn into the economic and military power which today is able to nonchalantly announce its modest intention to dominate the world.
All this shows the link between the dominant culture, the language of the media, the decisions of those in charge, and the choices of investors. A few of the better analysts of the day did try to expose the situation, but they were branded as conspiracy theorists.
Under Bill Clinton’s administration, when American investments in China reached their highest levels, many asked if pouring money into the deadliest dictatorship in the world couldn’t be considered a crime against humanity, and if it wouldn’t risk destroying western civilization.
The answer from capitalists, fashionable as always, was that the liberation of the economy would transform China into a capitalist democracy not unlike what exists in the U.S. This capitalist illusion would never have seemed plausible if the so called “duty to help” the Chinese government had not already been suggested to the western morons as a christian obligation so vital and unavoidable that it would justify the financial self destruction of the Catholic Church.
Today we watch, surprised, the resourcefulness and speed with which China is becoming a power that can decide, at its leisure, the destiny of dozens of nations by engineering alarmism about a virus that they created and are responsible for spreading.
Olavo de Carvalho
March 30th, 2020
Translation by Pedro de Carvalho
After the downfall of the USSR became an accomplished fact, the Forum of São Paulo has been, since 1990, the most powerful initiative taken to restart the international communist movement and, in Fidel Castro words, “to regain in Latin America what was lost in East Europe”. Summoned by the Cuban dictator and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Forum joins the legal Communist (and pro-Communist) parties, engaged in the struggle for cultural and political hegemony within their nations, and armed organizations involved in kidnapping, terrorism and drug traffic. Among the last, the outstanding one is Farc, whose connections with the Brazilian drug market were proven with the arrest of Fernandinho Beira-Mar. There are also double-faced organizations, both legal and illegal, like the Chilean Communist Party, whose armed wing had something to do with the kidnapping of Washington Olivetto.
Perhaps the readers will at first find strange a meeting in which legally organized parties fraternize with criminal gangs. Actually, this association only repeats the old Leninist rules that recommend the joining of legal and illegal means in the revolutionary struggle. In fact one of the advantages of the international alliance is to allow that the promiscuous mixture of licit and illicit ways, of moralist rhetoric and drug traffic, of beautiful ideals and the brutality of kidnappings, of humanitarian sentimentalism and organized terror- a mix so clear and evident in continental scale, and at meetings of the Forum- that it appears disguised and nebulous when seen from the perspective of each separate nation. Using Argentineans to act in Mexico, Bolivians in Brazil or Brazilians in Chile, the most obvious connections become invisible to the eyes of local public opinion: the legal parties continue above any suspicion, and the simple suggestion of investigating them is rejected as an intolerable offense, when the arrest of criminals shows full proof of the intimate association between organized crime and leftist politics in the continent; identification that becomes still more evident when the arrest of such persons is followed, with magical coincidence, by the quick and effective mobilization, for the criminals, of officials and “decent folk” of the left.
Since 1990, the Forum of São Paulo has been meeting regularly. The tenth meeting took place in Havana, Cuba, in December, 2001. Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was there. To deny therefore that he is associated politically with the other entities, signatories to the declarations of the Forum, it is to deny the validity of the Brazilian presidential candidate’s signature on official documents of international relevance. As wrote Vasconcelo Quadros in the “Isto É” of March 2002, “Brazil shelters a secret network of support of international guerrilla organizations employed in kidnappings, bank robberies and drug traffic”. In a country in which any phone call to a swindler is enough to place a politician under police suspicion, a countrywide refusal to investigate a link enshrined in public documents it is, at least, surprising.
Still more surprising is that, among so many journalistic commentators, policemen, politicians and the military, all them reputed as intelligent, nobody gets-or wants-to establish a logical link between those facts and the declaration of Dr. Leonardo Boff, in “Jornal do Brasil” of August 23, that with the next election “the time for the Brazilian revolution will have arrived. The sowing was already been done. It is harvest time”. Or, when using the word “revolution”, didn’t the retired clergyman mean anything of the sort, and that all was innocent hyperbole?
The massive and obstinate refusal to face with realism this state of affairs can be explained by the fact that he constitutes a dreadful reality, whose vision would be too traumatic for the delicate nerves of a bourgeoisie dandy, terrified to the point of no longer admitting the reality of the evil that terrifies him. Psychologically kidnapped by a nameless Marxism that permeates the air, the dominant class is already ripe to act its role of docile, smiling and helpful victim.
But, please, don’t think that with those remarks I am acting in favor or against any candidate to the Presidency of the Republic. See this: four candidates, with token differences, have the same ideology, and any one of them, when elected, cannot govern without the support of at least one or two of the other three. It is therefore of a single slate election, subdivided into four temporary denominations. Perhaps what Dr. Boff will not say is that the revolution will be inaugurated with the victory of candidate x or y, but with “the election” itself-no matter who wins. From the psychological point of view, at least, that revolution has already begun: the ideological uniformity, once accepted as the normal state of the democratic politics, is enough to virtually outlaw, as “right wing extremism”, any word henceforth said in favor of liberal capitalism, of the USA or of Israel. Who says it receives regular death threats, no longer with the precaution of delivery as anonymous messages: they are to be seen on internet sites and cause no scandal. Dr. Boff is right: Sowing has already been done. It is harvest time. But all this certainly is mere hyperbole. Yes, it would be a scandal to see some malign intention in such innocent words.
Olavo de Carvalho
O Globo (Rio de Janeiro), September 7, 2002