WP: According to common perception, a revolution was initiated in Poland in 1989 with historical significance and global consequences. There is copious evidence that this allegedly anti-communist revolt, which swept through Eastern Europe , was indeed planned by Soviet secret services and served the long-term strategy of perestroika. In Poland ‘s case the deception was facilitated by a secret agreement between the communist party, leaders of the Solidarity movement and the Catholic hierarchy – and we still see the consequences of this arrangement. What is your opinion of the Eastern European revolutions? Is it reasonable to claim that the Eastern part of the continent was truly freed then?
Olavo de Carvalho: No, Eastern Europe was not truly freed. But a fake liberation can easily be turned into a genuine one if the secret manipulators are exposed and their power is transferred to the hands of true patriots in due time . The time is now.
WP: Another small incident took place in August 1991 in Moscow. Bearing in mind the subsequent reign of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, are we dealing with the continuation of Soviet communism or with a process of genuine democratization? How did the changes in Soviet Union in the last 17 years influence international political scene?
Olavo de Carvalho: Would you believe that the Nazi regime was truly defeated if at the end of World War II all the chieftains of the Gestapo remained in their places, undisturbed by criminal investigations and as powerful as they were before? The soviet state, the KGB and the Russian Mafia are one and the same entity. The changes in the former USSR were mostly a smokescreen designed to dupe the Western public opinion and to dismantle any international anti-communist resistance. Needless to say that the operation has been extremely successful.
WP: In the face of the revolutionary changes happening in South America, should we speak of a rebirth of Marxism or is it merely a continuation of old trends, ever present on that continent in the twentieth century? Is the old idea of convergence between the socialist and capitalist systems taking a new shape in the South American continent or is it a completely new phenomenon?
Olavo de Carvalho: Socialism as an economic system is a myth. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated, more than eighty years ago, that under a socialist veil there remains always a market economy in disguise. Socialism exists only as a “movement”, as a permanent thrust for subversion and destruction. As such, it cannot survive without the help it receives from big capitalists, or rather from the ones I call metacapitalists – the macro-investors that were made so stunningly rich by the capitalist game that they somehow transcend it and do not accept the risks of a free market anymore. They then try to consolidate their power as an oligarchy of political controllers. To this end they use socialist subversion as their tool, and at the same time the socialist leadership tries to use them as its tool. The so-called “convergence” between socialism and capitalism is just a new ornamental denomination for an old reality. Please read “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy” by Anthony Sutton. Socialism is opposed to genuine free-market economy (as well as to Christian civilizational values that sustain it), but not to monopolistic and globalist capitalism. The main supporters of the socialist subversion in Latin America are the American billionaire foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Soros) and the radical chic elite of the American Democratic Party.
WP: What in your view are the consequences of the emerging economic and military might of the communist China?
Olavo de Carvalho: It was perhaps some communist strategic genius who persuaded Western investors that liberalizing the Chinese economy would make the political regime to liberalize sooner or later. Every smart communist knows that communism as an economic system does not exist and will never exist, that it is only an ideological device intended to keep alive the leftist revolutionary movement and communist governments. The Chinese generals are smart communists. They know that even though socialist economy is incapable of surviving, socialism as a movement and as accumulation of political power can not only survive but prosper indefinitely through the simple trick of being a parasite to capitalism. The current Chinese economic system is a sort of organized summary of this knowledge, which by the way is not knew. Nazi-fascist economy was already based upon it, as it strived to keep a working market economy under state surveillance, sucking the resources thus created to feed the unlimited growth of the one party and of the state it created. A very similar scheme is being implemented in Brazil today: the generous opening of the economy to foreign investors, simulating the abandonment of the old socialist plans, contributes at the same time to consolidate a highly centralized political system, in which a group of leftist parties is increasingly eliminating all possibility of opposition.
WP: Later this year, some of us will commiserate the ninetieth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. Do you believe that communism is dead and buried (which seems to be the generally accepted view)? Or do you believe that the Bolshevik’s heritage is still playing a strong part in political practice today?
Olavo de Carvalho: Communism as a movement is more alive than ever. As Anatolyi Golytsin well noted, there was a moment in history when the international interests of the USSR came into conflict with the impulse to further growth of the international revolutionary movement. This conflict reached a point of rupture when it was necessary to decide, to sacrifice the structure in favor of growth. It is not a coincidence that right after the collapse of the USSR the communist movement grew so fast to the point of creating a worldwide anti-American siege – a Leninist dream that up to then had not been possible to put into practice. To me it seems clear that the work of the KGB through “active measures” abroad was much intensified precisely since the beginning of the 1990’s, exploring the widespread illusion according to which the end of the USSR meant the end of communist subversion. Lenin had prepared an expansion plan for the communist movement which, in certain moments, seemed unachievable. He imagined that, starting from Moscow , communist expansion should first reach Eastern Europe, then turn back to Asia, move in the direction of Africa and, from there, reach Latin America , thus completing the siege around the US and its allies in Western Europe. There remains no doubt today that this course has been run, that the siege is set. And its last chapter achieved success precisely in the decade that followed the “end of the USSR”. It is no coincidence that, in the leftist overtaking of Latin America, drug-trafficking organizations have played such a fundamental role. They are the financial and paramilitary base of the Sao Paulo Forum, the strategic center of Latin American Communism, which gathers around common plans and interests over a hundred legal leftist parties alongside criminal organizations such as the FARC and the Chilean MIR. If in light of these facts we reread today the book by Joseph Douglass Red Cocaine – The Drugging of American and the West (London , 1990), we realize the notable acumen of Soviet strategists who, already in the 50’s, were planning the use of drug-trafficking as a local source of support for revolutionary movements in Latin America. It is rather understandable that these plans could only have been more fully fulfilled after the “end” of the USSR , as before they were hindered by diplomatic commitments. At the same time, the dissolution of the USSR made possible deep changes in the structure of the world revolutionary movement, which provided it with an extraordinary and renewed mobility. The ancient monolithic hierarchic organization was replaced by a horizontal articulation in “networks”, which in less than 24 hours can be mobilized via the Internet for mass action anywhere in the world. The old concern with doctrinal unity gave way to an apparent pluralistic confusion which, disregarding merely theoretical divergences, preserves the strategic unity among thousands of ideologically diverse organizations. In brief, the dissolution of the Soviet imperial structure enabled an expansion of the communist movement, because it was designed precisely for this purpose. Within the alchemic alternation of dissolution and coagulation that dialectically guides communist strategy, the expansive dissolution will be followed, sooner or later, by a new hierarchical coagulation, but this time in a worldwide scale.
WP: Józef Mackiewicz, a great Polish writer and anti-communist thinker, wrote in 1962 “Great is the capacity of human nature to adapt to circumstances. Yet political realism ought not to deprive people of their imagination because it will cease to be realistic. A comparison of customs and manners prevailing in the world in 1912 with those of today, can give us a measure, although only in approximate terms, of what we could “reasonably” expect to have to accept in year 2012!” What is your point of view in this matter? What do the next five years have in store for us?
Olavo de Carvalho: If we apply Mackiewicz’s observation to the analysis o f American foreign policy, we will see that it has an outstanding prophetical accuracy. The school of the so-called “realism”, inaugurated by Hans J. Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), persuaded American strategists that the power game in the world was a drama whose characters were essentially Nations States. From this perception resulted the so-called “policy of containment” which, directed exclusively by the timid idea of containing Soviet military expansion to a reasonable area, gave up the fight against Communism as an international movement. At the same time, Communist parties quickly absorbed the strategic conception of Antonio Gramsci which, favoring an informal expansion under the guise of pluralism, turned the growth of Communism invisible to the eyes of the ruling American elite. The latter even came to support this expansion as it considered the “democratic left” in the Third World as an alternative to Communism, without knowing that, from the Gramscian viewpoint, the “democratic left” was exactly the preferred instrument for camouflaged expansion.
October 9, 2007
Dr. Steve Sturley interviews Mr. Olavo de Carvalho
Embassy of Brazil, Washington D.C.
“Steve Turley (PhD, Durham University) is an internationally recognized scholar, speaker, and author who is widely considered one of the most exciting voices in today’s Intellectual Dark Web. Dr. Steve’s popular YouTube channel showcases daily his expertise in the rise of nationalism, populism, and traditionalism throughout the world, and his podcasts and writings on civilization, society, culture, education, and the arts are widely accessed at TurleyTalks.com. He is the author of over 20 books, including The Return of Christendom: Demography, Politics, and the Coming Christian Majority, The New Nationalism: How the Populist Right is Defeating Globalism and Awakening a New Political Order, and Classical vs. Modern Education: A Vision from C.S. Lewis. A frequent guest on numerous talk radio shows, Dr. Steve is best known for his optimistic and upbeat analysis of current events in light of conservative trends which never fails to excite and inspire audiences at venues such as the World Congress of Families in Verona, Italy and the Association of Classical and Christian Schools nationwide. His research and writings have appeared in such journals as Christianity and Literature, Calvin Theological Journal, First Things, Touchstone, and The Chesterton Review. He and his wife, Akiko, have four children and live in Newark, DE, where they together enjoy fishing, gardening, and watching Duck Dynasty marathons.” [https://www.turleytalks.com/]
Alex Newman interviews Olavo de Carvalho
The New American, March 15, 2010
“Olavo de Carvalho, an author and philosopher, is renowned as one of Brazil’s preeminent thinkers. He played a leading role in exposing subversive leftist organizations like the Foro de São Paulo in his work as a writer for some of Brazil’s most influential publications. In the course of writing an article about the socialist resurgence in Latin America, I interviewed Carvalho for The New American magazine.“
The New American: Could you please tell me a little bit about yourself, your background, your work, your philosophy, and what motivated you to become involved in exposing the Foro de São Paulo?
Olavo de Carvalho: Notwithstanding having been a leftist militant as a teenager, I lost any interest in politics after severing my ties with the Left when I was 20 years old in 1969. From that time on, until I was 38, I worked as a text editor for newspapers and magazines and dedicated my free time to the study of philosophy, literature, cultural history, ancient esoteric traditions, and comparative religion. Though I delivered an occasional lecture here and there, I was happy to live as an anonymous scholar, perfectly unknown to public opinion and academic circles. It was only in the late ’80s that my attention was drawn to the ongoing destruction of high culture in Brazil, and I started to take notes on the alarming stupidities that were published in ever-growing quantities by very influential Brazilian opinion makers, both academic and journalistic. Bit by bit I grasped the political factors that had generated that state of affairs, and in 1993 I wrote a book, The New Age and the Cultural Revolution, about the overtaking of higher education by the communist militancy, which was not at all interested in high culture, but only in gaining political power and profiting from the general dumbing down of Brazilian students. In 1995 I wrote The Garden of Afflictions, a study on the evolution of the idea of “Empire” in the West, since the times of Julius Caesar to the advent of the New World Order…. The following year I collected my notes about Brazilian cultural decay and published them under the title of The Collective Imbecile, … leading some big newspapers to hire me as a weekly political columnist…. Meanwhile, I had founded an electronic newspaper, Mídia Sem Máscara (“Unmasked Media”), that intended to correct the most flagrant distortions of the news published by the big media…. In 2005, as I was getting tired of receiving weekly death threats from leftist maniacs, I found it was a good idea to accept a job as a Washington foreign correspondent that was offered to me by a traditional Brazilian business newspaper, the Diário do Comércio (“Business Daily”), and here I am living in Virginia with my family. I love to be here, because Americans, though already infected by the neo-communist virus, are not yet so stupid as Brazilians have become.
TNA: To what extent has the leftist movement gained power in Latin America? What factors led to this resurgence and how was it possible?
Carvalho: Communist and pro-communist parties rule about a dozen Latin American countries today. This fact, by itself, is enough to prove that the “end of communism,” proclaimed by the Right soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, is a myth. World communism was never only an appendix of the USSR. It actually created the USSR, not the other way around. It existed a century before the Russian Revolution and continued to exist after the nominal extinction of Soviet power. What made the resurgence of communism easier — not only in Latin America, but around the world — was the cowardly timidity of Western right-wingers who, instead of taking the opportunity of the fall of the USSR to punish the communists for their crimes, chose instead a policy of “extending them a hand,” as if asking for their pardon for having defeated them, and offering them all sorts of aid, enabling them to reappear with a new or attenuated identity, even protecting them from being called “communists” (the fashionable euphemism is now “populism”). I believe that this absurd surrender of the winners was also stimulated by powerful globalist circles, whose interest in establishing worldwide bureaucratic controls converges with the objectives of the communists. The number of billionaire companies, which came to openly contribute to leftist parties, is enormous. I call “meta-capitalists” the individuals and groups which grew so wealthy with the market economy that they can’t stand anymore being at the mercy of the free market and seek, instead, to control everything, supporting bureaucracy instead of capitalism. Meta-capitalists are natural allies of the communists.
An event that clearly symbolizes this union of apparent adversaries was the tributes paid to Lula, the Brazilian President, who in the same week was honored by the World Economic Forum in Davos, for his conversion to capitalism, and by the São Paulo Forum, for his allegiance to communism. The contradiction is only apparent. At the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, which for public opinion embodies the opposite of the Davos Forum, the main demand was for a greater control over the world economy by big international organizations. Nobody there asked for shutting down the IMF or the World Bank, what they wanted was the integration of “civil society” — i.e., the World Social Forum — into those organizations. Many European NGOs [non-governmental organizations] which participate in the World Social Forum have a seat at the meetings of the World Bank and other international organizations. The “ideological” contrast serves only as propaganda. What we have is a gigantic symbiosis of all globalist and statist forces around the world.
TNA: How have the Foro de São Paulo and its members managed to become so influential? How can they be stopped?
Carvalho: The São Paulo Forum, created by Luis Inacio Lula da Silva and Fidel Castro in 1990 with the goal of regaining in Latin America what had been lost in Eastern Europe, is the strategic command of the communist and pro-communist movement in the continent. Its membership includes over 100 legal political parties as well as criminal organizations of drug traffickers and kidnappers, such as the FARC (“Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia”) and the Chilean MIR (“Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria”). Legal parties cover up the activities of criminal groups, and these provide undercover financial resources to legal parties…. During 16 years big media and the establishment, in Latin America and in the United States, refused to touch upon the subject, handing to the strategists of the communist revolution the protection of silence. Some of them, such as the expert in Brazilian affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations, Kenneth Maxwell, even openly denied the existence of the Forum, though by that time I had already published, in my electronic newspaper Mídia Sem Máscara, the complete official proceedings of its annual meetings, which revealed with total clarity the scope of its ambitions and goals.
The Forum can only be stopped if the legal political parties in its membership are taken to court for the criminal activities covered up and protected by the organization. Brazilian President Lula, who chaired the Forum for 12 years, signed in 2001 an agreement of full support to the FARC, the same organization which provides training and military assistance to criminal gangs in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, such as the PCC (“First Command of the Capital”) and the “Red Command,” which kill tens of thousands of Brazilian citizens every year. When FARC or MIR agents are arrested in Brazil, immediately Lula’s [Workers’] Party, the PT [Portuguese: Portido dos Trabalhadores], acts to free them. What is this if not complicity in crime? … Meanwhile, communist militants keep securing positions in the judiciary, so that as time goes by any lawsuit brought against this alliance of leftists and criminals becomes ever more unlikely to succeed.
TNA: What role have the Brazilian government and Lula in particular played in expanding the leftist movement’s power in Latin America? Is Lula a radical leftist, a moderate, or somewhere in between? What do his policies -indicate?
Carvalho: Lula’s ideological convictions do not really matter, because they don’t even seem to exist. What exists is his loyalty to his cohorts in the militancy and to the commitments he made to the entities of the São Paulo Forum, which, if unfulfilled, would bring against him all the Latin American Left, leaving him without any support, not even from the Right, which is by now so weak that its support is worthless. A mediocre man does not act out of convictions, but according to the objective pressures of his group of reference. It’s a waste of time to ask whether he “is” a true communist within himself or not. Within Lula, there is only emptiness and meanness, but around him, there is a well-organized structure of revolutionary power which he serves well and will never stop serving.
Foreign observers let themselves be impressed (or pretended to do so) by Lula’s “orthodox” economic policy and therefore concluded that he had changed his ideology. This is total nonsense. Lula only adopted these policies so that he would not have to fight two fronts simultaneously. Following the example of Lenin’s “New Economic Policy,” he sought to appease foreign investors while consolidating the power of leftist organizations in internal politics (using copious amounts of public money to finance them), and boycotting the Right in such a way that it is not able, as he himself recently declared, even to present its own candidate in the upcoming presidential elections [in October]. This will be the third presidential election without any right-wing candidate. As soon as it felt that the control of the Left over the country had been consolidated, the ruling party threw off its mask of moderation and began to propose radical measures such as state control over the media, the right of leftist organizations to invade and take rural properties as they see fit, etc.
TNA: Do you see the leftist resurgence as a monolithic threat under central control or rather as a splintered movement with various factions? Why? Assuming they exist, who are the leaders?
Carvalho: Throughout history, the revolutionary movement has never depended on monolithic control to be able to grow and prosper. Even during the period of Soviet hegemony, the expansion of communism coexisted perfectly well with the deep internal dissent that separated the Soviets from the Chinese and from the radicalism of Latin America guerrillas. In the last dec-ades, the communist movement has perfected even more its capacity to deal with a variety of internal dissidences, using them as camouflage and as instruments to adapt itself to local situations. The linear party hierarchy, which had always been more an appearance than a reality, has been totally replaced by a flexible organization of “networks” connected via the Internet…. In Latin America, the leadership of the revolutionary movement still belongs to the founders of the São Paulo Forum: Lula, Marco Aurélio Garcia, Ricardo Kotscho, and others.
TNA: What role have Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan Petrodollars played in this resurgence? Is the Cuban government an important player?
Carvalho: Hugo Chavez is only a scarecrow that the Latin American Left waves before the world to distract the attention away from the São Paulo Forum, which is the true strategic command of the Latin American revolution. Cuba and Venezuela are important as shelters for terrorists and drug traffickers. In Venezuela and other Spanish-speaking countries ruled by the São Paulo Forum, there is strong and organized opposition, while in Brazil all that is left is the Left itself, which controls the scene absolutely.
TNA: How significant and deep are the ties of leftist leaders and political parties to terrorism and crime?
Carvalho: In Brazil, federal judge Odilon de Oliveira gathered proofs showing that FARC’s narco-guerrillas … control a large chunk of local criminality. As a result, he became the most persecuted man in Latin America and now has to live as a prisoner in his own office, not being able even to go out to visit his family…. The FARC also provide guerrilla training for the militants of the “Landless Movement” (MST), an ironic name because that entity is one of the biggest landowners in Brazil today. The MST invades farms, destroys produce and equipment, sends away the (true) workers, and is invariably rewarded for its actions, receiving enormous sums of federal monies and the property of the invaded farms. Even more ironically, the main factor for Brazil’s economic success is the productivity of its big farms…. As for the Cuban government, its connections to drug trafficking have been proved several years ago in the book The Mafia from Havana: The Cuban Cosa Nostra…. The same connections exist with the Venezuelan government, as demonstrated by a report of the U.S. Congress from July 2009…. In Brazil, the alliance between the FARC and local criminal gangs has made it absolutely impossible to control crime activity. Nowadays, some 50,000 Brazilians are murdered every year. Instead of repressing the gangs that produce this insanity, the government grants them territorial autonomy and is even cynical enough to propose, as a remedy, disarming the honest population.
TNA: To what extent and in what way is the U.S. government involved in the region?
Carvalho: For several decades now, the attitude of the American government in the area has been ambiguous, to say the least. Bill Clinton’s Plan Colombia only offered economic and military aid to the Colombian government on the explicit condition that … criminal organizations of a political nature be preserved [from] any damage. The result was that the old cartels were destroyed and the FARC became the absolute rulers of drug trafficking in the continent. In reality this kind of “war on drugs” is a war that favors the Left against Latin America. The Department of State is well informed about the São Paulo forum and its Brazilian leadership. When it supports Lula under the pretext that he is “a moderate,” in contrast with the “radical” Hugo Chavez, it is actually camouflaging the real danger so that it may grow sheltered from the sight of any intruder.
TNA: What role are multilateral and supranational institutions like ALBA, MERCOSUR, the Andean Community, and UNASUR playing in all of this? Could the integration process be used to eventually absorb all of Latin America under authoritarian control?
Carvalho: All these organizations were created under the inspiration of the idea of free trade, and there were even some people who saw in them a sign of formidable capitalist progress. However, we now understand that free trade is a double-edged sword, which can also be used to dissolve national sovereignties and to build upon their rubble a new structure of supranational power. Many political analysts who only look at things from an economic point of view fail to notice such danger. They imagine that the expansion of commercial ties is by itself a vaccine against communism…. Well, in today’s Latin America, the Left practically has the monopoly of political action in its hands, and indeed this is so much so that all those organizations you have mentioned — all of them — are being used for the creation of a kind of Union of Latin American Socialist Republics.
TNA: How serious is the threat of this resurgence? What do you see happening in both the near future and the long run?
Carvalho: There is no unified answer that applies to all Latin America. The situation is different in each country. For example, however unbelievable it may seem, there is a strong and organized resistance against the rise of neo-communism in Venezuela. Colombia, likewise, is a remarkable center of resistance. On the other hand, nowhere else has the Right been so utterly destroyed as it has been in Brazil, which is, for this very reason, the headquarters of Latin American revolution. When former Venezuelan presidential candidate Alejandro Peña set up UnoAmerica (Association of Democratic Organizations of the Americas), the only international organization devoted to fighting communism, he found no difficulty in obtaining effective support in most of the Spanish-speaking countries, but he has always had great difficulties finding support in Brazil…. In other countries, however, the Left is not so culturally hegemonic, which has made possible the organization of an effective and strong anti-communist action. From this point of view, then, Venezuela is in a better situation than Brazil, for if in the former country, the Right has been oppressed, in the latter it has already died, being now necessary to create a new Right out of nothing. In this sense, American political analysts are always getting it all backwards: They are alarmed at Venezuela and do not understand that the headquarters of the revolution is in Brazil.