This series of newspaper columns by Olavo de Carvalho was collected in this order in the book “The Minimum You Need To Know So As Not To Be An Idiot”. It is divided into two parts: “Incitement” and “Terrorism & Drug Trafficking.” In the first part, “Incitement,” Olavo explores the historical and cultural efforts of the national left to foment criminal violence and disrupt public order. The first article, "The Long History of the Obvious", traces this effort back to the 1930s when communist writers began integrating banditry into their ideological struggle, highlighting works like Jorge Amado’s Capitães da Areia and the influence of Cinema Novo. He describes how, over the decades, this ideology spread into various cultural and legal spheres, leading to the protection of criminals and the establishment of networks that hinder police efforts. The article also discusses the complicity of leftist politicians and intellectuals in perpetuating a state of chaos and violence. The second article, "Primes of Tenderness — 1", criticizes the Brazilian government’s policy of providing financial aid to the families of imprisoned criminals, arguing that it incentivizes crime and reflects the revolutionary movement’s longstanding tradition of sympathizing with delinquents. Olavo cites various historical figures and revolutionary leaders who advocated for the integration of criminal elements into their movements. In the third article, "Primes of Tenderness — 2", Olavo examines how Marxist thinkers, particularly those from the Frankfurt School like Herbert Marcuse, theorized the use of marginalized groups, including criminals, as revolutionary forces. He links this ideological shift to the rise of criminal organizations like the Red Command and PCC in Brazil, which were initially influenced by terrorists trained abroad.
In the second part, “Terrorism & Drug Trafficking,” Olavo delves into the intricate relationship between revolutionary movements and organized crime, focusing on the FARC’s activities. The first article, "I Don’t Want to Name Names", describes the FARC as a multifaceted organization engaged in political, military, and criminal activities, including drug trafficking. Olavo argues against the misconception that the FARC merely “tax” drug traffickers, instead asserting their direct involvement and control over the drug trade. The second article, "We Want to Be Repudiated", criticizes Brazilian politicians who advocate for the transformation of the FARC into a political party, interpreting such proposals as a cynical attempt to legitimize a criminal organization. Olavo emphasizes the moral and practical dangers of this approach, arguing that it would grant the FARC undue power and influence. The third article, "A Speech of Demons", challenges the notion that poverty is the primary cause of crime, instead attributing the rise of drug trafficking and violence to the ideological and financial support from leftist intellectuals and revolutionaries. Olavo highlights the complex dynamics between the middle class, the poor, and criminal organizations, debunking myths perpetuated by the media and academia. The final article, "Thinking with George Soros' Head", critiques the global campaign for drug legalization, spearheaded by figures like George Soros. Olavo contends that legalization would solidify the power of drug cartels, transforming them into a new ruling class, and ultimately furthering the revolutionary agenda. Through these articles, Olavo paints a comprehensive picture of the symbiotic relationship between leftist ideologies and criminal activities, warning against the far-reaching consequences of their interplay.
1. Incitement
The Long History of the Obvious
Jornal do Brasil, August 10, 2006
If there is one long, continuous, and well-documented history, it is the national left’s effort to foment criminal violence and use it as an instrument of systematic destruction of public order.
In the cultural sphere, this history dates back to the 1930s when communist writers eagerly responded to Stalin’s call to integrate banditry into the ideological struggle. Capitães da Areia by Jorge Amado, the syrupy epic of a juvenile delinquent’s transformation into a revolutionary militant, was one of the milestones of this propaganda literature. In the 1960s, Cinema Novo, a pseudopod of the Communist Party, expanded the apology of delinquency into the realm of show business.
In the following decade, while the ideology of the innocent bandit against the guilty society spread in newspapers, TV soap operas, and public schools, the campaign moved to practical action. Terrorists imprisoned on Ilha Grande taught common delinquents the techniques of urban guerrilla warfare, enabling them to organize into paramilitary groups capable of overpowering the police and terrorizing the defenseless population.
In the 1980s, while demonizing the police became the mandatory norm in criminal journalism, the symbiosis between leftism and banditry made significant legal strides, enacting laws that protect criminals and creating a network of activist lawyers dedicated to tying the hands of the police.
Subsequently, the foundation of the São Paulo Forum brought continental integration to this macabre partnership, establishing a network of mutual protection between legal leftist organizations and criminal groups such as the FARC (drug trafficking) and Chile’s MIR (kidnappings), which have since been able to act freely on national territory with the certainty of total impunity.
With the rise of the PT to the Presidency of the Republic, the left, absolute masters of sources of disorder, also began to control the means of simulating order, manipulating the country with the omnipotence of a Pavlovian psychologist over laboratory mice.
The interview in which São Paulo’s public security secretary, Saulo Abreu, frustrated journalist Franklin Martins' attempts to cut him off and accused the ruling party of direct complicity with the PCC, merely drew the logical conclusion of a seventy-year history.
He only forgot to say that, considering indirect and camouflaged moral complicity, there isn’t a single leftist politician or intellectual, inside or outside the PT, qualified to declare themselves innocent of deliberately producing a state of chaos and violence that, even before the recent murderous explosions in São Paulo, was already killing 50,000 Brazilians a year.
As long as a nation bewitched by leftist rhetoric continues to refuse to see these obvious facts, the homicidal wave will not cease to grow until, having achieved its goal of total power, the left, as it has always done everywhere, can institute the state monopoly on crime and dispense with the help of private criminal groups.
Primes of Tenderness — 1
Diário do Comércio, October 14, 2009
I read on the Social Security website: “The incarceration aid is a benefit due to the dependents of the insured person taken to prison, during the period they are imprisoned under a closed or semi-open regime.” In other words: in Brazil, you can kill, steal, kidnap, or rape, assured that if you are arrested, your family will not go without. The government guarantees it.
However, if as an effective member of the gullible majority, you do no harm to anyone and instead end up getting two bullets in the head, four in the stomach, or three in the chest, or then a stab in the liver, dying on the spot or in the hospital, the government guarantees nothing: your widow and children can cry all they want at the doors of the Palácio do Planalto, but the fraternal heart of the Solidarity Republic will not grant them even a drop of the state tenderness that it generously pours over bandits.
Yes, things are like that. If they scandalize you, it’s because you’re very out of date. Caressing delinquents, encouraging banditry, is one of the oldest and most venerable traditions of the revolutionary movement, which our ruling party proudly embodies.
See what some of the most famous revolutionary mentors thought:
Mikhail Bakunin, anarchist leader: “For our revolution, it will be necessary to stir up the vilest passions in the people.”
Sergei Nechayev, a terrorist whom Lenin adopted as one of his gurus: “The cause for which we struggle is complete, universal destruction. We must join the wild, criminal world.”
Willi Münzenberg, the genius organizer of communist propaganda in Western Europe and the USA: “We will corrupt the West to such an extent that it will stink.”
Louis Aragon, official poet of the French Communist Party: “We will awaken everywhere the germs of confusion and unrest. Let the drug traffickers pounce on our terrified nations!”
V. I. Lenin: “The best revolutionary is a youth devoid of all morals.”
So much did the passion for crime embed itself in the revolutionary mind that it even produced paranormal phenomena. On March 8, 1855, poet Victor Hugo, an idol of the revolutionaries, received this message from beyond during a spiritist session, to the satisfaction of his own expectations: “The true religion proclaims the new gospel: it is an immense tenderness for the fierce, the infamous, the bandits.”
The examples could multiply indefinitely. And none of this remained on paper, of course. Those candid souls did not limit themselves to singing the exalted virtues of criminality in prose, verse, and film.1 As early as 1789, French revolutionaries opened the prison doors, indiscriminately releasing thousands of murderers, thieves, and rapists who within days spread chaos in the streets of Paris (even in the famous Bastille there was not a single political prisoner: only delinquents). Shortly after the communists took power in Russia, the official policy was to promote free sex, thus creating a generation of youth without families to encourage juvenile delinquency and liquidate by confusion what remained of the “bourgeois order.” The idea was from Karl Radek (Willi Münzenberg’s boss), who, cruel irony, upon falling into disgrace before Stalin, ended up being beaten to death by young delinquents in prison.
Louis Aragon’s vow was fulfilled to the letter from the 1950s, when the USSR began training agents to infiltrate the then budding drug trafficking networks — especially in Latin America — and dominate them from within, creating a future local source of subsidies for the revolutionary movement, which had become too costly for Soviet pockets. This was the remote origin of the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which today dominate drug trafficking on the continent. The story is told in detail by Czech general Jan Sejna, who personally participated in the operation.2
Primes of Tenderness — 2
Diário do Comércio, October 16, 2009
In the 1950s-60s, the symbiotic union of revolution and crime underwent a formidable upgrade, ceasing to be merely a consecrated practice and an object of rhetorical exhortations and becoming the target of systematic theorization by Marxist thinkers, especially the Frankfurt School.
According to Herbert Marcuse, the most popular among these authors at the time and a darling of the American mainstream media, the industrial proletariat no longer served as a revolutionary class, having been corrupted by the benefits of capitalism. Instead of drawing the logical conclusion from this obvious refutation of Marx’s predictions about the increasing misery of workers in the free market that Marxism was not worth much, Marcuse thought he could fix the theory simply by seeking a new revolutionary class, defined not by economic disadvantage but by any type of psychological frustration. Instead of one, he discovered three:
- Intellectuals and students, always revolted against a society that does not give them all the importance they think they deserve;
- All the dissatisfied with anything — unloved wives, gays annoyed with male arrogance, rebellious children against parental authority, etc.;
- The marginals in general: prostitutes, addicts, murderers, rapists, and tutti quanti.
These wonderful people, not the proletarians, had to be organized to corrupt the “system,” weaken it, and destroy it from within.
Marcuse’s influence, merging with the “cultural revolution” proposals inspired by Antonio Gramsci, was so vast and deep that today marcusism in action no longer appears associated with its inventor’s name: it has become the natural and universal mode of being of the revolutionary movement everywhere.
In Brazil, the intimate collaboration between the revolutionary left and banditry, of which sporadic samples had been seen since the 1930s, began to exist in a more organized form during the military regime when terrorists trained in Cuba, North Korea, and China began to transmit their knowledge of urban guerrilla strategy and tactics to common delinquents with whom they shared space in the Ilha Grande Penitentiary, in Rio de Janeiro. This is where the mega-criminal organizations, the Red Command and later the PCC, were born. The hope that inspired their foundation was not disappointed. Within a few years, Rio’s drug trafficking guru, William Lima da Silva, the “Professor,” could already boast of having surpassed his masters:
“We achieved what the guerrilla did not: the support of the needy population. I go to the hills and see children with disposition, smoking and selling pot. In the future, they will be 3 million teenagers who will kill you on the corners. Have you ever thought about what 3 million teenagers and 10 million unemployed people in arms will be?”
The annual homicide record in Brazil, between 40 and 50 thousand deaths, according to the UN, and the accelerated growth of drug consumption in this country — while it decreases in surrounding countries — show that this second expectation has also not been entirely frustrated.
Later, the terrorists rose in life, becoming deputies, senators, judges, and ministers of state, having to distance themselves from their former prison companions. These were not, however, left without capable instructors. The creation of the São Paulo Forum, an initiative of those retired terrorists, facilitated contacts between FARC agents and Brazilian drug trafficking gangs — especially the PCC — of which they soon became mentors, strategists, and partners. This was demonstrated by federal judge Odilon de Oliveira, from Ponta Porã, Mato Grosso do Sul, paying for this boldness the price of having to live hidden, as if he were the greatest delinquent himself,3 while FARC men freely roam the country, have all the protection of leftist militancy in case of arrest, and are even received as guests of honor by high PT leaders. (PT’s Secretary of International Relations, Valter Pomar, says that the FARC do not even belong to the São Paulo Forum. He lies and knows he lies. Nineteen years of official São Paulo Forum documents prove this beyond any possibility of doubt.)
Even supported by the most extensive and permanent cultural mutation campaign, the direct articulation of bandits and revolutionaries would not be enough to produce its effects if, at the same time, the very juridical-police structure of the State was not subjected to alterations designed to hinder repressive activity, providing delinquents with all the advantages in their fight against society. The disarmament of the civilian population, the easy criminalization of the most routine police actions, the deliberate leniency towards juvenile delinquents, the tolerance or even encouragement of violence in schools — all this converges with the general strategy of the revolutionary movement in its effort to demolish society’s defenses through triumphant criminality.
Incarceration aid — or “Bandit Allowance,” as people prefer to call it — has nothing extravagant or surprising about it. It is just one more expression of the “immense tenderness for the fierce,” the most profound and permanent sentiment of the revolutionary religion, which long ago ceased to be just a state of mind and became a formidable instrument of practical action.4
2. Terrorism & Drug Trafficking
I Don’t Want to Name Names
O Globo, September 20, 2002
The FARC are, at the same time and inseparably, a political, military, and criminal organization: party, army, and mafia. They dedicate themselves with the same commitment to the dissemination of communism, guerrilla warfare (with its essential terrorist complement), and drug trafficking.5 These three divisions function in an articulated and convergent manner towards the same goal: the extension of the Colombian revolutionary process to the entire continent.
The common cliché that the FARC do not participate in trafficking but only “charge tax” from traffickers is one of those masterpieces of semantic hypnosis that only the Soviet art of Newspeak could create. Compacting three intermingled logical tricks, the expression traps the average listener in a web of confusions from which only an analytical effort beyond their capacity could free them. First of all, (1) it ennobles with a nuance of legal imposition the extortion practiced by one criminal group over another, which automatically (2) forces the implicit, artificial, and premature legitimation of the first as a constituted government, also functioning (3) as a camouflage intended to suggest that the mentioned group, taking money from trafficking, does not dirty its hands in the operation. But it is obvious that no one can “charge tax” if they do not first reduce the payer, by force, to the condition of their subordinate and servant. The FARC men are more than traffickers: they are the primary leaders and ultimate beneficiaries of all drug production and export from Colombia. But they do not just give orders from afar: they directly get involved. Regularly exchanging cocaine for weapons, they have the most direct and material participation in the drug business possible. Dominating it from top to bottom, inside and out, they are traffickers in the fullest and most eminent sense of the word.
Their three action paths correspond to three types of associates and collaborators. First: the combatants — planners and executors of guerrilla and terrorist actions. Second: the resource providers, a network that starts with producers, passes through a series of administrators, negotiators, and suppliers, and ends with the last resale agents who pass cocaine to consumers, from the beautiful people to the children of the humblest neighborhood school. Third: the advertising and political agents, responsible for spreading the entity’s slogans, morally legitimizing its actions, elevating its status, and beautifying its image before the public.
Many Brazilians have collaborated with the FARC in all three areas. The lowest level of participation is in the military sphere. The FARC have managed to enter Amazonian territory and recruit Brazilians for guerrilla warfare. But obviously, they enter as foot soldiers and do not participate in the command hierarchy. Brazilian collaboration there is limited to providing idiots.
Another scale of importance is the Brazilian partnership in the second domain, the provision of resources. Brazil is the largest Latin American market for Colombian drugs, obtained in exchange for weapons. Through their local agents, the FARC have managed to exercise unquestioned dominance not only over this market but also over wide sectors of the police and public administration. Associated with the main local trafficking gang, they are the essential source of the drugs consumed in Brazil and the origin of the greatest organized threat today weighing on national security (I assume readers have followed last week’s news).6
Even more vital, however, is the political and advertising collaboration, as Brazil has initiated the main international efforts to portray the FARC as a non-criminal organization and limit its public profile to that of a political entity, if not ethical and meritorious, which it appreciates projecting to the world and the media. At the first São Paulo Forum meeting in 1991, dozens of revolutionary organizations signed a solidarity pact with the FARC based on mutual flattery. At the end of the tenth meeting of the same assembly, in Havana, December 2001, an official declaration “against terrorism,” a marvel of Newspeak, excluded the signatory entities themselves from the category of terrorists and reserved this classification for governments daring to do anything against them. Between these two moments, there was the official hosting of the entity’s leaders by the Rio Grande do Sul government, chic participation in two World Social Forums, the mediation of local organizations for the preaching of Colombian narco-guerrilla agents in Brazilian schools, and finally, the publication of the FARCian magazine Resistência, which circulates freely at newsstands in this country.
If, now, they ask me — “But who, after all, are these Brazilians?” — I will say that, in the military field, none stands out in particular: they are all anonymous. As for the main collaborators in the other two fields, I absolutely refuse to name them. I refuse to sully the reputation of that citizen who, from jail, spreads drugs and terror throughout Brazil or that other one who, summoning and directing successive São Paulo Forums, signing and spreading successive masterpieces of universal euphemism, has been inoculating the public mind with the lie that the FARC bear no blame for what the first does. If one is recognized as the public enemy number one and the other as the virtual number one citizen of the Republic, this only shows that in Brazil, the bottom and top of the hierarchy have become indistinguishable.
We Want to Be Repudiated
Diário do Comércio, August 20, 2010
In one of the last electoral debates, the subdilma candidate, Michel Temer, denied that the president had proposed turning the FARC into a political party but, before finishing the sentence, he already unmasked himself by defending the proposal’s lovely intentions. How could he know the intentions, adorable or abominable, of a proposal that, according to him, was never made?
Mr. Temer is evidently a cynical liar. As cynical as Lula himself was when making that indecent suggestion. On that occasion, the president asked: "If an indigenous person and a metallurgist can become President, why can’t someone from the FARC, running for elections?"7 The answer to this question is simple: being indigenous or a metallurgist is not a crime. Killing 30,000 people and kidnapping 7,000, keeping the latter in captivity for ten years or more, is a formidable succession of heinous crimes. Even a mentally retarded person perceives the difference between electing an indigenous person, a metallurgist, a nobody, a beggar even, and an author of mass murders. No one present at the obscene presidential statement dared throw this glaring obviousness in his face, which he, with that full cheekiness that only criminal minds possess, pretended to ignore.
The supreme ruler, and all his official flatterers — Mr. Temer being the first on the list —, were even more cynical, proclaiming that the suggestion expressed the presidential repudiation of the illegal, cruel, and inhuman methods of the Colombian narco-guerrilla. What kind of repudiation is that, which instead of punishment offers the criminals a clean record, free access to state power, and the prospect of limitless enrichment through legalized drug trade? If this is repudiation, there isn’t a single Brazilian who at this point doesn’t beg on their knees: repudiate me, Mr. President!
But beneath the overt cynicism comes an even more discreet — and more perverse — one. Guerrillas and terrorism are, by definition, very different from a war waged by conventional armies. The latter seek military victory and territorial control. Only after these objectives are achieved can political power be installed in the occupied zones — and even then, the transfer of authority from the military to the politicians is slow, gradual, and full of precautions. Guerrilla and terrorist groups, on the contrary, aim at achieving political objectives before and independently of military victory, which almost always remains beyond their possibilities.
In strictly military terms, the FARC are finished. In the final throes of agony, their only hope of surviving militarily lies in the creation of “demilitarized zones” where they can clandestinely continue their activities under the protection of their own enemies, paralyzed by the moral inhibition of violating a peace agreement that, on the FARC’s side — and according to the canons of “asymmetric warfare” —, only exists to be violated. (Note: The 100% false allegation spread by Mr. Paulo Henrique Amorim, commented on here days ago,8 was a creative little help given by Senator Piedad Córdoba to the FARC’s campaign for creating those zones.)
In terms of popularity, the narco-guerrilla has already sunk to the deepest bottom of the ocean: it is openly hated by 97% of the Colombian population. The remaining 3% are, for the most part, interested parties, fighting for the last straw to breathe through.
Transforming the FARC into a legal party — and, concomitantly, legalizing the drug trade, which our rulers also defend pretending not to see the mutual reinforcement of the two proposals — would be, quite evidently, the salvation of the dying. More than salvation, it would be glory. From the outset, the criminals' image, now in tatters, would be automatically refurbished by the display of “peaceful intentions.” But, worse yet: freed from the ICU, the terrorists, with the label of respectable citizens and full pockets, would not only occupy elective positions but strategic places in the state bureaucracy and judiciary, from where they could, with the utmost tranquility, send their defenseless opponents to prison, as their few representatives already infiltrated there have managed to do with 1,200 Colombian soldiers — yes, one thousand two hundred — who dared to combat them. Release the FARC from their bloody image, and in a few years, there won’t be a single enemy of theirs at large.
The president knows all this, and this is precisely what he wants. The most patent proof is that he founded the São Paulo Forum so that the various leftist currents, legal and illegal, could discuss and articulate their strategies. The articulation of terrorism, drug trafficking, and political struggle is the very definition of the São Paulo Forum, and the transformation of the FARC into a party is the consummation of its highest, most overwhelming, and most criminal ambitions.
A Speech of Demons
O Globo, May 3, 2003
The other day, in one of his chronicles, Carlos Heitor Cony said that almost all the violence in Rio comes from drug trafficking. Deep down, everyone knows this. But few are willing to realize that this mere statement suffices to refute, at its base, the cliché that misery generates crime.9
How could misery give birth to a billion-dollar business that buys weapons in the Middle East to exchange for 200 tons of cocaine annually from the FARC? What a miraculous creation ex nihilo that would be! Books, films, articles, and interviews in abundance idiotize the public to instill the belief in this miracle. But they themselves are no miracle: they are explained by the ideological brotherhood between the narco-guerrilla and the caste of leftist intellectuals and artists, more or less conscious instruments of a cynical cover-up operation: nothing is more comfortable for those seeking the destruction of society through violence and crime than to have a team of public relations that, under grandiloquent attacks on generic targets like “misery,” “exclusion,” “social injustice,” keep the concrete agents and real beneficiaries of destruction hidden and out of suspicion.
But some are not content with this. They go further and, turning to the public who paid to be deceived, throw all the blame on them: “You, the middle class who read books and watch movies, are the exploiters, the culprits of the social exclusion that forces the humiliated and offended into criminality.”
The commotion in the audience shows that the blow hit them in the solar plexus: people incapable of kicking a stray dog leave there contrite with guilt for the crime of having a house, a car, a job, in a country where so many excluded, for lack of the most minimal resources for a dignified life, are forced, poor things, to spend a fortune on cocaine in Colombia to resell it at school gates to Brazilian children.
The stereotype, condensed in the Rio symbol of poor hills in the background of the rich city, has deeply rooted itself in the citizen’s soul, who, without remembering ever having done any harm, suddenly discovers, through the mouth of the media and show business prophets, that they are the author of the most heinous of crimes: social injustice.
And no one stops to do the math: how much money goes up from the city to the hills, and how much comes down? How much, in drugs? How much, in robberies and ransom payments? How much, in taxes to provide medical care, electricity, water, and phone service to those who never pay for any of it?
Do the math and tell: who, in this, is the exploited, who the exploiter? If the fortune that goes up the hills stayed there, they would be Switzerland. But it goes straight to the Fernandinhos and from there to the FARC. The origin of crime in this state is not misery, but it is the same as misery: the poor population of Rio is exploited, yes, but not by “us,” the middle class — it is exploited by the lords of crime, who enslave it for illicit activities and still use it as a publicity emblem to hide behind billboards against “social exclusion.”
If the middle-class blame discourse remains effective, it is because the orator, prudently, does not say “you.” Direct accusation discourse would make him unsympathetic. It is necessary to give the blame a confession-like air so that the accuser does not appear to speak against the audience but in their name. Then, widening his eyes like an expressionist actor and theatrically beating his chest, he shouts “we,” as if he wanted to assume a share of the guilt. But, during this speech, he does not present himself as what he is: a member of the leftist intelligentsia, an advocate of banditry. During the performance, he plays the generic role of a middle-class man, posing as a decoy and pretending to attract the blame only to, in a jiu-jitsu move, dodge it at the last moment and let it fall on the audience while he, quickly slipping from the role of the accused to that of a witness for the prosecution, escapes unscathed. The malice required for this trick is almost demonic. Dostoevsky was not wrong at all in calling this type of intellectual "the demons."10
It is no wonder that among these individuals, adherence to the liberationist thesis is almost unanimous. Legalized drug trade in the largest consumer market in Latin America would guarantee the regular and lawful influx of money to the Colombian guerrilla, with surplus tax incentives and state subsidies to reward the writers and filmmakers who, in the difficult times of repression, fought for the good cause.
Millions of lives would be thrown into the sewer of addiction and madness, but that would be a cheap price to pay for the glory of hallucinogenic socialism and the prosperity of its literary, journalistic, and cinematic apostles.
It is unnecessary to discuss hypothetically the harms and benefits of drug legalization: it fits so clearly into a criminal strategy of continental revolution that, to see how bad it is, it is enough to identify its place and function in the general scheme of the machine.
With the USSR tap closed, the communist movement on the continent today has one and only one financial support source: crime, drug trafficking. If they want to legalize it, it is only to avoid staying for too long in the double and uncomfortable role of its material collaborators and nominal pursuers. When a politician backed by a revolutionary scheme is casually elevated to power legally in a democracy, he always remains in that ambiguous position, which he cannot resist indefinitely without being unmasked. Therefore, before the evil grows, it is necessary to change the game rules, making the illicit legal and relieving the ruler from the painful task of pretending to pursue those he promised to help behind the scenes. Hence the clamor for drug legalization.
Thinking with George Soros' Head
Jornal do Brasil (Sunday Supplement), October 1, 2006
The biggest financier of the drug legalization campaign is George Soros, who also funds pro-terrorist and disarmament organizations (a wonderful combination) and nourishes the modest ambition of becoming the informal president of the world. He has already bought land in Bolivia, where, once the legal barriers are removed, he will have everything to become the largest supplier of raw material to the FARC.
The ideas of such an important person deserve attention because, besides being a big shot, he is a philosopher and proudly boasts of having been a student of Karl Popper. Since Popper studied so much logic that he never had time to apply it to the real world, it is understandable that his disciple thinks with his penis and reaches conclusions like this: "We did not defeat Al-Qaeda. This was demonstrated by the recent plot to blow up commercial airplanes in mid-flight, thwarted by the diligence of British intelligence authorities…". That is, the proof that the terrorists are at large is that they were arrested. To top it off, they were arrested by British intelligence, the same that, with information about the weapons of mass destruction hidden by Saddam Hussein, prompted the Anglo-American decision to invade Iraq — proof that the British know how to handle these matters without war.
Follow Mr. Soros' reasoning and he will make your brain a cement block, impenetrable to any intellectual stimulus subtler than a sledgehammer. Then, you will be ready to admit that the best way to end the drug plague is to sell them legally, like Bibles, a product prohibited in some countries. If Mr. Soros had existed at the time of the Russian Revolution, Lenin and Stalin would not have had to kill so many Christians to eradicate Christianity: it would have sufficed to sell millions of Bibles at banana prices in Red Square, as Mr. Soros suggests doing with Colombian cocaine in Praça XV in Rio de Janeiro. Hitler could copy the formula, printing cheap Torah copies, and soon not a single Jew would remain in Germany. How much blood was shed because the world did not know George Soros' wisdom!
There are ideas that persuade not by reasonableness but precisely by stupidity. Fighting drug consumption through legalization is as intelligent as defending oneself against adultery temptation by sleeping with the neighbor’s wife three times a week, intending to become immune to the charms of other nearby wives. One can also suppress homosexuality by giving one’s rear around until it becomes insensitive.
Legalizing drugs is giving legal status to the global drug trafficking empire, pardoning the millions of crimes committed during its construction, including kidnappings, assaults, child abuse, homicides, and genocides. It is bringing the most perverse bandits of all time from the underground and making them a new ruling class, more powerful, more cynical, and more adept at practicing evil than all previous ones. It is not difficult to connect the dots. The liberationist champions in Brazil are political partners of the FARC and have a power project with them aimed at conquering the entire continent. Legalization, by itself, would suffice to realize this project entirely, overnight. Those who defend the idea with full awareness of this implication are criminals whose place is in jail and not in decent debates. Those who do it without this awareness are fools — disciples of George Soros.
-
See my article “Bandidos e letrados,” December 26, 1994, available at http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/livros/bandlet.htm.↩
-
See Joseph D. Douglass, Red Cocaine. The Drugging of America and the West, London, Harle, 1999.↩
-
See http://www.eagora.org.br/arquivo/Farc-ensina-sequestro-a-PCC-e-CV-afirma-juiz/; and especially: http://odilon.telmeworlds.sg/.↩
-
Editor’s Note: Here follows an excerpt from one of Olavo de Carvalho’s responses to objections arising from this text: “The prospect of helplessness in the event of the provider’s imprisonment, on the other hand, would be a strong incentive for the wife and children to pressure the father to live honestly. The preventive abolition of this risk is, quite obviously, an encouragement to criminality” [“Objections and Responses,” Diário do Comércio, November 5, 2009].↩
-
Editor’s Note: “Folha Online, November 11, 2001 — A document prepared by Operation Cobra (an acronym for Colombia-Brazil) of the Federal Police, tasked with dismantling drug trafficking on the Brazilian Amazon border, identifies cocaine production bases under the control of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). Called complexes [a set of refining laboratories], the bases produce about 45 tons of cocaine hydrochloride monthly, according to the report. The drug would depart from clandestine airstrips in Colombia to Europe and the United States and even to Brazil. ‘We no longer have any doubts about the FARC’s involvement in drug trafficking. The guerrilla has command of the drugs, and this is a threat to the Brazilian border,’ says delegate Mauro Spósito, coordinator of Operation Cobra” [Report cited by Olavo de Carvalho in the article “Relendo notícias,” Jornal da Tarde, October 2, 2003 — http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/031002jt.htm].↩
-
Editor’s Note: Here follows an excerpt from a report by Veja magazine, September 18, 2002: “The rebellion that took place last week in the maximum security penitentiary Bangu 1, in Rio de Janeiro, created a milestone in Brazil’s criminal history. For 23 hours, the population of the metropolitan region of Rio was, in some way, held hostage by the trafficker Luiz Fernando da Costa, 35, the notorious Fernandinho Beira-Mar. Around 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the bandit overpowered two agents inspecting the gallery where he was incarcerated. With the obvious connivance of those supposed to guard the prison, he managed to pass through three thick iron doors, cross a corridor, open three more gates, and reach the cell of Ernaldo Pinto de Medeiros, Uê, whom he had vowed to kill. Overpowered, Uê had his skull and jaw crushed, was shot, and finally, his body was burned. Over the phone and armed with a pistol, Beira-Mar, Brazil’s most dangerous bandit, celebrated the death of his rival and three other prisoners: ‘It’s dominated, it’s all dominated’.”↩
-
Editor’s Note: See the report “Lula suggests the FARC create a party to gain power,” available at http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/internacional,lula-sugere-as-farc-criar-partido-para-chegar-ao-poder,362096,0.htm.↩
-
Editor’s Note: The author refers to his article “Mais um crime do capitalismo,” published in Diário do Comércio on August 15, 2010, available at www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/100815dc.html.↩
-
Editor’s Note: On this cliché, see also “Experimento sociológico,” Diário do Comércio, May 22, 2006 — http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/060522dc.html.↩
-
Editor’s Note: “A parallel between Dostoevsky and Olavo de Carvalho is inevitable when reading the journalistic writings of both. Not only do their political-cultural concerns go in the same direction, but their social roles, in 19th century Russia and 21st century Brazil, respectively, are curiously similar” [Lorena Miranda, “De como Dostoiévski foi o primeiro olavete; e o desaparecimento iminente dos moderninhos com cara de nojo,” Ad Hominem, November 1, 2012 — http://www.adhominem.com.br/2012/11/de-como-dostoievski-foi-o-primeiro.html].↩
No comments:
Post a Comment