Discussion, by Olavo de Carvalho

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”.

In "The Origin of Dominant Opinions", Olavo critiques the superficiality of modern opinion-makers who form and cling to opinions without substantial knowledge or self-awareness. He argues that their opinions are mere reflections of societal formulas rather than genuine personal insights, contributing to a decline in intellectual rigor and public morality.

In "Brazilian Debaters", Olavo discusses the Brazilian propensity for argumentation, often characterized by a shallow understanding of logic. He criticizes debaters who skip foundational training in language and comprehension, instead relying on simplistic logical rules to attack opponents, which leads to illusory triumphs rather than meaningful discourse.

In "Debate and Prejudice", Olavo examines how debates in Brazil are driven by prejudice and the manipulation of public opinion rather than genuine scientific rationality. He points out that debaters often distort opponents' views to quickly garner public support, thus reducing debates to mere confrontations of biased impressions rather than thorough examinations of ideas.

In "Zeno and the Paralytic", Olavo reflects on the decline of intellectual competence in Brazilian debates. He observes that many debaters cannot distinguish between concepts and figures of speech, resulting in a superficial understanding of topics. This leads to a culture where the ability to articulate feelings is mistaken for genuine knowledge.

In "Mental Barbarism", Olavo recounts an incident where a baseless and offensive attack in an online discussion was defended under the guise of intellectual argumentation. He highlights this as a symptom of a broader decline in moral and intellectual standards, where even the most absurd claims are treated with undue seriousness, undermining rational discourse.

Language, by Olavo de Carvalho

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”.

In the first part of this collection, “Literature vs. Wooden Language,” Olavo explores the deterioration of intellectual discourse and literature in contemporary Brazil through three articles. In "Long Night", he laments the loss of genuine intelligence, replaced by superficial certainties expressed through a limited vocabulary of clichés. This degradation, according to Olavo, has led to a collective blindness where the populace fails to recognize the absence of substantial literature and intellectual rigor. “The Trigger-Word” delves into how these clichés serve as manipulative tools, evoking automatic emotional responses rather than fostering critical thought. Olavo argues that this reliance on simplistic, emotionally charged language undermines true intellectual engagement and critical analysis. In “Figures of Speech” (part of "The formula to drive the world crazy"), he critiques the prevalent use of figures of speech that replace rational debate with emotive impressions, leading to a superficial and manipulative public discourse. Olavo underscores that this approach to language stifles meaningful discussion and perpetuates a shallow understanding of complex issues.

In the second part, “Writers vs. Pretenders,” Olavo critiques the contemporary literary scene and the intellectual culture in Brazil. “Literature of the Lower Abdomen” criticizes modern Brazilian writers for abandoning the pursuit of truth and intellectual rigor, focusing instead on superficial and sensationalist themes. Olavo contrasts this with the dedication of past writers who engaged deeply with literature and philosophy. “Serious Matters” discusses the misrepresentation of Brazilian literature in international events, where mediocre and politically fashionable writers are showcased instead of truly influential and high-quality authors. Olavo contends that this misrepresentation diminishes the global perception of Brazilian culture. In "Conversation about Style", Olavo responds to a reader’s critique of his writing style, defending his polemical and unorthodox approach. He emphasizes that his style is intentional, aiming to provoke critical thinking and challenge the prevailing intellectual norms, which he sees as overly polite and conformist. Through these articles, Olavo calls for a return to intellectual integrity and a rejection of superficiality in both literature and public discourse.

Religion, by Olavo de Carvalho

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”.

In the first part of this collection, “Faith vs. Ideology,” Olavo de Carvalho delves into the enduring conflict between truth and ignorance through three distinct articles. In "The Forbidden Testimony", he draws parallels between the biblical trial of Jesus and modern instances where individuals are unjustly condemned by biased authorities. Olavo highlights the misuse of labels like “fascist” by those historically complicit with totalitarian regimes, emphasizing the importance of faith and steadfastness against such injustices. In "From Myth to Ideology", he critiques Brazil’s spiritual barrenness, noting the nation’s misguided belief that material prosperity should precede spiritual development. Olavo contrasts profound founding myths with false ideologies, arguing that the Bible, as the foundational myth of Western civilization, is essential for genuine societal growth. Lastly, in "How to Read the Bible", Olavo discusses the need for engaging with the Bible and other significant texts as profound exercises in self-knowledge and spiritual exploration. He contends that true understanding requires internalization of the narratives and an openness to discovering deeper spiritual truths within oneself.

The second part, “Persecution vs. Silence,” features six articles where Olavo de Carvalho addresses the persecution of Christians and the broader war against religious populations. In "Beyond Satire", he argues that Christians face global persecution, with violent acts in Islamic and communist countries and cultural marginalization in the USA. Olavo criticizes the media for downplaying these persecutions and warns that anti-Christian sentiments in the West indirectly support atrocities abroad. In "The War Against Religions", he claims that militant violence against religious populations is misrepresented by mainstream media, which perpetuates the myth of inherent religious violence while ignoring anti-Christian persecution. “Crime Makeup Artists” discusses the “spiral of silence,” where relentless attacks on an individual’s or group’s honor lead to their withdrawal from public debate, effectively silencing them. Olavo asserts that exposing the attackers' false respectability is crucial to breaking this silence. In "Bad Adviser", he criticizes Catholics and Protestants who prioritize politeness over effective defense against attacks on religion, arguing that public sins demand a strong response to deter further aggression. “The Fight No One Wants to Pick” examines the media’s role in shaping public perception by selectively reporting news, creating a “second reality” detached from actual social conditions. Olavo highlights the exaggerated focus on pedophilia in the Catholic Church as an example of this manipulation. Finally, in "One Hundred Years of Pedophilia", he traces the cultural and historical roots of pedophilia, criticizing modern movements and the media for scapegoating the Catholic Church while promoting a permissive sexual culture. Olavo argues that the Church is unfairly targeted due to its historical opposition to pedophilia and warns against capitulating to these attacks.

Political Economy and Justice, by Léon Walras

Political Economy and Justice, a Critical Examination and Refutation of the Economic Doctrines of P.J. Proudhon, Preceded by an Introduction to the Study of the Social Question. Guillaumin, Paris, 1860.

This is a book written by Léon Walras to refute Proudhon’s “On Justice in the Revolution and in the Church” (1858).

Elements of Newton’s Philosophy, by Voltaire

Elements of the Philosophy of Newton (French: Éléments de la philosophie de Newton) is a book written by the philosopher Voltaire and co-authored by mathematician and physicist Émilie du Châtelet in 1738 that helped to popularize the theories and thought of Isaac Newton. This book, coupled with Letters on the English, written in 1733, demonstrated that Voltaire had moved beyond the simple poetry and plays he had written previously.

Study Before Speaking, by Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, August 13, 2013

The shortest path to the destruction of democracy is to foster banditism through culture and then try to control it through civilian disarmament. The national left has been consistently following this dual path for at least five decades, and has always known perfectly well what the result would be: social chaos, followed by a hardening of the regime if it is in power, or insurrectional agitation if it is out of power.

This strategy is old, classic, immutable, but the pretexts with which it is legitimized according to the conveniences of the moment have been varied enough to disorient the audience, who engage in animated and sometimes fierce discussions about the pretexts themselves and never grasp the unity of the project behind them. Sometimes, as happens in Brazil, it doesn’t even realize that there is any relationship between the two simultaneous paths.

Mentally cowardly people sell their mother to avoid the risk of being labeled “conspiracy theorists.” They lower themselves to the point of vehemently defending the “theory of pure coincidences,” according to which actions happen without authors.

Imagine, then, the fear these people have of recognizing something that in the rest of the world is already a blatant obviousness: that communism did not die in 1990, that it is today stronger than ever, especially in Latin America. Thirteen years ago, when Jean-François Revel published his last book, La Grande Parade, no one in Europe or the United States contested him on this point, which in Brazil is still an esoteric secret.

There are even those who deny that Dilma or Lula are communists, but they do so because they don’t know exactly what a communist is and, like liberals in general, imagine it’s a matter of ideals and ideologies. In fact, a person is a communist not because they believe in such and such things, but because they occupy a place in an organization that acts as part or heir of the communist revolutionary tradition, with all the plethora of ideological varieties and contradictions contained therein.

The unity of the communist movement, especially since Antonio Gramsci, the American New Left, and the reshuffling of the communist parties after the dissolution of the USSR, is more strategic than ideological.

In fact, this movement, whose extinction seemed imminent and inevitable with the fall of the Soviet Union, was able to thrive and grow remarkably since the early 1990s only because it renounced any homogeneous doctrinal self-definition and refined the technique of articulating into a strategic action unity the most varied currents and dissidences whose coexistence was impossible until then. Sincere or feigned convictions, therefore, have no importance whatsoever.

For someone to speak with some authority about the communist movement, they must first have studied the following things:

(1) The classics of Marxism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong.

(2) The most important Marxist philosophers: Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Althusser.

(3) Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski.

(4) Some good books on the history and sociology of the revolutionary movement in general, like Fire in the Minds of Men, by James H. Billington, The Pursuit of the Millenium, by Norman Cohn, The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.

(5) Good books on the history of communist regimes, written from a non-apologetic viewpoint.

(6) Books by the most famous critics of Marxism, like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Raymond Aron, Roger Scruton, Nicolai Berdiaev, and many others.

(7) Books on the strategy and tactics of communist power grabs, on the underground activity of the communist movement in the West, and especially on “active measures” (disinformation, agents of influence), such as those by Anatolyi Golitsyn, Christopher Andrew, John Earl Haynes, Ladislaw Bittman, Diana West.

(8) Testimonies, in the greatest number possible, from former agents or communist militants who tell their experience in service of the movement or communist governments, like Arthur Koestler, Ian Valtin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Whittaker Chambers, David Horowitz.

(9) Highly valuable testimonies about the human condition in socialist societies, like those by Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Vladimir Bukovsky, Nadiejda Mandelstam, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Richard Wurmbrand.

It’s a reading program that can be completed in four or five years by a good student. I do not know, on the right or on the left in Brazil, anyone, absolutely anyone, who has completed it.

There are so many people in this country wanting to give their opinion on the subject, almost always with an air of wisdom, and no one, or almost no one, willing to make the necessary effort to give some substance to their words.

No honest leftist will do it without renouncing their belief forever. No rightist, without recognizing that they were presumptuous, a fool, and in many cases, a useful idiot - sometimes even more useful and more idiotic than the leftist mass.

The left thrives on the exploitation of ignorance, both its own and that of others. Wherever it exercises hegemony, the commandment to never read the works of opponents and critics prevails, but to spread deformed and caricatural versions of their ideas and biographies, so that the militant youth can hate them in the illusion of knowing them. Universities that profess to teach Marxism courses excel in this point to the limit of pure and simple mind control.

The right, well, the right cultivates its own forms of self-delusion, about which I have already spoken enough in this same newspaper. Maybe I’ll return to the subject in another article.

Science, by Olavo de Carvalho

This series of three 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”.

“Science against Reason” critically examines the modern understanding of “science” as the ultimate authority in all matters, arguing that science is not a self-sustaining entity but rather a specialized subset of human rational capacity. The article highlights the inability of science to define fundamental terms like “yes” and “no,” which are grounded in human moral responsibility and experience, not in scientific reasoning. It points out that many terms essential to scientific methodology, like “equality,” “difference,” “cause,” and “relation,” cannot be defined by science itself but rely on conventional meanings derived from human experience. Furthermore, the article asserts that science cannot transcend the limits of reason, as it is rooted in human experience and the contrast between the finite and the infinite. It criticizes the blind reliance on scientific authority in public debates, viewing it as an escape from the responsibilities of using reason. The piece concludes by illustrating the inconsistency of those who advocate for science, oscillating between relativism and absolutism, thus undermining the true essence of rational thought.

“Dreaming of the Ultimate Theory” discusses the concept of a perfect logical proof and its implications in the realm of scientific theories. It argues that while a perfect logical proof exists only in an ideal domain and not in real-world realities, the pursuit of a “final theory” in science — a unified explanation of nature and human existence — continues. The article critiques this pursuit by highlighting historical examples where scientific theories were interpreted as near-perfect logical proofs and applied beyond their scientific boundaries, leading to ideological and often destructive consequences. It points to the mechanistic interpretation of Newton’s principles, the societal applications of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and the political implementation of Marxism as instances where scientific ideas were extended to justify actions like social reform, genocide, and totalitarian regimes. Olavo suggests that the enthusiastic quest for a final theory in science, with its potential ideological implications, might not bode well for humanity.

“Why I’m Not a Fan of Charles Darwin” presents a critical view of Charles Darwin and the celebration of his work. Olavo argues that Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution but rather adapted it from pre-existing ideas and his grandfather’s work. The piece criticizes Darwin’s concept of natural selection, contrasting it with the current understanding of random evolutionary changes (neo-Darwinism). It also suggests that Darwin himself was the progenitor of the “intelligent design” theory, a notion often rejected by his followers. The article goes further to accuse Darwinism of inherently supporting genocidal and racist ideologies, citing Darwin’s own writings as evidence. It concludes by questioning the idolization of Darwin, arguing that his scientific reputation is based on misinterpretations and contradictions of his actual beliefs and theories.

• Science against Reason
• Dreaming of the Ultimate Theory
• Why I’m Not a Fan of Charles Darwin