Olavo de Carvalho Praises Socialist Militant and Says He Would Even Work with Satan for Brazil
The title of this article was based on the original title of a BBC report in Portuguese that says, “Olavo de Carvalho Praises Suplicy and Says He Would Work with Satan for Brazil.” I had to replace Suplicy with socialist militant, because English-speaking readers do not know he is such a militant. The original BBC report covered an event called “Brazil Conference,” in Harvard. It is understandable why BBC used Suplicy. Its report, only in Portuguese, was not directed to an international audience.
“Reputed as an ideologically opposite extreme of councilman Eduardo Suplicy (PT-SP), philosopher Olavo de Carvalho declared that he approves the idea of a basic income of citizenship, which is a bill of Suplicy, a member of the Workers’ Party, advocating a minimum wage to every citizen in Brazil. Carvalho said that he would work with Suplicy to improve it.
“Suplicy is a very nice guy and his idea is not bad — everybody having an income,” said Carvalho in an exclusive interview to BBC Brazil in the Harvard University, in Massachusetts.
Suplicy mentioned basic income of citizenship in all of his answers. His bill proposes a basic income to every citizen, wealthy or poor, including foreigners living in Brazil for more than five years.
Carvalho added, “Basic income is morally right.”
In the ruling years of the Workers’ Party (2003-2016) Brazil began “bolsa-família,” a populist family-fund program from the Brazilian socialist government providing cash to millions of Brazilians. This program was directed only to poor families. Yet, Suplicy’s proposal is more socialistically ambitious and expansive and seeks to grant automatically free wages, or free money, to every Brazilian citizen. This is much more extensive and socialist than “bolsa-família,” which was funded by tax-payers.
Suplicy’s proposal would similarly be funded by tax-payers.
How could Carvalho improve such socialist proposal? If state socialism (funded by tax-payers) is abhorrent for him, what about Catholic socialism? Because Carvalho says that he is a Catholic, would his alternative get the Catholic Church to fund fully a free wage to every Brazilian citizen? Or what about a Masonic socialism? Considering that Carvalho has shown admiration for Freemasonry, would he interested in convincing Freemasonry to fund it?
Carvalho’s debate with Suplicy was just a microcosm of 100 other debates with Brazilian speakers and moderators. The event, held in Harvard by Harvard and MIT Brazilian students, brought together a very high number of Brazilian speakers, including former President Dilma Rousseff, Federal Judge Sérgio Moro, Supreme Court Justices Gilmar Mendes and Luís Roberto Barroso and former Senator Marina Silva. Each one of them took part in a debate with another individual with similar social prominence.
According to BBC:
The conference’s objective, according to its organizers, is to bring near individuals who are in opposite extremes.
“In Brazil, Right and Left just do not talk,” said researcher David Pares, one of the presidents of Brazil Conference, in the beginning of the week.
“People only share what they believe. We see it as an absence of dialogue between different ideals and this is the biggest problem in polarization. The conference’s idea is to help people to demystify the opposite extreme,” he said.
Carvalho fulfilled the event’s objective: he talked nicely about socialist Suplicy and about his socialist proposal. It is impressive that he called Suplicy “a very nice guy,” saying that his socialist idea “is not bad.” In contrast, he is not known for saying nice things to conservatives. In a December 2016 interview to BBC, Carvalho was presented as a right-winger fighting other prominent right-wingers in Brazil. In fact, he is known for saying not only unpleasing and immoral things about right-wing leaders, but also for actually reviling them.
Even though the event was held in Harvard, warranting spotlight and massive media visibility in the United States, the specific debate of Carvalho, held last Friday (April 7), had gained a limited spotlight only in the Portuguese service of BBC, whose English version made no report of it.
Google search shows (from a April 7-12 span in the search) no spotlight in the U.S. media for Carvalho’s debate, six days after the event.
Evidently, the American public had no interest in a Brazilian event in U.S. Even though some names of speakers are very famous in Brazil, 100 is too much to sort out through, and any name less known than Rousseff and Moro was not even considered for attention. At least, no member of the big U.S. media paid any attention.
Yet, even when the big U.S. media avoids an event, the American conservative media, which is very powerful, covers conservative speakers, especially if they are speaking in Harvard. But no member of the U.S. conservative media got involved.
Be it as it may, the microcosm of Carvalho’s debate with socialist Suplicy in no way resembled conservatism in defense or opposition to ideas. Suplicy’s proposal was not conservative.
Was Carvalho’s answer conservative? Hardly. In fact, his concept of conservatism is so misty as his esoteric past. Some weeks ago he said in his Facebook page:
So when I am introduced as a “conservative philosopher,” the only answer coming to my mind is: “Conservative is ‘puta que o pariu’ (an offensive Brazilian slang which means ‘son of a bitch’ or ‘fucking hell,’ but the real translation is: ‘a prostitute who gave birth’), who preserved you in her belly for nine months instead of dropping you in the toilet.”
With such dirty talk, it is understandable why Carvalho did not take advantage of the opportunity to defend conservative values. While Suplicy defended his socialist values, Carvalho limited himself to praise him.
In Brazil Carvalho is known for condemning “bolsa família,” but in Harvard he praised a worst socialist model of “bolsa família.” In Portuguese, never in English, Carvalho unjustly reviles Protestantism, Luther and Calvin with his typical foul mouth, but in Harvard he abstained himself from reviling this university, founded by a committed Protestant, which today is a center of Marxism, feminism, witchcraft, etc. Besides, Harvard receives funding from Saudi Arabia. Harvard deserves to be criticized.
This is not a problem for Carvalho: years ago he received an award from the Saudi dictatorship (which the U.S. media insists on calling “government”) for a biography of Mohammed he had written. If this is not to cooperate with Satan, I do not know what it is.
If, as affirmed by BBC, Carvalho would work with Satan in political dealings with socialists like Suplicy, it is something that remains to be seen, but many things have already been seen in Olavo’ history several times. According to BBC, he “worked with Satan” in the past. In his interview to the Portuguese service of BBC (not available in English) in December 2016, Carvalho talked about his involvement in astrology (he was the founder of the first school of astrologers in Brazil) and in Islamic witchcraft.
To BBC, he said that this experience was “absolutely indispensable” for his formation.
In the interview, BBC introduced Carvalho as follows:
Born in Campinas, SP, 69 years ago, a philosophy teacher having never graduated in a college and adherent of the theory that “the entity called the Inquisition is a fictional invention of Protestants,” Carvalho has been amassing opponents in the same intensity he is defended by his fans.
The BBC interview was a major breakthrough because even though Carvalho says that all the Left hates the Inquisition and uses it to attack Catholics, the massively left-wing Brazilian media has never used the Inquisition to attack Carvalho. BBC was the first major Portuguese channel to mention Carvalho and his defense of the Inquisition.
The views of this philosopher on the role of the Catholic Church have produced criticism from Brazilian evangelicals. Carvalho wrote in Twitter in 2013 that “the entity called the Inquisition is a fictional invention of Protestants.”
“Even in the popular image of the Inquisition fires, lies are predominant. Everybody believe that condemned individuals ‘died burned,’ amid horrible suffering. The flames were high, more than 16 feet high, to hinder suffering. The condemned individuals (less than ten a year in two dozen nations) died suffocated in a few minutes, before the flames could touch them.”
According to him, heretics — “less than ten a year in two dozen nations” — died suffocated before the flames could touch them. He has been criticized in the social media for such affirmation…
Two years later, he reviled Luther and Calvin, the main leaders of the Protestant Reformation. “The Catholic Church has been overcrowded by sons of bitches during the centuries, but the Protestant church was already born founded by two sons of a bitch.”
You can find more information, including a video, on his defense of the Inquisition in this article authored by me: “Olavo de Carvalho and the Inquisition.”
Carvalho is dividing the Brazilian Right on many conservative issues, including homosexuality, which he believes is natural, but he has had a major victory: he is unifying the Catholic Right with his strident pro-Inquisition discourse.
In my view, any individual who worked with the Inquisition 500 years ago worked with Satan. And any individual today who wants to sanitize the Inquisition actually works with Satan.
A deep esoteric background has made possible for Carvalho to work to rehabilitate the Inquisition.
If the Brazilian Left has never used the Inquisition to attack Carvalho, why would apostate Harvard, immersed in Marxism and Satanism, see a problem with a Brazilian working with Satan to advocate the revisionism of the Inquisition?
Portuguese version of this article: Olavo de Carvalho elogia Suplicy e diz que trabalharia até com Satanás pelo Brasil
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.