Olavo de Carvalho presentation – 2011 (Bucharest, Romania). Transcript and translation in English by Lucian Vâlsan.
In the 50s, it was the episode with Senator Joe McCarthy – who was transformed into some sort of a monster, even though he never arrested anyone.
Even those very few Communists that were jailed for contempt of court and served minimal sentences, none of them were jailed by the McCarthy Committee – but by different committees in the House of Representatives and not the Senate.
McCarthy had asserted that there had existed a few dozens of communist agents infiltrated to the highest levels of US government. He was demonized for saying this.
Today, after the opening of the KGB archives in Moscow, and after historians have been given access to the documents of that era, we know that there weren’t a few dozens of communist agents in the US government – but at least 3000 of them.
Therefore, Joe McCarthy was only wrong insofar as he was excessively modest.
If you can, I recommend you read the book by Stanton Evans – „Blacklisted by History”.
The book is a spectacular study which shows that McCarthy was right in everything he had said and his only mistake was that he didn’t say more than he did.
The McCarthy historical episode was so well exploited by the communist propaganda, that we today live under the impression that McCarthy, who actually never sent anyone to prison and never hurt a fly, was an individual much more dangerous than Stalin.
The persons with a university background capable of believing such astonishing nonsense are intellectually crippled for the rest of their lives.
The mere usage of the word „McCarthyism” as synonymous with political persecution hides the fact that during the time the McCarthy Committee was active, three million people were executed in the USSR and China for the crime of political dissent, while at the same time nobody was harmed in any way because of Joe McCarthy.[Such frequent usage of such terminology] shows that the contemporary political vocabulary is based on an almost psychotic forgery of reality.
First of all, no communist has the right to call anyone a Nazi because Nazism would’ve never reached to the level of being a danger to humanity, had it not been for the help and the incentives offered to the Nazis by the Soviet Union.
Germany reached to the point of having an army capable of intimidating the world, not only because the USSR sold them weapons and military secrets, but also because the USSR allocated a territory within Russia in which the German army could train.
As such, Nazism as a historical force of world importance would have never come to existence without the USSR.
So when a leftie calls you a Nazi – the appropriate response is: „You are a Nazi. Your folks are guilty of all of these!”
This would be the „educated”, the polite response.
But you have to refuse to offer this polite response when dealing with badly intended individuals who try to paint you as a fascist or a Nazi.
Secondly, they ignore the difference between Fascism and Nazism. And to give you an idea about this difference, the day in which Hitler was elected, there was one European statesman who phoned all the other European heads of State (the Pope included) and asked the following: „What do we do now with this madman in power? We have to do something to get him out from office.”
Got any ideas who this statesman was?
It was Benito Mussolini.
And since nobody answered to his call, nobody wanted to do anything, Mussolini concluded that Hitler was stronger and that it was prudent for him to ally with Hitler, rather than all the other European cowards.
In other words, all of the democratic European governments threw Mussolini into the arms of Hitler. They are guilty of this. Equally guilty with Benito Mussolini.
Furthermore, we must not forget that both Fascism and Nazism are internal chapters of the wider chapter of the Revolutionary Mind and Mentality.
Remember the conference where I defined the revolution as a project of radical transformation of society that has to be accomplished through the concentration of power.
As such, Nazism and Fascism are obviously revolutionary as regimes. This is where their ambiguous relationship that they had with the communists comes from.
Sometimes they killed each other, and sometimes collaborated with each other in an endeavor to kill third parties. This situation is normal within revolutionary movements.
A revolutionary movement’s lifeblood is its internal divisions and its internal conflicts.
Who killed more communists than Stalin and Mao Zedong? They were the biggest assassins of communists.
This is why it is an act of extreme naïveté to believe that the Revolutionary Left is weak because it is divided. Internal conflict and internal division are essential elements for the growth of any revolutionary movement.
If the revolutionary movement had been coherent and cohesive, it would’ve followed that it could be held accountable for its acts.
For its success, the revolutionary movement has to keep itself in a state of perpetual confusion in order to avoid having to face the horrors of its own deeds.
They also always need a number of internal scapegoats through which the movement can cleanse itself [by getting rid of those scapegoats].
This domination that these people have had over the minds of some conservatives, or right-wingers, etc… is the result of not only cowardice but also ignorance and lack of preparation.
At the bare minimum, [we should ask] why should we accept that everything needs to be defined in the enemy’s terms instead of we coming up with our own definitions?
For example: Why is ‘fascist’ a much more serious insult than communist?
If you add up all the victims of all fascist regimes worldwide you’re still not even at 5% of the total victims of communism. And if you include the victims of Nazism as well, you still don’t get higher than 25% of the total victims of communism.[Reporter]: I think one aspect that is often „occulted” – or at least not often mentioned – is the very name of Hitler’s party. The National-Socialist German Workers Party.
– Indeed. The ‘big’ difference was that there was a national socialism and an international socialism. That was the only difference.