Olavo de Carvalho Praises Socialist Militant and Says He Would Even Work with Satan for Brazil

By Julio Severo

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.

BBC says,

“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.

BBC said,

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?

Read also “Olavo de Carvalho” in Conservapedia.

Portuguese version of this article: Olavo de Carvalho elogia Suplicy e diz que trabalharia até com Satanás pelo Brasil

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Olavo de Carvalho and the Inquisition

Halley’s Bible Handbook and the Inquisition

A Brazilian Neocon?

Why Call Names? An Answer to Olavo de Carvalho

U.S. Is Oligarchy, Not Republic

Comment by Julio Severo: This article, published originally by WND, addresses a very real problem in the U.S. As a pro-life and conservative Christian, I have to reach the same conclusion. Abortion was legalized in the U.S. in 1973 in the administration of President Richard Nixon, considered a conservative and of the Republican Party, also considered as generally conservative. In that time, the absolute majority of the American people was against abortion. In fact, the U.S. was then the most Protestant nation in the world. However, there were big business groups interested in the legalization of the unborn’s killing. The Supreme Court, which legalized this heinous crime, imposed it on all the U.S. states, violating the independence of each of them. In the issue of the so called gay “marriage” the same problem is happening. Most of the American people do not want this aberration. Yet, interest groups want to impose this aberration on the population. If then there is a “democracy” in the U.S., it is working just for those having more power and money. It is not working for the defense of life and family. It is in the full reality, as my definition, a “government of money, by money, for money.” Read and spread the following article:

A recent study by professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin I. Page found that the U.S. now resembles more of an oligarchy than a democratic republic.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

The author of a recent commentary about oligarchy in the 21st century, Matthew Continetti, of the Free Beacon, might even suggest that last phrase be repeated.

“Mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

In a recent interview with TPM, Gilens stated, “I’d say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups – of economic elites and of organized interests.”

“Since Reagan, every president has come from Harvard or Yale. Because these are considered the most prestigious education institutions in the United States, the graduates that they produce are funneled straight into Washington or are given positions in some of the major media outlets,” Marc E. Fitch said.

“It’s a belief that merely by attending these schools you are somehow a superior individual and deserve a position of power. You don’t see too many peanut farmers like Jimmy Carter or generals like Eisenhower even trying to go into politics anymore. Even Sarah Palin was mocked for the college she attended. I think that, in itself, could be the cause of the separation of the policy makers from the people.”

The affluent attend elite universities that are among the most fervently leftist and liberal institutions in the country. Gilens states that the affluent tend to hold more socially liberal positions than the majority.

“We’d see, perhaps ironically, less liberal policies in some domains like religious or moral issues. Affluent people tend to be more socially liberal on things like abortion or gay rights.”

Gilens cites the lack of a Worker’s Party or Socialist Party as part of the problem but Fitch says… they are often just replacing evil with a greater evil.

“You would just end up with more of the same. This is a deeper cultural issue about personal responsibility and honesty. You can throw as much money as you want at a politician but it is his or her job to put their constituency before their own pockets. That is not happening in any way. Until we consider moral character over celebrity in politics we will keep ending up in this position.”

Noted the study, “Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent is the broad body of U.S. citizens sovereign, semi-sovereign, or largely powerless?”

Gilens said, “Both parties have to a large degree embraced a set of policies that reflect the needs, preferences and interests of the well to do.”

Edited by Julio Severo from WND article: Study: U.S. is oligarchy, not republic

Via Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommeded Reading:

Has Obama failed to advance leftism in America?

Has Obama failed to advance leftism in America?

By Julio Severo

Roberto Unger, a prominent Brazilian politician and an adviser to Obama in 2008, said that “President Obama must be defeated in the coming election” because “he has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States,” according to a Daily Mail report.

Roberto Unger: Obama “failed” in the progressive cause

He also said that, “despite their fierce rivalry, the Democrats’ agenda is little different to that of the Republicans”.

In this point, he just confirmed my suspicion: the leftist agenda was advanced in different degrees, by Democrats and Republicans, throughout the world through the US government. (Of course, Ronald Reagan is a notable exception.)

Daily Mail said that “Mr. Unger is a renowned politician in his native Brazil. He has twice run for president of Brazil… Unger was one of the founding members of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party”.

With his impressive credentials as a professor at Harvard Law since 1976, “he has also advised on politics throughout Latin America.” Has his advice failed to help advance the progressive cause in this region? In any case, Latin America is becoming a Union of Latin American Socialist Republics.

He has taught law with a progressive bias for more than 35 years, and has no one in America noticed? Other prominent Brazilian Marxists, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso, have also been professors in prominent American universities.

Harvard, established in 1636, was named after Puritan minister John Harvard (1607–38), who bequeathed to the school his books and half of his estate. Although never formally affiliated with a church, Harvard primarily trained Protestant ministers. Today, although never formally avowing Marxism, Harvard primarily trains leftists…

If the original intent of Harvard’s Pilgrim founders were implemented, Unger would have gotten the boot. If Unger’s original intent were implemented, Obama would get the boot for being a “weak” progressive. As for the Pilgrims, Unger would have expelled them from Harvard and America because they were not progressive at all!

Mr. Unger’s most famous student was Barack Obama, who attended Harvard Law School in 1988. He studied jurisprudence and the art of “reinventing democracy.”

Obama has indeed reinvented the de facto leftist democracy built up over for decades by Democrats and Republicans, but this is not enough for Professor Unger, who is a respected author having published dozens of books on economics, philosophy and politics.

In his view, Obama “has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.” Apparently Unger expects his students to establish “democratic” governments in the model of the Soviet Union!

In Unger’s thinking, Stalin should no doubt have been defeated because he “failed” to advance the communist cause in Russia, and Hitler “failed” to advance Nazi ideology in Germany…

Unger reminds me of Anglican Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti, founder of the Progressive Evangelical Movement, a NGO composed of leftist Protestant militants in Brazil. Cavalvanti was a member of the socialist Workers’ Party, founded by former President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva. It is the ruling party in Brazil today. Cavalcanti left this party because, in his view, it betrayed socialism!

I just wonder why Cavalcanti failed to get a professor’s chair in Harvard to teach Obama and others.

If America had followed the intent of her Christian founders, she would never have had an Unger in Harvard or an Obama in the White House. Harvard would keep training ministers, not leftists. The White House would stop being a house of horrors advocating internationally sodomy and abortion. And Reagans would be the rule, not the exception.

Portuguese version of this article: Obama fracassou em avançar o esquerdismo nos EUA?

Spanish version of this article: Fracasó Obama en hacer avanzar el izquierdismo en Estados Unidos?

Source: Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

America paralyzed by Obama

Leading the world by evil example: Obama and gay “marriage”

United States: between Gayland and Mohammedland

Brazilian Marxist Anglican Bishop Killed by Adopted Son