If Brazil were progressive, the PSOL would win majority elections. And the president would not be Boulos, no. If the PSOL itself took the PSOL principles seriously, Sônia Guajajara would be president of Brazil, because the Indian woman would be the head of the ticket instead of the vice of the white-cis-straight man.
In this hypothetical progressive Brazil, a candidate could declare herself lesbian and non-binary in order to gain votes. She would campaign smoking crack and flaunting canned goods with aborted fetuses or severed penises, if Brazil liked progressivism as much as progressives assume.
But nobody likes progressivism beyond two categories: banker and bum . Employing a bum is a loss. Paying a loss is something that few can. Just big business. Thus, it is enough to finance the service of organized bums to put up barriers to companies that cannot or do not want to join the cartel and control the financial system. It is not for nothing, therefore, that a mountain of bankers and mega-entrepreneurs are so interested in “social justice”: they take a small piece of the mountain of money they have and pour it into NGOs. These have access to an infinite cheap and qualified workforce – or pseudo-qualified, thanks to the inflation of diplomas.
Look at the situation of a doctor in biology or human sciences in post-Haddad Brazil: after passing four years earning 2.200 reais per month, he faces unemployment. The PT interfered in the entire Brazilian postgraduate system, bringing it closer to the reality of the USA, where there are too many researchers for too few jobs. Before Haddad’s stint at the Ministry of Education, half a dozen academics were doing postgraduate studies and had a view of the possibility of passing a competition for a university. Since Haddad, postgraduate programs have had to bring in as many students as possible, and undergraduates without an academic vocation are taking more advanced courses as a means of postponing unemployment. After the course, they know that a selection of substitute teacher in a low-paying country town will have at least a hundred candidates.
In view of this scenario, if an NGO pays a salary of 5.000 reais for a doctor, it will be of great size; he will be truly lucky compared to his former colleagues who had to become an app driver or bake pot cake. And given the lowering of the quality of the post, what is not lacking is a pick doctor willing to endorse any kind of nonsense that serves the interests of those who pay well: he can say that there are Indians where there are none, or invent non-existent environmental damage. Five thousand reais a month gives 60.000 reais a year – which is nothing for the people in Silicon Valley who pay for Ford Foundation. That’s how easy it is to have Science on your side: when scientists are semi-illiterate, they roll their purse around the corner.
Now add that to the ease of flattering vanities. Using the press to incense the warrior of social justice who saves the planet, or black people, or women, you still buy the well-paid public servants.
Then, gather these qualified bums to judicial activism. A public prosecutor is often indistinguishable from a generic ongueiro. The NGOs themselves are able to afford lawyers – another class full of surplus professionals who have nowhere to drop dead. That’s it: there is a military-judicial militia to harass any institution, under the blessings of the media.
Liberals who don’t limp
for all the ESG hype, liberals don’t limp. It’s still nice to speak ill of the State, complain about State oppression, celebrate the market. As if the global market was not, today, with its multiple regulations, the greatest vehicle of tyranny in the West. The ESG’s most recent assault on Brazilians’ self-determination was the imposition of identity quotas for listing on the stock exchange. B3 (formerly Bovespa) only imitates Nasdaq.
As we have seen in this Gazette, XP was harassed by Educafro – which is one of the NGOs most eager for collective reparations in activity in Brazil. Our labor law and Constitution prohibit racial discrimination in hiring employees; however, the NGO felt offended that XP had taken a photo of its workers in which there were supposedly only whites, and this subjective perception of offense serves as a pretext for judicial harassment.
In the same article We saw that a member of XP is saying that this business of forcing companies to hire based on race, gender or sexual orientation is very beautiful. Racial courts at the state level are not enough; now there must be racial courts in the private sphere as well. And the way gender ideology advances, soon there will be a gender court too. They will decree that conservatives are actually men trapped in women’s bodies and that bearded Los Hermanos fans are women trapped in men’s bodies. Everything, it should be noted, goes against the feelings of Brazilians. All this is done without a vote.
It is obvious that the greatest threat to freedoms in Brazil does not come from the State. It comes from the global market, full of actors richer than many national states.
There will always be those who say that monopolists are problems created by the state. They are certainly right about some cases – think about JBS’ relationship with BNDES, or the relationship that educational conglomerates have with the US and Brazilian governments. But I doubt they are all right. Take the case of Standard Oil, which was spun off because the US in the past did not allow the formation of monopolies. In Brazil, when Antarctica merged with Brahma, there was no lack of protests against the formation of a monopoly. Kroton’s expansion does not generate public protests, and its owner – who also owns Antarctica and Brahma – is very well regarded by the mainstream press for supporting politicians.
Balance of power
When we don’t like the government, we can vote for the opposition. The global regulatory market, however, decided to educate us all and determine, on its own, what goals you and I should have in society. We must live for quotas because Larry Fink over in California or Klaus Schwab over in Davos decided that. Nobody called us to vote; only to obey – to comply, in corporate jargon. We must be free to say I do not comply; to send the compliance there to Davos or to California.
We are the majority. The judiciary betrayed us and now rules us, but we continue to be the majority. It is not wise to hand over the State to NGOs and judicial activism, as it is its natural vocation to defend the majority interests of a people; to declare war if need be. It is necessary to keep in mind that well-organized states can and should face attacks against their people.
In the past, it made sense to think of the state as a dangerous center of power, too strong in comparison. to private actors. In order to decentralize power, it was in fact necessary to invest in the private sector. In the global world, the logic is reversed: the ESG scheme is too strong a power compared to the plethora of nation states. In order to decentralize power, it is necessary to strengthen the power of the States that face it.