If Olavo had been murdered, his death would have been celebrated in the same way.

morte de olavo de carvalho

Former federal deputy Jean Wyllys (PT)| Photo: Aniele Nascimento/ Arquivo/ Gazeta do Povo

“Any less an obstacle to the spiritual growth of humanity in the world; least one enemy of democracy; least one enemy of human diversity; least one enemy of the truth; least one enemy of justice.” This statement was made by Jean Wyllys after the death of Olavo de Carvalho. It was a death of natural causes. But what is striking about this statement is that it could have been made after the execution of a dissident. Even the interjection “minus one!”, throughout the national territory, is usually used to refer to the violent deaths of bandits. Of course, it’s obvious, it’s ululating, to anyone in this country and even the West as a whole (as long as you add the information that Jean Wyllys is a gay activist) that Jean Wyllys will not be treated as the bigoted radical that he is. . If, however, an olavete had written the above lines after the death of Marielle Franco, things would have been completely different. Certainly, the olavete would be treated as a “digital militia” and would run the risk of being arrested because of these statements, without due legal process. After all, there is an End of the World Inquiry underway, arresting people suspected of being anti-democracy and pro-hate. What makes it even weirder is that, in fact, someone who claimed to be right-wing actually created and spread a rumor about Marielle when her body had barely cooled off. That someone is Carlos Afonso, known by the pseudonym Luciano Ayan. He created the false news that Marielle was the lover of a drug dealer, and the authorship of this misdeed was well publicized by the common press. Nevertheless, Carlos Afonso passed through the End of the World Survey unscathed and even subsidized the persecutors with a McCarthyist list of digital influencers from the Olavete, Bolsonarista and even liberal right-wing. Now, his pupils intend to sell themselves as champions in the fight against radicalism and fake news, without having broken politically or ideologically with Ayan, nor mentioning their involvement in spreading a rumor that dehumanizes the opponent. (I wrote in more detail about Ayan’s issue of fake news here.)

| Playback/ Twitter

Hate is human

There is a problem with the expression “hate speech”. Hate is a human feeling. We all feel hate for something or someone at some point in our lives. I can say that I hate identity, and that some people make me hate. The person of my governor makes me hate, for example, when he prevents me from getting documents because I don’t have a health passport. I hate the authorities who want to leave their children without parents who do not make them Pfizer’s guinea pigs.

There is a distance between feeling hate for someone and making a personal speech against that someone. There is, below that, a distinction between private life, in which I hate others, and public life, in which I express my thoughts. The distinction between public and private life does not suit totalitarians. Things have to go on as if everything were always in the open; as if each of us were a one-dimensional being who could fit into public slogans. Everything is political, nothing is private.

Well, I feel hate , the reader feels hate. What matters in public life is our conduct. Although I hate the person of Rui Costa because of his actions as governor, I would consider a libel made in public against the person of Rui Costa to be base. I would consider it base to make up that he is a drug dealer’s lover. What I do against Rui Costa is to write against his measures as a public figure. This is in the public interest, and the reader is not, or should not, be interested in my private feelings about Rui Costa. It might not arouse any feelings in me, and the arguments against the measure would be the same.

Since you are so fond of calling others Nazis, let’s go back to Hitler’s Germany. The Germans did not know about death camps, but they knew about the stigmatization of Jews and the ban on exercising certain professions. A man who did such a thing would make me hate, whether I was a Jew or not. I think decent people (in Germany at the time, a minority) would feel hate too.

Hate is not a bad thing in itself. It is a feeling that can arise for a variety of reasons, some of which are urgent and legitimate.

Dehumanization is the problem

It is true that the Nazis hated the Jews. And it is true that opponents of the Nazis hated the Nazis. Hate is not the problem; hate may be the human feeling expected of decent people.

What the Nazis did special with the Jews and treat them as sub-humans, Untermenschen. Being a Ubermensch 25155843 (superman) could be a future project for the Nazis, but they were superior to subhumans right now. A sub-human could be publicly stigmatized, he could be deprived of his work, he could ultimately be murdered. When he died, murdered or not, a pig spirit could say: “One less obstacle to the spiritual growth of the People; one less enemy of the Reich; one less enemy of the People’s health; least one enemy of the truth; least one enemy of justice.” It doesn’t matter how the person died (whether sick or executed), it doesn’t matter the person’s private actions (whether he was a good man despite extravagant opinions). What matters is the annihilation of the one who is marked as subhuman.

For us to oppose totalitarianism, we need to pay attention to the discourse that promotes the dehumanization of the other. This “hate speech” is big tech bullshit. Everybody hates; only those who feel superior (Ubermensch25155843, superman) pretends not to.

)They mistreat old sick people

If Olavo hadn’t died of natural causes, his death would have been commemorated just the same. It is easy to prove this with the famous column by Hélio Schwartzman in Folha: philosophizing a lot, and without ceasing to extend his pinky while holding a cup of tea, a fine man may conclude that it is better for Jair Bolsonaro to die than to live. Hélio rhymes with Adélio.

But Olavo himself shows this. I quote Paulo Polzonoff, who wrote about the time: “The philosopher, treated with derision by the term ‘bolsonarism guru’, left Brazil in a hurry, after spending a long time in hospital and after being summoned by the Federal Police in the illegal investigation that investigates the existence of (take a deep breath, because the words below stink) a digital militia that works to discredit Brazilian democracy and institutions. The news of the flight into exile in the United States has left the hypocritical left in an uproar. Some called Olavo de Carvalho a coward for refusing to testify in an illegal inquiry. Would they call Brizola, FHC or Chico Buarque cowards? Would they say that they ‘didn’t take the brunt of the dictatorship’?” Solidarity is nil. If they took a sick old man to jail for a crime of opinion and he died there, who thinks there would be solidarity? Jean Wyllys would say “minus one” the same way.

What if Roberto Jefferson dies, will also say “minus one”. Because our super empathetic well-thinkers have been imprisoning old sick people who don’t hurt anyone. The thief and the murderer deserve human rights; the “extremist”, no. If someone is considered an extremist, everything is allowed against him. Calling an extremist is the pretext of the time to dehumanize others.

Back to top button