In the US, ideological indoctrination runs from preschool to college

A red wave, that is, a republican wave, was taken for granted in the US legislature. First, the wave showed signs of being swashbuckling, then it was discovered that the Senate had preserved the Democratic majority. Accusations of fraud were repeated this year, but with less vigor than in the pandemic election when voting by mail was normalized.

What were the Republicans’ pretensions of growth based on? I believe in Biden’s galloping inflation. After all, an economic crisis makes voters angry; and if the Brazilian has already gone mad with Bolsonaro’s inflation, what will the North American say with Biden. There and here, there are two continental countries that compare current inflation to the past, without much interest in the world scenario. But for that very reason, inflation there should be much more felt than here, given the callousness of Brazilians with the inflationary history. To make matters worse, in the US there is much greater party cohesion than in Brazil. Thus, it is much more natural for a Democratic candidate for parliament to be linked to Biden’s failures than for a Brazilian candidate for parliament to be linked to the inflation that occurred in the Bolsonaro government. To begin with, there is no bipartisanship here, so there is not even clarity as to who “Bolsonaro’s candidate” would be. Depending on the captain’s popularity in the state where the dispute takes place, this label is disputed or used as an accusation by opponents.

To make matters worse, inflation in the USA, by contrary to the Brazilian one, it has causes that are quite easy to find in the government itself. There and here there was a closure that forced the distribution of aid, but here the closure was the work of the STF in collusion with the press and the governors, while there it was the work of the White House. In addition, there were proactive measures on the part of the government, implying an increase in the cost of living. I have in mind the obstacles to oil exploration and the general agenda of the Green New Deal, which makes energy more expensive. No less important, there are also the colossal expenses with the war in Ukraine, and this right after the disastrous rout of Afghanistan.

I believe that materialism should not serve to explain the vote in USA. The country will become impoverished and is becoming impoverished because of policies known to be implemented by the Biden government. Even so, the people vote for the Democrats.

Ideology here and there

The Democrats disseminate ideological propaganda of the party — unlike here, where advertisements tend to be linked to candidates rather than simply promoting the party. In the last election, they released a video titled “The Stakes of the 2022 Midterm Elections”, something like “What’s at stake in the midterm elections of 2022”. It opens with the sympathetic (or not) Kamala Harris boasting: “The threats we face as a nation are great.” Then there are the threats: invasion of the Capitol, loss of freedom (a sign that reads “leave our bodies” goes up and the news comes in that a Republican tried to pass a federal ban on abortion). Kamala speaks again: “Threats to our democracy itself. And we need to speak the truth about it. Imagine if we lost our Democratic majority in Parliament. Republican leaders have made it clear: they want to ban abortion nationwide. And they won’t stop there: Equal marriage will be at risk. Contraception will be at risk. Without a Democratic majority in parliament, who knows what right they will pursue next?” A sign comes in with suggestions: “Cut social security [algo como um Bolsa Família deles]. Increase the prices of prescription drugs. National ban on abortion. It’s your choice.” Kamala returns: “This is a pivotal moment in our nation’s history. This election is how we rose to achieve it.”

In other words: the institutional propaganda of the American left has nothing to do with the increase in the cost of living, nor even with social equality. It is openly aimed at women who have abortions and live on psychiatric medication. What you have to offer them is abortion and medicine. As for the ideal of equality, so dear to Americans observed by Tocqueville in the 19th century, here it appears reduced to a change in the conception of marriage.

What would an equivalent of this look like in Brazil? They take Lula. A very confused female figure, artificially brought from the bureaucratic backstage to the center of politics — Dilma, for example — speaks against the opposition — Bolsonaristas, let’s say — claiming that, if the PT’s do not take over the Chamber and Senate, women will not be able to have an abortion at ease, gays will not be able to get married on paper and drugs with a stripe will become more expensive.

The PT would only advertise like this if it was suicidal. Around here, in a communist election, he goes to mass, says he believes in God and is against abortion. The lacradores are swept under the rug and in general prefer the PSOL, whose electorate is concentrated in the noble areas of the large urban centers — without the slightest chance of reaching the illiterate sertanejo of Piauí.

A lot of money, little sense

In times of analytical laziness and transposition of North American scripts to Brazil (with a lot of idiots speaking in the Tupiniquim version of attack on the Capitol, as if the demonstrations were not a constant in Brazil since 2013 and were not too voluminous even to fit inside Congress), it is worth pointing out the difference between the speech audience of the largest leftist party in Brazil and the leftist party in the US.

It doesn’t matter that the PT is full of lacradores; when it wants to win major elections, it will hide them. Of lacration, the biggest electoral taboo of all is abortion. Democrats, on the other hand, used a real commotion caused by the reversal of Roe v. Wade to run a nationwide tearjerker campaign centered on freeing abortion. There is galloping inflation the likes of which no American has ever seen in life, but the government officials held an election talking about abortion and they won.

The PT’s internal differences may serve to shed some light on this international difference of the two lefts. In São Paulo, the PT has always had a strong lacrating wing — see Marta Suplicy, sexologist elected mayor in 2000, and Haddad, the mayor doctor from FFLCH/USP who paid for the cracudos to sweep the floor and defended the “harm reduction” policy. In Bahia, PT deputy Bassuma was expelled from the party for proposing the Unborn Child Statute. And as for drugs, the rhetoric of Bahian PT governors is totally pro-police and against criminals. It even finances the Doutor Jesus Foundation, whose founder proudly shows Piauí the stick he uses to beat the cracudos. The founder is adored and became the most voted deputy in Bahia.

Let’s put it this way: poorer populations, less educated and, above all, less urbanized, tend to reject sealing more . But this is not enough to explain it, since, as we saw with Gertrude Himmelfarb, this hedonistic morality propagated by lacração also affects — and in a more costly way — the poorest.

In Brazil , it is important to note that the main left-wing party emerged from a cross between heretic priests and USP sociologists. The Church turned leftist, the Northeast remained Catholic and became a PT voter. The Northeasterners who migrated to the slums of the Southeast felt firsthand the Church’s disregard for morality and became evangelicals, along with the poor there, and raised the children they had there as evangelicals. This cultural vision helps to explain why the progressive madame of Jardins and the Catholic farmer from the interior of Piauí vote the same. The vote is the same, but they are very different.

A native’s notes

I don’t get involved As a connoisseur of US culture, I followed native Matt Walsh’s explanation of voting there, given on his post-election program. Matt Walsh lives in Tennessee, is a practicing Catholic, is critical of gender ideology (he made the documentary “What Is a Woman?”) and has been successful in organizing protests by conservatives against “gender” change in children. The movement’s goal is to ban “gender-affirmative therapy” from being applied to minors. This therapy consists of confirming the patient’s suspicions that he is not his own sex and must be given a new name, clothes, take hormone blockers, then hormones of the opposite sex, and then undergo surgery such as a hysterectomy or mastectomy.

For him, the victory of the Democrats is a symptom of a serious moral crisis in the country. Given the object of his activism, it doesn’t strike me as a bold hypothesis. An interesting clue is given by pointing to Florida, which ceased to be a swing state (which oscillates between Democrat and Republican) and became red state (Republican). According to him, Florida’s turn reflects the region’s Latino population, which values ​​family and has what gringos call “intergenerational homes”. Simple: more than one generation lives together. Here it is so common that we do not name it. As I recall, the word appeared in the news to explain why old Italians died more than Germans. The reason would be the “inter-generational homes”, common in the Latin country.

It is interesting the turn pointed out in Florida. The Democrats were once a more diverse party and today they are lacradores who want to wage wars around the world, as Tulsi Gabbard denounced when she left the party. So it makes sense that the ubiquity of laceration in the Democratic Party was the reason Florida became Republican. This change was felt in this state with a lot of Latino cultural influence.

Matt Walsh points to some interesting issues, such as the mental health crisis and the investment that Democrats make in fear. Not yours, one of the things he pointed out is that Generation Z voted heavily for the Democrats. According to a US study, this is an age group with 42% of mental patients.

Sealing is atomization

What lacration promotes is the atomization of man. People should no longer have a spouse and children; they must free themselves from marriage, have an abortion and live to work. People should no longer rely on the help of family members or the charity of some institution; they must receive anonymous and compulsory aid from the State, which allows them to turn their backs on the family.

This project of atomization takes place in opposition to the family and religious communities. Both began to be replaced by compulsory and secular early childhood education.

Here, we are backward and “comprehensive education” is rare to the point of needing a name. But in rich countries it is normal for children to spend their days in school, being educated by people whose values ​​differ from their parents. In the USA, it is common for children to leave their parents’ home for good when they attend college, and then they become boarders. If Brazilian parents are worried about their children going to the federal school to study, sometimes just in one shift, imagine in the US, where students spend years immersed in this environment, away from their parents.

Another issue that should make Brazilians’ hair stand on end is the teaching of gender ideology to young children — something that Florida struggled to ban. Progressive indoctrination must be very heavy in America: it goes from preschool to college, and it’s all over pop culture. Thus, this agenda of atomization of society should be increasingly successful in younger and younger generations, in addition to investing in the mental health crisis, which has grown since the pandemic.

After all, for a democratic country to adhere to such a crazy and destructive ideology, without electoral fraud, there can only be a powerful indoctrination, worthy of totalitarian states.

Back to top button