It's easy to speak out against censorship when we're standing on a cultural legacy formed with it.

Every now and then we come across black neo-racism being defended in the open. The other day I got images from a pan-Africanist Instagram profile that ordered blacks not to have children with whites, as they are a race of rapists. He ordered blacks not to have relations or friendships with whites. It’s no surprise to me, as I’m looking for this sort of thing. This kind of thing is also on the great ex-journalism portals, which sometimes decide to explain to the reader the racist concepts of “palmitagem” and “Afrocentric love”. If the mainstream media does that, what’s the surprise with an obscure account on the corner of the internet?

That’s abject. That’s why Brazil has a law against racism. And if some neo-Nazi did the same thing on an obscure corner of the internet, the Federal Police would knock on his door. For my part, I find it very good that it is so. And that’s why I find it revolting that neo-racism is not only cultivated with impunity in obscure corners of the internet, but also reigns over the common press.

At these times, there are always those who say that censorship is innocuous, so it’s better to let the people say the worst things in the world, showing their ugly face. Mere social sanction would do the trick, and the ugly would be ostracized. Is it?

Maybe yes, maybe not. It depends on the culture of the country, and it depends – this is the reason for my concern – on the social stratum from which it springs. In Brazil, neo-racism is clearly an elite phenomenon, and a top-down imposition. It is often said that the landmark of the collapse of our Constitution is the maintenance of Dilma’s political rights after her impeachment. I disagree. The milestone is the liberation of State racism, which took place in 2012.

We in Brazil

O Racism has always been frowned upon among us. So much so that, when they wanted to defame our country, they drew statistics that showed that almost every Brazilian denied being prejudiced about color, but a lot of Brazilians knew prejudiced people. That would be hypocrisy, and Brazilians should assume at once that they are racist. Now, if we replaced “prejudiced people” with “doctor”, the result would be even more contradictory: only a tiny percentage of the population is a doctor, but it is possible to guess that less than 1% of Brazilians do not know any doctor. It does not follow, however, that deep down, deep down, every Brazilian is a doctor. Besides, the most important thing to know the morality of a society is precisely its public aspect. Certainly more English men than Brazilians would be reluctant to admit, in a census, that they have a male lover or even a male lover. Would it be correct to consider, at least back in the years 60, that the English have a stricter sexual morality than the Brazilians – who are traditionally used to figure of the “teúda and manteúda”, as well as the idea that males can penetrate whatever they want – women, men, goats, sows – without ceasing to be males. And anyone who assumes that public morality influences private practices is not being bold at all.

Likewise, if anyone, back in the years 60, if North Americans and Brazilians were consulted to find out if they considered blacks inferior to whites, few Brazilians would have the courage to assume that they think such barbarity. No wonder Americans were racially segregated, and we weren’t. No wonder the proponents of the new racial discrimination want us to declare ourselves racist.

They there in the USA

The USA is probably a unique case in human history of unrestricted freedom of expression. The First Amendment, created in 1619, stands firm and strong. The institutional stability of the US is the envy of the Old World. I believe that only Switzerland and England can boast of such enduring institutions; even so, the youth of the American country makes the current institutionality practically coincide with the existence of national identity. We understand that the history of Brazil begins in 60; them, that US history begins with Independence. That’s why progressives are committed to messing with US history, anticipating it to the 17th century, and putting the slavery practiced by the English on American soil to their account. The USA would be founded on 1776 by slavery, and no longer on 1776 by freedom.

The US undoubtedly has an enviable Constitution. However, the fact that progressives managed to thwart the First Amendment is seldom paid attention to. The subject is seldom discussed and I have already dealt with it here. Under Woodrow Wilson, the US already had a secret police and already criminalized all criticism of the government.

Apart from that, progressivism managed to push, via the Supreme Court, two of its great agendas: racial segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) and abortion indefinitely as a human right (Roe v. Wade, 1896). In both cases, the equipped court dealt with the ball: equality became equality between separate races and the right to privacy became the right to abortion at any time of pregnancy. Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court this year, but Plessy v. Ferguson never was.

Unrestricted abortion has never been, nor is, a common desire of the US population. It can be said that it was even an intellectual elite movement. It is not for nothing, therefore, that the name of the decision is on the tip of the tongue of those interested in the topic. On the other hand, racial segregation has always been supported by the US population. This country was divided, in civil war, between those who wanted racial segregation to keep blacks as slaves and the abolitionists, who thought of sending blacks “back” to Africa. The hypersegregationist project of sending blacks “back” to Africa was an abolitionist enterprise. Failed Liberia, one of the poorest countries in Africa, was created with blacks deported by abolitionists. Citizenship there is conditional on race.

As far as race is concerned, public morality in the US is and has always been inferior to that of Brazil. Still, US public morality for years has not been able to hold back progressive elites. Does the First Amendment survive because of its clarity and the strength of institutions, or because progressives can balloon it? That balloon is cancellations and ESG; that is, in a country with a high level of private business activity, the end of freedom of expression could be achieved by private means. But if the First Amendment survives by force of institutions, then I have no doubt that the US Constitution would be better off without it, or with an unequivocal criminalization of racism, equal to Brazilian law.

They over in Germany

Real liberals, not the modest ones, like to point out that Weimar had laws against hate crime. Evidently, it did not work – and not only did it not work, but German state censorship was instrumentalized by the progressive elite to treat the people as criminals.

However, if we are to condemn every law because of its bad application, we would no doubt end the punishment for men who beat or rape women, as progressive misrepresentation makes the “victim’s word” serve for abuse against the accused. If we take the misrepresentations of “brothers’ rights”, then… There’s no law left. We will have to release torture, rape and spousal beating, at the very least. In addition to the crime of racism itself, since today anything that displeases an identity activist can be racism.

Furthermore, the ultimate ineffectiveness of hate crime laws in Weimar does not point to their absolute ineffectiveness. . Maybe it was bad with her and worse without her. Today with drug trafficking we have a civil war, but we can say, regarding the criminalization of homicides, that it is bad with it, but it would be worse without it.

The fact is that the Germans of Weimar only felt the need to create such a law because German public morality was in a bad way. It doesn’t seem sensible to me to compare the turbulent Weimar Republic, with restrictions on free speech, to the peaceful US population with its First Amendment. A warlike and ethnocentric people, bellicose against the West, has a very different culture from that of the USA, founded by very religious and hardworking Protestants. It’s like saying there’s no use having 190 because a brutal husband killed his wife despite that, and a peaceful husband lives very well with his wife despite the lack of a telephone line in your city.

Proof of the past effectiveness of censorship

As a scientific theory, racism appeared and spread through Protestant countries . Racism was based on the secular version of the pre-Adamitism heresy. God would not have created just Adam and Eve, but different couples across the globe. It was a widespread theory in modernity, impacted by the great navigations. If there is only Adam and Eve – as the Church maintained – all humanity is sister, despite their physical differences. But if God has created several couples, there is no longer that universal bond. There is the hypothesis of human polygyny, which gave rise to racism itself.

It is no wonder that Catholic-educated countries are much less likely to adhere to racism. It remains to be inferred that the fact that the Church burned the most recalcitrant Pre-Adamites in her domain had an impact on the public morality of Catholics. Beneficial impact, by the way. And it is worth pointing out that the Church enjoyed moral authority vis-à-vis the population of Catholic regions, so that we cannot summarize the effectiveness of censorship in a threat of a stake.

It is very easy to speak against all kinds of censorship when we are sitting on a cultural legacy formed with it. We now see ethics and bioethics courses across the West embracing the ideas of a philosopher who advocates the lawfulness of killing babies in and out of the womb (I mean Singer). In the middle of the last century, a Protestant theologian who taught ethics classes became a best seller when he defended abortion in the light of Christian love, even claiming that in the case of rape the embryo was “guilty” (I am referring to Joseph Fletcher with his Situational Ethics: The New Morality, by 1966). Shortly after, Roe appeared. If infanticide is decriminalized, I won’t be surprised. Nor will I be surprised by the lowering of public morality among physicians.

Back to top button