Unbelievably, the events of Sete de Setembro reminded me of a prosaic federal university story. Once upon a time, there was a competition for professors in which an outsider candidate was the only one with a doctorate. The natives then resolved the imbroglio judicially, claiming that the candidate could not run for being in an advantageous condition, thus unbalancing the competition. The story is absurd, because to any disinterested observer it is obvious that, in a contest, competition is not an end in itself. Men are stronger than women. In sport, as competition is an end in itself, we separate men from women and create several categories to see who is able to carry the most weight in weightlifting. But if we wanted to create a competition with dumbbells to decide who should fill a longshoreman’s vacancy, there would be no need for a female presence, nor for subdivisions into categories. Because this competition would be instrumental. In the case of the federal one, the contest serves to hire the best professor, not for academics to show their performance in tests.
Well. On Sete de Setembro, the cry in the opposition press was that Bolsonaro was violating electoral legislation by turning the celebration into a rally. Well, it seems that Ciro Gomes, Simone Tebet, Soraya Thronicke and Lula would be able to turn the celebration into a rally if they wanted to. That they said: “It’s not today that I’m going to fill the vast Monumental Axis with my supporters, because that would be to distort a civic celebration with partisan politics!”
Elementary, my dear journalists, my dear TSE: the other candidates would never “distort” Sete de Setembro because they do not have the support to do so. An election is not an end in itself, and the job of candidates is not to prove that they are capable of printing flyers in accordance with electoral legislation. Elections are for the people to elect their representatives, and Bolsonaro’s “problem” is revealing himself, from now on, to represent too many people.
The people are evil
Today, the canned speech that the average literate regurgitates to feel chic consists of fearing the “populist threat” and safeguarding “the institutions”. A little while ago, it was very clear that all power emanates from the people – our Constitution, which is recent, of 1988, still starts with this assumption. For some time now, however, there has been this conversation that the “institutions” – that is, the legal-media apparatus that is alien to the vote – are what matters in a democracy, and that the progressive elites (to which the average literate aspires) must safeguard them. All power emanates from the STF and from the Roda Viva bench.
Thus, it is not surprising that the Brazilian people are now being called fascist, Nazi, couscous crã (sic) and whatever else happens. Modesty aside, I anticipated here that the strategy used by progressive elites to legitimize their power is to treat the people – any people – in the same way that the Allies treated the German people after victory: as a bunch of racists, genocidal and fascists. . Diatribes against the “white man” began precisely in countries with a white majority, where this label describes the common man, the unemployed worker, the churchgoer. The European Union is not a democratic institution, and imposes on national States laws contrary to their populations. There, it is normal to curse citizens as racists and force them to accept any foreigners in their lands – violent criminals included.
This hostile conduct towards the people passed from Germany to Europe in general, after crossed the Atlantic and arrived in the USA, the homeland of progressivism. Now, its politicized bureaucracy and press treat any Trump supporters as white supremacists and terrorists.
In Brazil, race is a serious impediment to this narrative. So much so that only Lula, a good supporter of the idea of replicating the fall in European living standards in Brazil, made the mistake of trying to call the protesters Ku Klux Klan supremacists. But the narrative was adapted with the defamation of the evangelical – who would be fanatical, obscurantist and, in a word, incompatible with democracy.
In the Bicentennial, the narrative finally evolved and these people started to call the Brazilian people of Nazi, Fascist etc.
Problematic peoples exist
In Germany of 1988, the moral judgments concerning the German people were true. If you’re a Democrat and you don’t like a people, what do you do with them? Leave the country peacefully or leave the country and wage war against it. What you can’t do is to be posing as democratic and wanting to rule him at the same time. Which is exactly what the US does in the occupation of enemy territories, by the way. See the late Afghan “democracy”, with gender quotas for parliamentary seats.
In any case, the question of the German cultural terrain is controversial. Sowell thinks Germans are great and Nazism is a historical exception. Voegelin thinks that Germany suffers from an evil of origin in its nation, which is the lack of Christian universalism. Kolnai points to the opposition to the West and to Rome, which makes German culture prone to embracing a particularistic and savage barbarism. I, for my part, limit myself to pointing out that Rondon, long before Hitler came to power, had as an opponent Von Ihering, a German residing in São Paulo. Rondon wanted to integrate the Indians of western São Paulo who were causing trouble; Von Ihering wanted to annihilate them so that the master race would expand and occupy the territory. In its modest presence in Africa, Germany almost drove the tribes of the territory it occupied to extinction. No other European power had set out to desert a portion of Africa. It is clear that there is, or at least there was, something very wrong with German culture.
Another people with whose will there is, or was, something wrong is the Venezuelan, who loved the its leader Hugo Chávez, who destroyed the country’s economy and reduced the people to hunger. Given our geographical and cultural proximity, it is more feasible to compare the Brazilian people to him than to the Germans. But it would be more useful, in this case, to keep the German in sight: because Chavismo was coined by an Argentine neo-Nazi named Norberto Ceresole and, after his death, the post of ideologue of Chavismo was transferred to Heinz Dieterich, a German who lives in Mexico. Chavismo is, literally, National Socialist.
Still, Venezuelans have not organized genocides, and even though Chávez has persecuted the Venezuelan elite Jews, I am not aware that the people has adhered, en masse, to pogroms or race-based slurs. As for the refugees, there is no news that they have caused any problems of an ideological nature.
Brazil is the best country in the world
Fascism in Iberian countries tends to cling to religion rather than race. In Venezuela, Chavismo managed to appropriate the image of Jesus, who appears holding guns on murals in Venezuelan slums. In Brazil, liberation theology tried to put rifles in the hands of Jesus. The result was the decay of the Church and the invention of a new Christianity in Brazil. This testifies in favor of our people and against the Venezuelan people.
Likewise, it testifies in favor of our people the fact that attempts to label individuals according to race do not have popular support. , nor the practice of eugenic abortion, nor – note that it is yet to come – “euthanasia” as a solution for non-terminal diseases. These three things that our people refuse are imposed by the progressive elite, and were embraced with great enthusiasm by the Nazis.
On top of that, our people were able to maintain the largest rainforest in the world around the world. At the same time, although it is fought by misanthropic environmentalists of a genocidal nature, it has everything to “kill world hunger”, in the words of Alysson Paolinelli.
No country is exempt from crimes in its history. Thus, it is worth comparing Brazil to real countries. Our country was founded with the arrival of Catholic Europeans, who believed in the unity of human nature, and did not even think of exterminating the Neolithic cannibals that lived here. with them, and the first recorded interaction on land is a party.
Our country was made with the most unlikely of miscegenations. Our people refused to believe in races when the elites invented the racism. Our country refuses to stop making food at this time when elites are misan tropics.
Our country is the best country in the world, and our people have values that make us proud. The progressives who curse him only fill this country with shame.