Paddle of democracy in the zé people

I propose the construction of a statue called “The Journalist”. When some very important vehicle of the 20th century goes bankrupt and sells its headquarters, it will be transformed into the Museum of the Press of the Years 20. “The Journalist” will be ahead, blindfolded, boldly raising a syringe to the sky. When everything seems confused in the published opinion, all we have to do is enter the Twitter of some famous and respected journalist, lick the index finger and extend it, to see where the wind is blowing.

For example: if at the height of the lockdown you had the slight feeling that maybe the journalistic class was alienated, really thinking that the peãozada was going to hit the slab in home office because staying at home was a mere matter of will, the Twitter of journalist Vera Magalhães was there to prove that it was right: she had shared with approval a satirical text by Demetrio Magnoli. Among other cartoonish things, the text said: “I see images of barefoot children playing ball on the street of a favela, I don’t know if in the west or east. Will they be children of nursing assistants? It doesn’t matter: a sacrifice does not justify negligence. Schools closed to prevent virus traffic across the bridge of asymptomatic people. My son plays in the playground of the building, when he turns off his cell phone. How many deaths do you need to hold the kids at home?” And it ended with: “Enough. ‘Lockdown‘ now! With these little people, it’s not possible. I hate you. I sign: an informed citizen. I return to the series”.

In other words, given that Vera Magalhães is a highly respected professional, who works in the largest public and private networks in the country, it is taken as an example that the journalistic corporation it’s out of the house. A real image of her matches the false image of Marie Antoinette spread by the revolutionaries: of an alienation nourished by a deep contempt for the people. But at least one aristocrat has a sense of superiority as a plausible explanation for feeling superior to the people. The journalistic corporation seems to feel superior due to its “enlightened opinions”, which are always uniform and fit in a hashtag.

Democracy is chic

Forget the pecuniary explanations. Do you know why this corporation, along with a large portion of the educated, hates Bolsonaro and Bolsonaristas? Because they’re people, people! (read with the voice of Quico do Chaves). And since the corporation is more used to rushing to tweet than thinking, it has a sincere inability to understand what democracy is. Democracy is chic; the staff defends it at Harvard and Paris . Barroso is chic and frequents chic environments, so democracy is what Barroso says democracy is. And Marcia Tiburi. And Steven Levitsky. And Tabata Amaral. And Sílvio Almeida… If these people say in 2023 that democracy is the regime in which an enlightened person interprets the people’s will alone and executes it, these journalists will in a moment say that’s right. and anyone who picks up any political book written before 2023 will call an obscurantist denialist. A certain elite speaks the Truth and that’s it. And everything it defends is very democratic, of course, just as the glorious Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic.

Calling tyranny a democracy is a linguistic make-up older than walking front; but if before this was a thing for sweaty bearded men exuding toxic masculinity, today it’s a thing for starched liberals. It was enough for the “fragrant mass” to adhere to the corruption of the meaning of “democracy” for the journalistic corporation to jump on the boat.

Thus, the Daniel Silveira case comes in handy. The reaction to his arrest and his pardon show that there is no moral guiding the journalistic corporation. All it does is defend a concept of democracy that, properly analyzed, is nothing other than the defense of the powerful.

Right to life

Personally, the act of this STF that seemed to me the most insulting to democracy was Fachin’s monocratic decision that prevented the police from entering favelas in Rio de Janeiro. Voters in the state voted for a governor who promised free police officers to shoot gun-toting bandits in the head. The legality of this particular measure can be disputed, but the message of the polls is clear. And the indisputable fact is that part of the population of Rio de Janeiro – the poorest population – lives under the yoke of paramilitaries armed with rifles. This yoke, of course, is not democratic. There is no desire more fundamental to a democracy than the desire to live under the rules of the State. Fachin, in a stroke of the pen, denied this to the poor of Rio de Janeiro. He decreed, to Brizola, that the police do not go up the hill – and that you, who are on the hill, must chip in.

Of course, human lives are lost with this. But this elite doesn’t care about the doorman who lives in these conditions. She wants legislation in defense of “victims of society” (ie, drug dealers) and users, who “deserve treatment and not punishment”, even though their conduct costs the favelas blood. Justice protects seller and buyer; whoever stands in the way, let him die. You, poor guy shot by bad luck in a mouth fight: is your name Marielle? No? So chip away, because you are not from the PSOL, nor do you have voters in Leblon. You, who pay your share of Minha Casa, Minha Vida and were expelled from home: are we going to discuss the problem that really plagues the country, which is the lack of representation of blacks in the boards of multinational companies? Guys, let’s let the victims of society walk with their rifles on the hill! We need to defend human rights!

The Supreme Court released André from Rap, but Daniel Silveira, this one, is a threat to society and has to be in preventive detention or with an electronic anklet. He says bad things against the authorities! What could be worse than that? Oh my God! Democracy will end if he keeps talking! Everyone is going to die!

Dilma Democrat

But let’s not get lost; Let’s go to Vera Magalhães’ Twitter. In the Daniel Silveira question, here is the position of our compass: “You, anti-PT, what would you do if the day after Dilma’s monthly payment trial you edited a measure suspending the arrest of Dirceu, Genoino, etc? Would you yell at the window, wouldn’t you? She did not. Your idol is doing. That’s the line that separates Democrats (even those with whom you differ) from would-be autocrats. And would-be autocrats when they are not CONTAINED BY THE INSTITUTIONS become you know what? Autocrats, dictators.”

So we are left with this: a democrat is someone who lets the STF do whatever it wants, and even gives up a constitutional prerogative that could be used legitimately against a decision by it. Dilma was a Democrat. Bolsonaro, autocrat. The PT’s problem is just that it stole money from the state – a mere pecuniary issue – and not that it filled the judiciary with activists and did its best to corrode the institutions from within. It is as if the PT loot had all gone into the leaders’ pockets; as if they were Geddels, old-fashioned thieving politicians. But they weren’t: they stole and sent part of the spoils to dictatorships. And even when they didn’t steal, they committed the most serious immoralities, as in Mais Médicos. Before the PT, Brazil could judge slavery as a legal issue that ended in 1888. With Mais Médicos, our country relived this scourge in the 21st century. With the blessings of PAHO, a section of the WHO, which in turn is the UN.

At the time of Lava Jato, there was this story that Dilma was an honest woman. The Pasadena refinery says otherwise. If Lava Jato investigated, investigated and didn’t catch it, then Lava Jato is under suspicion. According to dilmistas, straight cis white men were corrupt, and they didn’t accept seeing a woman in power. Inmates, Dirceu and Genoíno are corrupt white men. Its role fits in the dilmista narrative. It only remains to conclude that at that time she did not make use of her prerogative to grant them a pardon because she did not want to, because she is not ethical and democratic. Dilma found the same leniency in the Supreme Court that she found in Lava Jato. He made her eligible after the impeachment, contrary to what the Constitution provided.

Finally, Moro, the star of Lava Jato has revealed himself to be an ESG propagandist – the acronym for the corporate world that seeks to impose neo-Malthusian identity and environmentalism on society via mega-companies. The ESG’s ideas are indiscernible from the Agenda 2030, to which the STF is firmly committed.

Dilma, Moro and the STF obey the same schedule. There is a wing of the PT that is indistinguishable from the PSDB. It’s the ward that stayed out of jail and doesn’t have a vote. It is the wing that makes use of a judiciary equipped to impose its will without losing the veneer of democracy. It is not by chance that Lula, Alckmin, Haddad, Leite, Tebet and Moro appear in the press merged into a single image, as legitimate opposition to a government illegitimate.

Refresh the memory

In short, the corporation journalism tries to sell the idea that it is Bolsonaro or barbarism. This is a lie, a lie and a lie. All of Daniel Silveira’s “crimes” consisted of words directed against the Supreme ministers. This would be resolved in the Chamber. Daniel Silveira was elected by the Cariocas by breaking a sign with the name of Marielle Franco. I find this in extreme bad taste, but in a democracy people are free to vote for the candidate they want. Bolsonaro gave a pardon provided for in the Constitution to a convict whose process is not provided for anywhere.

On the other hand, in 20 , with the consent of a less PT STF, Lula in practice gave a pardon to Cesare Battisti, a murderous terrorist who blew up people in the middle of the redemocratization of Italy because he wanted to implement a democracy equal to that of North Korea. Well then: Italy asked Brazil for the bandit who had come here and Lula denied extradition, alleging that the murderer was politically persecuted. The matter ended up in the STF – because there is an international treaty in question –, which released Lula. At the time, Fux understood that “the Supreme Court cannot evaluate the President’s acts”. Battisti’s lawyer was Barroso, who would reach the Supreme Court in 2013 on the recommendation of ex-terrorist Dilma Rousseff. And those who don’t have a short memory will remember that this judge was much celebrated by the Lavajatistas, since the one nominated by the “honest woman” showed himself to be a fierce fighter against corruption. There was a time when Barroso was the good guy for Lava Jato in the Supreme Court, in opposition to Gilmar Mendes, the villain.

It is not enough to defend drug dealers against the State to be anti-democratic (Fachin is another nominee of Dilma). It is not enough to advocate for a terrorist to be undemocratic. It is not enough to hire doctors under a slave regime, paying a dictatorship, to be undemocratic. To be undemocratic, it is enough to speak ill of the powerful. Then you can throw in jail without due process, which is to defend democracy!

Now, isn’t it clear that these supposed defenders of democracy are nothing more than lackeys of tyrants?

Back to top button