It is a huge waste of time to discuss the crime committed in Foz do Iguaçu. The year of 2022 has crucial issues to be debated, among which, in my opinion, the most important are, in this order, the limitation of judicial activism and self-sufficiency in fertilizers. After all, all it takes is one stroke from a Supreme Court minister, a recommendation from a prosecutor, and all the work of the Legislature to regulate mining in indigenous areas can go down the drain. In the current state of affairs, Brazil may well fail to be able to import enough fertilizers and judicial activists, entrenched in the state, will ensure that we go hungry.
Political violence is, yes, an important matter. However, since the assassination attempt carried out by Maninho of the PT, it is difficult to be shocked. Let’s remember: in the circus that was Lula’s arrest, with Gleisi Hoffmann saying that there would be bloodshed if the warrant was carried out, a crowd of horror movie clowns gathered in front of the Lula Institute’s headquarters to make a ruckus. A passerby, businessman Carlos Alberto Bettoni, had an altercation with the mob. PT’s brother, then, pushed him in front of the truck. He had a head trauma and never recovered his health before. The crime took place in April 2018 and was very well photographed: the image of the man lying alone, with a long trickle of blood dripping on the asphalt, would be enough to make many cathartic campaigns of rejection to violence or PT.
We have not seen any collective hysteria about how all PT members are murderous beasts. The bloody image was not exploited by the mourners of democracy. We didn’t even see the PT’s mea culpa. If the press and the academy weren’t taken over by crazed scoundrels (or by crooked madmen), the PT would be called to speak. He wasn’t a random drunk in a random situation. He was an affiliated member, a former councilor elected by the party, committing an open blood crime in a Lula demonstration. The least you would expect from a decent party is the expulsion of the member.
But in September a crazy leftist stuck a knife in Bolsonaro’s belly and swung it, to kill him. He had an alibi ready in Brasília, even though he was in Juiz de Fora. And the cynical mourners of democracy did not give a peep against the left. Since then this assassination attempt – as well as the reaction to it – has been the elephant in the mourners’ dining room.
Collective amnesia and repetition
Months after Lula’s arrest, the swastika festival began on the news. Any swastika in a federal university bathroom made the national news. A feminist, a potential victim of fatphobia, showed her belly on social media: a thin swastika was carefully made with a sharp object by bolsonaristas who grabbed it in the middle of the street. Whoever wanted to believe. In Nova Friburgo, the police managed to catch the group that spray-painted swastikas in a church: they were the same ones that spray-painted “He did not” in other parts of the city.
To achieve greater drama, however, it was necessary a corpse; preferably fresh. In the middle of October, it appeared. They turned into an event of the greatest magnitude a drunken fight in which a capoeira master of the black movement was killed by a popular man. It was no use for the assassin to say at a press conference that Mestre Moa had called him a “black faggot” and that’s why he took the knife. Mestre Moa’s death was proof that Bolsonarism kills.
Now history repeats itself. A private fight between men of different political convictions, in which a leftist is killed, is presented as proof that Bolsonarism kills. The unblemished Revista Fórum, PT, had the scoop this Sunday – and, again, whoever wants to believe it. Curiously, this “scoop” given on Sunday, day 10, took place after another scoop, that of Metrópoles, given on Saturday, the 9th. a speech by Lula, at a rally, making an apology for Maninho from the PT, who had spent 7 months in jail for “defending him”. A great coincidence!
On top of that, we learned that the near-murderer was released at such short notice by a decision of the STJ. Apparently, there is not only apology, but also perks for PT butchers.
“So-and-so is radicalizing”
The impudence of the experts is jaw-dropping. As I have shown a few times, there is a cult leader named Luciano Ayan (former MBL guru) who has the full consent of the establishment – read- if, from the STF – to do things that would put a Daniel Silveira straight in jail. Even spreading fake news against Marielle, just dead, he could. Not only could he, but he was invited by a self-declared “Digital Citizenship expert” respected by the press to discuss fake news with my state senator Ângelo Coronel, who presided over the CPMI of Fake News..
Another Ayan pupil, Michele Prado, has no academic background, but is accepted by the academy as an expert on the extreme right. All she does is go on social media saying that so-and-so is radicalizing, presenting tweets and statements as proof of that. As for the quality of his work, Francisco Razzo has already read and made a kilometer thread on Twitter. I sum it up: everyone who has the slightest affinity with some right-wing author or idea is a far-right radical, except for her. Razzo’s criticisms were described as a misogynist attack and harassment promoted by a right-wing extremist.
Let’s see just now how the digital citizenship specialist reacted to the alleged scoop in the PT magazine. First, she retweets the GloboNews environmentalist blaming “the presidential candidates” (plural) for “violent actions by their coreligionists”. Then, an unknown woman who does the same, equating Lula with Bolsonaro. She then posts a photo of herself with Barbara Gancia, saying how much she admires her. Barbara Gancia recently became notable for praying for Bolsonaro’s death as he suffered complications from the attack. A love, an example of a human being to be embraced by someone who spends the day denouncing “extremism”. Finally, she praises a tweet by Michele Prado that speaks of radicalization as a right-wing problem denounced by her in her book.
This is mockery with our face.
Scissors strategy and globalism
In my opinion, the person who best explains the current intellectual scenario is Mathieu Bock-Côté. In Multiculturalism as a political religion, he says that May 68 was a revolution culture of the elite against the people, who, in today’s threadbare vocabulary, are conservative. The elite has decided that the people are no longer the source of democracy’s legitimacy, but rather a very peculiar notion of “human rights”. This notion is very rigid and not subject to discussion. Thus, it is up to the judiciary to decide what is right and wrong. If the people disagree, they have to be re-educated; if he doesn’t want to be re-educated, he has to be punished. As the State was completely swallowed up by the bureaucracy, the election of “populists” becomes innocuous, since the machine prevents the government according to popular desires.
Both he, Dugin and John Gray put Fukuyama as the canonical writer of this new utopianism. Be that as it may, the scissors strategy consists of transforming the new left into a commonplace, labeling the egresses of the old left as “extreme right”, and accepting a “modern” right that restricts itself to defending the market, without touching History and in the values. As a result, a false idea of political diversity is planted. A French deputy had even said that “there must be pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans in every camp. If we put the intelligent together, one day, with alternation, the imbeciles would come to power”. Here we have the idea of the right-wing as opposed to the clean one.
With this, the militant press, along with the progressives, do their best to limit public discussion, condemning the “ polarization”. In this scheme, “contemporary democracy must accommodate as little as possible any debates on the issues that animate popular and political passions. in many ways, political communication even serves to exacerbate media tensions around these minor differences” (p. 252). In other words, the country discusses ad nauseam neutral pronoun instead of facing urgent problems like pro-bandit legislation, for example. But any complaint against banditry is soon branded as “barbarism” etc.
“If populism gains penetration in western societies, it is also because it corresponds to a desire for political polarization in a political system to be such a consensual point that it ends up stifling democratic vitality. If conflict in a political community is not instituted between two elite factions and between political currents that are recognized as legitimate, it will necessarily take shape, so to speak, between the elites and the people” (p.
We are polarized, we must remain polarized until this bullshit is over. For that very reason, this agenda that PT members gave birth to should only interest them and the clean ones. As for the rest of the people, let’s talk about fertilizer, abortion, brothers’ rights, judicial activism. And whatever else is on the tile.