Four legs, good; two legs, bad. Mutatis mutandis, this is the principle that governs the average Western literate of the 21st century. “Two legs”, especially in Brazil, is anyone who can be labeled a bolsonarista. But it’s not just in Brazil (because it’s convenient to speak ill of Bolsonaro in Europe as well), nor is it just Bolsonarista (until yesterday, the order was to execrate “Trumpists”). So, just decide who is the “two-legged” of the moment and take care to be a “four-legged”. Kindness and respectability have no light of their own; they are achieved by mere opposition to the other, branded as a villain. And when you want to destroy someone’s reputation, just accuse him of the crime of two-sidedness.
It is a practice that grows on cowardice, and that degrades the cultural environment. The virtue of the intellectual becomes conformism. If you don’t say anything new, you will receive the prize of being left alone by the detractors. The intellectual can no longer expect to be recognized for some new idea. Sérgio Buarque could be acclaimed for the idea of cordialism; Raymundo Faoro, for patrimonialism. These two names have historical links with the PT. This in no way prevented them from achieving respectability outside their political circles. Today, however, the social reality of the entire world is already fully explained by progressive dogmas, by “diversitarian sociology”, to use Mathieu Bock-Côté’s expression. And this one is quite accurate in saying that “progressivism is a revelation: the civilization in which we live is radically unacceptable. Revelation requires not a patient work of re-reading the human order, but before the latter is brought to trial, in the name of another history to be written” (Multiculturalism as a political religion ), P. 83). The humanities scholar now has two viable options: converting himself into a parrot or kicking the tent pole.
To make the situation of the left more ridiculous, diversitarian sociology is a dogma. imposed vertically by big business. The corporate world is already openly talking about ESG – acronym for “Social and Environmental Governance” –, which culminates in the governance of society by private companies in concert with each other, with the people outside. The social part is sealing and the environmental part is Greta Thumberg style.
Bezos yes, Marx no
In other words: in the fridge, after decades of dominant leftism and anti-capitalism, the good intellectual of the left is the one who holds Jeff Bezos in a higher regard than Karl Marx. Although they probably never thought of it in those terms, this leveling is implied. After all, Marx was a man of his time: born before the Revelation, he did not know that machismo, racism and homotransphobia are worse than the exploitation of the proletariat by capital. Jeff Bezos, in his turn, does his best to redeem the sins of the West. It is true that he is a billionaire straight white cis male, but – the intellectual will say – he is enlightened enough to subsidize the abortion of his employees. Why is it good for a capitalist to subsidize abortion? Well, because the new Revelation said that women must have the right to abortion and that abortion must be normalized. That pregnancy is a form of control over women’s bodies, and it’s really good to have sex at random, without procreating or creating bonds.
Of course, people don’t agree. Thus, it is up to the leftist intellectual to clarify the people, either by force – criminalizing their free expression, for example – or through education, preferably from childhood. Disney, which is yet another megacorporation, is there to help. The mother goes to work because her husband’s salary isn’t enough, and she leaves her son at home to be educated by a bunch of savvy CEOs. Even Burger King’s marketing department has more authority to educate children than parents. That’s ESG, and that’s a bypass in democracy. Through ESG, the progressive CEO rules over the evangelical’s son. The intellectual swears that he is clarifying the capitalist, but does not realize that he is a disposable piece, selected according to employer interests.
There are half a dozen leftist intellectuals critical of identity, it is truth. However, it’s a rarity to find one that doesn’t melt like sugar at the risk of being accused of two-sidedness. Criticizing the left, yes, as long as it does not strengthen the “populist extreme right” – that is, the politician elected by the workers. The fate of this niche is to constitute an irrelevant counterculture, as it is unable to deal with the fact that the “far right” is the only agent of institutional politics to oppose identityism. The normal evangelical and the old-fashioned leftist go to the same identity wall, but only the former shows a reaction. The second not only does not outline anything concrete, but also attacks the reaction. It is as if an inveterate anti-communist, imprisoned in Auschwitz by the Nazis (who also imprisoned conservatives), took sticks and stones to attack the Red Army in 146. A stupefying stupidity.
There is, among the literati, loyalty to the “left” – even if the “left” is that thing there, which threw the concern for economic equality in the trash to be fawning over monopolistic billionaire. The “left”, today, is nothing more than a bunch of “respectable” people who act according to peer pressure. There is much venality to explain this; but there is a lot of lack of intelligence too.
Same as England of 100 years ago
Getting the ruler right X left of 20 years ago, which was guided by improving the lives of workers in opposition to employer predation, GK Chesterton, an English conservative, would be much more leftist than any Folha identity. In his writings on progressive regulations imposed on families (see the books Eugenics and Other Disgraces and The Divorce Superstition & Other Essays ), defends the general thesis that the State had gone mad, having been taken over by alleged men of knowledge dedicated to the management of slaves. Men and women should no longer be free to choose one another; instead, an authority should undo marriages on the basis of the feeble minded status attributed to one of the spouses. If free procreation continued to exist, England would become dysgenic.
Instead of looking at the social causes of chaos in the big cities – which had everything to do with the rural exodus and the poverty of primitive capitalism -, physical causes were sought to be solved by natural scientists, thus dispensing with any economic reform. With these “scientific” laws, the people were transformed into laboratory rats: “I simply cannot conceive of any responsible person proposing to create laws based on our meager knowledge and indefinite ignorance of heredity,” said Chesterton. At the time, DNA had not yet been discovered, but Science was already so well-known that it was going to solve the problem of social degeneration.
Instead of giving the worker a good salary to support a wife and children, the problem was solved by taking away the wife (through divorce) and reducing the number of children (“birth control”). Socialism, which had started out as a beautiful and simple idea, had proved too simple to be correct. Then – more than a hundred years ago – his name became a means of making the life of the worker even worse, now completely regulated and supervised by the bosses: “the ideal of freedom was lost and the ideal of socialism was altered, until not be more than an excuse for the oppression of the poor.”
Thus, they want us to be happy without a family, without a home of our own, without a car, without even appliances, eating insects in instead of steak. And if one of the slogans of the WEF brings to mind the lines “I don’t have a car / I don’t have a roof”, from the popular song “Lepo-lepo”, I must say that there will not even be lepo-lepo, because anxiety and depression are widespread, and antidepressants usually cut libido. No car, no roof, no lepo-lepo, eating bugs. It is an insect reheated in a microwave rented from Amazon or similar.
Dictatorship of Pernostics
Like the Today’s world is very reminiscent of this little-studied England of Chesterton, I think it’s worth reading what he said about the intellectuals of the time. After all, today’s left shows that ideological adherence is feeble, what really matters is the appreciation of belonging to the club of well-thinking people – who can well be described as fancy, pedantic, pernostic. I leave here a quote written in the year of 1910: “The danger is that the world may succumb to the power of a new oligarchy – the oligarchy of the Pernósticos. And if someone asks me outright (in the manner of debate circles) the definition of pernostic, I can only answer that a pernostic is an oligarch who doesn’t even know he is an oligarch. A circle of little pedants, from atop a platform, unanimously declare (during a meeting which no one attends) that there is no difference between the social duties of men and women, the education of men and that of children in society. Below them boils that oceanic multitude of millions who think differently, who have always thought differently, and who always will. Despite the overwhelming majorities that hold to the old theory of life, I have sincere doubts about who will win. Due to the inertia of theology and all other clear systems of thought, men have returned, to a great extent, to their instincts, like animals. As with animals, your instincts are right; but, as with animals, these instincts can be tamed. Faced with the agility of the intellectuals and the inertia of the crowd, I have serious doubts as to which side will triumph, even though I am quite sure which one should triumph” (The Divorce Superstition & Other Essays , P. 146).