Last week, Brazil watched an electoral judge from Rio Grande do Sul say that, in her view, the Brazilian flag was political propaganda for “one side” and therefore should be banned during the electoral period. She spoke of “one of the sides”, presuming, of course, the existence of two sides: Bolsonaro against antibolsonarism, whether he is PT or the third way. Bolsonaro is always green and yellow; the PT, with the traditional red. One of the most popular candidates in the press, Ciro Gomes has used blue and green; Simone Tebet still doesn’t seem to have consolidated any visual identity, but to have bet on blue and yellow. It is possible that Bolsonaro’s competition is aware that national colors are something well-regarded by the majority of the electorate and, at the same time, it is linked to a candidate. So, they take a color less used by him – blue – and add it to one of the other colors of the flag. The one who tried to break this monopoly was Moro, in his fleeting presidential candidacy essay. This attempt was accompanied by the purpose of replacing Bolsonaro as an anti-system and anti-PT leader.
Furthermore, regarding the history of the politicization of green-and-yellow, two things occur to me worth remembering. . The first is that the political use of green-and-yellow in this century probably arose from the protests started in 2013. They began by saying that “it’s not just for 20 cents”, there was “There will be no Cup”, etc., but the antipetismo thickened it and it never left the streets. To distinguish themselves from the protesters in red, the anti-PT took to the streets with the national team’s canary shirt. Now, the soccer team in Brazil is a national symbol. This identification between nationalism and antipetismo was noticed by the left and, in principle, deplored. Liberal influencers from modests or leftists started to put little Brazilian flags on Twitter in order to clear up this misunderstanding.
But I don’t think it was pasted. After all, the cry against the judge in Rio Grande do Sul came precisely from the “other side”. It seems that the first anti-PT protesters saw in PTismo a force alien to the idea of a Brazilian nation, and that current Bolsonar protesters see in Bolsonaro a nationalist response to an anti-national threat.
I believe that the public is correct in intuiting a polarization between Brazilian nationalism and an anti-national ideology. Do you want to see it?
The Pride flags
Shortly before the Rio Grande do Sul judge decided that the national flag is electoral propaganda, the Supreme (Federal Court ) had lit up his building with rainbow colors, in honor of Gay Pride. It was a very light action, compared to that of the Regional Labor Court of Pará, which raised, along with the flags of Brazil and Pará, an updated version of the Gay Pride flag, which includes a triangle with the colors white, baby pink, blue baby, brown and black. This one:
According to Wikipedia, the name of the flag is “Progressive Pride”. The white, pink and blue colors are to include the trans flag; brown and black, to include “people of color”. But wait, there’s more. Leaving Pará for London, there is an even more up-to-date flag: the “Intersex Inclusive Progressive Pride Flag”, something like “Progressive Pride Flag that includes Intersex”. Intersex is the new name for hermaphrodite. In English, you no longer say “Gay Pride”; now it’s just Pride (“Pride”) and it’s the word soup of the time, instead of “gay”. In any case, Jordan Peterson went ahead and pointed out that Pride is now being celebrated, which until yesterday, and for two millennia, was considered a capital sin. Well, here’s the brand new flag:
The little ball would represent the hermaphrodites. The flag can undergo infinite updates, as dwarves, shorts, celiacs are included…
The Progressive Pride is by 2018, created by a certain Daniel Quasar. Its even more inclusive version is by 2021, created by one Valentino Vechietti. This person tells the BBC that she was very proud when the authorities asked her to use the flag in the street decoration. The image of the streets of London covered by the brand new flag came to me through British youtuber Paul Joseph Watson and presenter Matt Walsh. In this video we also see the Pride flags in central London replacing the Great Britain flag. The youtuber also tells us that Pride flags have been hoisted in British public buildings.
Apparently, Pará is not that far from England. Neither does Rio Grande do Sul.
What if this flag were considered electoral propaganda?
When the STF tweeted the colors of the rainbow, there was no shortage of who pointed out the partiality of the Court. And then there was the standard progressive response: pro-gay rights is the only legitimate political option, whether left or right. It’s about civilization or barbarism, and only abominable bolsonaristas, or ignorant evangelicals, would be on the side of barbarism. In fact, civilization only dictates that no one be murdered; the traditional Gay Pride flag brings successful demands that are not always accepted by religious niches. In the last centuries, civilization had consecrated religious freedom, and citizens would have the right to live in the secular space with their own values, without having the right to impose them on religions. But the Supreme Court made a law there that says that “homophobia” (which does not have a precise meaning) must be treated as racism.
That is: in view of the secularity of the State, which implies non-intrusion on religious beliefs, it was even up to the STF to abstain from demonstrations during the celebration of Gay Pride. Still, it can certainly be said that the rainbow flag is unrelated to a party. There are openly gay people voting for all sorts of candidates, and the left, for most of its history, condemned homosexuality as a “bourgeois addiction”.
As for the Progressive Pride flag, things change. of figure. It lives up to its name, as it is much easier for someone to adhere to it because of politics than sexual orientation. No gay or lesbian opposed to gender ideology or racialism is going to adhere to that banner (clearly such gays and lesbians exist. Abigail Shrier, in her book on trans fashion, has already pointed out that lesbians are disappearing from schools: the most men hear that they are a boy trapped in a girl’s body. Gender ideology deserves to be called homophobic, as it castrates homosexuals for not fitting into the stereotype of their sex). On the other hand, any progressive, regardless of their sexual preference, will say that such a flag is equivalent to civilization, and only barbarians are against it.
Precisely for this reason, we can imagine what would happen if some electoral judge decided to ban the use of LGBTQUIABO flags during elections, claiming that they are propaganda. The world would come down. Transsexuals would commit suicide. Gays would be beaten in the street. It would be the umpteenth piece of evidence to corroborate the GGB statistics according to which Brazil is the place in the world that kills most gays. Artists would make an eschatological performance in favor of LGBTQUIABO. Middle-aged globals would show their silicone breasts in protest against patriarchy. Someone would go to the UN to denounce Brazil. Randolfe was going to the Supreme Court to file a lawsuit. In the midst of the generalized racket, a very tangible threat to opponents: going to jail for hate speech or whatever.
No similar riot
It is not at all daring, therefore, to say that it is much calmer to attack the national flag than the progressive flag of the moment. Only the ugly, dirty and poorly washed – that is, those who are used to being cursed by Bolsonaristas, fascists or extremists – complained about the judge’s preparedness. Although they complained about the alleged kidnapping of the flag by the Bolsonaristas, the gang did nothing against the judge’s decision.
Let’s say then that the operation carried out on the streets of London, which consisted of replacing the national flag with the progressive one. The national pavilion no longer enjoys respectability. The progressive pavilion, in turn, enjoys the protection that a sacred object has in a theocracy, and this protection is the result of the judicial activism of non-elected members entrenched in the State.
Actually, the image of London’s streets must not have circulated so widely around the world because it causes much discomfort to anyone who has not been fully indoctrinated by the new secular religion. Those flags of cryptic symbology displayed by the State only have a similar example in the West: that of the Third Reich. Even Fascist Italy did not go that far; his only change to the Italian flag was the removal of the crown over the coat of arms which was in the white stripe. The Nazis, yes, replaced the national flag (yellow, red and black) with a brand new flag (red, white and black) with a symbol that they invented and only they understood. And even then, the Nazis’ color combination was not their invention. Germany alternated between the two color patterns, with the flag immediately preceding the Weimar flag displayed in the same colors as the Nazis. Not even the Nazis dared that much.
At least the Nazis were committed to having the support of their people. This new totalitarian system is new. He has his back to the people and is not accountable to them. Instead, coerce. Perhaps the closest historical precedent for this procedure is communism, which also disdained the people and was internationalist. But this has always been based on a State and a strong Executive: precisely the two things attacked by progressivism, which intends to hand over the attributions of the State to NGOs and to a militant Judiciary those of the other powers.