The hate

For many, the rational, structured and responsible response from the right of the system was not making concrete gains; we had to scream a lot and very loudly. Ventura appeared willing to do anything, in exchange for support and total loyalty.

It is said that any human being under violent and continuous pressure could explode at a certain point. The hatred that took over the political and social scene in the West did not find in the democratic response a sufficient outlet for the flow of outrage in presence.

The current hate policy has been going on for many decades, more specifically, since May 1968. The euphemism found for hate was the famous fracture. Suddenly, a highly militant international movement, founded on different leftist radicalisms, mobilized to impose its so-called fracturing agenda on the world. By fracturing, it was meant, and still is today, to deconstruct and destroy the model of Western society, erecting a new self-policed ​​and uncompromising society under the auspices of what would come to be called politically correct.

The scenarios imagined by Bradburry and Orwell found materialization as fast as it was overwhelming. The hoax has always been a farce of progress and the normalization of repeated abnormality, confusing the new legality with justice, burying ethics with seven well-measured spans of heavy earth.

The basic section of this fracturing international has always included abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption and euthanasia. Later, through the consolidation of the previous ones, he affirmed the dictatorship of the gender ideology. Let us understand, there was never a question of concern for vulnerable women, with the right of everyone to live peacefully with their sexual orientation, with the happiness of children deprived of their families or with dignity in death.

No, what was always at stake was the destruction based on the principle of the inviolability of human life and, consequently, the intrinsic valorization of the individual, and the methodical and corrosive attack on the idea of ​​family. Destroying the idea of ​​an individual with transcendent intrinsic value and of family as the first cell of society, the front of the united radical left would have the free way to impose its social model and forge its new man, an amoral, programmable and obedient being. They went too far and too fast.

The response of traditional social and political forces has always remained within the parameters of democracy, common sense, ethics and reason. The normals, meanwhile transformed into reactionaries, felt that the great differentiating factor was the legitimacy and reasonableness of their positions. They responded to verbal and street terrorism with arguments of reason and substance. They faced destruction by affirming perennial values. They fought violence by insisting on peace. They confronted the lie by invoking the truth. They bet on the plan of ideas and civilizational tradition against the ongoing coup. It can be said that the results of those who were right and did well were, at best, modest.

It is in this modest performance of the good that the window of opportunity for the counter-revolution of hatred appears. This is true in all major political and social crises in history. The pioneer was Jean-Marie Le Pen, who in the past sought the answer to the oppression of the present. It was soon seen that there was a desire for a violent response, but that Pétain and his friends were not enough for the challenges of the present. Racism and xenophobia would be part of the recipe, but much more was needed, and an air of timeliness to the product, that is, in the French case, the appearance of Marine Le Pen. The internationalization of the model, with minor local adjustments, would not be delayed. Today, with money on the move and a well-structured international itinerary, they are at the level of the left that gave birth to them.

Putin, with enviable wit, saw in this populist wave more destructive effectiveness than that of the Soviet military arsenal as a whole. Bannon, with an indomitable vocation for prince of darkness, was Soros' perfect arch-rival. The victories of Orbán, Trump and Bolsonaro did the rest. Everywhere the system replicates itself anchored in an alternative reality, such as the one that fed the fractured lefts.

The sect's narrative dispenses with the truth and arises only in opposition to the different. Marxism acted blindly out of hatred for the exploiter, populism moves out of hatred for the politically correct oppressor. It was Hillary who put Trump there, it was Lula and Dilma who made Bolsonaro inevitable, it was years of communist oppression that made the East the stage for different populisms, it is the passive European calm that allows the advance of both extremes.

Portugal came late to this picture, but it arrived. A small legion of gullible, tired, dissatisfied and very crazy and opportunistic, saw in Ventura a novelty. In the past, Paris fashion arrived in Portugal years later, it was the same with Chega. For many, the rational, structured and responsible response from the right of the system was not making concrete gains; we had to scream a lot and loudly. It was necessary to hatch, descend to the same level and wallow in the same mud.

Ventura appeared willing to do anything, in exchange for support and total loyalty. The sect advanced, with a strong mystical inducement, various desertions and all kinds of disinherited society. Ventura says he is possessed by the spirit of the greatest that he betrays, inspired by the faith that betrays in each sentence and a saving visionary anchored in a neo-messianism in the style of Loures.

The Évora convention was the revelation of what this montage is worth, a buff opera in an apocalyptic succession of schizophrenic events. Ventura is said to have promised worlds and funds in return for militancy, but only a few took place in the leadership; and that's what we saw. The faithful forgot that in the next sect the sky is also promised in exchange for tithing, but the sky does not mean flying in Bishop Macedo's private jet. Lessons from life and unwanted reality.

In the end, it remains for us to think what we really want. The path to reality, the meeting at the center where commitments are promoted, the price to be paid for democracy, the permanent serious dialectical tension, will never be of immediate satisfaction, but rather a path of sustainability and possible harmony. Breaking all this may be a relief, but it pays a lot more.

The author writes according to the old spelling.

Recommended

Incongruities and failures

I see myself in Mariana Mazzucato. The entrepreneurial State is not “the public sector in combat with the private sector, but a State with a catalytic effect and engine of economic development, based on innovation”.

2020: lost by a hundred, lost by a thousand

In these years, what could be the temptation of managers? If the year is lost and it is, if we are going to have such bad results already, then why not show even worse?

The fossil budget

This is the State Budget that clings to the hope that, when confinement ends, the system is still more or less intact.
Comments