Eron.

This week, I got in a little argument on Holocaust21 with a guy named Eron. His rage was justified: I made definition mistakes (for example, I treated men’s rights movement and male sexualism as the same thing) and overall acted like an idiot, I admit. But one thing that made me a little disturbed about Eron’s position was his distrust on democracy. He believes that the correct course of action would be the imposition of our dictatorship and he said that sending my text on statutory rape to congress was a waste of time. At first, I didn’t think his views on the subject were sane, but the course that things took in Brazil made me think otherwise.

Lula had the approval of almost half of my country. He lead several pools, even we weren’t certain about his fate, as he was being prosecuted in five different charges, which could render him unable to participate in elections, which effectively happened. The proofs, or rather, what was show as proof of his crimes didn’t convince me, but a lot of other politicians who commited crimes that were recorded with image and perfect audio didn’t suffer fair consequences, as if they were untouchable. Our current president is the biggest criminal in our territory. So, we can’t really talk about democracy in Brazil, at least not at the moment. What we have is a dictatorship, formed by media, executive power and judiciary power. By the way, those are three forces that often conflict with each other. If a minority can walk on the face of half of the fifth largest country on Earth, then democracy doesn’t exist. Indeed, why did I waste my time sending that text again? A popular dictatorship indeed sounds appealing. But how will we install a dictatorship without weapons? Someone wrote that state must give up on it’s weapons before ordering it’s people to drop theirs. That’s the reason why. If we had material means to rebel, Brasil wouldn’t be the anarchy that it currently is.

That also shows that there are no real laws in Brazil. There’s the law of the strongest, who is often the richest. What is the point of saying that “you must remain law-abiding” when I discuss attraction to minors? What’s the point of saying that you shouldn’t kill, steal or sell illicit drugs? Our politicians are extremely successful criminals! And, if you are law-abiding, that doesn’t keep you from going to jail for a insufficiently proved accusation. I’m not saying that I’m going to break the laws, nor that you should break the laws, but lets face it: in the current scenario, does it even matter anymore if you are law-abiding or not? It’s so obvious, that I’m embarrassed for only giving the issue a sincere reflection after the catastrophe. Eron’s position isn’t lunacy: the current dictatorship that we live, in here, is very effective for those who are in power. But it could be us in there. Imagine that. It doesn’t need to be the army, it doesn’t need to be a military dictatorship, but imagine if it was our dictatorship.

However, I don’t think it’s viable. Like I said, a revolution would be needed and a revolution for tomorrow can not be done without weapons and Brazilian citizens aren’t allowed to have those. The best we can do is to continue talking about it, bringing people to our side, even if it means using the same dirty tricks used against us: doctrination, propaganda, rethorics, publicity. It’s a cynical suggestion. That’s because we are still a capitalistic nation. Unpopular opinions aren’t profitable. Our point of view must be profitable, so that it can be sponsored. That would be a good start. I hope that those who supported the impeachment of Dilma are happy now. Do they regret? I hope they see where their quest for unlimited justice has taken them. I do think that their quest was subject to sabotage.