Brazil's right wing government moves to attack indigenous constitutional rights

Discussion in 'Central & South America' started by EarthSky, Apr 13, 2019.

  1. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The rise in desperate refugees escaping wars and poverty would seem to me to be the real issue with border control. At least that is my opinion though I do appreciate someone from Europe's opinion on the subject as you are much closer to it than I am. Security control of the border is such a huge issue now because of the refugee crisis's that our own policies of intervention in regions such as the ME and Latin American have created. Wars in Syria and Iraq have directly led to the humanitarian conditions that send refugees into Europe.

    I agree that democracy is under threat from all quarters and it may take a revolutionary force or people's movement to restore democracy that serves people before it parishes.

    Lol, I am pretty fatalistic too. I think you are quite correct that we are at the end of something. There are dark clouds and storm fronts circling all around our global civilization and the only leadership we can come up with at this critical moment in history are the likes of the Trump's, Bolsonaro's and Dutertes of the world.

    The true left has been utterly unable to oppose the rise of proto-fascist movements and leaders around the world. That does not bode well for the future. I completely agree that the conservative, libertarian, progressive model is irrelevant now and just propagates the decisive "us vs them" vitriol that divides people and distracts from what is really happening right under our noses - the death of democracy and the old international order.
     
  2. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    lol, What pathetic garbage. You say you are not talking to me anymore but you can't stop. It is like you are coming unhinged on this thread before everyone's eyes ranting and raving, swearing and insulting people - and not just me either. You come off as quite emotionally unbalanced even for the trolls who hang around this forum sometimes.
    Are you mentally unstable or just unable to control your anti-social behavior? Either way the name-calling, personal attacks and deflections just roll off my back. These are classic signs of little keyboard trolls who can't win an argument on merit. You're desperate need of attention will not be satisfied with this behavior I think as no one takes little keyboard trolls very seriously.
    It was a typo. In fact, in the very same post where you attempted to slander my intelligence by saying I had misspelled his name, you did exactly the same thing calling him "sa Silva," dummy. Go have a look. :roflol:You saved it right in your post by stupidly quoting your own nonsense. So what, does that mean you think he is Chinese or something? You are acting ridiculous. Everyone makes typos. Only little keyboard trolls try to make a big deal out of it. And if you are going to throw those kinds of misrepresentations and insults around you should at least try to make sure you are not doing the exactly the same thing yourself. In fact, I could go through your posts on this thread and correct all kinds of spelling, grammatical and logical errors as well as all the nonsensical paragraphs that don't make sense whatever - but why would I waste the time on someone with your lack of acumen or character.
    You are so desperate to try and deflect with personal insults that you use the same idiotic bullet point twice to make the same stupid misrepresentation of my character. I've been to Brazil. Of course I know the language is not Spanish.
    What are you talking about. His words and actions since becoming president are clear as I stated in the op. Why are you trying so hard to defend him? Here is the reality as is part of the public record:

    "Bolsonaro’s hate speech supercharges a public discourse in which incitement to racial hatred is taken as a green light to kill with impunity. At least 110 indigenous people were assassinated in Brazil in 2017 and there are already indicators that these murders will rise. On the day of the elections, an attack by gunmen on a Guarani community left 15 people injured, including a nine-year-old child. In an extraordinary and disturbing threat, filmed recently in Congress itself, Bolsonaro told the tribes of Roraima state what he planned to do in Raposa Serra do Sol, a large indigenous territory recognised in 2005 after years of bitter conflict with cattle ranchers: “We are going to rip up Raposa Serra do Sol and give guns to all the ranchers…”

    The extent to which Bolsonaro will be able to tear up the Indians’ constitutional rights remains to be seen, but it’s clear that what is at stake is the soul of Brazil, the future of the Amazon rainforest – and the extraordinary human diversity represented by its 305 distinct tribes. Brazil has shown that where indigenous peoples’ land is properly protected they not only thrive, but so do some of the planet’s most diverse and endangered eco-systems, from the Amazon and Atlantic rainforests to the savannas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/comment...onaro-brazil-indigenous-tribes-mining-logging


    Bolsonaro is threatening and inciting racial violence against the indigenous population. Despite all your insults, name-calling and ignorance towards other posters, there is just no way to get around that this is a man you are openly defending and whose policies you support as posited by your comments glorifying violence against supposed "Marxists" and others in posts you made up thread. You can deny this but your comments are right there for people to see on your incoherent, ranting, faux obscenity laced, raving posts on this thread.
    So what? So "sa Silva" made an anti-white comment once. We whites have been dominating the planet and it's resources for so long that we shouldn't get all butt hurt and play victim when someone points it out. Big friggin deal. Did he call for extermination of white's land rights or violence against whites? That is what your boy is calling for and what you are supporting so get over it. Even with his record on corruption, if not in jail he would have won in a landslide because he is way more popular that the dictator in waiting you are supporting and his threats against natives and environmental groups.

    So he said something hurtful about whites. Waahhhhhhhh. Big deal. Deal with it ya little snowflake.
    You can't even write a coherent sentence and then you insult other people on their intelligence? You don't even make sense and you a re trying to make the same point over and over. I know the history of Brazil since the dictatorships that ended in the eighties but what does 2009 have to do with Bolsonaro's threats of violence against indigenous people today?

    No, I think it is just another pimply little right-wing, sewer-dwelling troll who thinks insulting people from the safety of mommies basement is the highlight of his pathetic little life. I have no reason why you are so strongly advocating for a leader who is inciting violence against his indigenous population and tearing up the constitution of his country in order to give international corporations free reign to plunder the native population's resources. Who knows what motivates pathetic little rants like the one you are on. Do you really love murderous right-wing thugs with dictatorial tendencies or do you have some other reason for trolling this thread. Anyway, not my problem.
    Pathetic little trolls don't insult me and ad hominems and personal attacks roll off my back. And I never said I was Brazilian. Another of your desperate little attempts to misrepresent my character because you cannot support a logical argument or write a coherent sentence.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
  3. Glücksritter

    Glücksritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83
    All this from the cry-baby who cries "ad hominem" when confronted with the fact that his comments here are incredible dumb. This is rich.


    It's impossible to slander it. At least to slander it in the manner that would give a decent description.

    Spare yourself the embarrassment to pretend to be a Chinese expert.

    Yeah, you know, when someone presents his lack of knowledge of a certain subject and even his inability to read/understand a normal article and his typo suggests that he cannot distinguish between Mexico and Brazil, that gives you an impression to which kind of guy you are talking to or in this case writing to.

    Oh excuse me, I normally assume to be talking to someone with an IQ beyond room temperature. For you I will repeat it for the third time.
    I gave you an article with Lula's quote you did not understand. After explaining it to you again that this was the refutation to your bullshit that the PT made no anti-White propaganda you had stated that I took it out of context and this quote would have been in the light of the danger of Bolsonaro taking over power. I began to appreciate that you are too foolish to see the article was from 2009, that it was referring to the global economic crisis and Bolsonaro wasn't even a topic in 2009 (after him Dilma Rousseff took over, after Rousseff Temer, before Bolsonaro became a promising candidate) and explained it to you again. Nevertheless you still cannot see the problem as you simply dont know what you are talking about here, even in the slightest.



    Oh really, a far-left newspaper like the Guardian does write that? Well, then this must be true, because Jessica Valenti, Laurie Penny or other vagina-monologue-experts are indeed so qualified to judge Bolsonaro. Lol.

    The only reality that counts was the one I wrote above, he was voted by a vast majority of the Brazilian voters, including the very same ethnic minorities Lula wanted to set up against the White population. So, you see, those guardian feminists can go and **** themselves.


    As said above the trial to point out that respecting the voter's choice in the Brazil elections does not mean glorifying the resulting politics in any case is senseless due to your obvious obtuseness, I will not explain that again. I dont care what you blame me for. The majority of the Brazilian voters obviously think that they are beyond the point to put PT-fat-cats in line peacefully, as I wrote I dont judge them for it.


    As you obviously have no idea of Brazil politics, I should give you the fun fact that Lula is obviously of Europan heritage himself and part of the White population. He did not want to take responsibility for his own economic problem, but give the Black Brazilians a scapegoat for the misery, the White man. He played the Charles Manson card "Blacks, stand up against the White man, but let me be your leader". Really amusing as the Black Brazilians haven't been simple-minded as he thought them to be, a majority saw through the propaganda of the PT on the long run and voted for Bolsonaro. I hope Laurie Penny's juices are not getting bitter over it.

    So from a certain perspective it is true, they replaced at least one White man. Lula da Silva! I hope he will not die like a snowflake in the case a Black prison gang hacks him into pieces limb by limb. The PT lost the votes mainly due to his stubbornness to be the candidate although he was facing a trial which he simply declared illegal. The crushing defeat is even more to blame on him than on Hadad himself as Lula even more symbolizes even more a PT-member who sees himself beyond the law. And the whole PT was unable to see that this was the major factor for the outrage.


    I explained the context to you above again for the third time as you are a little bit slow. Read it very slowly and maybe you will see the context. Ah, about the incoherent sentence ... maybe you should make yourself familiar with the concept of a bullet item.



    Yes, common, more of this stuff, it makes your embarrassing "ad hominem" crying really credible.
     
  4. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just an unhinged rant seething with hate and even mysogeny. You seem to be a very emotionally unhealthy person.

    This thread was not about "sa Silva" and his supposed anti-white comments. Who cares. If he wasn"t in jail he still would have won because he is more popular.

    This thread is about Bolsonaro's inciting violence against indigenous people and the very real attacks on them that followed and his threats to overturn by force constitutionally pretected land rights issues which you have spent trying to deflect with diversions about supposed anti-white propaganda that no one cares about.

    sa Silva is still more widely popular and would have won if not in jail.

    All the insults and diversions are just you deflecting from the fact that you are supporting a man who openly threatens violence and hatred against minorities, praises past dictatorships and is acting in violation of the country's constitutionally protected lands.

    You have been unable to address any of this hence the ad hominems and insults which you started.

    I am hardly crying over it. I could care less what you think. I am trying to point out how ineffective and unhinged all the ranting and raving is. You've even gone so low as to try and discredit sources with mysogeny. This is stooping pretty low, right.


    Now can you answer the question of why you are so strongly supporting someone who is inciting violence and even murder against indigenous people in a country that has seen attacks rising since he took office? Can you explain why you support someone who is openly defying the country's constitution and is allowing the country's wealth in some of the most environmentally sensative lands left on the planet to be stolen for the short-term profit of foreign corporations?

    I get that for whatever reason you are just here to derail the thread but stop with the deflections and personal attacks and just answer the question.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
  5. Glücksritter

    Glücksritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83


    I wont repeat myself again and again when a mentally disabled person is not satisfied that he/she is unable to understand it and asks me again and again. If there is a connex to the average "Guardian" reader? It's all written above in this thread.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
  6. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Simple solution, Capitalism, and it’s separation of state and the economy.

    Of course, the evil capitalists, if they wanted, could stop being evil and refuse to think, and leave the inventing, marketing, manufacturing, producing, and the creation of wealth, to the primitives, to the unenlightened, to the uneducated, to the irresponsible, to the common folk. In other words, they could do like Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged, they could just shrug and leave it all to the masses. Then let’s see if those who can’t change a faucet washer can somehow manage to run a car wash, let alone a major retail business. That be impressive.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
  7. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most flee poverty rather than wars. I doesn't deny that many of them live in dire situations, but I would be to close europe, simply because I live in a country where ethnic tensions grow and immigration is just more oil on fire. I think we have to be clear. Nowodays position of Europe is "we don't accept you, but if you come on a poor boat and take many risks, you would may be accepted. There is a refugee crisis because of the ambivalence of European governments.

    You misunderstood me. I speak of a revolution as "radical changement of paradigm" not as inserruction. French revolution was a huge civil war, caused the rise to power of a tyran which was also a tactical genius. An inserruction won't change a lot of things.

    There is something which mesmerize me about the end of the ancient regime, the pre revolution french society, they were trying to reform themselves and were unable to change. I suppose because the force of their own habits was stronger that their awareness of the necessity of change.

    I don't know what the true left is. In fact, I think that the opposition between right and left and the division of society between two big clans is one of the reasons democracies are failing. It's not the left or the right for me which are wrong, it's that division of society which is.
     
    EarthSky likes this.
  8. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very elitist comment - I would expect nothing less:fishing: The irony being someone from the masses would have far more ability to change a faucet washer than some Yale business grad who has servants putting air in his bicycle tires or cleaning up his tinker toys from the time he was born. But lets explore.........

    Or the capitalists could realize that they have no more inherent rights to anything than any other person on the planet has. They depend on a stable social structure and access to land, labour, capital and resources that anybody has the same rights to and are only theirs because of government regulation and policy which they rely on. Or I should say they rely on at the same time they are decrying that very stability, regulation and policy and refusing to pay for it. Inotherwords, you need an army and police to protect your supposed superior rights to these things or else everyone being equal would want exactly the same thing.

    Or the capitalists could finally begin to understand the inherent hypocrisy and contradiction of the system they worship uncritically by realizing simple truths such as they rely on a system that requires constant excess production and consumption for continued growth at the same time that they are pushing down wages and imposing austerity that means consumers have less money to buy the crap they produce.

    At any rate, much of the wealth is inherited within families anyway. 42 families own more wealth that the bottom half combined. If they are just passing that wealth down, how does it lead to "inventing, manufacturing, producing"......In fact, in doubt the capitalist class really innovates or produces much at all. They invest and exploit the production and innovation of others.

    If it is true that inherited wealth is the natural right of intelligent elites who create and innovate, how do you explain Donald Jr.......among many others. Is that your example of Atlas?

    It is true that the very wealthy can send their children to the best ivy league schools such as Yale or Harvard but these rarely produce people who invent, manufacture or produce. Mostly they produce a class of managers who create worthless derivatives of real economic growth and inflate markets through speculation and often outright fraud.

    These are the truths that people like Milt Friedman and Alan Greenspan don't cover in their Chicago school warbelings about supply side, trickle down and sole focus on making money:
    "
    Friedman’s article was ferocious. Any business executives who pursued a goal other than making money were, he said, “unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” They were guilty of “analytical looseness and lack of rigor.” They had even turned themselves into “unelected government officials” who were illegally taxing employers and customers.

    How did the Nobel-prize winner arrive at these conclusions? It’s curious that a paper which accuses others of “analytical looseness and lack of rigor” assumes its conclusion before it begins. “In a free-enterprise, private-property system,” the article states flatly at the outset as an obvious truth requiring no justification or proof, “a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business,” namely the shareholders.
    Underneath impenetrable jargon and abstruse mathematics is the reality that whole intellectual edifice of the famous article rests on the same false assumption as Professor Friedman’s article, namely, that an organization is a legal fiction which doesn’t exist and that the organization’s money is owned by the stockholders.

    Even better for executives, the article proposed that, to ensure that the firms would focus solely on making money for the shareholders, firms should turn the executives into major shareholders, by affording them generous compensation in the form of stock. In this way, the alleged tendency of executives to feather their own nests would be mobilized in the interests of the shareholders.

    But the conceptual sleight of hand doesn’t stop there. The article goes on: “Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money.” One moment ago, the organization’s money was the stockholder’s money. But suddenly in this phantasmagorical world, the organization’s money has become the customer’s money. With another wave of Professor Friedman’s conceptual wand, the customers have acquired a notional “right” to a product at a certain price and any money over and above that price has magically become “theirs”.

    But even then the intellectual fantasy isn’t finished. The article continued: “Insofar as [the executives’] actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.” Now suddenly, the organization’s money has become, not the stockholder’s money or the customers’ money, but the employees' money.

    Is the money the stockholders’, the customers' or the employees’? Apparently, it can be any of those possibilities, depending on which argument the article is trying to make. In Professor Friedman’s wondrous world, the money is anyone’s except that of the real legal owner of the money: the organization.

    One might think that intellectual nonsense of this sort would have been quickly spotted and denounced as absurd."


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...ds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/#6923bf1d870e

    But of course lunatic, absurd ideas such as those proposed by Friedman and digested by bedazzled Libertarians all over the corporate class come from people who were probably reading claptrap like Ayn Rand when they should have been fact-checking their own unsupportable thesis papers.
     
    scarlet witch likes this.
  9. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :DAnd there it is. That interesting point in an argument when they can't answer a simple question logically. Not that this has been much of an argument - more of a troll shoot.

    I wonder if disturbing your mental instability was the right thing. On the other hand you were the one who started with the personal attacks and maybe exposing your hatred and misogyny with be beneficial for you in the long run.

    At any rate, not my problem.

    If you are going still unable to follow through on your stated course to not talk to me again, the question still stands:

     
  10. scarlet witch

    scarlet witch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    11,951
    Likes Received:
    7,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Great post as usual EarthSky... I just wanted to point to something you said I think also relate to the high rate of immigration in western countries. The reason why governments are bringing in so many migrants are related to GDP... more people to buy more crap... increase production and lower wages. Those already living in these countries saw little growth in wages. They have seen huge growth in asset prices however many have had to go into enormous amounts of debt just to afford housing... the side effect of capitalism no one talks about.
     
    EarthSky likes this.
  11. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hi SW,

    Thanks for saying something nice about my post - refreshing, lol.

    I think there is some truth to that idea. If consumers just don't have the money to buy stuff the whole system grinds down. This has been proven over and over again yet the austerity model still stands.

    I so think new migrants and new consumers do stimulate the economy and take jobs that westerners won't do. Even if the government is supporting them at the start, they are still stimulating economic growth because those people buy goods and services with the money and that stimulates GDP as you pointed out. I hear story after story in my country of immigrants and refugees working hard to build their way out of poverty and then becoming valuable, producing members of an multi-cultural society here in Canada - and then really being patriotic about living here. There are exceptions of course but in general......these are the stories I hear.

    IMO, since 2008 the global economy has been running on debt and cheap consumer goods from China and other developing nations. This is not going to be sustainable as China's economy is struggling (not helped at all by idiotic trade policies such as tariffs)

    So I think the capitalist system still has the same inherent structural weakness it did in 2008 only this time the debt capacity is running out.

    They are struggling to come up with ways to economic growth happening at the same time you have a terribly disruptive regime in Washington and the rise of similar regimes in the developing world such as Brazil.

    So immigration may be a factor in bringing in new consumers as you point out.

    I tend to go with the theory that immigrants and refugees are fleeing global instability reaching crisis proportions as well.
     
    scarlet witch likes this.
  12. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting post. I'll try to get back to this when I get a little time...:)

    So are you talking about growing inequality around the world as well as the political divide in society between left and right?
     
  13. Glücksritter

    Glücksritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I did answer that question already several times, EarthSky, I will not repeat myself dozens of times because you wont understand ist. You can read the answers already written above.

    Lol, I dont take Guardian reporters serious, they neither have the intelligence nor are they qualified to judge the decision of the Brazilian voters. You show the typical reflex of Guardian readers when someone doesn't take their load of rubbish, it must be misogyny. It's a pitty Ivan Pavlov had no Guardian readers for his research and had to rely on dogs instead.



    Go and read again whats written above.
     
  14. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well at least this much is true, good men like to make money; bad men like to steal it, by the gun or by the vote.

    What's the difference between a primitive mind and civilized mind? The civilized mind realizes wealth must be created to be enjoyed, the primitive mind believes its magic stuff needed to stave off the fears of the moment. Which one are you?
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2019
  15. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah... run native Americans off their land so farmers can thieve it, to produce hamburgers.
    Really. Agriculture hardly makes any money. What a total joke to even think that.

    Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and co didn't make it big handeling cattle or growing a crop.


    The guy is just pleasing some corperation that gave him a lot of money in his campaign.
    It's legalized corruption. And corruption is actually something the guy should be doing something against.


    But I get why right wingers like him.
    He is openly racist, as in doesn't want white people having children with black people.
    He hates gay people, and would slap the gayness out of his own child until he's been cured.
     

Share This Page