Virtual Positivist Church
An Appeal
for Fraternity Against Violent, Vindictive Pettiness
Love as principle and order
as basis; progress as goal
Live Openly Order
and Progress Live for Others
There is
no point in mincing words: threats and actual acts of boycotting, dismissal
from employment, failure to provide assistance, refusal of service, and the
provision of inadequate products (including medications and medical treatments)
– all perpetrated by many Brazilians who identify as “right-wing” or conservative
– are unacceptable and must cease immediately.
Since the
evening of October 25, 2026, following the confirmation of Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva's victory and Flávio Nantes Bolsonaro's defeat in the presidential
election, there have been repeated expressions and actual instances of the most
despicable conduct: systematic humiliation, particularly of vulnerable
individuals (children, homeless people, the elderly, and others); children
being run over by vehicles; motorcyclists being struck by police vehicles;
murders and attempted murders through beatings or gunfire; workers being
dismissed; boycotts organized by business owners and service providers;
refusals of service by physicians, nurses, attorneys, and public officials; the
provision of poor-quality services and/or inadequate products; and so forth.
Even animals have not been spared: donkeys and mules have been marked with
numbers and symbols associated with the winning candidate and forced to endure
the cruelest working conditions, sometimes to the point of death. All these
forms of conduct have been advocated or carried out by some Brazilian citizens
against others, as though they were virtuous and justified actions.
However,
far from being acceptable or legitimate, these behaviors constitute the systematic
practice of direct physical violence, moral violence, discrimination, and civic
and professional irresponsibility. All of these behaviors are rightly
considered illegal, and those who advocate or engage in them are already being
reported to the appropriate authorities. Yet these behaviors are, much more
than – and long before being – illegal, profoundly immoral, insofar as they
deliberately harm fellow citizens and other human beings, all for reasons
rooted in pettiness.
The
spread of these proposals and practices, together with the spirit that sustains
them, requires us to speak out clearly. Such behaviors constitute political
violence. Their suppression by state authorities, although necessary, addresses
only the surface of the problem. Since they involve values and ideas, their
solution must necessarily be moral – or, more precisely, religious. This is why
we are issuing the present appeal. (Religion is not the same as theology.
Religion is the systematic integration of the whole of human existence – affective,
intellectual, and practical; private and public; domestic, civic, and
universal; objective and subjective – with a view to achieving the dynamic
harmony of human beings. The foundation of such integration is altruism, or
universal love; in civic terms, this takes the form of human fraternity.)
The
profound immorality of these behaviors is evident not only in the conscious and
morbid intention to harm other human beings as much as possible. Their
immorality is compounded by numerous additional aspects:
-
The
behaviors we criticize consist of retaliatory measures intended to express
dissatisfaction with the outcome of deeply polarized and radicalized elections;
-
Ultimately,
they are futile efforts, since the elections have already ended: the matters
that were to be decided have been decided;
-
They
represent an attempt to impose by force what should be achieved solely through
peaceful and dignified persuasion;
-
They
brutally undermine the foundations of any society, namely fraternity and mutual
trust, by encouraging and practicing systematic hatred, violence, and
resentment;
-
They
reflect precisely the kinds of practices and intentions that conservatives and
those on the “right” fear and attribute to their “left-wing” opponents;
-
They
consist of practices and intentions that conservatives and those on the “right”
would ordinarily consider unacceptable and would readily denounce and
criticize;
-
They
are degrading practices and intentions whose proponents and perpetrators, as
soon as they are criticized, cynically or hypocritically claim that they have
been “misunderstood” or that their statements were “taken out of context,” and
so forth;
-
They
are practices and intentions directed against vulnerable or dependent
individuals, making them particularly petty and brutal forms of conduct;
-
Identical
practices, likewise motivated by resentment and pursued for punitive or
vindictive purposes, are nothing new in history. They were widely employed by
the Nazis and their supporters in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s.
These
practices and intentions are violent and reveal profound moral and intellectual
degradation. Besides being childish, they are the opposite of what their
conservative and “right-wing” proponents ordinarily profess to accept – or, at
least, claim to accept. These behaviors amount to a petty reaction to a
particular electoral outcome. Had the election produced a different result,
those advocating these practices and intentions would demand precisely the
opposite from the defeated side: acceptance, moderation, respect for the
election results, and so forth. Simply because they lost the election, their
proponents consider themselves scandalously entitled to take revenge on the
supporters and voters of the winning candidate.
Elections
are simply not the best mechanism for selecting political leaders. As is well
known, elections constitute a mechanism for undermining authority from below;
moreover, they turn several issues that are qualitative by definition – governing
capacity, the representation of society's interests, public opinion, and so
forth – into purely numerical matters. Nevertheless, despite these serious and
fundamental shortcomings, the selection of governments in Brazil is based on
electoral procedures, whose outcomes, for better or worse, must be accepted.
Such acceptance has nothing to do with whether one likes the results. It
requires only that the procedures administered by the Electoral Court be
followed fairly and honestly. Indeed, acceptance of electoral outcomes is
closely connected to a fundamental characteristic of any society: mutual trust.
Despite
acting openly in the opposite direction, conservatives and those on the “right”
who advocate various forms of petty violence against vulnerable and dependent
individuals need mutual trust just as much as any other citizens. There can be
no society without mutual trust. All the practices and intentions criticized
here destroy that trust. More than that, they destroy fraternity and generosity
while fostering hatred, anger, distrust, and resentment.
The
conservatives and those on the “right” whom we criticize here supposedly
support conservatism and social order, while opposing “progress.” The social
and political practices most conducive to development, freedom, and human
dignity are affirmed in the reflections and teachings of the Religion of
Humanity and synthesized in the proposal of sociocracy. The sociocratic
proposal, in turn, makes clear that genuine conservatism is neither static nor
concerned with restoring the past, just as progress does not mean the
systematic destruction of institutions. Yet, as is well known, the conservatism
that has emerged in Brazil in recent years takes pride in destruction and in
declaring that “before building anything, we must destroy a great deal” – particularly
anything and everything associated with “progress.” Against these destructive
intentions, genuine conservatism maintains that society and its institutions
must continue to exist, both so that citizens can lead their lives and so that
living conditions can improve, particularly for the weakest and most
vulnerable. Genuine conservatism is therefore simultaneously progressive and
opposed to systematic destruction. For such improvements to take place, mutual
trust must be genuinely shared throughout society, on the basis of fraternity.
The
practices and intentions we criticize here reject fraternity, destroy trust,
promote particularistic interests, and prevent any form of progress. Worse
still, despite presenting themselves as “conservative,” they oppose the preservation
of virtually anything. Thus, by systematically opposing “progress,” these
practices and intentions are, in fact, opposed to order itself. The result is
neither order nor progress, but rather widespread violence and anarchy.
Opinions
must be respected. Changes of opinion must always and necessarily occur through
peaceful persuasion alone. Using violence to impose changes of opinion is, at
its core, no different from using the state to impose beliefs. The regrettable
peculiarity of the present case is simply that the violence is being
perpetrated within society itself and takes on a punitive or vindictive
character. There is no doubt that many of the conservatives criticized here
wish to use the state to impose their beliefs, particularly theological ones.
In light of this, we must reaffirm once again: neither state violence nor
societal violence is acceptable; neither violence in general nor violence used
to impose beliefs is acceptable; neither violence used to impose beliefs nor
violence used to punish people for their beliefs is acceptable.
As stated
at the beginning of this document, there is no point in mincing words. We
therefore issue a clear and direct appeal to conservatives and those on the
“right”: they must immediately cease advocating and/or engaging in the
practices criticized here; reconsider their behavior and intentions so as to
respect and uphold genuine conservatism – progressive, fraternal, and peaceful;
and change the intentions and practices of those who support violent and punitive
pettiness. In short, far beyond simply urging them to refrain from illegal – that
is, criminal – conduct, we appeal to conservatives and those on the “right,” in
the light of genuinely religious principles, to put an end to the monstrous
political violence they have been perpetrating and to return to the practice of
fraternal conduct that fosters mutual trust.
Curitiba, 24 Descartes
172 (October 31, 2026).
Priest of Humanity Gustavo Biscaia de Lacerda,
on
behalf of the Virtual Positivist Church
%202.png)
