For the Right to be Racist, Fascist, Misogynist, and Homophobic

[Melancton]

For the Right to be Racist, Fascist, Misogynist, and Homophobic

By Wagner Hertzog - 12/02/2021

Undoubtedly, the authoritarian escalation of progressive cultural totalitarianism in recent years has been summarily deleterious and harmful to freedom of speech. As expected, with each passing day, progressive authoritarianism continues to expand in an unbridled manner, impairing individual freedom in increasingly deplorable and forceful ways.

With the rise of politically correct tyranny and its invasion into all cultural territories, progressive authoritarianism spread and consolidated its hegemony in certain segments. With the eventual outbreak and expansion of the oppressive and despotic cancel culture — an inevitable offspring of progressive totalitarianism —, everyone expressing opinions, beliefs, or stances not aligned with the trendy university agendas becomes a target.

A few weeks ago, we witnessed the huge repercussion caused by the case involving the professional volleyball player Mauricio Sousa, who was canceled simply for expressing his personal opinion about a comic book character, Jon Kent, the new Superman, who is bisexual. Mauricio Sousa disapproved of the character's sexual behavior, which is an inalienable personal right he has. He is not obligated to like or approve of bisexuality. Like anyone, he has the full right to criticize everything he dislikes. However, merely for expressing his personal opinion, Mauricio Sousa was accused of homophobia and had his contract terminated, being dismissed from Minas Tênis Clube.

Regrettably, Mauricio Sousa was not the first nor will he be the last individual to suffer from the oppressive and authoritarian cancel culture. As a cultural tyranny that is in full ascent and enjoys broad support from the establishment, this new form of colorful and festive cultural totalitarianism is imposing itself in quite forceful ways in virtually all spheres of contemporary society. Its intention is to ostracize all those who do not bow to progressive totalitarianism, criminalizing opinions and beliefs diverging from the cult of post-modern hedonistic libertinism. Hidden behind all this authoritarian activism, what we actually have is a deep hostility towards traditionalist, Christian, and conservative moral standards.

However, it's crucial to understand an imperative issue, which partly explains the conflict here created — all contemporary progressives are offspring of positive law. For this reason, they will never pragmatically and objectively understand concepts such as criminality, property rights, aggression, and freedom of speech from the perspective of natural law, which is manifestly the law in its purest, most correct, ethical, and balanced state.

From the natural law perspective, an opinion is an opinion. Period. And absolutely no one should be imprisoned, canceled, sabotaged, or boycotted for expressing a particular opinion on any subject. Words do not assault anyone, therefore, they could never be considered a crime in themselves. Only objective aggressions, such as theft, kidnapping, fraud, extortion, rape, and similar offenses, which represent a direct threat to the victim's physical integrity, or seek to take possession using violence, should be classified as crimes.

Unfortunately, the snowflake generation — terribly hysterical, egocentric, and sensitive — gets deeply offended and distressed whenever someone defends positions contrary to the progressive religion. For this reason, social justice warriors sincerely believe that the state-daddy should censor all opinions they do not like to hear, as well as create laws to imprison all those who say or write things that displease the activism.

As the snowflake generation was raised to believe that all their personal desires and ideological dispositions should be summarily met by the state-daddy, they embarked on a moral crusade intending to eradicate all things offensive to the progressive ideology; only then they can unleash on Earth their long-dreamed-of hedonistic and egalitarian paradise of unimaginable splendor and happiness.

Due to their intrinsically despotic, authoritarian, and egocentric behavior, it becomes inevitable that progressive militants problematize everything that displeases them.

As useless creatures devoid of real occupation and true purpose in life, being oppressed only in their own imagination, progressive militants need to constantly invent new villains to combat.

From this perspective, it's natural for the activism that absolutely everything existing in the world and not fitting the authoritarian and restrictive rules of the progressive religion is seen as a problem. For the snowflake generation, capitalism is a problem. Fascism is a problem. Private enterprise is a problem. The white, traditionalist, conservative, heterosexual man is a problem. Inequality is a problem. Freedom is a problem. Monteiro Lobato is a problem (yes, even the renowned icon of Brazilian literature, author — among other titles — of Urupês, was a victim of cancel culture, accused of being racist and eugenicist).

For the left, practically everything is a problem. In the mentality of the progressive activism, everything is a reason for complaint. It was due to this hysterical, histrionic, and childish behavior that the famous conservative-libertarian American

thinker P. J. O’Rourke stated that "leftism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." Which is an absolute and irrefutable truth in all respects.

Indeed, all left-wing philosophies generally are utopian and childish idealizations of a perfect world. Until the world transforms into that colorful and vibrant utopia presented by the standard socialist playbook, militants will continue to aggressively, viscerally, and belligerently complain against everything that exists in the world. Obviously, they won't do anything positive or constructive for the world to transform into the gracious paradise they so desire to see established, but they will continue to shout and vociferate loudly in their incessant search for utopia, marking presence in useless protests or fighting imaginary fascism on social media.

Undoubtedly, we are very close to seeing absurd and stupid laws being implemented, to please the activism of the colorful land of eternal welfare where nothing is scarce and everything falls from the sky. Soon, you will not be able to wear black pants, as they will be considered excessively heterosexual garments. Only yellow or colorful pants will be allowed. You will also have to dye a strand of your hair pink; because preserving your hair in its natural color is too heteronormative on your part, thus being an oppressively too much component of society.

You will also not be able to watch war or action movies, only romantic comedies, because certain genres of movies exalt the violence of patriarchy and this prevents the world from becoming a gracious colorful party of university fraternities anointed by resplendent ponies, infinite hedonism, university loafing, and psychedelic self-gratification, which certainly are indispensable elements for producing paradise on Earth.

We know perfectly well, however, that among the "oppressive" attitudes that progressive activism is most keen to combat, are racism, fascism, misogyny, and homophobia. However, it's crucial to understand that being racist, fascist, misogynistic, or homophobic are not crimes in themselves. In practice, all these elements are just personality traits; and they cannot be simply criminalized because enlightened ideologues and progressive militants do not like them.

Both ethically and from the perspective of natural law, it's easily understandable that these personality traits cannot be criminalized or banned simply because members of an ideology have no appreciation or sympathy for them. Similarly, none of these personality traits represents a danger to society, simply by existing. Surprisingly, even misogyny, racism, fascism, and homophobia deserve their due apology.

But let's analyze each of these topics separately to understand it better.

Racism

When we talk about Japan, we usually do not associate Japanese society with racism. However, it is undeniable that Japanese society can be considered one of the most racist societies in the world. And the truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Approximately 97% of Japan's population is native; only 3% of the population is made up of foreigners (Japan's population is estimated at approximately 126 million people). This makes Japanese society one of the most homogeneous in the world. Japanese authorities notoriously make the selection and application processes difficult for foreigners wishing to become residents. And the majority of Japanese people approve of this decision.

Various commercial establishments such as hotels, bars, and restaurants throughout the country have signs at the entrance that say "Japanese only," and most of these establishments outright refuse to serve or accept foreign customers, no matter how wealthy or well-off they may be.

In the Land of the Rising Sun, the hostility and natural distrust towards foreigners is so great that even individuals born in another country, but who are children of Japanese parents, are not considered fully Japanese citizens.

If these individuals decide to leave their country of origin to settle in Japan — even having legitimate and unquestionable Japanese descent — they will face considerable social discrimination, especially if they do not master the Japanese language flawlessly. This fact shows that discrimination is as inseparable as it is fundamental to Japanese society, and it is so deeply rooted in Japanese culture that it is practically impossible to change or mitigate it for any reason.

The truth is that — when we talk about a country like Japan — no amount of politically correct discourse in the world, nor the most inflamed Western progressive hysteria will ever be able to change, eradicate, or even mitigate the racist component of Japanese culture. And this is due to a question as simple as it is fundamental: discriminating is part of human nature, being both an individual right and a cultural element inherent to many nations of the world. The Japanese have no problem in admitting or institutionalizing their prejudice, precisely because the politically correct ideology does not have in the East the strength and presence it has in the West.

And it is crucial to emphasize that, being of a peaceful nature — that is, not violating or aggressing others — discrimination is a natural recourse of human beings, directly associated with issues such as familiarity and security.

Absolutely no one should be forced to appreciate or integrate with races, ethnicities, people, or tribes that do not convey feelings of security or familiarity. Forced integration is the real crime, and this various European countries — mainly the Scandinavian ones (countries that lead the ranking of submission to politically correct ideology) — learned in the worst possible way.

Forced integration with Islamic immigrants resulted in waves of murder, rape, and unimaginable violence for various civilized European countries, which the politically correct Western press and progressive activism are permanently trying to hide, because they do not want the West to discover how the "humanitarian" agenda of forced integration of Muslim peoples in Old World countries resulted in some of the worst massacres and tragedies in recent European history.

That is, by discriminating against foreigners, the Japanese are merely protecting themselves and fighting to preserve their nation as a cultural, ethnic, and social environment that is safe and familiar to them, thus opposing abrupt, unwanted, and unnatural changes that could compromise the country's social stability.

Discrimination — being of a peaceful nature — is benign, salutary, and undoubtedly helps to maintain the social stability of the community. Any and all forms of forced integration should be vehemently repudiated, for, sooner or later, it will subvert the prevailing social order, and will always be accompanied by deplorable and dramatic results.

To cite the Scandinavian countries again, Sweden is an excellent example of what not to do. Having followed the opposite path of rational discrimination practiced by Japanese society, today's Swedish society — in addition to consistently sinking into the mud of libertinism, decadence, and progressive deterioration — suffers greatly with Muslim immigrants, who have been left virtually free to kill, loot, dismember, and rape whoever they want. Today, they are practically untouchable, since denouncing them, demoralizing them, or accusing them of any crime is a politically incorrect and highly disapproved attitude by the progressive establishment. The Swedish socialist elite never dares to accuse them of any crime, for fear of being classified as xenophobic and intolerant. That is, the misfortune of Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, was not to have offered any resistance to politically correct progressive ideology. Today, they are totally submissive to it.

The example of Japan shows, therefore — beyond any doubt — the ethical and practical importance of discrimination, which is perfectly acceptable and natural, being an inherent tendency of human beings, and therefore intrinsic to certain behaviors, societies, and cultures.

Going even further on this issue, we must understand that indeed we all discriminate, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Discriminating against people is part of human nature, and anyone who refuses to admit this fact is a hypocrite. Women discriminate against men when selecting a partner; they evaluate various criteria, such as height, appearance, social status, financial condition, and charisma. Among their options, they will always choose the most attractive, masculine, and virile man, to the detriment of all the short, bald, needy, fragile, and inhibited ones that may be available. Similarly, men will always prefer young, attractive, and delicate women, over all the middle-aged feminists, overweight, with dyed hair, who are single mothers and socialist activists. The progressive activism itself discriminates against people in a virulent and uncompromising manner, as is evident in the treatment they give to female supporters of Bolsonaro and right-wing Black individuals.

The truth is that — no matter the level of hysteria from the progressive activism — discrimination is inherent to the human condition and an inalienable natural right of everyone. It is an inseparable part of human nature, and anyone can and should exercise this right whenever they wish. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discriminating against people. The real problem is progressive ideology and politically correct authoritarianism, tyrannical movements that do not respect people's right to discriminate.

Fascism

When we talk about fascism, we need to understand that, for the political left, fascism is understood as a concept completely divorced from its original meaning. To a leftist activist, a fascist is anyone who defends positions contrary to progressivism, not necessarily referring to a classical fascist.

However, it is necessary to understand that — like any political ideology — even classical fascism has the right to exist and occupy its rightful place; therefore, fascists should not be arbitrarily censored, despite defending concepts that represent a complete antithesis of everything valuable to enthusiasts of freedom.

In a country like Brazil, where socialists and communists have total freedom to express themselves, defend their ideologies, and even form political parties, it makes absolutely no sense for fascists — and even avowed Nazis — to suffer any type of discrimination. Although socialists and communists feel morally superior to fascists (or to any other political philosophy or school of thought), we know perfectly well that their sense of superiority is the result of a childish university romanticization of their own ideology. History effectively shows that classical socialism and communism caused much more destruction than fascism.

Therefore, if socialists and communists have total freedom to express themselves, there is no reason why fascists should not enjoy that same freedom.

Of course, at this point, we will invariably be confronted by a timely dilemma — the famous paradox of tolerance by Karl Popper. To what extent should a free and tolerant society tolerate intolerance (inherent in totalitarian ideologies)?

Private property laws would solve this in a free society. The most important thing to consider in the current context, however — in defending or criticizing a certain ideology, philosophy, or school of thought — is to understand that, whatever it may be, it has the right to exist. And all the people who defend it have the right to defend it, in the same way that all its detractors have the right to criticize it.

This is a strong reason to never support censorship. On the contrary, we should vehemently and uncompromisingly repudiate all forms of censorship, especially state censorship.

There are two strong reasons for this:

The first is the volatility of censorship (especially state censorship). Official government censorship, once implemented, becomes absolutely uncontrollable. Today, it may be aimed at a group of people whose ideas differ from yours. But tomorrow, it could be aimed precisely at the ideas you defend. It is fundamental, therefore, to understand that state censorship is uncontrollable. From any point of view, it is much more advantageous for there to be a vast plurality of conflicting ideas in society competing among themselves, rather than the state deciding which ideas can be disseminated or not.

Moreover, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists can never expect any kind of sympathy from government authorities. For the state, it would be infinitely more practical and advantageous to criminalize libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism — under the claim that they are dangerous philosophies spread by radical extremists that threaten the democratic rule of law — than fascism or any other ideology centralized in bureaucratic and omnipotent governments. Therefore, defending censorship, especially state censorship, always represents a danger to the individual, who sooner or later may see the official censorship of the system turn against him.

Another reason why libertarians should never defend censorship is because — unlike statists — it is not coherent for defenders of freedom to behave as if the state were their daddy and the government their mommy. We should not outsource our own responsibilities, nor should we behave like infantilized adults. We assume the responsibility to combat all ideologies and philosophies that attack freedom and human beings. We do not seek politicians or bureaucrats to perform this task for us.

Therefore, if you see a fascist being censored on social media or anywhere else, take up their cause. Feel compelled to defend them, show their detractors that they have every right to express themselves, like anyone else. You are under no obligation to agree with them or appreciate the ideas they defend. But to arbitrarily silence anyone is not an agenda that honors freedom.

If you dislike the state, central planning, bureaucracy, taxes, tariffs, collectivist, nationalist, and developmentalist policies, show with coherent and convincing arguments why freedom and the free market are superior to all these concepts. But repudiate censorship with intransigence and acerbity.

Firstly, because you appreciate and defend freedom of expression for all people. And secondly, because you understand perfectly that — if censorship eventually becomes a prevailing state policy among society — it is more likely to first hit defenders of freedom than defenders of the state.

Misogyny

Many elements of male behavior that are today attacked with virulence and considered misogynistic by the progressive movement are actually natural manifestations intrinsic to men, which our grandfathers cultivated throughout their lives without being reprimanded for it. With the rise of feminism, progressivism, and the eventual problematization of the male sex, the militant antagonism of the main leaders of the sexual revolution of the counterculture began to naturally condemn all genuinely masculine attributes, considering them symbols of oppression and social domination.

Despite Brazil being an ultra-progressive liberal society, where the state protects women more than children — after all, every week new laws are implemented granting numerous privileges and benefits to women, to which they would never have the right in a genuinely misogynistic and patriarchal society —, the political left persists in trying to spread the fantasy of male oppression and the myth that we live in a misogynistic and patriarchal society.

As always, reality shows a very different scenario from what is preached by the fantasy land activism. Present-day Brazil is not misogynistic or patriarchal at all. In Brazil, women can vote, can hold positions of power and authority both in the public sphere and in private companies, can run for political offices, can be councilors, deputies, governors, can own their own business, can divorce, can drive, can buy weapons, can wear bikinis on the beaches, can wear extremely short skirts, can watch television programs about sex aimed solely and exclusively at the female audience, can marry other women, can be promiscuous, can consume alcoholic beverages to the point of drunkenness, and can do practically everything they wish. In 21st century Brazil, women are genuinely free to make their own choices in virtually all aspects of their lives. This effectively shows that the so-called oppression of the patriarchy does not exist.

The extreme social liberalism from which women benefit in present-day Brazil — and which we could extend to all contemporary Western society — is sufficient to completely dismantle the feminist fable of the misogynistic, oppressive patriarchal society, which exists solely and exclusively in the ideological fantasy world of the progressive left.

Equally important, it is crucial to understand that no man is obligated to take feminism seriously or consider it a legitimate social and political movement. For a man, being considered misogynistic or even identifying as one should not be a problem. Progressivism and feminism — with their nefarious habit of demonizing men, as well as all elements inherent to male behavior and culture — are the real problem, as they attempt to change men into something they are not nor should be: docile, passive, and submissive creatures, commanded by hostile and unnatural ideologies, which do not respect the hierarchy of an ancient social order and conditions inherent to human nature itself. With their habit of trying to change everything through laws and decrees, feminism and progressivism effectively show that their real objective is to criminalize masculinity.

The truth is that — enjoying a high level of freedoms — there is practically nothing that a 21st-century Brazilian woman cannot do. Additionally, the government gives women such an overwhelming amount of advantages, privileges, and benefits, that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to find valid reasons to complain about life. If the bill that intends to provide a monthly allowance of one thousand two hundred reais to single mothers is approved by the senate, many women who have children will not even need to work to be supported. And many others will seek to get pregnant, to be entitled to receive a monthly allowance from the government until their child reaches adulthood.

What the colorful activism of the fantasy land conveniently ignores — because reality never matches their ideological fairy tale — is that the world in general continues to be much more relentless with men than it is with women. In Brazil, the overwhelming majority of suicides are committed by men, the majority of homicide victims are men, and of every four homeless people, three are men. But it is evident that an ultra-progressive liberal society does not care about men, as it is not influenced by concrete facts or reality. Its goal is simply to meet the dispositions of an ideological agenda, no matter how divorced from reality they are.

The exacerbated level of social freedoms and governmental privileges from which Brazilian women benefit is sufficient to destroy the fanciful fable of the misogynistic, oppressive, and patriarchal society. If Brazilian women are not happy, the blame is definitely not on men. If the vast profusion of freedoms, privileges, and benefits of Western society does not leave them fully satiated and satisfied, they can always change scenery and try a more self-denying and Spartan life in countries like Iran, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. Maybe then they will feel better and more fulfilled?

[Obviously, the passage below was censored by ChatGPT, which refused to do the translation. It also kept warning throughout the text that it was against its guidelines. When questioned, it claimed that it is forbidden to translate texts that criticize sexual orientation and that freedom of speech and conscience on these matters is prohibited by its programming. So, I've translated it from another site, so the way the text is expressed in this part may be slightly different.]

Homophobia

When we talk about homophobia, we enter a category very similar to that of racism: the right to discriminate is totally valid. Absolutely no one should be forced to accept homosexuals or consider homosexuality to be normal. As a Christian, there is not even the vaguest possibility that I will ever accept homosexuality as something natural. Homosexuality qualifies as a serious misconduct and a sin against the Creator.

The Bible strictly forbids immoral sexual conduct, which - in addition to homosexuality - includes adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality, among other equally perfidious forms of degradation.

Below are three biblical passages that strictly forbid homosexual conduct:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22 — New King James Version)

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13 — New International Version)

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 — New International Version)

If you're not religious, you can simply consider the argument of respect for the natural order. The natural order is unconditional and incisive on one issue: the complement of everything that exists is its opposite, not its equal. The complement of day is night, the complement of light is darkness, the complement of water, which is liquid, is earth, which is solid. And as we know, the complement of the male - of his respective species - is the female.

Therefore, the complement of man, the male of the human species, is naturally woman, the female of the human species. A man and a woman can naturally reproduce, because they are a natural biological complement. On the other hand, a man and another man are incapable of reproducing, as are a woman and another woman.

Unfortunately, today's world is far from accepting the natural order as fully established by the mere fact that it exists, since they try to subvert it at any cost, no matter what intellectual juggling they have to do to justify their distorted and unnatural views. The irrepressible debauchery and bestial immorality of the contemporary post-modern world recognizes no limits whatsoever. Anyone who tries to re-establish healthy moral principles is immediately considered a retrograde and repressive villain, and is actively demonized by the militancy of hedonism, lust and unbridled and limitless licentiousness.

Making the case for morality, self-control and self-restraint is definitely not a success in today's global Sodom and Gomorrah. What is successful is laceration, debauchery, promiscuity and empty carnal pleasures. The famous French writer and philosopher Albert Camus expressed a blunt truth when he said: "A single phrase will suffice to define modern man - he fornicated and read newspapers".

Any individual has the inalienable right to actively discriminate against homosexuals, by whatever right they deem most pertinent in their case. Conscientious objection in any situation is a natural right of individuals. A few years ago, a case that took place in the United States gained enormous international repercussions, when confectioner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for homosexual "couple" Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

A civil rights office in the state of Colorado opened an investigation against the pastry chef, claiming that he should be obliged to serve all customers, regardless of sexual orientation, race or creed. Pay attention to the words used - he should be obliged to serve.

As he bravely refused to give in, the case invariably ended up before the Supreme Court, which ruled seven to two in favor of Jack Phillips, on the grounds that forcing the pastry chef to serve the homosexual "couple" was a nefarious violation of his religious principles. Fortunately, this was a case in which freedom prevailed over progressive tyranny.

Of course, homosexuals should not be assaulted, offended, admitted to clinics against their will, nor should their freedoms be constrained by the fact that they are homosexuals. What they need to understand is that freedom is a two-way street. They can be free to behave as they wish and do what they want (as long as they don't attack anyone), but at the same time, it is essential to respect and preserve the freedom of others who wish to reject them peacefully, for whatever reason.

After all, no one has the slightest obligation to accept them, serve them or even think that a stable union between two people of the same sex - incapable of generating offspring, and therefore unnatural - should be considered a real marriage. Absolutely no person, idea, movement, belief or ideology enjoys complete unanimity in the world. Why should homosexuality have such a privilege?

Homosexuals are not the bearers of a definitive, absolute and indisputable truth that is above humanity. They are ordinary human beings who - at best - lead a lifestyle that can be considered "alternative", and absolutely no one has an obligation to consider this lifestyle normal or acceptable. People's only obligation is not to interfere, and that doesn't imply an obligation to accept.

Discriminating against homosexuals (as well as people from any other group, race, religion, nationality or ethnicity) is a natural right on the part of all those who wish to exercise this right. And neither positive law nor progressive militancy will ever be able to change or subvert this. The natural right and inherent inclination of human beings to fulfill their own dispositions is simply immutable and part of their set of needs.

Conclusion

Progressive militancy is absurdly authoritarian, and all its strategies and ideological dispositions show that it is in a permanent war against the natural order, against freedom and especially against the white, Christian, conservative and traditionalist man - possibly what it hates and despises the most.

We cannot, however, give in or make room for the progressive agenda, nor can we think of considering as normal all the abusive and tyrannical agendas that militancy wants to establish as perfectly reasonable and acceptable, whether society accepts it or not. After all, as we give in, tyrannical and totalitarian progressivism tends to gain more and more ground.

The more space progressivism gains, the more freedom is eroded and the more momentum totalitarianism gains. As a result, the culture of cancellation will wipe out careers, professions and the livelihoods of many people, simply because they disagree with fashionable university agendas.

History shows perfectly well that the more freedom a society has, the more progress it makes. On the other hand, the more authoritarian it is, the more setbacks it will suffer. Authoritarianism is fought with freedom, challenging the agendas of all those who persist in implementing tyranny in society. Political correctness is the Nazism of customs, which aims to subvert morality through a culture of despotic and authoritarian police surveillance, so that the whole of society is subjugated by the totalitarian progressive agenda.

As for us, we need to keep fighting the good fight in the name of freedom. And that includes recognizing that ideologies, habits and customs we don't like have a right to exist and even to be defended.

From where I got the text: Pelo direito de ser racista, fascista, machista e homofóbico!
In the original link you'll see that the text was censored by the state. Thus proving, in a practical way, everything that the text explained.

Here in this forum, the text will always be available because we value freedom of expression and conscience. The text here in Portuguese was posted before the censorship and continued to be posted after the state censored it and ordered it to be taken down. Discussion in Portuguese: Pelo Direito de Ser Racista, Fascista, Machista e Homofóbico (em Português)