Presumption of imbecility

The Dobermans attack the defenseless population until they crush it and their masters congratulate them; the fact is repeated again and again, until it becomes predictable and becomes part of the democratic farce.                                                                                           

In some cases, the presumption of innocence translates into the presumption of imbecility, because there are arguments that, to be wielded in good faith, you have to be a perfect imbecile

In some cases, the presumption of innocence translates into the presumption of imbecility (the double meaning of the adjective "innocent" is not accidental), because there are arguments that, in order to wield them in good faith, you have to be a perfect imbecile; and vice versa, in the mouth of a non-imbecile (or an imperfect imbecile) are unmistakable proof of bad faith.

Recently, on a TV3 program about the 1-O, I heard a journalist from a well-known Spanish newspaper and a policeman trying to justify the brutality with which the defenseless population was run over, with such stupid arguments that, one of two, or the journalist and the police were as stupid as their arguments, or they were rogue scoundrels, of those who know that a repeated stupid argument often ends up being taken uncritically by a large section of the public, too busy -or alienated- to stop to reflect (I remember perfectly the names of the journalist and the policeman, but their stupidity - or pettiness - are so widespread that it would be unfair to personalize).

In principle, the presumption of innocence - both that of legal innocence and that of innocence / imbecility - must always be applied; but sometimes it's downright difficult. That a journalist and a policeman do not know what they say, is quite plausible. That they do not know Soraya SS or M Rajoy - and, in general, the politicians of office and benefit - it is hard to believe.

Chesterton said that to be smart enough to get rich, you have to be foolish enough to believe that it's worth it; and the appetite for power and notoriety is no less stupid than the disordered appetite for money. Which means that, in the best of cases, they tend to rule the smartest among the fools (I say "at best" because sometimes they are purely and simply psychopaths). That Zoido is not very intelligent, jumps to the eye and to the ear; but if he has become a minister he can not be as stupid as he seems, and the presumption of innocence / imbecility can not be applied to him without reservation; neither him nor any of his cronies from the most corrupt party in Europe. And not only can not he be so stupid as to believe what he says when he tries to justify police brutality: he can not even be foolish enough to believe that his flagrant lies can deceive anyone in his right mind. What, then, does his grotesque performance follow? The answer is as simple as worrying:

What could be called the Goebbels phase of political falsehood ("A lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth") is overcome; now we are in the Berlusconi phase (or Berlusconi-Trump, not to ignore the contributions of the Yankee psychopath), whose motto could be: "A repeated savagery a thousand times becomes normal". And in a society in which normopathy is endemic, the normal is, by definition, acceptable.

"The leopards break into the temple and drink from the sacred chalices until they are empty. The fact is repeated again and again, until it becomes predictable and becomes part of the ceremony, "says Kafka.

The Dobermans attack the defenseless population until they crush it and their masters congratulate them; the fact is repeated again and again, until it becomes predictable and becomes part of the democratic farce.