Insight: Brazil A Testing Ground For The NWO?
Government is likely acting in concert with globalists, risking constitutional rights
Top judge bans journalists and politicians from social networks.
Repression may exceed that under Bolsonaro — a dictatorship to stop populism.
Hints that technocrats, rather than Lula da Silva, are running the country.
Lula’s campaign platform was vague; is the ageing politician just a vehicle?
Previous adminstrations toyed with basic income in a period of greater properity.
Facing recession, Lula’s earlier policies would hit the same cold reality as Venezuela.
Lula’s environmental record is questionable, depite Western media propaganda.
His Belo Monte dam has been called “the greatest ‘natural’ disaster of our generation.”
So why the adulation of precisely the type of Leftist the Uniparty USA used to “coup”?
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN hum like crickets.
There is something we’re not being told — and it’s up to us to work it out.
The extent of court-led repression will make Brazil a tough nut to crack.
Brazil series:
Jabbed At Gunpoint: Tropical Mémoire - Jim Jones was a CIA red flag: was it a dress rehearsal? (Nov 05, 2021)
Judicial Overreach Mars Brazil's Election - Separation of powers has become a political plaything (Jan 11, 2023)
Brazil A Testing Ground For The NWO? - Government is likely acting in concert with globalists, risking constitutional rights (Jan 14, 2023)
Brazil's Free Speech Garrotte A Globalist Plot (Apr 11, 2024)
Telegram Arrest & Pre-War Censorship - Suppression hides sins (Aug 29, 2024)
Brazil Bans X; Politicians Fall In Line - Censorship goes live worldwide (Aug 31, 2024)
(About 3,000 words or 15 minutes of your time.)
Jan 14, 2023
Prologue
Children and bicycles weaving the signature black and white cobblestone sidewalks in the equatorial sun. Volkswagen Beetles parked impossibly close; the handbreak loose as a courtesy: the last in the line playing dice with the junction.
Early lunch on Ipanema, a block from our house on R. Barão de Jaguaripe. Lugging a caçarola of feijoada and juggling the hope of a mountainous weekend.
Until 1969 — when MR-8 revolutionaries seized the U.S. ambassador. The toll of military dictatorship, then five years long, hit home in rebellion and repression.
It hadn’t til then hurt the privileged, who did not face exile and heard little of torture. Yet imprisoned, we too were locked down. The limitless range of childhood’s expanse shriveled under a malevolent sun. When not in school we were limited to exercise in a courtyard walled with rubber plants, the bald-faced, green uniformed ranks of blank-staring sentinels, bleeding their white sap in slow death of interminable boredom.
That’s what dictatorship looks like, as others who have lived under it will attest: for much of the time it is dreary compliance, lifeless obeisance, like the self-conscious walk of a man who feels the eyes of the soldier trained on his back.
The author’s father was a British diplomat in the late-1960s while the diplomatic corps was still stationed in Rio de Janeiro.
Preface
The usual tendency would be to wait and observe: things have a way of resolving themselves. However we have just been through three years of “two weeks to flatten the curve.” To assume that officials will overreach is the new normal.
Had we refused to comply, back in mid-2020, would things today be easier?
If the British had not clapped like seals while the National Health Service was being dismantled, we might not be contending with historic waiting lists and strikes.
Fellow Canadians might have thrown full weight behind the truckers instead of listening to journalists and politicians spin yarns about right-wing spectres.
American cousins facing traitorous governors perhaps should have stood their ground instead of fleeing to more commodious states.
In France, in the Netherlands, in Sri Lanka, and now in Brazil, they fight, because they have nowhere else to go.
As of Jan 13, more than 1,150 people had been taken to detention centres for the “terrorism” of questioning the election result. Images have gone viral, including the deaths of individuals reportedly held in camps without water.
Brazil is operating in secret: the gagged rarely know the order against them. The deadening hand of corporations in league with govenment perpetuates: censors hide their censorship.
Even Tweets showing largely peaceful protests are now being censored.
Brazil’s judiciary is preparing to extradite the ruling party’s critics from abroad. As we’ve seen in the U.S., billionaire capture of the judiciary is a reality, whether it is George Soros bankrolling district attorneys or the use of judiciary to set policy — notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning last year of federal abortion laws.
There are growing signs that the clampdown in Brazil is a dry run for the globalists’ new order — whether defined by Agenda 2030, The Great Reset, Build Back Better or the New Normal.
Polish-American journalist Matthew Tyrmand says president Lula da Silva is not the architect of this clampdown. The head technocrat is one of Brazil’s top judges, Alexandre de Moraes.
He has rapidly evolved into Brazil’s version of Maximilien de Robespierre, the vanguard of the French Revolution. Lest you think this an exaggeration, listen to Glenn Greenwald linked below.
Greenwald, who helped arrange candidate Lula da Silva’s release from prison in 2021, and who is no admirer of Bolsonaro, is now concerned. The American journalist who lives in Rio de Janiero says all social media platforms, inside and outside the country, have been ordered to remove particular politicians and journalists.
De Moraes is acting as a one-man censorship regime: judge, jury and executioner who arrests anyone who dares criticize the election or his person.
As elections chief he was empowered to order any social media content be removed within two hours. De Moraes, who is also a Supreme Court justice, not only retains those powers, he’s using them ferociously.
He has arrested members of Congress, individuals have fled into exile, and he has issued secret orders directed at six social media companies: Facebook, Rumble, Telegram, Tiktok, Twitter and YouTube. The judge has also forbidden protestors to block highways and obstruct public buildings.
The Left, in Brazil and abroad, cheers on a judge whom they not long ago despised for prosecuting former leftist president Dilma Rousseff. But now that he’s persecuting those they perceive to be their enemies — he’s their hero.
Yet even The New York Times prints that Brazil’s judicial regime is more authoritarian and repressive than anything under former president Jair Bolsonaro.
Their Brazil correspondent is not the only one who thinks so. Ironically, internet freedom increased under Bolsonaro, according to the report of Freedom House, as estimated for the year to Jun 2021.
The judges, it seems, are willing to risk a dictatorship to stop a populist. One might call it clown world, If it were not so dangerous.
Immediate complianced
Greenwald calls the censorship uniquely threatening, not because it is directed almost exclusively at the right but because there is no telling where it will end.
De Moraes’ order of Jan 13 says:
“the following decision was made, in the judicial action the details of which remain under legal secret, for IMMEDIATE compliance, in the following terms...
“Within the deadline of 2 (TWO) hours proceed with the blocking of the channels/accounts/profiles below listed, under the sanction of a daily fine of one hundred thousand Brazilian Reais (about $20,000) and the provision of the registration data associated with the accounts.”
Note that the order cites no law and nor does it claim the individuals broke any.
One of those censored is Nikolas Ferreira elected to Congress with 1.5 million votes in Minas Gerais — the biggest vote for any congressman. Another is senator-elect Alan Rick. Another, the “Joe Rogan of Brazil,” Monark, a politically-independent defender of free speech. [1]
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the United Nations with its Charter for Indigenous Rights, hum in the background like crickets. Who, one may ask, has bought their complicity?
In 2020 George Soros and his Open Society Foundation launched a $1 billion academic network to “fight dictators and climate change.” At the World Economic Forum in Davos he singled out presidents Jair Bolsonaro and Donald Trump. This included $80,000 to a news startup Mídia Ninja that is opposed to “American capitalism.”
Just before October’s election the director in Latin America of the Open Society Foundations, Pedro Abramovay, told Noticias UOL that the Jair Bolsonaro was similar to populist regimes like that of Venezuela.
The logic of censorship is remorseless. It claims to be temporary, to keep the people safe yet does neither. It is the handmaiden of propaganda and of secrecy. The collusion of establishment institutions will justify any degree of searches and seizure without due process in the name of countering Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.
Seen from outside, the trajectory of politics and civil liberties in Brazil looks like one of a piece with the globalist tendency.
Samba shuffle
If Brazil is playing a role in a globalist project, what might that be?
The journal Brazzil illustrates how media bias infiltrates language: Bolsonaro is “responsible for the storming of Congress,” while Lula’s ministerial team takes office: “a rainbow over the Planalto,” referring to the presidential palace.
Storms and rainbows are the least of Brazil’s problems. It doesn’t take long to spot that most of the media’s reporting on Brazil remains as superficial as electronic samba — it misses the emanation of consciousness from a febrile street shuffle into the syncopated interplay of humanity.
Worse than failing to connect with Brazil, much of the media, even the local, simply disembles.
So what’s the latest?
Lula da Silva’s administration will arrest police, military, officials and public who he says were planning a coup.
Even though, if the Brazilian military planned a coup, it would almost have succeeded. They ruled, after all, for 21 years until 1985.
Those who entered government buildings said they were seized in advance by Spanish-speaking troops, perhaps from Venezuela.
“Hero to millions” — the capitalist, uniparty media celebrates Lula whom they previously despised.
Yet few coups in LatAm went ahead without U.S. backing. For example: 1954, 1964 and 1973. Something has caused Washington to side with the faction that it always opposed. The media is pretending that nothing has changed when, whatever your political fealty, there’s reason to be suspicious.
The U.S. has long opposed leftist governments in LatAm, including the military dictatorship of 1964-1985 against which Lula resisted. He aligned Brazil with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) rather than the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States (OAS).
He sees an future in the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and other emerging markets — who are pursuing a new economic, monetary and trade achitecture independent of the U.S.
The economic needs of Brazil's trading partners are not the only likely source of tension with Lula's international enviromental-globalist fan base.
Environmental mind games
As ever, the media’s narrative of choice is climate change. Lula da Silva is presented as an environmental saviour, slotting neatly into a Guardianista paradigm of goodies and baddies; those given a platform and those deserving of censure.
Yet Lula’s environmental record was marked by the construction of the controversial Belo Monte dam, what many have called “the greatest ‘natural’ disaster of our generation.”
Choking the Xingu river in the north of the state of Pará, it is the fifth-largest hydroelectric complex, just behind the controversial Three Gorges dam. A 50 year-old proposal, environmentalists had repeatedly fought it — including international celebrities Sting, James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver.
The damage caused by dams to flora, fauna and indigenous people is well-established and won’t be addressed here, save to note that a 1990 study of the Curuá-Una dam, found that it produced more greenhouse gas than an equivalent oil-burning plant producing the same amount of electricity; and in the more harmful form of methane due to the flooding of forest. [2]
Hail the stakeholders
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.