Insight: Judicial Overreach Mars Brazil's Election
Whatever your politics, separation of powers has become a political plaything
Storming of Brazil's Congress on Jan 8 a replay of Jan 6, with Feds and provocateurs?
Public security chief, police commander fired; military police commander arrested.
Capture of the Supreme Court by politically-motivated judges echoes U.S. DAs.
USA once opposed leftist governments, promoted coups. What’s changed?
There’s too much confusion, said Hendrix — but the sound remains the same.
Military exercises around Taiwan, massive casualties in Ukraine, Mexico etc.
Pope Francis, Schwab and Câmara began closer to fascism than later progressivism.
If Bolsonaro served the corporations, why did they turn on him?
What is the narrative and whose is the real agenda?
(3,700 words or about 17 minutes of your time.)
Jan 11, 2023
When leftists win we, who once called ourselvs liberals, are not supposed to ask awkward questions — just be happy that justice won.
In the case of Brazil, however, it is impossible to ignore the United States’ historic relationship with Latin America.
It is typical of the self-regarding nature of U.S. politics that the media reaction to events in Brazil should be: look, they’re doing the same as us; a defeated populist, an insurrection and an attack on Congress!
But it is not Brazil that has become like the U.S.; it’s that the U.S. is no longer America.
The most obvious evidence is clear to anyone who’s been alive for a fair four decades or more; or who knows their Latin American history. Before we get to that history, consider the prima facie evidence of judicial overreach. It is a strange era in which the courts can declare that any criticism of an election results in a crime; dictate that social media silence voices; fire or arrest public officials.
The U.S. has supported more than a dozen coups in Latin America against leftist governments. It has never, once backed a leftist, regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat sat in the White House. Unless you consider the curious case of Fidel Castro, of whom more below. 
Washington has supported some downright nasty regimes, in Argentina, Chile and Brazil but — whatever side you pick — something has changed. What motivated the U.S. administration and three-letter agencies that traditionally supported right wing governments in Latin America, to swing behind a leftist descendant of Salvador Allende or João Goulart — both of whom it helped oust? The author lived in the Brazil of military dictatorship (1964-85) during its first decade.
If LatAm is seeing a new “pink wave” that began with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Maurice Bishop in Grenada, remember that the U.S. opposed them at every turn.
Yet now the U.S. administration is participating in this pink wave and it’s fair to ask: is it genuine or dissembling; how that happened; and what will it mean for all the Americas.
Ain't democray worth the price?
We can dismiss the usual platitudes of making the world safe for democracy. The U.S. cares nothing for elections in foreign lands — only for the result. Despite its claim to promote democracy, the U.S. is not one itself (See the Princeton study) and it gives more money to authoritarian countries than democratic ones. The U.S. is a corporate-run state and as Larry Fink of BlackRock says, “markets like totalitarian governments.” 
You will scarcely find the answer in the media or academia — and, whether or not you share the cynicism of these pages, the media’s uniformity should give you pause.
The world press reacted with one voice: Asahi Shimbun, “An assault on democracy.” This mind-deadening consensus is the result of infiltration by the intelligence agencies and billionaire-owned foundations like that of Bill and Melinda Gates and the Open Society Foundations of George Soros. 
Yet politics cannot be reduced to the childish levels of jibes about Putin and Russian influence — both Lula da Silva and Jair Bolsonaro regard Russia’s intervention in Ukraine as defensive. Russia for its part has contrasted the U.S. intervention in Ukraine in 2014, when Washington promoted the defeated candidates against the duly elected pro-Russian-president Viktor Yanukovych. The U.S. supported (many say instigated) the coup that followed. 
Separation of powers
When the incoming Brazilian administration accused Bolsonaro supporters of attacking Congress, the opposition on social media lit up with posts accusing authorities of fomenting a Jan 6-style happening in order to justify the arrest of political opponents. Supreme Federal Court justice Alexandre de Moraes took it upon himself to nail people for social media posts questioning the election outcome. Arrests duly followed. 
Today we live in an era of narrowly-won elections. Though we are told the electorate is more polarized then ever strangely we witness no landslides. Is it a sign that elections are manipulated? After all, in a fix you need only pip your opponent to the post.
When the media and courts jump on the side of the victor, are they “fortifying democracy” or providing further evidence of infiltration — and is that the same thing? One cannot say conclusively but look elsewhere for elucidaton.
The dispassionate observer will recognize the format of elections taking place under overt political censorship and judicial bias. It is hard to use the word democracy in the same breath because the idologues who dominate the media, corporatocracy and academia believe in managed outcomes: that the science is settled and there is nothing for a democracy to debate. The only point is to secure the outcome — by any means necessary.
Besides, the World Economic Forum and justice, sustainable development and globalism are not your friends. These euphemistic policies merely accelerate control of the world’s resources.
Brazil is one of the leading food producers. It holds 70 per cent of rare earth minerals used to produce semiconductors and components. It is the fourth- or fifth-largest producer of food but is dependent on Russia for 80 per cent of its fertilizer. It is geographically and politically central.
It is spiritually the anchor of South America, with the power and influence to set the tone for the continent. This may sound more moral and metaphysical that practical but it becomes real enough when the drugs and migrants read the U.S. southern border.
What is this metaphysical inflence? It is a question of a balance of power: the degree to which vague concepts like equity and social justice are allowed to become Trojan horses for sectional interests; or whether LatAm will be allowed to beat its own path between the rival influences of the U.S. and China.
Lula was president from 2003 to 2010 and was later convicted of corruption, before being released by a justice he had appointed. Senior Chinese official Wang Qishan attended Lula’s inauguration ceremony in Brazil. Lula recognized China as market economy at a time when it represented 5 per cent of Brazil's foreign trade — now it is over 30 per cent.
Chinese investments in Brazil approximate $70 billion and are strongest in the power sector and, according to Brazil’s former ambassador to China, Luiz Augusto de Castro Neves, could extend to railways to speed the transport of food and commodities to ports. 
Why should politics interfere with trade; oh, but it does!
The São Paulo Forum of 1990, co-founded by Fidel Castro and Lula, brought together radical parties ranging from those who favour armed force in revolutions to the support of representative democracy. It revived the strategy of the soft and hard left.
Lula’s project according to communist researcher Trevor Loudon was to unite within his Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), the traditional communists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Liberation Theologists and Black activists in one coalition. These work within democracy when possible, and outside it when neccesary, such as Chile’s Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria, or the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or Peru’s Maoist Shining Path.
The model has spread through the northern and southern hemispheres, to the Democratic Socialists of America most notably.
Moneycircus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Yet the Forum’s origin can be traced back to the 1966 Tri-Continenal Conference hosted by Castro in Havana.
The Brazilian press ignored the São Paulo Forum as if it was a conspiracy theory, in the same way that The Great Reset of the World Economic Forum is still often met with a nervous silence. It represents multiple parties within almost 30 countries, and five within Brazil alone.
It also spawned a series of liberation fronts that provided the cover for training intelligence operatives. Joseph Douglass describes, in the book, Red Cocaine, The Drugging of America (1990) a kind of reverse Opium War.
At the same time as Liberation Theology was launched in 1968 at the Second Episcopal Conference of Latin America which conflated communism and Marxist doctrine, Fidel Castro developed a particularly close and long-lasting relationship with the liberation theologian Frei Betto, a Dominican priest from Brazil, who reported that Castro saw religion not just as an opiate but as a stimulant. In 2009 Frei Betto, one of the more influential liberation theologians, would attend the World Economic Forum.
The WEF’s links with Liberation Theology date from the same era, to the 1970s when it was then called the European Management Forum. Co-founder Klaus Schwab met one of the founders of Liberation Theology, Dom Hélder Câmara.
According to the research of William Engdahl, Câmara had been, in the 1930s, an admirer of Mussolini and a cleric associated with the fascist Brazilian Integralist Action. But by the end of the 1940s a man who had once attacked communists was a progressive cheerleader as assistant general of the Brazilian Catholic Action, which praised Castro and upheld the value of Marxist theory as practice, or praxis.
LT espoused what would later become the doctrine of inverted privilege — that God does not just care for the poor but holds the oppressed to be righteous and superior — and thus incapable of wrong, or racism, on a relative scale.
The Church was no longer to be a moral arbiter of justice but an activist; it was no more than a stone’s throw from the communist ideal of heaven on Earth, or in the words of the leading statesman in the persecution of the enemies of the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre: “The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue.”
Schwab says Câmara is one of his leading influences, along with Heinz Kissinger.
As mentioned in the Sep 2022 newsletters of Moneycircus, on this same topic, Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis, is a quixotic figure, often portrayed as a proponent of liberation theology and thus by implication familiar with Marxism, yet he was close to the Argentinian dictatorship and there is evidence that he persecuted LT priests.
See Moneycircus Sep 24, 2022 — Crisis Update: Italy Goes To Polls, German Troops To The Streets
The Italian activist and author Leo Zagami reminds us that in 1974 the “Red Bishop,” Hélder Câmara of Recife, Brazil, attended the WEF in Davos. Câmara called himself “the spokesperson of those two-thirds of humanity who suffer from the unfair distribution of nature’s resources.”
The WEF in its own words “provided a platform for the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth, which attracted a great deal of publicity for the 1973 meeting, the Forum intensified its emphasis on environmental issues.” Câmara was coopted to the narrative. See, The World Economic Forum, A Partner In Shaping History, 1971-2020, page 29.
The Club of Rome (named after Rockefeller's Bellagio residence) set the agenda that became the WEF’s talking point
Like Pope Francis, Schwab and Câmara have followed a similar path, beginning in fascism or national socialism, before later claiming to embrace a progressive variant of Marxism.
Alternatively — and it seems more likely — the narrative has changed. Land reform, notes Engdahl, evolved into the climate agenda. Land reform breaks up the plantations of the wealth and distributes or allows access to the poor. Climate change is much more radical. It seeks to break up the lifestyle of the middle class, places the masses on a pedestal — at least in the observance of equity and addressing victimhood. As a tool of social engineering, climate change is much more ambitious than land reform. That is why equity is a euphemism.
Nothing more likely than a demagogic appeal to the broadest possible audience, Schwab’s globalist synthesis is no more Marxist than it is fascist: it borrows the language of socialism to generate appeal. Pope Francis has allied with the prevailing power throughout his career and, in the current political orthodoxy, it suits him to send signals of liberation and environmental theology.
Francis has formed the Council On Inclusive Capitalism, with Lynn Forester de Rothschild, as an instrument by which church resources may be brought into the Great Reset project. The CIC call themselves The Guardians.
Brazil is the world’s most populous Catholic nation. It is not surprisingly a priority if the objective is a merger of the sacred and secular, of the transhuman digital with rights under, not God, but Gaia — let alone a UNESCO one-world religion.
See Moneycircus, Sep 24, 2022 — Crisis Update – Italy's New PM; Globalist Hysteria At Transactional Politics
For a more combative allegation of Masonic-Marxist infiltration of the Vatican and how Pope Francis was installed, see Charles Murr, author of the book Murder in the 33rd Degree: The Gagnon Investigation into Vatican Freemasonry (2022)
Drugs are in effect a war on our society, underminig morality, encouraging people to break the law. And if American culture is the target, then the CIA is complicit.
One may be confident that the noise over Brazil and the hysterical comparisons with Trump and Jan 6 are intended to cloud the air like so many smoke grenades. There is so much happening everywhere, and it is part of the same story.
Brazil is a huge economy. Like all such countries — the U.S. above all — it is owned and run by corporations. The idea that a switch of president makes everything different is a canard. The corporations play one team against another, and sometimes they rig the game like organized crime does in sports.
Here’s Forbes on The 20 Companies That Own Brazil, though like their rich list they seem to ignore the surpranational players.
Bolsonaro's biggest clash with the trades union was over his plans for pension reform, raising retirement age and contributions. You might have thought corporations would love him for reducing government spending, especially if it saves up to $250 billion over a decade and helps revive the economy.
The next point is where the author must ask the reader to take a deep breath. Conversation nowadays is saturated, in both public and private debate, by corporate narratives that use, as their primary tools of influence, the terrible twins of emotion and fear.
We are denied the techniques of analogy, conceptualizing and putting some distance between ourselves and the topic — everything must be an existential threat: “how dare you!”
Like political correctness this is intended to silence opinion so that the only message that penetrates is the omnipresent, corporate narrative or its hormonal accomplice.
You may challenge this narrative at your own risk but only this narrative, mind; no other — or the Overton Window is narrow.
The “greenwashing” of huge corporations cannot disguise the fact that corporate psychopaths view the environment as a resource — and Bolsonaro]’s policy was in line with this. Despite alarmist headlines in The Guardian, fires in the Amazon are not raging out of control (the headlines ignore what is being burned — land already cleared — and tend to fall for the BBC polar bear fallacy). 
As an example: how may readers are aware of the role of foreign intelligence and corporations in helping Jair Bolsonaro into power?
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.