Brazil Meltdown

[American Patriot]

BRVoice.... you ok down there?


‘People Revolution’ spreads to Brazil: thousands take to streets in anti-government protests

Posted on June 18, 2013 by The Extinction Protocol


Planetary meltdown: Stressed by the physical changes sweeping the planet, civilizations and governments, already burdened by deception, debt, inequality, and corruption could begin to crumble one by one. Change has come to planet Earth.

June 18, 2013 – BRAZIL - What started as small protests about higher bus fares has swelled into nationwide, massive anti-government demonstrations in Brazil. Last night, reports O Globo, more than 100,000 protesters filled the streets of Rio de Janeiro, while an additional 65,000 hit the streets of São Paulo.

Nothing tells the story quite like this video of the streets of Rio posted by Lucio Amorim on Twitter: Reporting from São Paulo, NPR’s Lourdes Garcia-Navarro tells our Newscast unit that people on the streets are demanding that the government pay attention to them.

“The cost of living here is extremely high, there’s a massive rate of inflation, and so people say that they are fed up, that they want their government to do something for them,� Lourdes said. One of the big issues is that Brazil has been gearing up for the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016. Lourdes says people feel as though the government has been focusing on those big, international events while allowing them to languish. The New York Times says the protests are the largest and “most resonant since the nation’s military dictatorship ended in 1985.�

What’s more, the Times reports, the protests share something in common with the mass protests occurring halfway across the world in Turkey. The newspaper writes: “The demonstrations in Brazil intensified after a harsh police crackdown last week stunned many citizens. In images shared widely on social media, the police here were seen beating unarmed protesters with batons and dispersing crowds by firing rubber bullets and tear gas into their midst.

“The violence has come from the government,’ said Mariana Toledo, 27, a graduate student at the University of São Paulo who was among the protesters on Monday. ‘Such violent acts by the police instill fear, and at the same time the need to keep protesting.’� As CNN reports, the protests have another thing in common with Turkey: They began over something relatively small — a 9 cent increase in the price of a bus ticket. One thing that is different, reports CNN, is that President Dilma Rousseff is encouraging the protests.

“Peaceful demonstrations are legitimate and part of democracy. It is right for the youth to protest,� she said in a statement. -NPR

[American Patriot]

I've been to Brazil before, years ago, to Manaus in the 1980s. Spent a month there. I don't remember too much about the government there at the time, but I remember the money was fouled up bad. When I arrived the exchange rate was 1 dollar for about 1200 local "dollars". When I left, it was about 1 to 12,000.

(The way I figure it the hotel PAID me for staying with them).

From the CIA World Fact Book:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/br.html

Country name:

conventional long form: Federative Republic of Brazil conventional short form: Brazil local long form: Republica Federativa do Brasil local short form: Brasil Government type: federal republic Capital: name: Brasilia geographic coordinates: 15 47 S, 47 55 W time difference: UTC-3 (2 hours ahead of Washington, DC during Standard Time) daylight saving time: +1hr, begins third Sunday in October; ends third Sunday in February note: Brazil is divided into three time zones, including one for the Fernando de Noronha Islands Executive branch: chief of state: President Dilma ROUSSEFF (since 1 January 2011); Vice President Michel TEMER (since 1 January 2011); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government head of government: President Dilma ROUSSEFF (since 1 January 2011); Vice President Michel TEMER (since 1 January 2011) cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president (For more information visit the World Leaders website ) elections: president and vice president elected on the same ticket by popular vote for a single four-year term; election last held on 3 October 2010 with runoff on 31 October 2010 (next to be held on 5 October 2014 and, if necessary, a runoff election on 2 November 2014) election results: Dilma ROUSSEFF (PT) elected president in a runoff election; percent of vote - Dilma ROUSSEFF 56.01%, Jose SERRA (PSDB) 43.99% Legislative branch: bicameral National Congress or Congresso Nacional consists of the Federal Senate or Senado Federal (81 seats; 3 members from each state and federal district elected according to the principle of majority to serve eight-year terms; one-third and two-thirds of members elected every four years, alternately) and the Chamber of Deputies or Camara dos Deputados (513 seats; members are elected by proportional representation to serve four-year terms) elections: Federal Senate - last held on 3 October 2010 for two-thirds of the Senate (next to be held in October 2014 for one-third of the Senate); Chamber of Deputies - last held on 3 October 2010 (next to be held in October 2014) election results: Federal Senate - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - PMDB 20, PT 13, PSDB 10, DEM (formerly PFL) 7, PTdoB 6, PP 5, PDT 4, PR 4, PSB 4, PPS 1, PRB 1, other 3; Chamber of Deputies - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - PT 87, PMDB 80, PSDB 53, DEM (formerly PFL) 43, PP 41, PR 41, PSB 34, PDT 28, PTdoB 21, PSC 17, PCdoB 15, PV 15, PPS 12, other 26

[American Patriot]

According to this... it appears they are not dissimilar from the US. Now, I've had private conversations with BRVoice about the country there and I won't detail those here. Suffice it to say though I believe BRVoice thinks something different of the country than what I grasp from reading about it.

If BRV wants to elaborate that would be good... but I will leave it up to him.

[Phil Fiord]

BRV, Please let us know how you are doing.

[BRVoice]

It all started because of the public transportation taxes increases in all of the country. On June 13 the first protests erupted in São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre and Rio de Janeiro. At first were not so many as yesterday.

The scenes of violence happen because the leaders of these protests were of extreme left parties. They started to attack the police and the brazilian police attack them with pepper spray, rubber bullets and tear gas.

As Rick said, from when he was here in 1980 to now my country changed dramatically.

First of all Brazil today lives in a hidden communist dictatorship. Period. People here, especially students, are useful idiots, used by politicians with very clear objectives of chaos and destruction. Anarchy, to be honest.

There's another point also. All the population here are pissed off because of FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games. Basically because public money is used in building stadiums while people here have NO public education, NO high quality healthcare (with people dying in hospitals without being attended), with crimes happening everywhere - we don't have security in our streets NONE AT ALL.

There is real motives for protests here but the government is financing the protests leaders. For example in BrasÃ*lia, all the leaders were public officials pay by the Chief Minister of the General Secretariat of the Presidency of Brazil, Gilberto Carvalho.

There is a basic difference in real democratic protests and sponsorship protests.

In real protests none of the demonstrators hide their faces and use political banners especially from communist parties.

I will post more later this are my first thoughts.

[BRVoice]

And about me, I'm doing fine here. Thank God. Nothing to worry about.

You know, for instance is good that the protests are happening here. It may lead to REAL change here in my country. Unfortunately for us, we don't have a Tea Party movement or a site like this but you never know.

[BRVoice]

Even in my city Limeira people are calling for protests on thursday! Incredible.

Maybe with the huge war that is near on Middle East and the Global Economic Crisis the protests here can change to the overthrown of the government which, to me, is the real problem.

[Phil Fiord]

BRV, thank for taking the time to post and update your status. You have been a valuable voice for freedom and faith.

Can you lend an opinion on neighboring countries as an option? I am not saying one should just walk away from where they have lived and grown but increasingly that is my thought for my life. To leave. I have looked to Uruguay for example. It is a country not in the news here at all. Many here have no idea its even a country. If I say Uruguay, I get a "what is that"? I like that.

[BRVoice]

Phil, unfortunately, Uruguay is a country rule by an former member of Tupamaros José Mujica.

I would not come to any latin america country nowadays. Basically all the region is controlled by a movement called Foro de São Paulo

In this link that I provide you will begin to realize what's happening here.

And you better believe.

[American Patriot]

Phil,

For all that I want to travel and "get out of the country", that's "for awhile" - not permanently. I have no INTENTION of giving up my country to thugs and communists. I have already visited almost 50 countries now and with the exception of Ireland (I'll explain in a moment) I wouldn't LIVE anywhere else.

Would I live in Ireland? Only IF it weren't part of the European Union and wasn't so bloody full of Socialists. Most of the country is Socialist - at least it's the thinking of many people there. God love the Irish, they are great people one-on-one and I love them to death. I'm Irish by heritage.... but so too I have Scots blood in me as well. Probably the reason I'm always arguing. lol

But any South American country that is "Spanish speaking" is a leftover from the times of the Spaniards. And forgive me, BRVoice, for saying so, but the Spanish were not the nicest people in the world, ever. They are better NOW, but the leftover governments are ALWAYS rife with corruption. Brazil is Portuguese so it's somewhat different, or was once.

[BRVoice]

No Rick don't apologize because I think the same as you! And If I may add, nowadays Brazil is the leader of all leftist governments in Latin America. The boss was never Hugo Chavez but Lula.

[BRVoice]

Olavo de Carvalho explains Lula
and the Sao Paulo Forum

V-Crisis interviews Olavo de Carvalho
October 22, 2009

Alek Boyd: Perhaps you remember Olavo that, in November 2005, we were part of a small group of people who were invited to brief former US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon, about the political situation in our respective countries. I do remember, very vividly, your warnings about Lula during that particular meeting. With the passing of time, I must say how pleasantly surprised I am with the turn of perception vis-a-vis Hugo Chavez. Mind you, in November 2005, the DoS still harboured the notion that he was a democrat, purportedly just like Lula. However, recent developments in Honduras show that Lula is as keen on interfering in other countries internal affairs, as his Venezuelan counterpart. Yet one would be hard pressed to conclude, by way of how mass media portrays the Brazilian president, that such is in fact the case. For this reason, taking into account that you are Brazilian, and that you have been following your country's politics for longer than most reporters are aware of Lula's very own existence, I would like to ask you a few things about him, starting with: why do you think the media is given him such benign treatment? Most analysts and media types believe that Lula is a moderate, a democrat. How do you reconcile that with, for instance, the foundation by Lula, at Fidel Castro's personal request, of the Foro de Sao Paulo (FSP)?

There is nothing there to be properly reconciled. The image and the reality, in that case, are in complete contradiction to each other. The legend of Lula, as a democrat and a moderate, only holds up thanks to the suppression of the most important fact of his political biography, the foundation of the São Paulo Forum. This suppression, in some cases, is fruit of genuine ignorance; but in others, it is a premeditated cover-up. Council of Foreign Relations’ expert on Brazilian issues, Kenneth Maxwell, even got to the point of openly denying the mere existence of the Forum, being confirmed in this by another expert on the subject, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, also at a conference at the CFR. I do not need to emphasize the weight that CFR’s authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States. When such an institution denies the most proven and documented facts of the Latin American history of the last decades, few journalists will have the courage of taking the side of facts against the argument of authority. Thus, the São Paulo Forum, which is the vastest and most powerful political body that has ever existed in Latin America, goes on unknown to the American and, by the way, also worldwide public opinion. This fact being suppressed, the image of Lula as a democrat and a moderate does indeed acquire some verisimilitude. Note that it was not only in the United States that the media has covered up the existence and the activities of the Forum. In Brazil, even though I published the complete minutes of the assemblies of that entity, and frequently quoted them in my column in the prestigious newspaper O Globo, from Rio de Janeiro, the rest of the national media en masse either kept silent, or ostensibly contradicted me, accusing me of being a radical and a paranoid. When at last President Lula himself let the cat out of the bag and confessed to everything, his speech, published on the president’s official website, was not even mentioned in any newspaper or TV news show. Shortly afterwards, however, the name “São Paulo Forum” was incorporated into video advertisements of the ruling party, becoming thus impossible to go on denying the obvious. Then, they moved on to the tactic of harm management, proclaiming, against all evidence, that the São Paulo Forum was only a debate club, with no decisional power at all. The minutes of the assemblies denied it in the most vehement manner, showing that discussions ended up becoming resolutions, unanimously signed by the members present. Debate clubs do not pass resolutions. What’s more, the same presidential speech I have just mentioned also disclosed the decisive role that the Forum played in the sense of putting and keeping Mr. Hugo Chávez in power in Venezuela. Nowadays, in Brazil, nobody ignores that I told the truth about the São Paulo Forum and the rest of the media lied.

On the other hand, it is clear that Lula and his party, being the founders and the strategic centre of the Forum, had to keep a low profile, leaving to more peripheral members, like Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, the flashiest or most scandalous part of the job. Hence, the false impression that there are “two lefts” in Latin America, one democratic and moderate, and the other radical and authoritarian. There are two lefts, indeed, but they are rather the one that commands, and the other that follows the first’s orders and thereby risks its own reputation. All that the Latin American left has done in the last nineteen years was previously discussed and decided in the Forum’s assemblies, which Lula presided over, either directly until 2002, or through his deputy, Marco Aurélio Garcia, afterwards. The strategic command of the Communist revolution in Latin America is neither in Venezuela, nor in Bolivia, nor even in Cuba. It is in Brazil.

Once the fact of the existence of the São Paulo Forum was suppressed, what has given even more artificial credibility to the legend of the “two lefts” was that the Lula administration, very cunningly, concentrated its subversive efforts upon the field of education, culture, and custom, which only affect the local population, prudently keeping, at the same time, an “orthodox” economic policy that calmed down foreign investors and projected a good image of the country to international banks (a double-faced strategy inspired, by the way, in Lenin himself).

Thus, both the subversion of the Brazilian society and the revolutionary undertakings of the São Paulo Forum managed, under a thick layer of praise for President Lula, to pass unnoticed by the international public opinion. Nothing can illustrate better the duplicity of conduct to which I refer than the fact that, in the same week, Lula was celebrated both at the World Economic Forum in Davos, for his conversion to Capitalism, and at the São Paulo Forum, for his faithfulness to Communism. It is quite evident, then, that there is one Lula in the local reality and another Lula for international consumption.


Alek Boyd: Could you expand a bit on the sort of organization the FSP is, and the democratic credentials of some of its members?

The São Paulo Forum was created by Lula and discussed with Fidel Castro by the end of 1989, being founded in the following year under the presidency of Lula, who remained in the leadership of that institution for twelve years, nominally relinquishing it in order to take office as president of Brazil in 2003. The organization’s goal was to rebuild the Communist movement, shaken by the fall of the USSR. “To reconquer in Latin America all that we lost in East Europe” was the goal proclaimed at the institution’s fourth annual assembly. The means to achieve it consisted in promoting the union and integration of all Communist and pro-Communist parties and movements of Latin America, and in developing new strategies, more flexible and better camouflaged, for the conquest of power. Practically, since the middle of the 1990’s, there has been no left-wing party or entity that has not been affiliated with the São Paulo Forum, signing and following its resolutions and participating in the intense activity of the “work groups” that hold meetings almost every month in many capital cities of Latin America. The Forum has its own review, America Libre (Free America), a publishing house, as well as an extensive network of websites prudently coordinated from Spain. It also exercises unofficial control over an infinity of printed and electronic publications. The speed and efficacy with which its decisions are transmitted to the whole continent can be measured by its ongoing success in covering up its own existence, over at least sixteen years. Brazil’s journalistic class is massively leftist, and even the professionals who are not involved in any form of militancy would feel reluctant to oppose the instructions that the majority receives.

The Forum’s body of members is composed of both lawful parties, as the Brazilian Workers’ Party itself, and criminal organizations of kidnappers and drug traffickers, as the Chilean MIR (Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria) and the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). The first is responsible for an infinity of kidnappings, including those of two famous Brazilian businessmen; the latter is practically the exclusive controller of the cocaine market in Latin America nowadays. All of these organizations take part in the Forum on equal conditions, which makes it possible that, when agents of a criminal organization are arrested in a country, lawful entities can immediately mobilize themselves to succour them, promoting demonstrations and launching petition campaigns calling for their liberation. Sometimes the protection that lawful organizations give to their criminal partners goes even further, as it happened, for example, when the governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, OlÃ*vio Dutra, an important member of the Workers’ Party, hosted a FARC commander as a guest of state; or when the Lula administration granted political asylum to the agent of connection between the FARC and the Workers’ Party, Olivério Medina, and a public office to his wife. Sometime before, Medina had confessed to having brought an illegal contribution of $5 million for Lula’s presidential campaign.

The rosy picture of Brazil that has been painted abroad is in stark contrast with the fact that from 40,000 to 50,000 Brazilians are murdered each year, according to the UN’s own findings. Most of those crimes are connected with drug trafficking. Federal Court Judge Odilon de Oliveira has found out conclusive proofs that the FARC provides weaponry, technical support, and money for the biggest local criminal organizations, as, for instance, the PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital), which rules over entire cities and keeps their population subjected to a terror regime. Just as I foretold after the first election of Lula to the presidency in 2002, the federal administration, since then, has done nothing to stop this murderous violence, for any initiative on the government’s part in that sense would go against the FARC’s interest and would turn, in a split second, the whole São Paulo Forum against the Brazilian government. In face of the slaughter of Brazilians, which is more or less equivalent to the death toll of one Iraq war per year, Lula has kept strictly faithful to the commitment of support and solidarity he made to the FARC as president of the São Paulo Forum in 2001.


Alek Boyd: Why do you think worldwide media didn't pick up on the fact that Lula's presidential campaign was illegally funded, to the tune of $3 million, by Fidel Castro, as exposed by Veja?

In face of facts like these, it is always recommendable to take into account the concentration of the ownership of the means of world communication, which has happened over the last decades, as it has been described by reporter Daniel Estulin in his book about the Bilderberg group. Even the more distracted readers have not failed to notice how the opinion of the dominant world media has become uniform in the last decades, being nowadays difficult to perceive any difference between, say, Le Figaro and L’Humanité concerning essential issues, as, for example, “global warming,” or the advancement of new leaderships aligned with the project for a world government, as, for example, Lula or Obama. Never as today has it been so easy and so fast to create an impression of spontaneous unanimity. And since the CFR proclaims that the São Paulo Forum does not exist, nothing could be more logical than to expect that the São Paulo Forum disappears from the news.


Alek Boyd: Other analysts have made the preposterous argument that foreign intervention, imperialism by any other word, has never characterized Itamaraty's policy. In light of "union leader" Lula's direct intervention in helping Chavez overcome the strike in 2002-03 by Venezuelan oil workers, by sending tankers with gasoline, how would you explain such blatant ignorance?

Itamaraty’s traditions, however praised they were in the past, no longer mean anything at all. Today, the Brazilian diplomatic body is nothing but the tuxedoed militancy of the Workers’ Party. At the same time, the intellectual level of our diplomats, which had been a reason of pride since the times of the great baron of Rio Branco, has formidably declined, to the point that nowadays the intellectual leadership of the class is held by geniuses of ineptitude, such as Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães. No wonder then that everywhere now our ambassadors are simple agents of the São Paulo Forum. It cannot be said that this properly expresses Brazilian imperialism, for our Ministry of Foreign Relations does not hesitate to sacrifice the most obvious national interests before the altar of a more sublime value, which is the solidary union of the Latin American left. There is no Brazilian imperialism, but rather São Paulo Forum’s imperialism.


Alek Boyd: Do you think Marco Aurelio Garcia is behind Zelaya's return to Honduras, as has been alleged? If yes, it is evident that is a matter of a FSP member coming to the rescue of a fallen comrade, but what's in it for Brazil?

The Brazilian government denies having something to do with that, but Zelaya himself confessed that his return to Honduras had been previously arranged with Lula and his right-hand man, Marco Aurélio Garcia. The most evident thing in the world is that this grotesque installation of Zelaya in the Brazilian embassy is an operation of the São Paulo Forum.


Alek Boyd: Given that Tom Shannon is now US Ambassador to Brazil, would you reiterate what you told him about Lula, and his partners in crime, in November 2005, or would you advise differently?

Tom Shannon did not pay due attention to us in 2005 and this was, no doubt, one of the causes of the aggravation of the Latin American situation since then. It is likely that he read Maxwell’s and Alencastro’s speeches at the CFR, and thought that such a prestigious institution deserved more credibility than a handful of obscure Latin American scholars with no public office or political party. Unfortunately, we, not the CFR, were the ones who were right.


Alek Boyd: Finally, as in the case of Chavez, has Lula done enough institutional damage to remain in power, or will he hand over power democratically?

The alternation in presidential power no longer has any great meaning, for the two dominant parties, the Workers’ Party and the Brazilian Social Democratic Party, act in concert with each other and, despite minor differences in the administrative economic field, they are equally faithful to the overall strategy of the Latin American left. Lula himself has celebrated as a big victory of democracy the fact that there are only leftist candidates for the 2010 presidential elections, as if the monopoly of the ideological control of society were a great democratic ideal. On the other side, the most celebrated of the so-called “opposition” leaders, former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has already acknowledged that between his party and the Workers’ Party there is no substantive ideological or strategic difference, but only a contest for offices. It matters little who will win the next elections, for, in any event, the orientation of the Brazilian government must remain the same: in the social and juridical field, overpowering subversion; in the economic field, moderation to anesthetize foreign investors. The only difference that may arise is in the field of security, in the case that the candidate of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party, José Serra, wins, for his party, despite being as much a left-wing party as the Workers’ Party, does not formally belong to the São Paulo Forum, being therefore free to do things against organized crime, which Lula himself could never do. As governor of the state of São Paulo, Serra showed to be the only Brazilian political leader who pays attention to the slaughter of his fellow-countrymen. It is still early to know whether or not he will be able to do what he did in his state, but it is certain that he would wish to do it.

[BRVoice]

Olavo de Carvalho on Communism in Latin America

Alex Newman interviews Olavo de Carvalho
The New American, March 15, 2010

Olavo de Carvalho, an author and philosopher, is renowned as one of Brazil’s preeminent thinkers. He played a leading role in exposing subversive leftist organizations like the Foro de São Paulo in his work as a writer for some of Brazil’s most influential publications. In the course of writing an article about the socialist resurgence in Latin America, I interviewed Carvalho for The New American magazine.


The New American: Could you please tell me a little bit about yourself, your background, your work, your philosophy, and what motivated you to become involved in exposing the Foro de São Paulo?

Olavo de Carvalho: Notwithstanding having been a leftist militant as a teenager, I lost any interest in politics after severing my ties with the Left when I was 20 years old in 1969. From that time on, until I was 38, I worked as a text editor for newspapers and magazines and dedicated my free time to the study of philosophy, literature, cultural history, ancient esoteric traditions, and comparative religion. Though I delivered an occasional lecture here and there, I was happy to live as an anonymous scholar, perfectly unknown to public opinion and academic circles. It was only in the late ’80s that my attention was drawn to the ongoing destruction of high culture in Brazil, and I started to take notes on the alarming stupidities that were published in ever growing quantities by very influential Brazilian opinion makers, both academic and journalistic. Bit by bit I grasped the political factors that had generated that state of affairs, and in 1993 I wrote a book, The New Age and the Cultural Revolution, about the overtaking of higher education by the communist militancy, which was not at all interested in high culture, but only in gaining political power and profiting from the general dumbing down of Brazilian students. In 1995 I wrote The Garden of Afflictions, a study on the evolution of the idea of “Empire” in the West, since the times of Julius Caesar to the advent of the New World Order.... The following year I collected my notes about Brazilian cultural decay and published them under the title of The Collective Imbecile, ... leading some big newspapers to hire me as a weekly political columnist.... Meanwhile, I had founded an electronic newspaper, MÃ*dia Sem Máscara (“Unmasked Media”), that intended to correct the most flagrant distortions of the news published by the big media.... In 2005, as I was getting tired of receiving weekly death threats from leftist maniacs, I found it was a good idea to accept a job as a Washington foreign correspondent that was offered to me by a traditional Brazilian business newspaper, the Diário do Comércio (“Business Daily”), and here I am living in Virginia with my family. I love to be here, because Americans, though already infected by the neo-communist virus, are not yet so stupid as Brazilians have become.


TNA: To what extent has the leftist movement gained power in Latin America? What factors led to this resurgence and how was it possible?

Carvalho: Communist and pro-communist parties rule about a dozen Latin American countries today. This fact, by itself, is enough to prove that the “end of communism,” proclaimed by the Right soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, is a myth. World communism was never only an appendix of the USSR. It actually created the USSR, not the other way around. It existed a century before the Russian Revolution and continued to exist after the nominal extinction of Soviet power. What made the resurgence of communism easier — not only in Latin America, but around the world — was the cowardly timidity of Western right-wingers who, instead of taking the opportunity of the fall of the USSR to punish the communists for their crimes, chose instead a policy of “extending them a hand,” as if asking for their pardon for having defeated them, and offering them all sorts of aid, enabling them to reappear with a new or attenuated identity, even protecting them from being called “communists” (the fashionable euphemism is now “populism”). I believe that this absurd surrender of the winners was also stimulated by powerful globalist circles, whose interest in establishing worldwide bureaucratic controls converges with the objectives of the communists.

The number of billionaire companies which came to openly contribute to leftist parties is enormous. I call “meta-capitalists” the individuals and groups which grew so wealthy with the market economy that they can’t stand anymore being at the mercy of the free market and seek, instead, to control everything, supporting bureaucracy instead of capitalism. Meta-capitalists are natural allies of the communists.

An event that clearly symbolizes this union of apparent adversaries was the tributes paid to Lula, the Brazilian President, who in the same week was honored by the World Economic Forum in Davos, for his conversion to capitalism, and by the São Paulo Forum, for his allegiance to communism. The contradiction is only apparent. At the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, which for public opinion embodies the opposite of the Davos Forum, the main demand was for a greater control over the world economy by big international organizations. Nobody there asked for shutting down the IMF or the World Bank, what they wanted was the integration of “civil society” — i.e., the World Social Forum — into those organizations. Many European NGOs [non-governmental organizations] which participate in the World Social Forum have a seat at the meetings of the World Bank and other international organizations. The “ideological” contrast serves only as propaganda. What we have is a gigantic symbiosis of all globalist and statist forces around the world.


TNA: How have the Foro de São Paulo and its members managed to become so influential? How can they be stopped?

Carvalho: The São Paulo Forum, created by Luis Inacio Lula da Silva and Fidel Castro in 1990 with the goal of regaining in Latin America what had been lost in Eastern Europe, is the strategic command of the communist and pro-communist movement in the continent. Its membership includes over 100 legal political parties as well as criminal organizations of drug traffickers and kidnappers, such as the FARC (“Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia”) and the Chilean MIR (“Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria”). Legal parties cover up the activities of criminal groups, and these provide undercover financial resources to legal parties.... During 16 years big media and the establishment, in Latin America and in the United States, refused to touch upon the subject, handing to the strategists of the communist revolution the protection of silence. Some of them, such as the expert in Brazilian affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations, Kenneth Maxwell, even openly denied the existence of the Forum, though by that time I had already published, in my electronic newspaper MÃ*dia Sem Máscara, the complete official proceedings of its annual meetings, which revealed with total clarity the scope of its ambitions and goals.

The Forum can only be stopped if the legal political parties in its membership are taken to court for the criminal activities covered up and protected by the organization. Brazilian President Lula, who chaired the Forum for 12 years, signed in 2001 an agreement of full support to the FARC, the same organization which provides training and military assistance to criminal gangs in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, such as the PCC (“First Command of the Capital”) and the “Red Command,” which kill tens of thousands of Brazilian citizens every year. When FARC or MIR agents are arrested in Brazil, immediately Lula’s [Workers’] Party, the PT [Portuguese: Portido dos Trabalhadores], acts to free them. What is this if not complicity in crime? ... Meanwhile, communist militants keep securing positions in the judiciary, so that as time goes by any lawsuit brought against this alliance of leftists and criminals becomes ever more unlikely to succeed.


TNA: What role have the Brazilian government and Lula in particular played in expanding the leftist movement’s power in Latin America? Is Lula a radical leftist, a moderate, or somewhere in between? What do his policies -indicate?

Carvalho: Lula’s ideological convictions don’t really matter, because they don’t even seem to exist. What exists is his loyalty to his cohorts in the militancy and to the commitments he made to the entities of the São Paulo Forum, which, if unfulfilled, would bring against him all the Latin American Left, leaving him without any support, not even from the Right, which is by now so weak that its support is worthless. A mediocre man doesn’t act out of convictions, but according to the objective pressures of his group of reference. It’s a waste of time to ask whether he “is” a true communist within himself or not. Within Lula there is only emptiness and meanness, but around him there is a well-organized structure of revolutionary power which he serves well and will never stop serving.

Foreign observers let themselves be impressed (or pretended to do so) by Lula’s “orthodox” economic policy and therefore concluded that he had changed his ideology. This is total nonsense. Lula only adopted these policies so that he would not have to fight two fronts simultaneously. Following the example of Lenin’s “New Economic Policy,” he sought to appease foreign investors while consolidating the power of leftist organizations in internal politics (using copious amounts of public money to finance them), and boycotting the Right in such a way that it is not able, as he himself recently declared, even to present its own candidate in the upcoming presidential elections [in October]. This will be the third presidential election without any right-wing candidate. As soon as it felt that the control of the Left over the country had been consolidated, the ruling party threw off its mask of moderation and began to propose radical measures such as state control over the media, the right of leftist organizations to invade and take rural properties as they see fit, etc.


TNA: Do you see the leftist resurgence as a monolithic threat under central control or rather as a splintered movement with various factions? Why? Assuming they exist, who are the leaders?

Carvalho: Throughout history the revolutionary movement has never depended on monolithic control to be able to grow and prosper. Even during the period of Soviet hegemony, the expansion of communism coexisted perfectly well with the deep internal dissent that separated the Soviets from the Chinese and from the radicalism of Latin America guerrillas. In the last dec-ades, the communist movement has perfected even more its capacity to deal with a variety of internal dissidences, using them as camouflage and as instruments to adapt itself to local situations. The linear party hierarchy, which had always been more an appearance than a reality, has been totally replaced by a flexible organization of “networks” connected via the Internet.... In Latin America, the leadership of the revolutionary movement still belongs to the founders of the São Paulo Forum: Lula, Marco Aurélio Garcia, Ricardo Kotscho, and others.


TNA: What role have Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan Petrodollars played in this resurgence? Is the Cuban government an important player?

Carvalho: Hugo Chavez is only a scarecrow that the Latin American Left waves before the world to distract the attention away from the São Paulo Forum, which is the true strategic command of the Latin American revolution. Cuba and Venezuela are important as shelters for terrorists and drug traffickers. In Venezuela and other Spanish-speaking countries ruled by the São Paulo Forum, there is strong and organized opposition, while in Brazil all that is left is the Left itself, which controls the scene absolutely.


TNA: How significant and deep are the ties of leftist leaders and political parties to terrorism and crime?

Carvalho: In Brazil, federal judge Odilon de Oliveira gathered proofs showing that FARC’s narco-guerrillas ... control a large chunk of local criminality. As a result, he became the most persecuted man in Latin America and now has to live as a prisoner in his own office, not being able even to go out to visit his family.... The FARC also provide guerrilla training for the militants of the “Landless Movement” (MST), an ironic name because that entity is one of the biggest landowners in Brazil today. The MST invades farms, destroys produce and equipment, sends away the (true) workers, and is invariably rewarded for its actions, receiving enormous sums of federal monies and the property of the invaded farms. Even more ironically, the main factor for Brazil’s economic success is the productivity of its big farms.... As for the Cuban government, its connections to drug trafficking have been proved several years ago in the book The Mafia from Havana: The Cuban Cosa Nostra.... The same connections exist with the Venezuelan government, as demonstrated by a report of the U.S. Congress from July 2009....

In Brazil, the alliance between the FARC and local criminal gangs has made it absolutely impossible to control crime activity. Nowadays, some 50,000 Brazilians are murdered every year. Instead of repressing the gangs that produce this insanity, the government grants them territorial autonomy and is even cynical enough to propose, as a remedy, disarming the honest population.


TNA: To what extent and in what way is the U.S. government involved in the region?

Carvalho: For several decades now, the attitude of the American government in the area has been ambiguous, to say the least. Bill Clinton’s Plan Colombia only offered economic and military aid to the Colombian government on the explicit condition that ... criminal organizations of a political nature be preserved [from] any damage. The result was that the old cartels were destroyed and the FARC became the absolute rulers of drug trafficking in the continent. In reality this kind of “war on drugs” is a war that favors the Left against Latin America. The Department of State is well informed about the São Paulo forum and its Brazilian leadership. When it supports Lula under the pretext that he is “a moderate,” in contrast with the “radical” Hugo Chavez, it is actually camouflaging the real danger so that it may grow sheltered from the sight of any intruder.


TNA: What role are multilateral and supranational institutions like ALBA, MERCOSUR, the Andean Community, and UNASUR playing in all of this? Could the integration process be used to eventually absorb all of Latin America under authoritarian control?

Carvalho: All these organizations were created under the inspiration of the idea of free trade, and there were even some people who saw in them a sign of formidable capitalist progress. However, we now understand that free trade is a double-edged sword, which can also be used to dissolve national sovereignties and to build upon their rubble a new structure of supranational power. Many political analysts who only look at things from an economic point of view fail to notice such danger. They imagine that the expansion of commercial ties is by itself a vaccine against communism.... Well, in today’s Latin America, the Left practically has the monopoly of political action in its hands, and indeed this is so much so that all those organizations you have mentioned — all of them — are being used for the creation of a kind of Union of Latin American Socialist Republics.


TNA: How serious is the threat of this resurgence? What do you see happening in both the near future and the long run?

Carvalho: There is no unified answer that applies to all Latin America. The situation is different in each country. For example, however unbelievable it may seem, there is a strong and organized resistance against the rise of neo-communism in Venezuela. Colombia, likewise, is a remarkable center of resistance. On the other hand, nowhere else has the Right been so utterly destroyed as it has been in Brazil, which is, for this very reason, the headquarters of Latin American revolution. When former Venezuelan presidential candidate Alejandro Peña set up UnoAmerica (Association of Democratic Organizations of the Americas), the only international organization devoted to fighting communism, he found no difficulty in obtaining effective support in most of the Spanish-speaking countries, but he has always had great difficulties finding support in Brazil.... In other countries, however, the Left is not so culturally hegemonic, which has made possible the organization of an effective and strong anti-communist action. From this point of view, then, Venezuela is in a better situation than Brazil, for if in the former country, the Right has been oppressed, in the latter it has already died, being now necessary to create a new Right out of nothing. In this sense, American political analysts are always getting it all backwards: They are alarmed at Venezuela and do not understand that the headquarters of the revolution is in Brazil.

[Phil Fiord]

Thank you both.

I believe your assessment of these Latin American countries as being problematic to live in. I do indeed love the fact I live in and was born in the US, but it is no longer the country I knew. It is not that I yearn for things as they were 240 years ago, but the corruption, waste and simple manipulation of citizens has me quite put off.

Maybe my best eventual option is to get a place here in the US on some acres well away from cities. I live in Virginia now and could conceive of staying here, but moving farther from DC than I am.

[American Patriot]

But man, you sure can hear the ads on TV and Radio for "BuyBeliez.com" LMAO!

[BRVoice]

Is This The Beginning? Or Is It The End?

June 18, 2013 in Uncategorized | Tags: Argentina, corruption, infrastructure, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, transport

The protesters who took to the streets of Brazil’s biggest cities last night are to be congratulated on a significant victory.

Few people imagined that after the violent police crackdown on Sao Paulo’s protesters last Thursday an even greater number would come out in sympathy just four days later.

But they did just that and across Brazil hundreds of thousands of people, most of them peacefully, expressed their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Exactly how many people took part in the protests is impossible to know. But estimates suggest 65,000 people took to the streets of Sao Paulo, almost twice that in Rio and smaller, but still considerable, numbers made their presence felt in Belo Horizonte, Salvador, Porto Alegre and dozens of other towns and cities.

The big question is what happens now. The protesters have the wind at their backs, so what will they do? They have called another march (in SP at least) for Tuesday night. Will they call more? Enter in to talks with authorities? As yet no one knows.

A lot of that depends on exactly what they want.

The unrest was originally sparked by a hike in bus fares and many of the protesters come from the Free Fare Movement, a group that wants free public transport for all. That’s an unreal demand. No serious country provides all its citizens with free public transport.

But since then the demonstration has expanded to include broader issues. One major complaint is the cost of hosting the World Cup and the Confederations Cup, the second of which kicked off in six Brazilian cities on Saturday.

The government is spending more than $3 billion on stadiums, some of them obvious white elephants but it hasn’t carried out many of the essential public transportation projects it promised.

One of the challenges facing the movement’s leaders is articulating a message beyond that of, ‘We want better treatment and more rights.’ And until they do that it will struggle to achieve anything concrete.

Anyone who has spent any time in Brazil knows that people are treated abysmally. As I said here last week, Brazilians pay first world taxes and get third world services. No one respects no one. Complaining is futile and the deck is heavily stacked against anyone who raises their voice in anger. (Which is one of the reasons a more generalized outrage hasn’t taken hold until now.)

Brazil deserves great credit for lifting 40 million people out of poverty over the last decade. But ironically, that class of newly enfranchised people might be a cause of the unrest.


- More people can afford to buy cars and hundreds of new cars pour onto the streets of Sao Paulo each day. But the government hasn’t invested in infrastructure like roads or highways and public transport is underfunded and inefficient and an unappealing alternative.

- More people can afford health insurance but the companies selling them not only provide a risible coverage, they fight tooth and nail to stop their clients from getting the treatment they are paying for, sometimes with tragic consequences.

- More people have cable television but just try calling up and complaining about the service or trying to cancel it. The companies sadistically force their clients to jump through online hoops in order to hold them to costly contracts.

- More people have cell phones and Brazilians pay some of the highest rates in the world. But calls frequently cut out, the signal is patchy, and after sales service is a joke.

- More people have banks accounts but banks charge abusive interest rates – 237 % a year for credit cards – and they sneak additional charges onto bills, and treat customers more like waling wallets than valued customers.

- Education is a joke. A tragic joke.


In short, there are lots of reasons why Brazilians should be angry.

The other big question is how politicians will deal with the crisis. What possible answers can they provide? Not only are they discredited, they cannot hope to provide quick solutions to resolve long-standing infrastructure issues.

They are in bed with the multinationals and conglomerates whose consistent mistreatment of and disdain for their customers is a complaint I hear every single day from Brazilians.

It is hard to see how they can provide quick and satisfactory answers to the questions above.

And last but not least, Are Brazilians going to see this through to the end?

Brazil is not a politicised society nor one where memories are long or protests lasting. In neighbouring Argentina, hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest graft and they do it again and again and again.

Brazil’s media will play up the violence and they will play up the fear. If political parties try to hijack the movement it will lose its credibility.

The middle class must get involved and stay involved.

If Brazilians really want to see change they will need stamina and resolve. They may have to shout themselves hoarse over and over and over again. If this is really going to turn into something lasting then Monday night is not the end. It is only the beginning.

[BRVoice]

I believe that the post above may give some understanding of my country problems.

[BRVoice]

One thing I want to add, the left spread through all parts of my country. All the TV stations are leftists. If you want to be a history teacher, you had to be a leftist the political speech is entirely controlled by the left here.

Bear in mind that yesterday in Rio de Janeiro, a few protesters - I called them criminals - began to destroy public property and government buildings. And THAT I DON'T SUPPORT!!!

Protests are fine but when you cross the line, you must deal with the consequences of your acts. I will never agree to anarchy and chaos anywhere.

[American Patriot]

BRVoice,

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that almost every country in the world is now Socialist to some degree. The PEOPLE push that on us, get in office, become corrupt and shove it down the rest of our throats.

I was going to say "with the exception of the United States"... but I amended that immediately because the US is the LEADER in putting bad people in office and making good people appear bad. We have crooks, liars, cheats and the most ignorant of the world here, right in our own Congress. (Just look at Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Joe Biden and you can start to see just the front line of ignorance).

I don't know much about your own country, but if the government has gone so far south then it behooves the PEOPLE to start running for office and get in. You are, after all a Republic. To keep it... you have to fight for it. That doesn't mean violence, it means fighting from within.

That's the man thing Americans have forgotten about our own government.

[BRVoice]

I want my country to change. But NOT to a even more radical communist dictatorship.

I see the winds of change everywhere in the world. My only hope is that those winds don't change into a Hurricane of chaos, wars and death. It is my deep concern about all this.

Man, I can even see the brazilian protests turn into confrontation between brothers. What I see is a quiet beginning of a civil war here.