Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

From Soviet times until about ten years ago, when wokeism rose up, it was commonplace on the Brazilian left to point out the CIA’s machinations. The most common topic on this subject was the CIA’s interference in the 1964 Coup. In fact, the CIA had NGOs that carried out propaganda in defense of democracy (notably IPES and IBAD), even when Brazil was in democracy. Helped by the press, it was painted a delirious scenario, according to which the president, a Labor politician and a heir of Vargas, was on the verge of carrying out a communist coup. So a preventive military coup was justified, in order to save democracy from communism. The new regime announced alignment with the USA and maintained, under indirect elections and limited party freedoms, a facade of democracy. Everything was laundered by Congress, and, if the cliché already existed, someone could say that “the institutions are working”.

The Brazilian left had a true obsession with the CIA, and often disregarded Brazil’s internal dynamics to explain anything as a pure CIA interference. With wokeism, this went up in smoke: now Biden’s USA (only Biden’s) is good because it will save democracy. On the right, there is something similar: Trump’s USA (only Trump’s) is good because it will save the world from “communism” (not that of the Soviet Union, but that fantasy which exists inside their heads).

As I already wrote here, I am puzzled by those NGOs in defense of freedom of expression in Brazil. Now there is Mike Benz, a former State Department agent; there is Michael Shellenberger, an NGO guy with a Koch Brothers flavour; there is Elon Musk himself, who selected the journalists from the Twitter Files and retweets a number of right-wing tweeters who rose to fame thanks to him. One of these tweeters, Mario Nawfal, even wrote a text in English with the title: “CIA was involved 1964 Coup and in 2022 Brazilian elections”. Mike Benz was more direct: “What’s funny is both the 1964 military junta in Brazil and the 2022 judicial junta in Brazil received direct help from the CIA to rise to power.” Both Nawfal and Benz mention CIA pressure; none mention Victoria Nuland’s travel to Brazil. Everything is old news – even the Twitter Files Brazil, which spent a year in Shellenberger’s drawer. Suddenly, a club of billionaires and NGOs from the USA decides that they are going to denounce their government’s interference in Brazil. Why did these people decide to become anti-imperialist?

The novelty prospered, and now, as I write, there has been news of a parliamentary initiative in the USA that aims to restrain the NED and USAID campaigns in defense of “democracy”, arguing that the organizations have used public dollars to finance censorship abroad, contradicting the First Amendment. I hope it works, but I highly doubt it and I bet it’s marketing.

In addition to the things I’ve pointed out before – namely: real division in the U.S. establishment; elections (Brazil representes USA under Kamala); imposing protectionist sanctions on Brazil, using censorship as an excuse – one more thing comes to mind: diversionism.

It is a narrative crated to exempt the U.S. from its actions. Wokeism is a creation of U.S. intelligence (state agencies and NGOs included); however, the right pretends that Wokism is a “mental virus” (to use Gad Saad’s expression), or that it is somehow the fault of the communists. Either it’s a natural phenomenon, or it’s someone else’s fault. It is this conception that makes the U.S. look good to the right, even though it sponsors wokeism around the world.

Along with this disguise comes an agenda. Now Brazilians have to think that something that is not in our own Constitution – the First Amendment – is the only ruler to measure the morality of a government or regime. Brazil has a thousand problems, but all that matters is the freedom to curse on Twitter. The Amazon doesn’t need to be ours, nor the oil. Brazilians now must take to the streets with signs: “Twitter is ours!”

Another thing worth noticing is that, if now the right also wants to reduce the 1964 coup to CIA interference, disregarding internal causes, then there no longer exists any profound dissimilarity between the mainstream right and the mainstream left, in the appreciation of a period as important as that of the military regime. It was there that the leftist identity in Brazil was constituted, and it was first constituted in opposition to the military. Afterwards, typical leftism would be a mixture of opposition to the military with support for liberal democracy. On the opposite side, the right supported the military, which was responsible for great economic successes in Brazil (among which I highlight the creation of Embrapa). In the economy, the Brazilian military had nothing to do with Pinochet.

Under the guidance of Olavo de Carvalho, the New Right began to say that the military was no good. He used to spread the works of Gene Sharp, a leftist from the CIA, as a model for political action. Now, if the New Right also hates the CIA and its interference in Brazil, and even fiercely supports liberal democracy, then there are no more differences. As for the fight for freedom of expression during the dictatorship, the lines “Father, take away that chalice / of red blood wine” are famous, which plays on the Portuguese homophones words for shut up and chalice (cale-se and cálice). A famous right-wing influencer used this song by Chico Buarque and Gilberto Gil and, without authorization, changed the lyrics to attack the Supreme Court. The composers sued, won and the influencer could then feel barbarously censored.

Now the right and the left are the same: they both want liberal democracy, they both think that one side of the USA supports it, while that the other side spreads dictatorships around the world.