Far from being a failed so-called “fascist and terrorist coup” attempt, it convincingly appears as though Sunday’s sequence of events was artificially manufactured via collusion between the American and Brazilian “deep states” in order to advance their shared ideological agendas.

“Politically Incorrect” comparisons with January 6th

Thousands of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed the Presidential Palace, Congress, and the Supreme Court on Sunday [Jan 8-Ed] in an unsuccessful attempt to reverse the outcome of last year’s election that narrowly saw his predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (“Lula”) return to office. The participants alleged that electronic voting machines manipulated the outcome and therefore delegitimized Lula’s victory. Many observers have thus compared January 8th to the US’ January 6th.

Everyone should exercise caution before rushing to judgement on what just happened in Brazil, however, since everything isn’t as simple as it initially seems. Just like the American capital two years ago, the Brazilian one was also suspiciously undefended despite obvious signals from some members of the opposition several months back that they were planning to make a so-called “last stand” in support of their political cause. This makes one wonder whether both events were allowed to unfold.

To explain, some members of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) had self-interested political reasons to order undercover agents like the infamous Ray Epps to incite their opponents into breaking the law so as to discredit their cause and establish the pretext for a crackdown. Similar motivations might also have driven their Brazilian counterparts into doing the same via analogous agents who incited illegal activity in their own capital on Sunday.

Peaceful protests aren’t illegal in either the US or Brazil, but the hyper-partisan context in which the post-electoral ones took place in their capitals two years ago and just this weekend respectively drastically increased the odds in which malicious forces could weaponize crowd psychology for manipulating demonstrators in the direction that serves their “deep states’” political interests. To be absolutely clear, shadowy manipulation doesn’t exculpate the participants for their crimes.

Artificially manufacturing a Colour Revolution

Everyone is responsible for their actions even if they temporarily got caught up in the crowd’s craze, which was exacerbated via a combination of undercover agents and fringe political forces like the so-called “Proud Boys” in the US’ case towards Colour Revolution ends. The same socio-political dynamic appears to have been in play in Brazil too whereby undercover agents and similar such fringe political forces sought – whether independently of each other or in collusion – to replicate January 6th.

Both the American and Brazilian crowds were preconditioned ahead of time through the hyper-partisan post-electoral context as well as messaging from sympathetic forces to potentially expect a lot of drama during the “last stands” that they were preparing in support of their respective causes. An elite core, which in both cases was likely a combination of undercover agents and fringe political forces, relied on close cohorts to incite the masses under their influence into rowdy protests for regime change ends.

The preceding description might prompt comparisons between these two examined events and Ukraine’s “EuroMaidan” from nine years ago, but there are actually some major differences. It’s true that all three employed Colour Revolution technology, but the first two didn’t devolve into a long-running spree of urban terrorism nor did they ultimately succeed in carrying out regime change, unlike the last one. The reason for this is that all three were co-opted by the “deep state” for different ends.

Western intelligence agencies clandestinely cultivated regime change sentiment in Ukraine for years via their “NGO” fronts on an ultra-nationalist anti-Russian basis that opportunistically weaponized spontaneous grassroots opposition to the corrupt government of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich after he abruptly delayed signing an EU Association Agreement. The intention all along was to overthrow him for the purpose of then exploiting Ukraine as an anti-Russian NATO proxy.

By contrast, the Colour Revolution that American intelligence cultivated in DC in early 2021 was doomed to fail from the get-go since its purpose was to artificially manufacture a dramatic incident that could then be exploited for discrediting the opposition and serving as the pretext for cracking down on them. The same modus operandi was arguably in play during the copycat event that just took place in Brazil on Sunday, which was similarly facilitated by the security services and thus doomed to fail from the get-go.

Debunking the speculation that Biden just tried to overthrow Lula

Some in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) immediately reacted to the world’s latest (albeit faux) Colour Revolution attempt by speculating that the CIA might have had a hand in what happened in order to presumably punish Brazil for re-electing one of this century’s most famous multipolar figures, Lula. This explanation of events overlooks several “politically incorrect” observations that cast doubt on the aforementioned narrative and actually reinforce the interpretation put forth in the present piece.

The Biden Administration really isn’t against Lula since it enthusiastically endorsed his victory over Bolsonaro for ideological reasons related to the former being more aligned in the domestic sense nowadays with the US’ ruling liberal-globalists unlike the latter who embraced conservative beliefs. Joe Biden’s support for Lula wasn’t just rhetorical either since it was tangibly backed up by dispatching National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to Brazil last month.

The White House’s official readout reported that “Mr. Sullivan met with Secretary for Strategic Affairs Admiral Flávio Rocha to express appreciation for the progress in the U.S.-Brazil relationship and reinforce the long-term, strategic nature of the U.S.-Brazil partnership. Mr. Sullivan also met with President-elect Lula and members of his transition team”. This development confirmed the US’ sincere support for Lula and desire to strengthen its strategic relations with Brazil during his third term.

Knowing now what transpired less than a month later, it also can’t be discounted that Sullivan sought to put the finishing touches on the allied Brazilian “deep state’s” speculative plot to replicate the January 6th events in their own country for similar self-serving reasons related to discrediting the conservative opposition, creating the pretext for a crackdown against them, and thus consolidating power in the hyper-partisan post-electoral context that massively eroded each respective government’s legitimacy.

The “politically incorrect” fact that both capitals were undefended despite advance notice of fringe forces’ Colour Revolution plans is too suspicious to dismiss as a coincidence, especially since the American and Brazilian Mainstream Media (MSM) were warning for months that Bolsonaro’s supporters were trying to pull off their own January 6th. By manipulating the crowd and facilitating these doomed-to-fail Colour Revolutions, their “deep states” got what they wanted.

The Biden Administration’s official reaction to what just happened as voiced by Biden, Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirms that the US stands in full solidarity with Lula unlike what some in the AMC speculated about it wanting to overthrow him via a Brazilian version of “EuroMaidan”. This contrasts with their full-throated support for the much more violent Colour Revolution attempt in Iran, which is obviously a bonafide US regime change operation unlike what just happened in Brazil.

The role of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre De Moraes

The article that the Washington Post (WaPo) published on Sunday evening can be seen as circumstantial evidence in support of the conclusion that the US supports Lula’s expected consolidation of power in the aftermath of his country’s faux Colour Revolution earlier that very same day. This outlet is widely regarded as the unofficial mouthpiece of the US’ “deep state”, which is why its piece titled “Come to the ‘war cry party’: How social media helped drive mayhem in Brazil” should be closely scrutinized.

Published just ten hours after Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed the capital’s three most politically important government buildings (the piece was released at 10:30pm EST after PBS reported that the incident kicked off around 12:30pm EST), it’s highly suspicious that it was so detailed. It’s difficult to believe that author Elizabeth Dwoskin came up with her strongly implied censorship angle, compiled her sources, interviewed several experts, wrote her piece, and completed the editorial process in that time.

Rather, it’s much more likely that she might have been tipped off ahead of time via WaPo’s “deep state” sources that something might have been about to happen, which is why she was ready to produce her detailed piece so quickly (if it wasn’t largely written in advance). The optics of “deep state”-connected WaPo pushing a strongly implied social media censorship narrative just hours after what happened suggests US support for Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ related measures.

Reuters reported that he “ordered social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and TikTok to block coup-mongering propaganda.” When considering how much he’s already abused his legal prerogative over the past few months and which served to further fuel the already organically emerging grassroots opposition to last year’s vote (that was subsequently exploited by the Brazilian “deep state” as explained), it’s expected that he’ll take maximum advantage of this in the aftermath of what happened.

Prior to Lula’s victory, the New York Times (NYT) – one of the US’ most influential MSM outlets – expressed discomfort at the unparalleled censorship power that Moraes had accumulated in his hands. This sceptical stance is evidenced by their pieces from September and October headlined “To Defend Democracy, Is Brazil’s Top Court Going Too Far?” and “To Fight Lies, Brazil Gives One Man Power Over Online Speech” respectively.

Regardless of whether they reverse their editorial position on this issue after Sunday’s events, the precedent was thus established by the MSM itself for folks to question Moraes’ censorship powers. Nevertheless, considering the Biden Administration’s full solidarity with Lula as well as the US “deep state’s” support for more social media censorship in Brazil and beyond as intuited from WaPo’s detailed article suspiciously published just 10 hours after what happened, such critiques might become “taboo”.

Biden’s possibly impending crackdown on Trump’s network

After all, both the Biden Administration and Lula’s newly assembled third one have shared interests in discrediting their governments’ conservative opponents with whom they ideologically differ due to these two’s embrace of liberal-globalism in the domestic political sense. To that end, their “deep state’s” cultivated and facilitated doomed-to-fail faux Colour Revolution plots via undercover agents and undefended capitals respectively to establish the pretext for power-consolidating crackdowns.

What’s unique about the latest plot in Brazil is that Bolsonaro nowadays resides in Florida, Lula officially accused him of masterminding the recent events (which the former leader denied), and there are documented connections between the Bolsonaro and Trump campaigns, families, and associated political networks. The last-mentioned point prompted the BBC to publish a piece right after the Brasilia events headlined “Brazil Congress storming: How riot was stoked by Trump’s election-denying allies”.

Around the same time, Reuters published their own related one about how “Bolsonaro’s Florida Stay Puts Ball in Biden’s Court After Brasilia Riots”, which quoted some Democrats who want to extradite the former leader back to his homeland. Considering Lula’s accusation that his predecessor masterminded this unsuccessful “coup” attempt and the irredeemable corruptness of the Brazilian Supreme Court (as recently embodied by Moraes), Bolsonaro would likely face imprisonment if that happened.

Not only that, but if Brazilian and/or US investigators find and/or manufacture evidence suggesting that American citizens supposedly played a role in the Brasilia events that Lula’s government officially described as a “coup” and “terrorism”, then they can be prosecuted under the 1794 Neutrality Act. That law banned Americans from waging war against states at peace with the US, which is what the Biden and/or Lula Administrations might claim those citizens did if they allegedly “colluded” with Bolsonaro.

In the event that a connection is formed – whether objectively existing based on actual facts, completely fabricated due to fake news, or a blend thereof – between Trump, his family, and/or network with Bolsonaro’s, then the Biden Administration could prosecute them too on that pretext. This scenario could allow the US’ ruling liberal-globalists to deal a deathblow to their conservative opposition similar to the one that Brazil’s appear to be in the process of doing for their own power-consolidating purposes.

With these shared ulterior motives in mind and remembering the “politically incorrect” comparisons between both countries’ faux Colour Revolution attempts, it certainly appears as though Brazil’s “deep state” colluded with the US’ to replicate the January 6th scenario in their own country. At the very least, this served to artificially manufacture the pretext for Lula to crack down on the conservative opposition, which advances the Biden Administration’s ideological interests as well, but there might be more to it.

As was recently explained, BBC and Reuters’ latest information warfare narratives suggest that the incident in Brasilia might also have artificially manufactured the pretext for the Biden Administration to crack down on its own conservative opposition, namely Trump, his family, and/or network. Whether that happens or not, and it’s too early to say for sure though this scenario still can’t be dismissed, it’s possible that the US might also afford Brazil additional foreign policy flexibility as a quid pro quo.

The odds of a Brazilian-US foreign policy quid pro quo

Instead of “gently” opposing it for ideological reasons like the US began to do during the end of Bolsonaro’s tenure, it could soften its resistance by letting Lula make some progress on his multipolar vision without rhetorically challenging him too much like it did his predecessor as long as he stays in line. Ramping up pressure on Brazil’s new leader in reaction to his foreign policy moves might be counterproductive for the US since it could destabilize this ideologically aligned and fragile government.

In order to truly “reinforce the long-term, strategic nature of the U.S.-Brazil partnership” that the White House’s official readout declared that Sullivan set out to do during his trip there less than a month ago, Washington has to afford Brasilia a degree of foreign policy flexibility, at least superficially. That said, the US also can’t accomplish the aforementioned strategic goal if it appears as though Brazil is openly defying that declining unipolar hegemon’s demands, ergo the need to create a “face-saving” pretext.

Therein lies one of the additional motivations behind the collusion between the American and Brazilian “deep states” in that the latter’s US-advised doomed-to-fail faux Colour Revolution established the basis upon which to “reinforce the long-term, strategic nature of the U.S.-Brazil partnership”. Not only did they work closely together in concocting this scenario, but the outcome of Brazil cracking down on its conservative opposition like the US did its own after January 6th forms a public bond between them.

The reaffirmation of these liberal-globalist governments’ ideological alignment in the face of supposedly shared “threats to their democracy” from the conservative opposition that both of their authorities and perception managers nowadays frame as “fascist” created strong mutual trust. Even absent the scenario of the Biden Administration replicating Lula’s crackdown on the 1794 Neutrality Act pretext, the narrative has now been established that the US can trust Brazil not to defy the “rules-based order”.

In practice, this means that the US isn’t compelled to rhetorically challenge Brazil for its multipolar outreaches like it did during Bolsonaro’s tenure since Lula is ideologically aligned with the liberal-globalist Biden Administration in the domestic sense and proved this in light of Sunday’s events. As a result, Brazil might therefore make some additional progress in the multipolar direction – whether superficial or only mildly substantive – without public resistance from the US as long as it stays in line.

Concluding Thoughts

Considering the myriad strategic dimensions of Sunday’s suspicious incident in Brasilia as well as the equally myriad commonalities between the American and Brazilian “deep states”, both in the run-up to what happened and afterwards (including that which might soon unfold with respect to crackdown against Trump, his family, and/or network on the 1794 Neutrality Act pretext), there’s abundant evidence to conclude that everyone should exercise caution before rushing to judgement.

Far from being a failed so-called “fascist and terrorist coup” attempt, it convincingly appears as though this sequence of events was artificially manufactured via collusion between the American and Brazilian “deep states” in order to advance their shared ideological agendas. Russia and Türkiye denounced the latest events not because they fell for the “official narrative” written by the West’s MSM, but due to the principle of always opposing Colour Revolutions and standing in solidarity with BRICS-member Brazil.

Despite its “deep state’s” collusion with their American counterpart, Brazil is still expected to retain a more or less multipolar direction in terms of its foreign policy since the Lula Administration’s ideological alignment with the US is limited to the domestic realm and not the international one. This three-time leader still supports gradual reforms aimed at making the world order more democratic, equal, just, and predictable like Russia, Türkiye, and others do, but it’ll also cooperate with the US on shared interests.

Nevertheless, there’s no denying how concerning it is that his “deep state” colluded so closely with the US’ in orchestrating Sunday’s dramatic events, which raises credible fears that American influence in the Brazilian government might be a lot deeper than even the most cynical observers suspect. That could in turn lead to the scenario whereby the US eventually backstabs Lula through various means, including a military coup or post-modern one like that which deposed his successor, if he gets out of line.

For these reasons, it’s expected that he’ll proceed very cautiously on the foreign policy front despite being ideologically misaligned with the US in that respect in order to not risk its Hybrid War wrath. Lula might have learned his lesson from the last time around to not go too far in the multipolar direction lest he and his closest “fellow travellers” suffer life-changing consequences as a result like Dilma Rousseff later did too. Should that be the case, then there actually isn’t a lot to be expected from his third term.

Courtesy Andrew Korybko

https://voiceofeast.net/2023/01/09/everyone-should-exercise-caution-before-rushing-to-judgement-on-what-just-happened-in-brazil/