The Brazilian presidential election shows a country fractured in the middle, not because of solid ideological convictions, but because of an extraordinary process of popular division, resulting from various concurrent factors. The main, the cyber technologywhich, supported by big-data and algorithms, allows a subtle social control that segments the population by diverse criteria and accelerates its polarization, on issues secondary to the main social demands. The charismatic leadershipwhich represent combinations of sometimes contradictory ideologies, complement the divisive action.
In the last decade, clearly, no government proposal, nor ideology of any kind, has satisfied its voters; reason why these, are changing of option and is voted today more by rejection than by conviction. The long list of elections where has won the circumstantial “opposition” he is quite eloquent. It goes from failure to failure, even in countries with diverse social, economic or financial situations. Brazil has low inflation and reserves of USD 300 billion in its Central Bank, its economy is growing and there is little formal unemployment. The ruling party still loses, even if it is by a minimal margin.
All of America, including the US, is shown on maps colored red and blue. They seem to resemble “lefts” or “rights”, a widely spread simplism to mask that in most cases they are variants of the same system, subtly managed by a few, mostly by the international financial system. Their differences are on issues adjacent to the core issue. The real problems are: the lack of balanced economic and human development; the submission to internationalist doctrines that restrict the sovereign management of nations, and the lack of social justice, which excludes or impoverishes growing contingents of the population.
Since Lula’s triumph in Brazil, the South American map has been shown to be almost entirely colored in a misleading “postmodern progressive red”. Although these “reds” have particular national and historical characteristics, they have several signs in common: (a) they are very liberals in culturel, blithely propagating post-technocratic truths, such as overemphasizing gender issues, distorted inclusive language, or relativizing religious issues; all ideas that come from European social democracy and North American democrats, which are used as polarization and internal disunity as a distraction from the lack of true solutions to popular problems, the fall in quality and standards of life; (b) are cheerfully environmentalists, which is correct in general, but self-punishing its own industrial development, and without defending the fact that environmental mitigation should be paid almost exclusively by the most developed countries that produced it massively and not by the least developed countries; (c) the indigenismdistorting approach of the native peoples, masking the massive miscegenation, which gave rise to the Creole, and which is applied almost exclusively to Latin America, as a way of fragmentation, division and distraction.
A point in common between left and right liberals is the systemic aggression (by action or omission, by contradictory or electoral measures, or by ideology), to the national techno-industrial development, which produces deindustrialization or denationalization, which favors import from abroad or prevents a healthy technological development of its own. The lack of national projects and strategic clarity in both sectors is paradigmatic and is clearly seen in Argentina, although somewhat less so in Brazil, due to the existence of a strong national industrialist bourgeoisie in the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo and due to the action of their Armed Forces, which, with great patriotic sense, have a greater focus on national technological and industrial enhancement.
The technological and industrial competition it is the vector of current world conflicts. Mackinder said that whoever controls the Eurasian island, controls the world. Updating this reasoning, we would say that whoever dominates the new critical technologies has greater geopolitical dominance: it is the Technogeopolitics. It is insistently reasoned in Europe that the war unleashed in its territory has as an important vector, destroying the tacit Berlin-Moscow alliance, originated in the OstPolitik, but continued by Merkel to attract Russia to Europe and thus achieve, via cheap energy, sustain the continuity of the extremely high German competitiveness; Consistent with this, the terrorist attack involving the blowing up of the Nord Stream II gas pipeline is seen as affecting Germany’s geostrategic interests much more than those of Russia. In our area, the thesis is known, that the operation “Lava Jato” in Brazil, was destined to dismantle the big Brazilian companies, and that everything is seen as part of the unrestricted or hybrid war, with which the Anglo-Saxon interests are managed and those of the rest of the world.
Just as Lula was imprisoned at that time for secondary reasons; Now, without too many forces, he is strangely empowered to assume the presidency of Brazil, but surrounded or conditioned by his former ideological opponents (the liberal establishment, the Centrao, the environmentalists), who have created a new Broad Front for him. The one who “releases” him from jail is the Supreme Court, on the grounds that he was prosecuted in the wrong place; nothing was said about his presumed guilt (potential hostage). In Brazil it is said that he lives in a juristocracy, given the strong power of the Judicial System, with strong international ties. The “leftist” PT received heavy donations from the banks; good business and high finance have no ideology. During the campaign, the big media (Globo, Folha), favored the PT, arguing the defense of democracy, against the advances of the “extreme right”. It seems that the presence of the strong Brazilian economic recovery and the strengthening of its Armed Forces has not gone down well in the North and, in the absence of another leadership, the astute and charismatic Lula is resorted to. Among other factors, a Bolsonaro, without ideological consistency, very contradictory, also paid dearly for his rather independent foreign policy and his failure to condemn Putin.
Lula was congratulated from the US, none other than his top brass: Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken (Secretary of State) and Lloyd Austin (Secretary of Defense). The Brazilian electronic voting machines (with Oracle software) were endorsed as safe by William Burns (director of the CIA). From Europe, Mrs. Von der Leyen and Josep Borrel were present, as well as Macron, Scholz (German premier) and the Spanish Pedro Sánchez. The internationalization of the Amazon surrounds all these European supports, as well as those received from Boric (Chile), Petro (Colombia) and Luis Almagro (OAS). Nor did they miss the appointment, GreenPeace and Al Gore (“Climate Reality Project); as well as pseudo-indigenous NGOs. Even Hollywood was hired (Leonardo DiCaprio, and Marvel movie actors).
The big question is what margin Lula has to implement his ideas, since he is not known to have reconciled a government program with his current political partners. All the issues are potential conflicts, even more so with a very unfavorable Congress and with governors in the most important states, who have supported Bolsonaro.
Brazil is part of the BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This increases the contradictions of this time, which are several. Internally, the Landless, the wage earners, the private sector, the cultural differences between traditionalist and cosmopolitan Brazil. Internationally, their national interests, their own country project, with divergent options between their sovereignty and globalism. They are common themes, but they have greater impact and importance when talking about very large countries, such as Brazil. Lula is unlikely to change Brazil’s “neutrality” in the NATO-Russia conflict, given that he also received congratulations from Putin. Perhaps his widespread proposal for a single South American currency, which would allow him to show his personal leadership in the area, is complicated; issue that the US views with some mistrust. Relations with Europe could be simpler: in the environmental area, control of deforestation in the Amazon, although the position of the Brazilian Armed Forces would have to be seen. With postmodern cultural politics, the road has been paved. relationships with China, they will follow according to their mutual interests; being Brazil his main supplier of grains. The US is mainly interested in issues related to continental security and the advancement of Chinese interests in the region.
The classic models have been failing, observable in the enormous uncertainty that dominates the world. They fail economically and culturally. The largest countries, India, Japan, Indonesia, have become more protectionist and more nationalistic, fearing the unknown and trying to avoid strong internal polarizations in order to avoid external weaknesses. The countries that do not belong to the Triad (USA-China-Russia), permanently update their foreign policy, executing continuous friend-ally-enemy transactions, to survive in this world convulsed by a cognitive war that does not give rest. The world is moving tumultuously towards an alternative model that should lead us to multilateralism and peace. This is the only way to achieve greater global certainty.