Brazil Dictatorship 2.0 - What you need to know

Let's be honest—everyone knows that Brazil has turned into a left-wing dictatorship under the control of Alexandre de Moraes. What we didn't realize was how many supporters of dictatorships exist in the West, who openly express their satisfaction on a democratic platform like X, which they ironically want to see banned.

The Importance of X in the Global Context

Love it or hate it, X is the only platform where you can access real-time information straight from the source, without it being filtered and twisted into whatever narrative a particular media outlet might have (and they all have one). No other platform has resisted government censorship requests like X has. If we take X out of the equation, there's no alternative where information can flow freely and where we can directly access those involved in events.

This is a power that never existed in the past. In the old days, news was filtered and delivered through the biased lenses of journalists and media outlets. Other social networks, like Facebook, don’t have the characteristics of X and haven't resisted government-imposed censorship worldwide, with even Mark Zuckerberg admitting to bowing to pressure to censor content during COVID and the Hunter Biden laptop story—not to mention the other content they censor without admitting it, leaving us in the dark.

This results in free communication and the dissemination of information among people, allowing them to publish news and opinions from their own viewpoints, which naturally influence and provide access to data that would otherwise be omitted or spun into a particular narrative. Governments don’t want this to happen, and that's why they push for censorship—not to protect us, but to control the narrative and behavior.

Brazil and Control of the Narrative

Lula’s government has been doubling down on media control, especially over Globo, which saw a massive increase in federal advertising investment, receiving four times more than Record.

"After trailing in second place during Jair Bolsonaro's government, Globo is back at the top of the list of TV groups receiving the most federal government advertising funds since President Luiz..."

https://veja.abril.com.br/coluna/maquiavel/com-lula-globo-supera-record-e-lidera-em-verbas-publicitarias-do-governo

The government’s influence on the media is evident—Globo's news favors the PT and demonizes its political opponents, even featuring commentators who support and applaud the censorship imposed by Alexandre de Moraes and Lula's government on social networks and other media outlets.

The Controversial Alexandre de Moraes

This judge has assumed a role that doesn’t align with a democratic regime. The prominence he has taken on isn’t healthy for democracy. Judges in democracies should ideally operate with control and discretion because they’re in a position of immunity that could lead to abuses of power. This is clearly visible with Alexandre de Moraes, who has turned into the judge, jury, and executioner—basically becoming the law itself.

It’s neither normal nor democratic for a judge to issue censorship orders, shut down company accounts, or silence political opponents of the regime. It’s not normal, and it’s not what’s expected from a Supreme Court judge.

Alexandre de Moraes issues censorship orders on social networks and requests that these decisions be kept secret. You can see some examples on X via the Alexandre Files profile.

https://x.com/AlexandreFiles

He has become a self-appointed defender of the democratic state, morphing into an unchecked dictator. Lula, a former convict with skeletons in his closet, doesn’t dare challenge the judge’s rampage for fear of repercussions, thus maintaining his unequivocal support.

The Confusion Between Court, Judge, and Law

In democratic regimes, due process exists precisely to prevent cases like Alexandre de Moraes'. In a democracy, it’s recommended that cases begin in lower courts and follow the proper procedures, allowing the accused to have a trial and defense with the possibility of appeal, possibly reaching the Supreme Court as a last resort.

In any of the cases where political opponents and journalists were silenced by Alexandre de Moraes, none followed the conventional, recommended process. And because they were orders from the Supreme Court, there’s no room for appeal. This is what a dictatorship does—it steamrolls democratic processes to achieve its ends.

Alexandre de Moraes even ordered the freezing of bank accounts of various entities to try to affect the CEO of X, as well as implemented a 50,000 real fine for anyone using a VPN. These are arbitrary measures from a judge pursuing a personal vendetta, which can’t be accepted in a democracy. This isn’t the law; it’s the abuse and distortion of the judiciary based on one man’s whims.

The Supporters of Censorship

What’s continually surprising about this censorship of millions of people is the support from a significant portion of the public who live in democratic regimes but apparently aren’t big fans of democracy. The arguments vary but all fail to defend the inherent freedom in democratic regimes.

"Follow the law" Sure, but following the law isn’t the same as obeying the whims of a judge who bends the law to suit himself. If the judge manipulates the law to block journalists and shut down TV stations, it’s unacceptable and undemocratic. All tyrannical regimes start by distorting and bending the law in their favor. So, just saying it’s "following the law" doesn’t reflect reality and doesn’t mean we’re not dealing with a dictatorial stance that goes against the Brazilian constitution itself.

"We need to regulate social networks" No, we don’t. There are laws on freedom of expression. If someone thinks those laws have been violated, they can follow the democratic process and file a complaint to follow due process.

"X complies with non-democratic regimes" Yes, but when the platform arrived, that was the prevailing law, and it needs to be followed. In Brazil’s case, we’re talking about a constitutional democracy with protected rights that were respected until the judge became the avenger.

"X is just full of fascists and far-right extremists" This is repeated endlessly by users who are probably from the opposite spectrum, so... And even if it were true, if there are legal violations, you open a case in court and follow due process. That’s how democracy works.

Brazil Is Grappling With a Dictatorship

Brazil is in deep economic decline, drowning in taxes, with less and less freedom to choose an alternative.

The various hallmarks of a non-democratic regime are visible:

• Regime influence over the media:
• Inhibition of the main opponent from running in elections:
• Censorship of opposition content:
• Freezing of opposition bank accounts:
• Blocking of the world’s largest unbiased information platform:
• Judicial and political power in the hands of the regime:

Brazilians are going to need to fight, and I see two possibilities: The first is that the upcoming protests and social pressure will reverse the current situation, leading to a change in November, with Alexandre de Moraes possibly facing impeachment.

The second alternative is that the regime’s abuse escalates public dissatisfaction to such extreme levels that the government uses the military to crush the opposition, labeling the dissatisfied as fascists and radicals who need to be removed from society. This would cement the regime, which would then prevail for many years to come.