Na Rússia, todos os partidos têm tempo igual de TV e rádio. No Brasil, só quatro candidatos aparecem; nove ficam de fora. Democracia de fachada.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A máquina de propaganda dos Estados Unidos e dos regimes europeus, incluindo suas sucursais nas semicolônias, prega que a Rússia é uma autocracia, um regime antidemocrático. Como tal, suas eleições não são livres, mas sim controladas por Vladimir Putin e seus aliados.

Um bom exemplo dessa lavagem cerebral foi vista nas eleições recentes para a Duma Estatal, o parlamento russo. O Rússia Unida, partido de Putin, obteve uma votação recorde: elegeu 349 dos 450 deputados. Todo o aparato de propaganda da CIA que são os grandes jornais e agências de notícias ocidentais acusou Putin de manipular as eleições, que teriam sido fraudadas.

Mas basta fazer uma comparação com as eleições no Brasil para perceber que as eleições brasileiras são uma fraude e as eleições na Rússia são muito mais livres que no Brasil.

Na Rússia, todos os partidos registrados têm tempo de propaganda gratuita em rádio e televisão. A propaganda é veiculada nas emissoras públicas e estatais, com o tempo distribuído de forma igualitária entre todos os partidos. Sim, é garantido por lei que todos os partidos devem ter o mesmo tempo para apresentar suas propostas à audiência.

Essa é uma das principais vantagens da Rússia sobre o Brasil em relação às campanhas. É um sistema muito mais democrático. No Brasil, uma parte dos partidos, mesmo que estejam registrados no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE), sequer tem direito de aparecer na TV e no rádio. Somente os partidos com um número mínimo de parlamentares no Congresso Nacional podem apresentar suas propostas ao grande público. Caso contrário, precisam se coligar com outros partidos. Os que não se aliam com os partidos que já têm vagas no parlamento ficam de fora da campanha de rádio e TV.

Ou seja, os partidos pequenos precisam submeter suas ideias e seus programas políticos, na prática abandonar sua independência, vendendo-se aos grandes partidos, para terem acesso ao tempo de TV e rádio. É um sistema eleitoral que visa acabar com os partidos pequenos, reduzir o número de partidos e concentrar o poder nos grandes partidos. Isso nem de longe é um sistema democrático e livre. Ele apaga parte das ideias políticas que existem na sociedade para que o eleitor só tenha acesso à outra parte, orientando assim o voto do eleitor. É uma das inúmeras facetas da fraude eleitoral.

Mas mesmo entre os partidos com tempo de rádio e TV esse tempo não é igualitário. Os partidos grandes e suas coligações (com as maiores bancadas na Câmara dos Deputados) têm direito a um tempo muito maior do que os menores. Nestas eleições presidenciais, a coligação de Lula recebeu 5 minutos e 31 segundos para fazer propaganda política dentro do bloco de propaganda eleitoral gratuita obrigatória diária. A coligação de Flávio Bolsonaro recebeu 4 minutos e 20 segundos, a de Ronaldo Caiado recebeu 2 minutos e 02 segundos e a de Augusto Cury recebeu 35 segundos. Além dos blocos, há as inserções de 30 segundos a 1 minuto distribuídas ao longo da programação diária. No 1º turno, Lula tem direito a 433 inserções, Bolsonaro a 339, Caiado a 159 e Cury a 47.

Apenas quatro candidatos tiveram tempo para apresentar suas propostas em TV e rádio. Os outros nove concorrentes ficaram de fora. De treze candidaturas, os eleitores não puderam conhecer nove delas, apenas quatro, através da propaganda nos meios de comunicação convencionais. Os quatro privilegiados, portanto, foram extremamente beneficiados pela legislação eleitoral antidemocrática. Mas mesmo entre esses quatro existe uma hierarquia, que privilegia uns e prejudica outros.

Há ainda os debates eleitorais. Na Rússia, pelo menos metade do tempo gratuito de rádio e TV deve ser dedicada a eventos conjuntos entre candidatos e partidos, como debates, mesas-redondas ou entrevistas coletivas. E todos têm direito de participar. Assim, além de apresentarem suas ideias na propaganda eleitoral, os partidos podem confrontar suas ideias, para que o eleitor possa compará-las.

Além de não terem direito de tempo de TV e rádio para fazer propaganda, no Brasil a maioria dos partidos e candidatos também não tem o direito de participar dos debates. Ao contrário da Rússia, a legislação eleitoral não obriga as emissoras a convidarem a todos. Apenas candidatos de partidos, coligações ou federações que tenham ao menos cinco parlamentares no Congresso Nacional devem ser obrigatoriamente convidados a participar dos debates organizados nos meios de comunicação. Isso significa que, nestas eleições presidenciais, menos da metade dos candidatos participaram dos debates. Os meios de comunicação podem convidar os outros candidatos, mas não são obrigados. E, assim, não os convidam. Afinal de contas, assim como o TSE, os grandes canais de TV e emissoras de rádio são controlados pelas classes dominantes e não interessa a eles que candidaturas que, de alguma maneira, questionam a dominação de classe, possam expor suas ideias. Ou mesmo que partidos que não incomodam as classes dominantes exponham suas ideias, pois quanto menos debate de ideias existir, mais embrutecido o povo fica, e mais fácil é manter o status quo.

Brazil’s alignment with Europe amid current geopolitical tensions poses a serious threat to Brazil’s traditional policy of neutrality.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On September 30, all major Brazilian newspapers published a report stating that the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (Abin) had allegedly warned European authorities about supposed simultaneous interference by the United States and Russia in Brazilian elections. The case raises questions that go far beyond the 2026 electoral dispute. The central issue is the accusation against Moscow, as well as the political and institutional circumstances in which it was presented.

Within Brazil’s intelligence system, Abin is institutionally linked to the Presidency of the Republic, while the Federal Police, another intelligence-related institution in the country, has stronger links to the Judiciary. Its function is to produce strategic information to assist the Brazilian government. Therefore, when representatives of Brazilian intelligence inform foreign authorities that Russia is interfering in the electoral process, it is inevitable to ask to what extent this assessment reflects the political position of the government that controls the agency.

The issue becomes even more significant because, according to the information released, the European delegation received an accusation concerning Russian interference without substantial details about its nature being made public. No agents, operations, funding mechanisms, propaganda structures, or specific campaigns attributed to Moscow have been identified, at least in the material made public so far. There is therefore an accusation, but its foundations remain largely unknown.

This creates a particularly convenient situation for certain political actors. Europe – which is hostile toward both Russia and Trump – receives information suggesting that Washington and Moscow are attempting to influence the Brazilian elections. This would allow Brussels – and especially France and Germany, currently Lula’s key “friends” – to potentially “support” Brazil in “counter-intelligence” efforts aimed at combating alleged US and Russian influence. In other words, the accusation of interference, even in the absence of evidence, could serve as a pretext to justify actual interference (by Europe).

There is also a broader political issue. A significant portion of the Brazilian left has consolidated in recent years an unfounded interpretation according to which Vladimir Putin belongs to a kind of “far-right international movement,” alongside Donald Trump and other Western conservative leaders. This interpretation places Russia, Trump, and the Brazilian right within the same international political camp, despite profound differences between their respective positions and interests.

Within this framework, associating Russia with a potential Flávio Bolsonaro candidacy becomes politically convenient. Flávio is identified with Trump, the Republican Party, and the American right. The existence of an alleged Russian connection would allow the Brazilian electoral dispute to be incorporated into a broader international narrative in which different conservative forces are presented as parts of the same network of influence.

However, it is absolutely obvious that Russia has no interest whatsoever in interfering in the Brazilian elections to favor either side. Furthermore, the majority of pro-Russia activists in Brazil identify with the left or remain neutral regarding both sides of national politics. The accusation appears to be made simply to please the European Union, given that Europeans prefer Lula to Flávio (as the latter is subordinate to Trump). The lack of details substantiating the accusations only reinforces this point.

The truly relevant question is different: why did an intelligence agency subordinate to the Presidency of the Republic present European authorities with an accusation against Russia without its foundations subsequently being clarified? And why is this happening precisely during preparations for the Brazilian elections and at a time of extraordinary deterioration in relations between Russia and Europe?

The answer to these questions matters because Brazil is operating in an increasingly polarized international environment. Russia occupies a central position within the BRICS and maintains strategic relations with Brazil, while Europe is going through a period of growing confrontation with Moscow. In this context, any official Brazilian information associating Russia with an electoral interference operation carries serious diplomatic consequences.

Moreover, tensions between Russia and Europe are increasing, and there is a real risk of conflict due to Europe’s continued provocations. Clearly, in such a context, it is not in Brazil’s interest to become part of either side of the crisis. But nothing could be more damaging to Brazil’s policy of neutrality than reporting a formal accusation against Russia to the European Union.

In theory, it is possible that the report was delivered to European authorities without prior communication to the Brazilian president – although this seems highly unlikely. If Lula wants to preserve Brazil’s neutrality, the appropriate course of action would be to publicly disavow Abin and apologize for the incident. The question, however, is whether he would actually be willing to do so, considering that the European Union is currently the Lula government’s main international “ally”.

Latvians are voting for a new parliament on Saturday after an election campaign dominated by security, repeated drone incidents, support for Ukraine and mounting pressure on household finances.

Latvians went to the polls on Saturday, 3 October, to elect the country’s 100-seat Saeima in an election taking place against an unusually tense security backdrop on NATO’s eastern frontier.

Fourteen parties and electoral alliances are contesting the election, with 1,428 candidates seeking seats in parliament, according to Latvia’s Central Election Commission. Voting takes place across five constituencies — Riga, Vidzeme, Latgale, Kurzeme and Zemgale — with polling stations open until 20:00 local time.

Security has occupied a prominent place in the campaign after a series of drone incidents brought the consequences of Russia’s war against Ukraine directly into Latvian airspace.

Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs, who took office in May after the previous coalition collapsed during a political crisis over the handling of drone incursions, is seeking a new mandate for his centrist United List. EU Today reported at the time that Prime Minister Evika Siliņa resigned after her coalition fractured amid criticism of Latvia’s response to repeated unmanned aircraft incidents along the Russian border. The collapse followed a succession of drone-related security incidents.

Kulbergs has campaigned on continued support for Ukraine and stronger Latvian defences, including additional counter-drone capabilities. His party entered election day ahead in the opinion polls, although the fragmented political landscape means coalition negotiations are likely to determine the eventual composition of the government.

An SKDS poll conducted between 4 and 16 September put United List on 14.4 per cent. Sovereign Power/Alliance of Young Latvians followed on 9.4 per cent, while Latvia First stood on 9.2 per cent. The Progressives recorded 6.2 per cent and the National Alliance 5.6 per cent. When only voters who had decided how they intended to vote were counted, seven political forces were projected to cross the 5 per cent threshold for representation in parliament.

The survey also showed a substantial pool of undecided or disengaged voters shortly before polling day, leaving considerable uncertainty around the final distribution of seats.

Russia and the war in neighbouring Ukraine have also produced sharper divisions between the competing parties.

Kulbergs has maintained Latvia’s strong support for Kyiv, while Sovereign Power has opposed military assistance to Ukraine and called for greater emphasis on negotiations. Latvia First has also sought votes among parts of the country’s Russian-speaking population, particularly in eastern Latvia, where questions surrounding language policy, relations with Moscow and the economic consequences of the war remain politically sensitive.

Latvia’s geographical position gives those arguments a significance extending beyond domestic politics. The country shares a border with Russia and Belarus and hosts allied troops as part of NATO’s reinforced eastern presence.

Earlier this year, drones crossed into Latvia from Russian territory, including incidents that exposed weaknesses in detecting and intercepting relatively small unmanned aircraft. EU Today reported in March that Latvia’s defence minister cut short a visit to Kyiv after another drone crossed the border from Russia. Further incidents followed in May.

Latvian intelligence has meanwhile warned about the changing nature of Moscow’s approach towards the country. In January, the Constitution Protection Bureau said Russia’s perception of Latvia was becoming increasingly similar to its view of Ukraine before the full-scale invasion, while stressing that it did not assess Russia as posing an immediate direct military threat at that stage. The warning was examined by EU Today earlier this year.

Riga has responded with one of NATO’s highest levels of defence expenditure.

Latvia’s Ministry of Defence says the country will spend about €2.16 billion on defence in 2026, equivalent to approximately 4.7 per cent of GDP under its updated calculation, as it moves towards a target of 5 per cent. Priorities include strengthening the armed forces, developing military infrastructure and improving defences along the eastern border. The Latvian defence ministry’s budget programme places additional emphasis on domestic defence production and military innovation.

Security is not the only issue facing voters. The cost of living, pensions, public services and regional economic disparities have also featured heavily during the campaign, particularly outside Riga.

The security debate, however, has given this election a wider European dimension. Latvia’s next government will take office while Russia’s war against Ukraine continues immediately beyond NATO’s eastern frontier and while the Baltic states are investing heavily in air defence, border protection and military readiness.

The official result will determine the composition of the 15th Saeima for the next four years. With several parties competing around the parliamentary threshold and no single force close to a majority, the subsequent coalition negotiations are likely to be almost as consequential as Saturday’s vote itself.

The apparent attempted hijacking of a Flydubai flight carrying 170 mostly Israeli passengers was another reminder to Israelis of the constant threat of terror and war. Only the bravery of the chief pilot and passengers prevented a major disaster. A few hours earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a video warning of attempts to harm […]

The post Flydubai attack feeds Netanyahu’s ‘protector’ line as polls near appeared first on Asia Times.

This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 02, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

An analysis published Friday by Democracy Docket warned that “tens of thousands” of voters across the US face “risk of disenfranchisement” thanks to actions being taken by the United States Postal Service.

The analysis, written by veteran election reporter Jim Saksa, points to a new USPS policy known as Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) that “will eliminate evening mail pickups from post offices more than 50 miles away from a regional processing facility, most of which are located in major urban areas.”

For people who live in these areas, ballots sent on Election Day will be postmarked and delivered at least a day later than in previous election years, thus making it ineligible to be included in final election tallies.

“In every state, a day’s delay in delivery means that if mail voters wait until the last day or two before the election to mail their ballot,” Saksa explained, “they could be disenfranchised.”

Saksa reported that this policy is currently active in “about 42.5% of all ZIP codes” in the continental US, and is scheduled to eventually take effect in around 70% of all ZIP codes. No additional ZIP codes are expected to be added between now and election day.

Saksa also said that voters concerned about their ballots not being counted should deliver them in person to their local post office, where they can ask an employee to postmark it.

President Donald Trump has tried for the last several months to use USPS to meddle with states’ mail-in voting systems.

In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the United States Postal Service to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to their voter lists.

The US Supreme Court last month rejected Trump’s efforts to interfere with mail-in voting, allowing states to continue sending ballots to voters as they’ve done in past elections.

Even with the Supreme Court loss, however, the president’s repeated attacks on voting by mail has had a major impact on the 2026 midterm elections.

An NBC News poll released in September showed that just 23% of Democratic voters said they planned to vote by mail this year, a double-digit drop from 2024 when 34% of Democrats said they were voting by mail.

In an interview with Politico published Thursday, Quentin James, founder and president of The Collective Political Action Committee, said Black voters have been expressing concerns about sending in their ballots for fear that Trump will order USPS to not deliver them.

“I think there’s confusion,” James said. “We know that the president has spent six months talking about changing the rules regarding mail-in voting, and a lot of folks are concerned about their ballot being secure.”

Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg also told Politico that her group is “absolutely hearing concern” about the mail voting process this year.

“But more importantly,” Greenberg added, “what we’re hearing is people trying to figure out what they can do and how they can organize locally in order to protect elections.”

Jordan Bardella, a leader of the French far-right National Rally, has denied writing antisemitic messages in 2013, as the race ahead of next May’s presidential elections continues to heat up.

An investigation by the left-leaning outlet Mediapart said on Thursday (1 October) that it could authenticate antisemitic messages from 2013 and attribute them to Bardella.

In the messages, Bardella, an MEP and chair of the far-right Patriots for Europe group, said “all the banks are owned by Jews” and that Israel aims to create a new world order. Earlier media reports also found his secret Twitter account publishing racist content, such as mocking a young Black man who had suffered police violence.

He denied having written the messages, calling the evidence “crude montages” and “obscure screenshots that can easily be manipulated,”  he wrote on social media, adding he would sue Mediapart for defamation.

“Either Mediapart is running this operation itself, or it is being manipulated by interested parties,” he has said.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Alinhamento do Brasil à Europa em meio às atuais tensões geopolítica cria uma ameaça grave à política tradicional de neutralidade do Brasil.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

No dia 30 de setembro foi publicado em todos os jornais brasileiro uma matéria afirmando que a Agência Brasileira de Inteligência (Abin) teria alertado autoridades europeias sobre uma suposta interferência simultânea dos Estados Unidos e da Rússia nas eleições brasileiras. O caso levanta questões que vão muito além da disputa eleitoral de 2026. O problema central está na acusação contra Moscou, bem como nas circunstâncias políticas e institucionais em que essa acusação foi apresentada.

No sistema brasileiro de inteligência, a Abin é vinculada institucionalmente à Presidência da República – enquanto a Polícia Federal, outro órgão de inteligência do país, tem mais vínculos com o Poder Judiciário. Sua função é produzir informações estratégicas para assessorar o governo brasileiro. Por isso, quando representantes da inteligência brasileira comunicam a autoridades estrangeiras que existe interferência russa no processo eleitoral, é inevitável perguntar em que medida essa avaliação corresponde à posição política do governo que controla a estrutura da agência.

A questão ganha ainda mais importância porque, segundo as informações divulgadas, a delegação europeia recebeu uma acusação sobre interferência russa sem que fossem apresentados publicamente elementos substanciais sobre sua natureza. Não foram identificados, ao menos no material tornado público, agentes, operações, mecanismos de financiamento, estruturas de propaganda ou campanhas específicas atribuídas a Moscou. Existe, portanto, uma acusação, mas seus fundamentos permanecem praticamente desconhecidos.

Isso produz uma situação particularmente conveniente para determinados atores políticos. A Europa, que é hostil à Rússia e a Trump, recebe uma informação segundo a qual tanto Washington quanto Moscou estariam tentando influenciar as eleições brasileiras. Isso permitiria a Bruxelas – e ainda mais especialmente à França e à Alemanha, que são os principais “amigos” de Lula atualmente – eventualmente “apoiar” o Brasil em ações de “contrainteligência” para combater a suposta influência estadunidense e russa. Em outras palavras, a acusação de interferência, mesmo sem provas, pode vir a servir como argumento para justificar uma interferência real (da Europa).

Há ainda uma questão política mais ampla. Uma parcela significativa da esquerda brasileira consolidou nos últimos anos uma interpretação segundo a qual Vladimir Putin pertence a uma espécie de “internacional de extrema direita”, ao lado de Donald Trump e de outros movimentos conservadores ocidentais. Essa leitura transforma Rússia, Trump e a direita brasileira em elementos de um mesmo campo político internacional, apesar das diferenças profundas entre suas respectivas posições e interesses.

Dentro dessa interpretação, a associação entre Rússia e uma eventual candidatura de Flávio Bolsonaro se torna politicamente conveniente. Flávio é identificado com Trump, com o Partido Republicano e com a direita americana. A existência de uma suposta conexão russa permitiria inserir a disputa eleitoral brasileira em uma narrativa internacional mais ampla, na qual diferentes forças conservadoras seriam apresentadas como partes de uma mesma rede de influência.

Contudo, é absolutamente óbvio que a Rússia não tem qualquer interesse em interferir nas eleições brasileiras a favor de qualquer dos lados. Ademais, a maior parte dos ativistas pró-Rússia no Brasil é identificada com a esquerda ou neutra em relação a ambos os lados da política nacional. A acusação parece ser feita com o simples intuito de agradar a União Europeia, já que os europeus preferem Lula a Flávio (por este ser subordinado a Trump). E o fato de não haver detalhes que substanciem as acusações apenas reforça este ponto.

O ponto realmente relevante é outro: por que uma agência de inteligência subordinada à Presidência da República apresentou às autoridades europeias uma acusação contra a Rússia sem que seus fundamentos fossem posteriormente esclarecidos? E por que isso ocorre justamente durante a preparação das eleições brasileiras e em um momento de deterioração extraordinária das relações entre Rússia e Europa?

A resposta a essas perguntas importa porque o Brasil está inserido em um ambiente internacional cada vez mais polarizado. A Rússia ocupa posição central nos BRICS e mantém relações estratégicas com o Brasil, enquanto a Europa atravessa uma fase de crescente confronto com Moscou. Nesse contexto, qualquer informação oficial brasileira que associe a Rússia a uma operação de interferência eleitoral possui consequências diplomáticas graves.

Ademais, as tensões entre Rússia e Europa crescem cada vez mais e há risco real de conflito devido às constantes provocações europeias. É óbvio que em tal contexto não interessa ao Brasil se tornar parte de qualquer lado da crise. Mas não há nada pior para a política de neutralidade brasileira do que reportar à União Europa uma acusação formal contra a Rússia.

Em tese, é possível que o relatório tenha sido entregue à Europa sem comunicação prévia ao presidente brasileiro – embora isso seja muito improvável. Se Lula quiser preservar a neutralidade brasileira, o correto a ser feito é desmentir a Abin publicamente e pedir desculpas pelo incidente. Contudo, resta saber se ele estará realmente disposto a fazer isso, considerando que a União Europeia é o principal “aliado” internacional do governo Lula atual.

First published in Respekt.

In Germany’s recent state elections, voters as young as 16 could cast ballots. The results confirmed a global trend of political division between young women and men.

“On 1 January, we both deleted Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat. And whichever of us would be the first to start watching Reels again or download Instagram would have to eat a slice of rotten cheese,” Greta and Lena told Germany’s Deutschlandfunk radio station.

The 16-year-old girls live in a village in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and chose to delete social media because they had been spending far too much time on it. They often scrolled on TikTok or Instagram late into the night, affecting their performance at school. This summer, however, both reinstalled TikTok for a month. This time without the punishment of a slice of rotten cheese.

They did so for an experiment with journalists from Deutschlandfunk. The journalists wanted to find out what political content the girls would consume through TikTok, the popular Chinese social network, during the peak of the election campaign. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern went to the polls on the third weekend of September. And, as is well known, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) swept the state, just as it had two weeks prior in Saxony-Anhalt.

Greta and Lena, however, were in a markedly different position from their peers in Saxony-Anhalt. For the first time, the north-eastern federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in state elections. Since young people consume much of their news on social media, Greta and Lena immersed themselves in TikTok, one of the networks now most popular among young Europeans.

For the first few minutes, the girls watched a range of non-political videos — recipes, tomato growing and “silly” AI videos. Then, at around the third minute of scrolling, the first political content appeared. First came a video about Erich Honecker, the former East German communist politician. “Why am I seeing so much stuff about the GDR here?” Greta wondered. As she continued scrolling, she came across AfD co-leader Alice Weidel herself.

It was the first moment when the girls began to notice how quickly their initially apolitical feed was changing. “I feel as if it is constantly just AfD,” Greta said later. She added that she had not searched for any such content in advance. Over the following month, the girls kept a diary of their feed and observed how, after political videos, more and more similar content began appearing — not only from the parties themselves, but also from a range of accounts that picked up and further spread their messages.

The experiment confirmed what has been known for some time: TikTok and other networks alongside it can quickly form the political world a young person sees and the views they come to adopt. At the same time, algorithms are accelerating a trend of a political divide between young women and men, which was also reflected in the results of the state elections mentioned above in Germany.

Algorithms exacerbate polarisation

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Brazil votes this Sunday, and the Trump administration has spent months trying to tilt the outcome toward far-right presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro. Tariffs. Terrorist designations. Revoked visas. Frequent meetings with the Bolsonaro family. Taken alone, each move looks random. Put the pieces together, and a picture emerges: U.S. interference in Brazil’s 2026 elections. 

Over the last year, Trump has met frequently with members of the Bolsonaro family. In June, the State Department put two Brazilian gangs on the terrorist list. Just a few weeks later, Trump shared an article on Truth Social that said Brazil was his next big challenge. Less than a month later, in July, Trump imposed new 25% tariffs on Brazilian goods. In August, Trump revoked the U.S. visa of the Brazilian ambassador.

The Brazilian Intelligence Agency recently raised the risk of external influence and interference by the United States in Brazil’s 2026 elections to a quote, “critical level.”

This is Episode 15 of Under the Shadow, Season 2. 

Under the Shadow is an investigative narrative podcast series that walks back in time, telling the story of the past by visiting momentous places in the present. Season 2 responds in real time to the Trump administration’s onslaught on Latin America.

Follow Under the Shadow on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Hosted by Latin America-based journalist Michael Fox.
This podcast is produced in partnership between The Real News Network and NACLA.
It is supported, in part, by Global Exchange.

VOTE by October 15: Under the Shadow has been nominated for three podcast Signal Awards. Please consider voting for Under the Shadow and The Real News:

• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/shows/craft/best-host-documentary
• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/individual-episodes/craft/most-innovative-audio-experience
• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/individual-episodes/genre/activism-public-service-social-impact
• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/shows/genre/documentary

Panamerican Dispatch

You can check out Michael Fox’s new reporting project on Brazil. 

It’s called Panamerican Dispatch. It’s a project of The Real News in partnership with Global Exchange. The website is www.panamericandispatch.org

You can also follow us on social media below

Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/padispatch.bsky.social
X x.com/PAdispatch
IG instagram.com/padispatch
Tiktok www.tiktok.com/@padispatch

Theme music by Michael Fox’s band, Monte Perdido. Monte Perdido’s 2024 album Ofrenda is available on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, YouTube or wherever you listen to music.

Other music from Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound.

Script editing by Heather Gies. Hosted, written, produced, mixed, and edited by Michael Fox.

Guests: 

• Alexander Main
• Maria Martha Bruno
• Igor Fuser

Resources: 

• Visit Panamerican Dispatch for all of the latest news on Brazil
• You can visit Agencia Public for their reporting and analysis about Brazil. 
• Here is Agencia Publica’s investigación, Digital Militia. 
• Many thanks to Jake Johnston from the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Maria Martha Bruno, from Agencia Publica, for taking the time to speak with me and for their excellent analysis and insight.
• You can visit CEPR’s Live Tracker on Latin America.
• You can check out Michael Fox’s Patreon.
• More background… 
• The Beginning: Monroe and migration | Under the Shadow, Episode 1
• Panama. US Invasion. | Under the Shadow, Episode 13
• The legacy of Monroe | Under the Shadow, Bonus Episode 4 

Support Under the Shadow

Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox’s reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews.

You can subscribe to Michael Fox’s new free speech podcast, The Battle for Free Speech on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

“Marine Le Pen has reinvented herself. Her style now is more moderate,” reckons Jacques Rupnik, a French political scientist, ahead of the country’s widely anticipated battle for the presidency.

Many voters in France will vote for the candidate they see as having the best chance of defeating the far-right leader, Rupnik explains.

“All polls show that if the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon faced Marine Le Pen in the second round of France’s presidential election, Marine Le Pen would win,” he says, explaining that many French votes are unwilling to back Mélenchon.

In his interview with Denník N, Rupnik claims Mélenchon is the first French presidential candidate to seek support from immigrants so explicitly.

Find out:

• How Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon have used the migration debate for their campaigns.
• Why the presidential frontrunners do not understand economic issues.
• Rupnik’s assessment of Emmanuel Macron’s two presidential terms.
• Who does Marine Le Pen look up to?

Polls suggest that if France held a presidential election now, far-right Marine Le Pen and far-left Mélenchon would make the second round. What does this tell us about France?

France is divided and polarised. Young people in particular tend to lean towards more radical parties. Establishment parties are old and worn; they have lost their appeal. They have little to say, except for claiming that others are dangerous or worse. But you must bring something new to an election. But after ten years of Macron, that is very difficult.

And it is not entirely true that all polls predict Mélenchon will reach the second round; they often place former prime minister Edouard Philippe ahead of him. Mélenchon is powering ahead in polls because he has launched his campaign and is very good at it. But, nothing is decided.

In French presidential elections there are two rounds. In the first round, you vote for your preferred candidate; in the second, you vote for the lesser evil. So, for most voters, the question will not only be whom they prefer, but also who has the best chance of defeating Le Pen in the second round.

And that is very important. All polls say that if Mélenchon faced Le Pen in the second round, he would lose. Many people are not willing to vote for Mélenchon. A centrist candidate has the best chance of defeating Le Pen, so for now it looks like former prime minister Philippe.

But only if another former prime minister, Gabriel Attal, withdraws his candidacy.

Yes. We have two strong parties at the extremes, and the space in the centre has shrunk. The narrower it becomes, the more candidates appear within it. Every week, another politician tells media: “You know what, I would give it a go.”

Attal, of course, wants to win over Macron supporters — that is, voters on the centre left. The fact he is in the race matters even if he withdraws and endorses another candidate. That may prove a good strategy.

If Le Pen and Mélenchon reach the second round, many would vote Le Pen. Why?

Marine Le Pen has reinvented herself. Not in the sense that she has been thinking about what new ideas to bring forward, but now her style now is more moderate. It is no longer the brash style associated with her father.

Perhaps she took her cue from Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, seeing a candidate whom everyone feared, but no radical changes followed her election because she adapted quickly to European realities.

Le Pen points out that in several European countries, including Finland and Sweden, the far right has been in government and nothing has happened.

At the same time, Marine Le Pen managed to break through a certain barrier, and some moderate rightwing voters have shifted to her side.

How did that happen?

Previously, the moderate right was stronger and Le Pen’s camp was weaker. The type of rightwing voters who voted for Jacques Chirac have now shifted their weigh behind more radical options. The balance has shifted, and right-wing voters are saying: “Why should we, the right, be excluded from politics simply because Macron has failed and the Le Pen has grown stronger?”

Immigration is another reason behind growing support for Le Pen. Mélenchon is also capitalising on the immigration debate, but in the opposite way to her.

Please explain that.

Mélenchon opposes Le Pen’s position by arguing that immigrants integrate. The Le Pen camp says: “No, they have come from a different culture and their attitude is anti-French.” Le Pen’s camp says that integration works poorly, that immigrants do not even want to integrate instead preferring to live in their own communities.

“Mélenchon has therefore adopted the theory of grand remplacement, but instead of presenting it as a threat, he has turned it into a huge opportunity.”

And Mélenchon argues that it is fine for immigrants to remain in their own communities, practise their own religions, for women to wear headscarves and so on.

The great replacement conspiracy theory (“grand remplacement“) should be mentioned since the far right embraced it long ago. It is the idea that the native French population will gradually be replaced by new immigrants.

And Mélenchon now says: “What great replacement? On the contrary, it is an opportunity for France. He says: “The more of us there are, the better.”

Mélenchon has therefore adopted the theory of grand remplacement, but instead of presenting it as a threat, he has turned it into a huge opportunity. Of course, everyone knows what he is aiming for. It is an election campaign, and he is appealing to voters who are themselves immigrants.

Previously, no one focused on immigrants in elections except Le Pen who used them as a bogeyman. And now Mélenchon says: “We are appealing to Muslims.” He says Muslim headscarves are fine and religious symbols are fine. He says anyone who opposes this is racist.

In August, Le Pen announced her intention to ban headscarves in public spaces. Will her anti-Islamic agenda help her win?

On the contrary, such statements mainly play into Mélenchon’s hands. Of course, calling a referendum on the issue in France is not so simple since such laws already exist. The law states clearly that you can do what you want at home, but if you work in the public sector you must refrain from displaying your religion. There are laws covering this, and there is absolutely no need to devise new ones. Le Pen’s ideas in this regard seem to be mere campaign slogans; we cannot take them literally.

Yet, a major Le Monde poll shows the French are more concerned about the economy than immigration. Immigration ranks fourth, after social issues and ecology.

That is true, but other polls show that, for many voters, the issues of migration and safety overlap considerably.

So, as concerns about security become increasingly prominent, people are more concerned about security and often link it to migration. Marine Le Pen will certainly try to make it one of the key issues, alongside the economy.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Merz is a dead man walking. Fear and warmongering don’t win votes.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Having found out the hard way what it means to get slapped in the face at election time in Saxony-Anhalt, the CDU really got pulled backwards through the hedge on the 20th of September in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Meck/Pomm) and Berlin.

Looking at Meck/Pomm first, voter turnout was 78.1% – about the same as in Saxony-Anhalt with 77.8%.

The official, though still provisional, final result can be classed as a mini-bombshell compared to Saxony-Anhalt, but eye-opening nonetheless. There will be four parties taking seats in the state parliament.

AfD 38.2% = 32 seats
SPD 35.5%, with the incumbent state minister-president looking to stay in office = 29 seats
Die Linke (Left) 6.5% = 5 seats
Die Grüne (Greens) 5.7% = 5 seats

The state parliament has a total of 71 seats.

Now the interesting part: CDU 4.9%, zero seats thanks to the 5% hurdle; as also the FDP 1.0%, also zero seats.

Now let’s bring in a bit of perspective.

The AfD have won the next election, though not with such a large margin as in Saxony-Anhalt, but still a victory.

The incumbent minister-president since 2017, Manuela Schwesig, belongs to the top echelon of the SPD. She previously held the post of Minister for Education, Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth on a federal level from 2013–2017, and had held a similar post in the state parliament of Meck/Pomm from 2008–2013. She had a difficult time when the SPD moved away from being a working-man’s party and followed the so-called social reforms that drastically cut into the social security system, Schwesig trying to cushion the hard cuts as far as possible. Her role in politics has always come across as sincere and caring, giving the impression of being honest.

She belongs to the few SPD politicians expected to bring the ailing SPD back into a brighter future, but appears to want to stay in her position in Meck/Pomm, at least for the time being.

The Greens and the Left achieved what was expected of them: the Greens struggling, and the Left still trying to gain strength again after a period of internal turmoil after Sahra Wagenknecht walked out and started her own movement, BSW, taking some left-wing voters with her.

The Greens started out as a pacifist party, against military build-up and environmental degradation. Since 2022, they have become one of the foremost supporters of the regime in Ukraine and of a German and European rearmament, sometimes outdoing the established conservatives. This has cost them a lot of support from the environmental wing, mainly young voters. The anti-war supporters have turned to the AfD, and to some extent to the Left, the only parties propagating a more peaceful and diplomatic solution.

The big bang here in this election is not the FDP. They are of no real significance at the moment, having been in many coalition governments since 1949, always helping the two main parties to necessary majorities. They seem to have lost their own profile, trying to be partner to their campaign opponents and losing their way.

The big thing is the CDU, the governing party nationally, getting a measly 4.9% and thus being kicked out of the state parliament. This is massive. Mr. Merz is basically a dead man walking, and the writing is on the wall for all to see.

The once East German states still feel left behind and cheated after reunification. The programs set up to modernise and repair the old GDR benefited mostly Western German companies and institutions. Tenders were fixed and hundreds of enterprises went into receivership, only to be sold for a song to Western investors.

This is one of the underlying issues still in the minds of ex-GDR citizens and is trotted out as an explanation for just such election results. This is, however, valid only as an excuse to paste over the shortcomings of the established parties, ignoring the real issues such as de-population of the villages with missing infrastructure to care for an ageing population, low employment opportunities, migrant issues, and mistrust of the established parties. The driving power at the time of reunification was the CDU, whose promises did not come to pass. So a socialistic and an alternatively conservative platform were the choices of the day.

The elections in Berlin did not, at first glance, hit the CDU as badly as in the other two German states. Being Berlin, the capital city does, however, put another emphasis on the results. And here too the governing parties lost significantly to the parties on the wings, AfD and Linke. The results are as follows, with gains and losses added for clarification:

Die Linke        25.7%             47 seats          +13.5%
CDU                18.8%             34 seats          −9.4%
AfD                 16.3%             29 seats          +0.1%
Grüne             14.3%             26 seats          −4.1%
SPD                 12.1%             22 seats          −10.1%
BSW                4.7%               under 5% hurdle, no seats
FDP                2.5%               under 5% hurdle, no seats

The participation was 74.2%.

The state parliament has 158 seats and the majority starts at 80 seats. This means there will definitely be a coalition government. All the signs at the moment point to a coalition between the Linke (Left), SPD and Greens.

The AfD have not been able to gain on the same scale as in the other elections. This is due mainly to two factors.

Berlin has an urban environment, and as such a more concentrated electorate with a younger population, and one that has many newcomers from other German states.

The second being massive problems unique to such environments. Affordable accommodation being one of the central issues. The AfD has no track record of city management and no real new concepts on offer that are different enough to entice voters to take the plunge in the direction of the AfD.

It still is surprising that parties with such losses as the SPD can still come into power. Putting the CDU aside, the biggest losers in this election come to power regardless. That is the beauty of a coalition.

The Linke, the Left Party, are not really trusted by the established parties and conservative voters, as there is still an aura of communism surrounding them. Regardless of this, the election results are clear, and it will be interesting to see how the Linke will be able to carry through their campaign themes, mainly focusing on the housing problem, into reality. The other coalition partners will do their best, so no too-radical changes are to be expected.

Here again one can see the ruling parties on the federal level have been given a clear message, and the losses paint a grim picture. It will be an uphill task to change the opinion of the population in time for the upcoming April elections. When hearing the comments coming out of these parties, it seems more than likely that these results will be repeated in the spring of 2027, and then governing Germany will become a next-to-impossible undertaking.

Come what may, one thing has been made abundantly clear. A policy of fear and warmongering, in the face of a future with drastic cuts in the social systems, in health care and pensions, and an economic situation that looks to be getting steadily worse, will not bring voters into the fold. In particular when there is no new vision to face and solve, but only the slash and cut, calling that reforms.

The German Chancellor, just after the polling finished, stood before the press and stated: the election season 2026 is now over. He looked relieved.

At the end of the day, the CDU have few options. If Merz walks back his “reforms”, it will look as if he is weak and giving in to the SPD, making them stronger.

If he aligns himself nearer to the AfD, vote-poaching, that will not help, as the AfD initially devolved out of disgruntled CDU members.

If he continues as before, it is absolutely clear that there is no way Merz and the CDU will win the next federal election, and Merz will have a hell of a job to keep the government toeing the CDU line. If the SPD fails to show how really different they are to the CDU, they too will face disaster. The dangers of being a junior partner in coalitions. A lesson the FDP learned the hard way.

Covering up the fact of having no vision or even a clear plan for the future has never done any ruling party any good the moment alternative ideas are brought forward by a strong opposition party, gaining ground at each election.

Should the next elections in April 2027 go the way these last two did, inside the CDU fear will turn into panic, and there may possibly be federal elections at the end of spring. The outcome of that is anybody’s guess. Trying to get the AfD banned, however, will be the death-knell of a once great political party and the end of democracy as Germany knows it.

Fino a che punto si spingeranno i leader europei e, in particolare, quelli tedeschi, di fronte alla minaccia concreta di perdere il potere per la prima volta in 80 anni?

Segue nostro Telegram.

Dunque, punto della situazione: tra l’inizio e la fine del mese ha rimbalzato per tutto l’etere la notizie che provengono dai lander più orientali della Germania. Iniziamo con i dati dalla Sassonia-Anhalt: per la prima volta nella storia della democrazia tedesca post-guerra mondiale, una singola formazione politica – lo AFD, ovvero “Alternativa per la Germania” – raccoglie alle consultazioni elettorali una percentuale di voto che equivale quasi a metà dei votanti: il fatto è che nella cultura politica della Germania contemporanea nemmeno la CDU (centro cristiano-democratico) ha raccolto tale risultato, su scala nazionale, ad una generazione dalla riunificazione. Ma a pensarci – questo è ancor più eclatante – nemmeno il NSDP nazista ha mai raccolto tale proporzione di voti, persino alle ultime elezioni (svoltesi non in un clima ordinario) del 1933. Un grattacapo vero e proprio per la democrazia tedesca che impone di esporre alcune considerazioni lucide al netto di panico ed isterie.

A monte di tutto, rammentiamo che di un’elezione regionale si parla e il lander in questione è demograficamente piccolo: un paio di milioni di abitanti appena, come a dire il 2,5% della popolazione della Repubblica federale. Regione dell’ex Germania orientale, storicamente feudo di correnti antitetiche al liberalismo occidentale (vetero-comunisti ed ultraconservatori). Detto questo, è altrettanto vero che il consenso elettorale all’AFD – già molto consistente nella precedente consultazione (oltre il 20% ossia il secondo partito) – si è di fatto raddoppiato diventando una specie di gigante tra i partiti, il che non è del tutto ordinario.  Considerando il tutto, si può concludere che è assai improbabile che si replichi un risultato del genere su scala nazionale, quanto d’altra parte si deve riconoscere che si è di fronte ad un segnale e di quelli importanti: un messaggio che l’intera società sta esprimendo traverso i canali della democrazia consultiva (perchè a giudicare dai risultati raggiunti è un partito di massa che tocca i gangli nevralgici di ogni strato sociale: anche la fascia istruita della pop. , usualmente orientata in senso progressista, ha concesso circa il 30% del proprio voto, stando alle rilevazioni più specifiche, elemento che amplia il punto interrogativo). Un dato del tutto analogo si è rilevato in Pomerania nella seconda metà del mese che vede il partito sfiorare il 40% ai danni della più tradizionale Cdu. Se proprio si vuole una valutazione, l’Afd probabilmente raggiungerà alle prossime consultazioni di livello nazionale un qualcosa che sta nella forbice 30-35%, che significa grossmodo 1/3 dei suffragi di tutta la Germania.

Fatte salve le considerazioni “tecniche” di flusso elettorale esposte sopra, ce n’è una assai più rilevante che concerne il principio: nel corso delle settimane i commentari in merito ai risultati elettorali in questione si sono propagati come un sisma lungo la rete e altri mezzi di informazione per mezzo di titoli sensazionalistici, finalizzati ad esasperare le perplessità già presenti nell’opinione pubblica tedesca: questo rende da subito difficile affrontare la questione in modo equilibrato, prendendo vita un campo di opinioni polarizzato alle stelle che non permette la riflessione. Responsabile di questo il sistema medesimo (complici i media) che sembra non puntare ad un confronto responsabile bensì fomentare l’isteria collettiva, la divisione. Ecco, la verità è che l’elemento più eclatante di queste elezioni regionali in Sassonia Anhalt, al di là del risultato che vediamo sugli schermi in queste ore, è la reazione ad esso: una reazione ai limiti del senso di responsabilità che vede la parte “moderata” evocare ed invocare la guerra civile, con scenari apocalittici, frasario estremo, esternazioni senza più logica se non quella del panico. In breve le forze che si dicono “democratiche” vistesi sconfitte sul campo per la prima volta, hanno cessato di essere democratiche, riversando un mare di ostilità tale da intaccare l’ordine costituito. Un capovolgimento bizzarro: vediamo una forza considerata estremista conquistare legalmente il governo di una regione, mentre le forze teoreticamente democratiche reagire ai limiti del lecito (invocare in primo luogo la messa al bando di AFD come formazione non conforme alla costituzione tedesca).

Su quest’ultimo punto deve vertere il cuore della riflessione. Rispondere con cieca intolleranza nei confronti dell’avversario vincente mostra purtroppo i limiti del sistema democratico tedesco (la facciata insomma) il quale incapace di fornire risposte ai problemi che affliggono la propria società allora non riesce a fare altro che replicare con l’intolleranza, con il non accettare il risultato delle urne. Il nodo di fondo è che quando un partito – considerato estremista – raccoglie da solo quasi la metà dei consensi come accaduto in Sassonia o in Pomerania è un chiaro messaggio che le cose non vanno come dovrebbero, che vi sono profondi problemi in seno alla società di riferimento: non si può bollare semplicemente tutto come istigazione di una minoranza estremistica quando i suffragi sono pari al 44%, che piaccia o meno. Non è possibile ignorare un messaggio così potente, ricorrende semplicisticamente ad appellativi come “estremista” o “fascista “ : no, in questi casi occorre farsi un esame di coscienza molto serio, partendo dalla ridefinizione degli stessi termini che si utilizzano. Ci si riferisce in primissimo luogo agli appellativi che in modo scontato vengono attribuiti ad AFD (come se fosse una premessa data per certa): lo si definisce “estremista”, lo si definisce “nazista”, ma chi ha deciso tali definizioni ? Il sistema post-bellico/europeista 1945-2025 evidentemente, ma è solo una prospettiva delle cose che si impone come verità: Afd è “nazista” solamente da un punto vista europeista e se si dovesse accettare tale parametro dovremmo quindi concludere che quasi la metà degli elettori di Sassonia e Pomerania sono estremisti (irresponsabile crederlo e comoda via di fuga per giustificare la sconfitta elettorale). La verità è che quando una formazione politica raggiunge tali risultati non è più una cricca di estremisti, ma rappresenta il nerbo della società: un nerbo della società che soffre che ha bisogno di una sponda cui aggrapparsi e se nessuno gliela concede, allora la trova in Afd o qualsiasi altro partito alternativo. In definitiva – punto più importante – frangenti come quello presente fanno emergere il maggiore dei paradossi: il totalitarismo della democrazia. Quest’ultima, la democrazia liberale ovvero il modello socioeconomico principe di tutto il mondo industrializzato, fintanto che regna sovrana, avendo a che fare con gruppuscoli politicamente alternativi di destra e sinistra, può facilmente bollarli come facinorosi ed estremisti senza nemmeno bisogno di bandirli legalmente. Quando tuttavia la democrazia occidentale si ritrova davanti al proprio limite, vale a dire che i cittadini stessi le voltano le spalle per cercare altre sponde e quando tali sponde si rivelano vincenti alle urne al punto da mettere alle corde il sistema ufficiale, allora ecco che la “democrazia” inizia a difendersi e ferocemente diventando tanto totalitaria quanto i propri avversari non democratici. A quel punto si parla di invalidare elezioni, incriminare candidati, mettere fuorilegge determinati partiti previa campagna di demonizzazione come è accaduto in svariati paesi dell’est Europa (vediamo i casi di Romanie e Moldavia, ma anche Bulgaria e Georgia). La verità più scomoda è che democrazia occidentale ha potuto cavarsela perchè per 70 anni ha regnato su società benestanti e protette che non necessitavano di rivolgersi ad altre forze che non quelle convenzionali, prestabilite: adesso che esiste una concorrenza di un modello alternativo – e quindi la reale ipotesi di perdere il potere tanto a lungo detenuto – si può osservare il livello di isteria mediatica che si e a che punto di scorrettezza le forze moderate sono disposte ad arrivare.

This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Sep. 29, 2026, and is shared here with permission.

The close relationship between the Bolsonaro family and key figures in the international far right like Steve Bannon and U.S. President Donald Trump has been public knowledge for over eight years. In this article, tech specialist Miguel Manso looks at the state of that relationship, right now, just days before Brazil’s first-round presidential elections. – ed.

Just days before the first round of Brazil’s presidential election, a confidential report from the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (Abin) warns that the United States is influencing the country’s electoral process. Titled “Threats to the 2026 Electoral Process,” the report was sent in late August to the presidency, the Superior Electoral Court and the Justice Ministry, warning that U.S. interference has reached a “critical” level.

Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign has become the target of legal action over claims that it benefited from paid ads and mass messaging originating in the United States.

The coalitions backing Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the Workers’ Party and Renan Santos of the Missão party asked the Superior Electoral Court and the Supreme Federal Court to investigate the senator for economic and political abuse of power and foreign interference.

The court filings allege the following:

Foreign amplification: U.S.-based right-wing profiles and influencers, including American political figures, allegedly ran paid campaign content on X in support of Flávio Bolsonaro.

Paid partnerships: The posts, labeled “paid partnership,” cited figures from the foreign betting platform Polymarket to claim that Bolsonaro was the favorite, distorting the actual state of Brazilian polling.

Prohibited financing: The parties allege that this amounts to the use of funds from outside the official campaign structure and financed from a foreign source, both of which are strictly prohibited under Brazilian electoral law.

The lawsuits ask for the immediate removal of the posts, a Federal Police investigation, and, if the irregularities are confirmed, the loss of candidacy and ineligibility for those involved.

Trump’s Shield of the Americas and the Fernando Cerimedo Case

The attempted murder of Nadia Beller has drawn investigators toward Fernando Cerimedo and a web of other connections, including drug-trafficking flights and Bolivia’s top anti-narcotics police official, who allegedly identified the hitmen. Cerimodo is known for his work with far-right political leaders in Latin America.

On August 17, 2026, two gunmen on a motorcycle shot Nadia Beller, a Bolivian lawyer and Cerimedo’s girlfriend, outside a hotel in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. She survived but was wounded in the neck, chest and arm.

Bolivian police have identified Colombian national Aldúbar Henry Silva Peña as the lead shooter. He fled immediately after the attack, then released a video in September 2026 admitting his role in planning the crime, though he claimed the original plan was only to “scare” Beller. He led a group of five, including four other operatives — two Colombians and two Brazilians — whose identities have not been released by investigators. All four remain at large.

Police detained Víctor Hugo C.Z. and formally charged him as an accomplice who worked directly with the gunmen. They arrested Róger Aguilera on charges of supplying the .32 caliber weapon used in the attack, and arrested Paola Andrea Vargas on charges of hiding and storing it.

Bolivian authorities arrested Argentine political consultant Fernando Cerimedo, known for his work with Trump’s MAGA movement and Beller’s former partner, at Viru Viru International Airport. Bolivia’s public prosecutor’s office accuses him of masterminding the attempted femicide.

A forensic review of Cerimedo’s phone revealed real-time messages with Erik Correa González, the Bolivian government’s head of intelligence, confirming that the shooting took place at the exact moment the two were exchanging messages. Beller has said publicly that the attack was ordered to silence her before she could expose corruption, money laundering and illicit dealings involving Cerimedo and local government officials.

Investigators found two key pieces of evidence: a text note written six days before the attack that used the phrase “La Nadia” alongside an intent to “eliminate” the victim, and a message sent at 8:54 p.m. on August 17 to a contact identified as “E.C.G.,” reading, “Brother, they just shot her.”

The investigation also dug into Cerimedo’s finances. On his phone, police found a note referring to a “virtual wallet” that had moved about $66,000 over the previous 11 months across more than 320 transfers, and a larger “pass-through wallet” that had moved $1,386,997. In searches, police seized about $400,000 in cash, along with 500,000 Bolivian bolivianos, weapons, vehicles and equipment for a “bot farm” — automated accounts used to manipulate social media and elections.

The Earthquake Caused by Survivor Nadia Beller

Beller’s allegations against her former partner are shaking the governments of Rodrigo Paz in Bolivia, Javier Milei in Argentina, José Antonio Kast in Chile, Nasry Asfura in Honduras and Colombia’s Abelardo De La Espriella, along with their ties to the Bolsonaro family. Her account has helped expose a techno-fascist network aimed at manipulating and interfering in elections in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia — and even in Mexico’s upcoming election — through bot and troll farms that Cerimedo’s team ran from Argentina and Santa Cruz de la Sierra in Bolivia.

The goal, investigators say, was to install leaders who would serve U.S. and Israeli interests, backed by the Shield of the Americas alliance, promotion from the outlet La Derecha Diario, and financing from Trump and his allies channeled through Milei. Cerimedo has been described as a CIA and Mossad asset.

Fernando Cerimedo, known as the “king of bots” for the Latin American far right, is also under investigation for money laundering and alleged ties to drug trafficking. Prosecutors are trying to determine whether he was part of a network that facilitated irregular flights carrying up to 500 kilograms of cocaine per trip and returning with large amounts of cash.

Searching properties tied to Cerimedo in Bolivia, authorities seized large sums of cash and found evidence of a technical setup built to automatically create fake online accounts — commonly known as a “bot farm.”

Fernando Cerimedo’s Ties to Donald Trump, Marco Rúbio and the Bolsonaro Family

It was already known that a global network links Donald Trump’s MAGA movement with right-wing leaders across Latin America, funded through an international web of businesspeople and drug traffickers and operating through artificial intelligence manipulation and integrated data networks used for cyberattacks.

These groups organize at high-profile political events and forums, such as Mar-a-Lago and the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where strategists and data operatives share methods for digital engagement and fundraising.

Cerimedo has said in interviews that no one formally introduced him to Eduardo Bolsonaro. The two say they met by chance at Harvard University in 2010. But when news outlets asked Harvard directly, the university said it had no record that either Eduardo Bolsonaro or Fernando Gabriel Cerimedo had ever been enrolled there. Confronted with this, Cerimedo later claimed he had only taken open, non-degree classes.

As part of the Federal Police investigation into the attempted coup in Brazil, investigators found that in 2022, military officers and aides brokered Cerimedo’s ties to the hardline core of the Bolsonaro movement, producing false reports attacking the integrity of Brazil’s voting machines.

Reports based on the plea-deal testimony of Mauro Cid identify Army Col. Ângelo Denicoli as the officer who contacted Cerimedo and coordinated the technical details needed to carry out broadcasts and attacks on Brazil’s electoral system.

The Federal Police obtained electronic records showing that Cerimedo’s phone number and contact information were passed directly to Denicoli. Forensic analysis of seized phones showed that Denicoli became the main point of contact with the Argentine consultant, coordinating the materials sent to him.

Cid formally confirmed in testimony that Denicoli was the direct link between the criminal organization and Cerimedo, saying Denicoli was part of the group tasked with gathering data to support claims that the electronic voting machines had failed.

Technical evidence linked Denicoli, Cerimedo and technology entrepreneur Eder Balbino. Balbino and Denicoli compiled reports containing false arguments and data based on outdated voting-machine models, then passed the files to Cerimedo, who used them as visual material for his broadcasts.

Digital cross-referencing by the Federal Police showed that the data Cerimedo presented in his broadcasts from Argentina contained the same mathematical inconsistencies and formatting as the documents manipulated by the Liberal Party’s technical committee in Brazil. Investigators concluded that Cerimedo had not discovered the material independently, but received it from the structure Denicoli managed.

Investigators also found that Denicoli was part of what they called the Disinformation and Electoral System Attack Unit. The Federal Police traced digital records linking Denicoli directly to fake ballot-audit files stored in a public Google Drive folder belonging to Cerimedo, with Denicoli listed as the folder’s original owner and editor.

Denicoli coordinated the technical compilation of false reports with Balbino. The material was passed to Cerimedo, who used it in the “fraud livestream” broadcast from Argentina in November 2022 and amplified in Brazil by Eduardo Bolsonaro.

In a trial concluded by the Supreme Court, Denicoli received the harshest sentence among the defendants in his group: 17 years in a closed prison regime, on charges of attempting a coup, seeking the violent overthrow of Brazil’s democratic order, and participating in an armed criminal organization.

Billion-dollar Technology Infrastructure Serving Lies and Fraud

The connection between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rúbio and Argentine digital strategist Fernando Cerimedo took shape starting in 2023, with lobbyist and political consultant Damián Merlo acting as the intermediary.

Merlo, who owns the Miami-based Latin America Advisory Group, serves as a link between conservative Latin American politicians and power centers within the U.S. MAGA movement. According to filings under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, Merlo used his relationship with Viviana Bovo, a senior adviser to Rúbio, to introduce Cerimedo and his data tools directly to the office of the then senator, who is now secretary of state.

Cerimedo founded the agency Numen and the outlet La Derecha Diario, specializing in “bot farms” and algorithm manipulation to shape social media trends. In Chile, he worked on the campaign that defeated the 2022 constitutional referendum. In Brazil, he helped the Bolsonaro family spread disinformation about voting machines after the 2022 election. And in Argentina, he led the digital strategy behind Javier Milei’s election in 2023.

Brad Parscale, the top digital strategist for Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential campaigns, became Cerimedo’s business partner at the political consulting firm Numen, based in Buenos Aires.

Through that partnership, Cerimedo took over managing the Latin American operations of tools such as Campaign Nucleus and Eyes Over — data-mining and artificial intelligence platforms created or linked to Parscale. The partnership combined Parscale’s expertise in U.S. data operations with the infrastructure Cerimedo had built across Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Bolivia.

Brad Parscale, Peter Thiel and the Data Ecosystem

Brad Parscale earned the trust of the Trump family and went on to design websites for their businesses, before being chosen to lead the digital strategy for Donald Trump’s 2015 presidential campaign.

In 2016, as the campaign’s digital media director, he led a data operation called Project Alamo, directing much of the budget toward highly targeted social media ads and producing as many as 60,000 different Facebook ad variations a day.

In February 2018, Trump named Parscale campaign manager for his 2020 reelection bid.

Parscale’s ties to Big Tech and to Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies span strategic data cooperation, political alignment and technology supply.

Thiel, a Palantir cofounder, was one of the major Silicon Valley billionaires who directly backed and funded Trump’s 2016 campaign. Palantir builds surveillance and analytical intelligence software for governments and defense agencies.

Parscale created Campaign Nucleus, a platform meant to build a communications structure and data ecosystem. The data-mining and AI model it uses mirrors the mass-processing and information-control concepts associated with Palantir.

The ecosystem functions as an integrated chain: Thiel’s Palantir develops surveillance and data-intelligence technology, which feeds into political software such as Parscale’s Campaign Nucleus, and Parscale in turn distributes that technology across Latin America through Cerimedo’s Numen.

The Link between U.S. and Israeli Companies

These companies’ ties to Israel and its government center on two main areas: artificial intelligence for military targeting, and cyberwarfare and digital influence operations.

In January 2024, Palantir signed a direct strategic agreement with Israel’s Defense Ministry to supply advanced AI technology supporting “war-related missions.”

In July 2026, international journalistic investigations revealed that Parscale was registered as a foreign agent of Israel in the United States. The Israeli government hired Parscale’s main firm, Clock Tower X, through a $46.5 million contract to carry out a digital influence operation.

According to the reporting, the company built a network of pro-Israel propaganda websites and blogs while also producing search-optimized content designed to shape the databases artificial intelligence systems draw on.

Cerimedo’s Numen is described as the Latin American link in that network, applying Campaign Nucleus data concepts and bot infrastructure through La Derecha Diario.

The relationship is described as symbiotic: Israel provides public contracts, Palantir supplies data technology, Clock Tower X uses that funding for digital influence operations, and Numen carries out the messaging and bot infrastructure in Latin America.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence and “AI Poisoning”

The tactics have evolved from spreading disinformation on social media to manipulating institutional digital ecosystems.

Generative Engine Optimization, or GEO, is described as a technique meant to flood the internet with doctrinal texts and fake academic research centers, so that the crawlers used by systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude absorb that propaganda as factual information. As a result, when people ask artificial intelligence systems about geopolitical topics or elections, those systems can end up repeating narratives that this network planted beforehand.

The dismantling of Cerimedo’s structures in Bolivia also revealed the use of tens of thousands of automated phones running AI software designed to simulate human behavior, making it harder for social media platforms to detect and block them.

Trump’s MAGA strategists, working with Eduardo and Flávio Bolsonaro, continue trying to interfere in Brazil’s election despite Cerimedo’s arrest — evidence of a powerful alliance working jointly to manipulate and defraud the political landscape and bring Latin America under U.S. control. The question is: for how long?

This article was originally published in Brasil 247. It has been translated to English by Panamerican Dispatch and can be read in its original Portuguese, here.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

No one would claim that the Iran War has been a political godsend for President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. But some Israel-First conservatives are willing to say—and lately have been incessantly saying—that the Iran War hasn’t been a political scourge.

Those Israel-First conservatives are wrong, even if the devil is, at least partly, hidden in the details. The Iran War has damaged Trump’s approval ratings, consumed his presidency, and darkened the GOP’s prospects in the upcoming midterm elections.

A chief proponent of the argument that Trump hasn’t suffered all that much from the Iran War is Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire. Shapiro’s political analysis is plainly motivated by the fact that he was a loud and influential proponent of the war who promised—falsely, as it turned out—that Iran couldn’t close the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for the global energy trade.

“There’s an op right now to pretend that the real reason for President Trump’s unpopularity is foreign policy, but that is not true, by the polling data, it is not true,” said Shapiro on a recent episode of his podcast. “The reality is that Americans have affordability concerns, President Trump came into office saying he was going to alleviate the affordability concerns. He has not in fact alleviated the affordability concerns, and therefore, his polling numbers have consistently slid since Liberation Day.”

This is a bit like me saying my wife isn’t mad at me because of the drinking, but because I drunkenly crashed the car.

The Iran War, as everyone now knows, has driven up prices at the pump—prices which, unfortunately for Trump, are prominently displayed on every major street across the country. On the eve of the war, regular gasoline averaged $2.98 per gallon. Today, at the time of writing, the average price is $4.48. Americans are notoriously averse to high gasoline prices and tend to punish presidents over the issue, sometimes even when the president can’t justifiably be blamed.

But make no mistake: Virtually every sentient adult understands that 1) oil comes from the Middle East, 2) Trump started a big war in the region, and 3) gas prices shot up right afterwards. And again, even if Americans didn’t grok the connection between the war and the gas-price spike, the latter would still have hurt Trump politically, and it would still be a knock-on effect of the former.

It’s not just prices at the pump that have gone up because of the war. Groceries and other consumer goods travel across this vast land on tractor-trailers that run on diesel and get a lot fewer miles per gallon than even your Uncle Larry’s F-350. Diesel prices have smashed records and now sit at around $6.50, up from $3.76 before the war.

No wonder truckers are furious, prompting rumors of an imminent strike.

And no wonder the Iran War has contributed to general inflation in America. Anyone who has been reading the official economic reports knows the war is responsible for more than a third of recent inflation.

Before the war, inflation was trending down, only a couple ticks away from the Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent. It seems likely that Trump, if he hadn’t started his dumb war in the Middle East, would have garnered praise for presiding over declining inflation and that the Fed would have cut interest rates, juicing economic growth. Instead, inflation now sits at 3.4 percent.

(As an aside, this weekend I traveled to Istanbul, where many Middle Easterners of various nationalities complained to me that Americans only oppose the war because of the gas prices. That’s simply not true. The war has been unpopular since day one, when all that Americans knew was the American-Israeli strikes had killed Iranian leaders including the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.)

Shapiro, ever the neoconservative, insinuated in the quote above that the decline in Trump’s approval rating owes more to his tariffs than to his war. The data doesn’t back that up, as the conservative commentator and election analyst Ryan Girdusky noted on X in response to new survey data. “The most eye opening part of this poll is that Trump’s approval rating and the strength of the economy went up right after Liberation Day,” Girdusky said. “Fell slightly afterward and then plummeted at the start of the Iran War.”

Shapiro has unwittingly helped uncover another, subtler, way in which the Iran War has indirectly damaged Trump’s approval ratings and, by extension, the Republican Party brand. Shapiro recently went on Fox News to commiserate with the host Mark Levin—another Israel-Firster and warmonger—over all those dastardly antiwar conservatives blaming the Iran War for everything.

“Iran is a 4-percent issue with the American people,” Levin said, as Shapiro nodded in agreement. Levin was referring to Fox News polling that shows not many Americans name the Iran War as their top issue. “So, whatever happens in the midterms, it doesn’t appear that Iran’s going to drive anything one way or another.”

“I think that’s exactly right,” Shapiro replied.

Part of the problem with Levin’s analysis has already been covered above. In the Fox poll, a plurality of Americans—34 percent—named the cost of living as the most important issue, and the Iran War has made living costlier.

But the subtler problem is perhaps even more illuminating. Simply put, Americans believe Trump is too focused on foreign policy at the expense of the problem they really care about, which, in fact, his Iran War has exacerbated. This is a PR disaster for the Trump administration and the GOP. Americans don’t prioritize the war that has dominated the headlines and distracted the White House, even as Trump claims to have boldly prevented Iran from unleashing nuclear apocalypse.

It may be grotesque to find silver linings in this dumb and deadly war, but here’s one: Americans no longer buy the war narratives. That is certainly not, however, a silver lining for Republican candidates in this year’s election, no matter how cynically they try to distance themselves from the war. In fact, it’s a good bet they’ll do much worse than if Trump hadn’t launched this unnecessary war, despite what Shapiro and his ilk may tell you.

Original article: theamericanconservative.com

In this episode of Rattling the Bars, the midterms edition, we take you to the Commonwealth, where Andrea James—abolitionist, author, and organizer—is currently running for governor of Massachusetts. The countdown to November 3 is officially underway. Debates are scheduled for October, but independent and third-party candidates are being excluded from participating.

Andrea James has led national campaigns to reunite families by demanding clemency from high-level officials for incarcerated women and men. Now, she is running for governor with a platform focused on rent stabilization, lower energy costs, free childcare and stopping the construction of a new $360M women’s prison.

Related Links:

• Andrea James’ Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky

Credits:

• Production/Post-production: Cameron Granadino

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.