• System error

    It was a grey morning, one of those mornings when light mingles with dust and seems to hesitate before reaching the ground. The wind blew old papers down the street, as if reminding us that everything — people, words, promises — would be swept away sooner or later. Sitting on the edge of the narrow bed, he looked at his hands. He no longer saw the firmness he once had in them, but rather something mechanical; his fingers moved like small, obedient cogs, ready to press buttons, fill out forms and type numbers that belonged to no one, yet somehow governed everyone.

    ‘Curious,’ he thought. ‘How my whole life has become a succession of repeated gestures rather than my own thoughts. When did I cease to be a man and become just part of a larger machine?’ The kettle whistled on the stove. At other times, this sound might have seemed domestic and welcoming, but now it sounded like a factory signal, a call to duty. Even the steam seemed hurried. No gesture was free from the productive cadence anymore.

    On the street, men and women hurried by without inner haste — a haste without destination that leads nowhere real and only keeps the body moving. None of them looked at each other. When they did, it was with a quick, almost imperceptible calculation, as if they were assessing the value and cost of that other person’s existence in seconds. He remembered a time when one could stop and talk to strangers without arousing suspicion. Uselessness was permitted. Today, being useless had become a moral crime. Stopping to watch the sunset was tantamount to admitting unproductivity. ‘Capitalism,’ he thought, ‘does not only rob us of time; it robs us of the possibility of time that is not for sale.’

    The cruelest thing was that the poor no longer recognised each other. Each one guarded their mistrust as if it were their birthright. The perfect mechanism was made not only of iron and oil, but also of resentment. But he realised that there was something even deeper: the replacement of contingency with predictability. Life had become an algorithm, and even variations were predicted in advance. Even error had been incorporated as data. This made him uneasy because genuine rupture — the kind that cannot be calculated — had almost disappeared completely.

    He didn’t see a face belonging to an enemy. There was no ‘someone’ to fight. The system was not sustained by decree, but by habit. It was a kind of social inertia that renewed itself. The most frightening thing was realising that even criticism of this state of affairs could be absorbed by it. Revolt could become fashionable; rebellion could be sold; and even the idea of freedom could become a packaged product.


    As he walked, he reflected that robotisation was not just about being replaced by machines, but about thinking like them — processing inputs and outputs, eliminating pauses and reducing all experience to calculation. A teacher he had had in his youth had said: ‘The problem is not mechanical work; it is mechanical perception. When you only see functions, nothing else can be loved.’ At the time, he did not understand. Now, that phrase repeated itself in his mind like a silent refrain.


    The streets were all alike. The shop windows displayed different merchandise, but the structure was the same. The faces varied little, moulded by the same tensions: bills to pay, deadlines to meet, goals to achieve. There was no room for chance. Chance was a waste. He wondered if the absence of chance actually meant the absence of life. After all, to live is to deal with the unexpected; if everything is anticipated, all that remains is repetition. Time loses its depth and days become mere numbers in an uninterrupted sequence.


    Capitalism did not present itself as an explicit tyrant, but rather as a climate in which breathing was only possible within certain parameters. Anyone who tried to breathe outside of these parameters would suffocate. Not because it was forbidden — explicit prohibitions generate resistance — but because there was no air. Gradually, he began to notice that he could no longer think slowly. Ideas came rushing in, interrupting each other as if they were afraid of missing an invisible deadline. Even thought had been timed.

    And yet, in some rare moments, the opposite happened: a meaningless phrase would pop into his head, a useless memory, a pointless thought that didn’t fit anywhere. These moments made him uneasy, but they also brought him an almost forgotten feeling: that perhaps there was still a piece of his mind that hadn’t been colonised. He then thought that perhaps the ultimate freedom was not to overthrow the system, but to preserve an internal space where nothing had any use. A mental place where value was not measured.


    The idea stayed with him for days. He began to observe it as one observes a fragile flame, knowing that any breath could extinguish it. But the world does not like voids. Soon, work, bills, and routine took over everything again. And he realised that the effort to maintain this space was immense, almost as great as the effort to fulfil all his obligations. He knew that the system did not need to break his resistance — it was enough to tire him out until he gave up on his own. And yet there was a strange hope in this fatigue: if everything in the world was calculated for efficiency, perhaps the simple act of tiring himself out trying to preserve a useless thought was, in itself, a kind of sabotage.


    On a particularly quiet night, he realised that this useless thought had grown. It had no definite content, but it had form. It was like a bubble of air rising in a murky lake: unlikely, but inevitable. And for the first time in a long time, he fell asleep with the feeling that he did not belong entirely to the machine. The next day, the city was the same. The faces, the same. The tasks, the same. But something, invisibly, was no longer the same. For although she still walked within the gears, she carried with her a particle that she could not process. A particle without function, without price, without goal. And, however small it was, she knew that it was there that she still existed.

    The following days passed by at the same pace, but he began to notice small cracks appearing. A meaningless conversation on the tram, a memory that popped up for no reason, or a moment spent admiring a falling leaf. Each of these small interruptions was proof that, however corrupt human life might be, it still had dimensions that could not be translated into productivity. This realisation brought him a mixture of despair and consolation: mental disorder was still possible.


    He remembered children playing in a square and realised that even these games were not entirely free from external logic. There was a sense of urgency in their movements, an implicit calculation and an unconscious awareness that time was limited and that even fun had to have some kind of impact, whether social or educational. Capitalism dominated not only the lives of adults, but also the imaginations of children.


    He then began to observe people’s microgestures: the way a worker adjusted his watch; the calculated care with which a saleswoman stacked goods; and the quick glances of people trying not to waste time in queues. Every detail seemed designed so that no thought went unapplied and no emotion escaped unrecorded. Thus, humanity became functionality.


    And yet, even in this state, some perceptions escaped control. A moment of silence on the street, an unexpected word or an old smell were small setbacks that could not be incorporated into the machinery. He began to value these moments as invisible treasures, remembering that, however structured and calculated the world seemed, it still contained indomitable elements.


    At the end of the week, he sat in the same grey room reflecting on everything he had observed. He concluded that the most dangerous machine was not made of metal or electricity, but operated within each human consciousness as an internal logic of efficiency, calculation and self-demand that transformed humans into automatons. However, he also realised that, however small, there was an essential core that could not be replaced: the space for useless contemplation, for thought that produces nothing and perception that serves no purpose.


    The following night, before going to sleep, he looked out of the window. The city moved at its usual, predictable pace, but he felt different: he felt a sense of belonging not to the system, but to himself. The invisible inner core persisted. He could not dominate it, nor could the system imprison it. It was a fragment of freedom that could not be quantified. For the first time, he felt that he had survived not despite, but within capitalism, preserving the part of his humanity that external logic could never reach.

  • The north winds don’t move windmills

    ,

    Os ventos do norte
    Não movem moinhos
    E o que me resta
    É só um gemido


    Minha vida, meus mortos
    Meus caminhos tortos
    Meu sangue latino
    Minh’alma cativa


    Rompi tratados
    Traí os ritos
    Quebrei a lança
    Lancei no espaço
    Um grito, um desabafo


    E o que me importa
    É não estar vencido


    Sangue Latino, Ney Matogrosso

    It is therefore unsurprising that Trump should advocate for Brazil to once again become the United States’ backyard. In order to ensure this, the country has been responsible for causing political and economic instability in Brazil since at least the 1950s. This can be verified in official US government documents that have been declassified.

    Brazil possesses a number of strategic resources, including rare minerals and metals (utilised in the manufacture of high-strength alloys for military, aerospace and energy industries), oil and gas, and agricultural products (for which Brazil is a key player in the global chain). In addition, the country has water resources and biodiversity, as evidenced by the Amazon rainforest and the Guarani aquifer (which, in addition to the resources themselves, are also fundamental to the planet’s climate and environmental regulation).

    Moreover, Brazil stands as the most expansive nation in Latin America, boasting an extensive coastline along the South Atlantic, a region of paramount importance due to its strategic significance for commercial and military routes. The Brazilian coastline is also subject to the jurisdiction of exclusive maritime economic zones, which extend over strategic resources such as offshore oil.

    At this juncture, it is reasonable to hypothesise that the interference and sabotage perpetrated by the US is intended to facilitate the acquisition of strategic assets, with a particular emphasis on the rare earths recently discovered in Minas Gerais.

    The deliberate orchestration of an economic crisis serves as a pivotal catalyst for the initiation of forced privatisations, which in turn facilitate the unregulated entry of historically protected sectors, including but not limited to energy, mining, and infrastructure. During the 1990s, strategic sectors were privatised due to the implementation of neoliberal reforms and the involvement of foreign capital, notably from the United States.

    Furthermore, it is important to highlight the US interest in weakening BRICS, which has emerged as a strong economic bloc, possibly surpassing other free trade areas.

    The utilisation of historical evidence in conjunction with official documents from the US government facilitates the reconstruction of a chronology:

    1950 – mid-1963: The Cold War
    In the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the United States began to perceive Latin America as a region susceptible to communist expansion. The United States employed political support and the influence of local elites to finance business groups, thereby exerting economic pressure through credit and trade policies. In this manner, the US established itself as a significant influence on the Brazilian political and military elites.

    1964: The overthrow of President João Goulart by a military coup d’état

    The US ambassador to Brazil, Lincoln Gordon, transmitted a confidential communication to the US government, articulating grave concerns regarding the government of João Goulart and proposing specific actions:

    It is evident that President Goulart is collaborating with the Brazilian Communist Party with the objective of ‘seizing dictatorial power’. Furthermore, it is recommended that ‘a clandestine delivery of arms’ be made available to Branco’s supporters, in addition to a shipment of gas and oil, with a view to facilitating the success of the coup forces. It is imperative to prepare without delay for the possibility of overt intervention at a subsequent stage.

    The declassification of documents has provided insights into Operation Brother Sam, a military plan devised by the American military to provide support for the overthrow of the Brazilian government by military means. This operation involved the deployment of naval vessels and aircraft that were prepared for immediate deployment.

    The Operation Brother Sam deployment comprised the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal, six destroyers, four tankers, seven C-135 aircraft, fighter jets, weapons and ammunition. However, the opposition military in Brazil swiftly deposed the Goulart government, thereby rendering the operation ineffective in Brazil.

    The US government provided overt political support to the military and played an active role in the provision of information and signalling immediate recognition of the coup regime. Furthermore, the US government offered indirect support in the form of logistics. According to materials compiled by the National Security Archive and the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), leaders in Washington worked to “facilitate” the success of the coup.

    1964–1985: The consolidation of the dictatorship and the acts of sabotage against communism

    The Mann Doctrine (1926) established pragmatic criteria: the tolerance of pro-American dictators and the combatting of communists. It was officially advised that the nature of regimes should not be a subject of inquiry; rather, support should be extended to those regimes which were aligned with US interests.

    The policy in question stipulated a non-interventionist approach towards dictators, provided they demonstrated a favourable disposition towards US business interests. Conversely, it called for intervention against Communists, irrespective of their specific policies. In addition, it is important to note that: US operatives interpreted the Mann Doctrine of 18 March as a ‘green light’ for the coup to proceed.

    The military regime established repressive institutions and aligned itself with the anti-communist agenda of the US. In the 1970s, South American dictatorships collaborated in transnational repression operations, which came to be known as Operation Condor. The operation was facilitated by the complicity of local services and, to varying degrees, by support and information circulating through channels aligned with the US government.

    In this particular context, interventions did not invariably take the form of military action; rather, they encompassed economic boycotts, withdrawal and conditioning of credit, and support for campaigns by entities that served to weaken nationalist governments. It is evident that opposition organisations were financed, and pressure was exerted on capital flows, thereby strengthening the destabilisation of governments considered “dangerous” by Washington.

    A review of historical evidence reveals the existence of campaign financing and think tanks, in addition to diplomatic actions aimed at isolating governments that did not align with the regime stipulated by the US.

    The late 1990s to 2010 period: The influence has undergone a process of attenuation, yet it remains an ever-present phenomenon, exerting its influence through the medium of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and think tanks

    In the context of redemocratisation, the US succeeded in consolidating its influence through a variety of channels, including diplomatic and institutional mechanisms (with a particular emphasis on military, technological and educational cooperation). Additionally, private actors such as NGOs and think tanks played a significant role in propagating doctrines imported from Washington. This influence functioned as a template for the political and economic environment, albeit in a more discreet manner than during the years of military dictatorship, yet always in a pervasive way.

    2011–2016: The present study will examine the government of Dilma Rousseff and the onset of a political crisis

    The political agenda of Dilma Rousseff (PT) was characterised by the implementation of policies aimed at promoting social expansion and the resumption of South-South cooperation. The crisis that led to impeachment (2015–2016) had complex internal causes, including a deteriorating economy, corruption scandals (Operation Car Wash), the breakdown of coalition bases, and strong political polarisation. It is evident that prominent figures within the Car Wash judicial apparatus have been observed to engage in collaborative endeavours with the US government, with the objective of subverting the political agenda of the Dilma administration.

    It is evident that a number of researchers and analysts (including, it is worth noting, a “long coup“) have documented the fact that a section of the 2015–2016 process combined internal action (in the media, the Attorney General’s Office and Congress) with disinformation and the fomenting of protests. Furthermore, a number of studies and articles argue that there was also external influence (exchange of information, support from transnational conservative networks, training of political movements).

    Nevertheless, the evidence of direct intervention by Washington to force impeachment is less compelling than in the case of 1964. The impeachment was primarily the result of internal right-wing actors, with the echo of international right-wing networks and actors.

    It is crucial to emphasise the manner in which transnational media networks and conservative groups that are opposed to governments with populist agendas, such as those that were in power during the PT years, have amplified alleged scandals.

    2016–2018: Long coup and rise of the right

    Recent research describes a prolonged process (media discourse, judicialisation, leaks, and reputation operations) that paved the way for extreme polarisation and the rise to power of radical right-wing candidates in 2018. There are academic works and journalistic investigations that document connections between Brazilian conservative networks and international actors (consultancies, digital platforms, influencers), which were decisive in constructing anti-PT narratives. The literature debates how much of this articulation was an external initiative versus an internal opportunity. Figures such as Steve Bannon were decisive in the election results, as was the adoption of communication strategies inspired by Trumpism.

    2018–2022: The worst possible president and the most abject person on the planet come to power

    Jair Bolsonaro won the 2018 elections largely through a campaign that exploited digital networks, influencers, and an anti-establishment platform. During and after the campaign, there were visible contacts with figures from the conservative/alt-right political environment in the US (e.g., Steve Bannon and ideological allies) and rhetorical alignment with the Trump administration. This transnational network encouraged communication strategies, framing, and allegations of electoral “fraud,” as well as symbolic and image support.

    2022–2025 — Post-Bolsonaro defeat, flight from the country, accusations and international pressure
    After losing in 2022, Bolsonaro was the target of investigations in Brazil (linked to attempts to destabilise the 2022 electoral process and plans for a coup). Part of the Bolsonaro family and allies fled seeking shelter and coordination abroad (including the US), seeking political and legal support.

    Journalistic sources document meetings and attempts to influence US authorities to pressure the Brazilian government against legal proceedings in favour of Bolsonaro. In 2025, there was a clear escalation in the Trump administration’s actions regarding the Bolsonaro case: President Trump insulted the Brazilian judicial process, classified the investigations against Bolsonaro as “persecution,” sanctioned or threatened measures (punitive tariffs on Brazilian imports, sanctions against Brazilian authorities involved in Bolsonaro’s trial), and denounced the actions of judges as politically motivated. (Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, Financial Times, Guardian, and official White House documents/communiqués).

    Journalistic investigations and contemporary reports show that members of the Bolsonaro family (notably Eduardo Bolsonaro) have maintained direct contact with officials and advisers in the US, seeking to persuade the American government to intervene — for example, by suggesting sanctions against Brazilian judges and encouraging measures such as tariff increases in retaliation for judicial decisions in Brazil. Reports have attributed to Eduardo the role of “bridge” to the Trump administration to obtain external pressure against the Brazilian judiciary. These actions have been interpreted by critics as clear attempts to influence Brazilian national sovereignty, using the power of another state to interfere in internal processes. There are also public statements and posts by family members favouring American measures.

    In contemporary Brazil, the Bolsonaro family and their supporters are regarded as emblematic of the nation’s prevailing socio-political challenges. They are often accused of engaging in corrupt practices, betraying their principles, and prioritising their own agendas over the broader interests of the nation.

    The present situation can be likened to a state of waiting, in which the only action available is to observe the progression of the legal proceedings. It is hoped that the results of the 2026 elections will be a more accurate reflection of the will of the Brazilian people, and that they will be less influenced by external factors, such as those emanating from Washington.

    As the march that is poised to be the highlight of the 2026 carnival asserts, on a free translation:


    You can raise taxes,
    You can kick and scream,
    You can send letters,
    You can threaten,
    Here you don't call the shots
    Here we are tough
    We eat oranges
    We burn fascists!
    O Trumpi, salva meu pai!

    Listen here the song.

  • Wandering alone through London

    ,

    This song was playing on repeat on my headphones (I had never heard it before, but shuffle decided to treat me to it the moment I left the underground).

    DSCF8580
    DSCF8478
    DSCF8479
    DSCF8488
    DSCF8520
    DSCF8593
    DSCF8625

    DSCF8629
    DSCF8661
    DSCF8665

    Check out the whole album on my flickr.

    DSCF8580
  • A CIA tale (or: “a little bit of the US interference in LATAM”)

    A long, long time ago, the US declared a strategic goal: to mess with the autonomic development of Brazil (and, after that, the whole Latin America.

    It’s no coincidence that Trump recently declared that Brazil should return to being ‘America’s backyard’*.

    For more than a century, the US doctrine has been based on the idea that Latin America should always be under their influence.

    When the US Republicans finally succeeded in abolishing the Brazilian monarchy — the last one in LATAM — they believed that the US would see them as a source of inspiration and a saviour who would kindly help to solve all the country’s problems.

    This is obviously far from the truth.

    The brazilian Republicans were in power during Brazil’s transition from empire to republic, and they were faced with a bitter reality. The US was rather disinterested in this new regime. Even worse, it became clear that the sole objective was to expand US territory in Latin America.

    Getúlio Vargas, the 14th and 17th president of Brazil (who had the infamous reputation of being an ally of Nazi Germany), promoted a rupture with the oligarchic republic that served the wishes of the US. The opposition then sought foreign intervention. If you follow the news, you may notice a recurring pattern: it’s the same strategy used by Bolsonaro’s militia now. Brazilian politicians would periodically travel to the US to beg for support in staging a coup.

    Vargas was chaotic, but he did seem to support nationalism. At the same time, he kept the country in a ‘neutral’ position, opposing both US and URSS intervention.

    Seeking to forge an independent path and improve negotiation leverage with both sides of the Cold War was a decisive moment in the US changing its partnership with Brazil for other countries in the region, such as Colombia and Venezuela.

    Brazilian participation in the Second World War — a contradiction in itself, given that Vargas would rather have remained neutral — raised expectations of strong US support and investment in Brazilian industry. This didn’t happen, however, except for the CSN (the national steel company).

    Popular frustration with US promises paved the way for the nationalism of João Goulart and Leonel Brizola. This new form of nationalism, seen by the US as radical, was perceived as a major strategic threat. Both presidents were monitored and their communications were bugged.

    In 1964, a military coup occurred. They finally managed to gain US support since they believed that Brazilian nationalist bias would pose a threat to US interests in the region. The goal was to create local competitors and promote Brazil’s autonomous development.

    Nevertheless, the military finally realised that US interests in Brazil were not the same as those in Europe under the Marshall Plan. The investments and innovations promised to the Western bloc against the communists never materialised in Brazil.

    This fuelled frustration during a population boom, which in turn resulted in a large number of people living in poverty. This led the generals to adopt a more pragmatic approach to international relations, including reopening relations with communist China.

    Ernesto Geisel was obsessed with development and championed the idea of ‘Grande Brasil’, seeking partnerships with countries with which the Brazilian dictatorship had no existing connections. This marked the beginning of the weakening of the military’s grip on power.

    The gradual process of Brazil reopening during the 1970s was greatly influenced by the revolutionary wave that occurred in the Western bloc during the 1960s. This sparked popular discussions on anti-racism, gender and decolonisation. Leonel Brizola was the face of this revolution. This marked the beginning of a new left-wing party in Brazil. Inspired by May ’68 in France and the Communist uprising in Italy, PT gained traction.

    There were two main groups in opposition to the military dictatorship that praised the US: The workers, who were isolationist and rejected any alignment, and the internationalists, who argued that Brazil should join the communist bloc.

    The Communist Party and PT were clearly internationalists. Brizola was an isolationist who defended nationalism.

    The lefties fought against the same adversary: the subservient right wing, corrupted by foreign influence, which would often use technology and support from Washington to increase internal tension in the country.

    The Communist Party and the PT sought alliances with left-leaning countries, primarily the USSR, in the hope of combatting US intervention. Brizola was sceptical.

    The workers believed that both the US and the USSR would exacerbate internal divisions and that this would impede the formation of a united workers’ group with the main goal of developing the nation.

    Brizola allied himself with high-level businessmen, but did not form partnerships with leaders of the black and native movements. His main goal was to develop the poorer classes.

    The dissolution of the USSR weakened the left’s foreign allies, affecting their ability to maintain a local dispute with right-wing US allies who also had Israeli technological support.

    As the allies were a weakened force, the Brazilian left became more isolationist.

    Nevertheless, the US continued to interfere in Latin America, and leaders such as Correa, Cristina, Chávez, Evo Morales, Humala, Castillo and Lula were imprisoned following coordinated interference by the US and its counter-intelligence apparatus.

    During the 2000s, left-nationalists were falling victim to similar operations, where corruption allegations were selectively used to discredit those calling for national sovereignty.

    Recently, US technology has caused US-style phenomena in Latin America, such as the rise of US puppets like Bukele, Milei and Bolsonaro. Fake news, mass shooting software and the manipulation of public opinion are still being used.

    Bolsonaro was a low-level politician with no significant achievements, but after US influence, he was elected president (even then, he continued to speak out against electronic voting systems). He never hid the fact that he was a mediocre, ignorant man, but his controversial views turned into massive success — and right-wing views such as racism, classism and other problematic themes gained popularity. The same happened with Milei in Argentina.

    So, it’s safe to say that US actions against Brazil are nothing new. They have been interfering in our internal affairs for decades. It’s the same old strategy: A group of politicians, judges and military personnel are co-opted and sell the nation for a low price.

    The left is facing the same dilemma again: as Brizola discussed with communists and later with the PT, should we fight against US interference by denouncing it and appealing to Brazilian nationalism and patriotism, or should we seek international support?

    Will a discourse of nationalism have any traction outside the left bubble? Would it be better to seek international support to balance the dispute?

    Would China compromise some of their interests to support allies such as Brazil?

    Paz entre nós, guerra aos senhores.

    *America is a continent, not a country.

  • Sixto Rodriguez

    I’ve lost my grandfather when I was in college. Strangely enough, I don’t remember exactly when it was. The year, the month, the day. It all slipped away into a jumble of half-remembered things that I tried to repress for so long.

     

    But there are things I remember: the smell of the hospital corridors and the sound of him in pain. I remember the morphine and me arguing with the doctors who weren’t treating him properly. The last album we heard together:

     

    ‘Cold Fact’ by Sixto Rodriguez.

     

    Don’t say anymore

    Just walk out the door

    I’ll get along fine

    You’ll see

    If there was a word

    But magic’s absurd

    I’d make one dream come true

    It didn’t work out

    But don’t ever doubt

    How I felt about you

    But thanks for your time

    Then you can thank me for mine

    And after that’s said

    Forget it