On 7 September 1822, Prince Pedro de Bragança, son of the King Dom João VI of Portugal, proclaimed Brazil’s symbolic independence by the Ypiranga stream in São Paulo with the cry “Independence or Death!”
Unlike the independence of the Spanish colonies, which led to long wars, Brazilian independence was resolved almost peacefully in a family agreement within the Portuguese royal house. The departure of King João VI and the Portuguese court to Brazil in 1807—to prevent the monarch, like the king of Spain, Charles IV, from being held hostage by Napoleon—led to significant development of the colony. After the liberal revolution of 1820 in Portugal, Lisbon wanted to impose a regime of subordination on the Brazilian colonial elites. In the revolt which followed, Prince Pedro himself took the lead.
The return of censorship
The anniversary of Prince Pedro’s cry has long been observed in Brazil, but this year’s September 7th celebrations had a special meaning. They were, unsurprisingly, impacted by the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to prevent Brazilians from accessing X (formerly Twitter). This led to parallel and conflicting celebrations: the official celebrations were in the capital Brasilia, where President Lula, the government, and the Supreme Federal Court (STF) judges were present, including the author of the suspension, Alexandre de Moraes. In the country’s largest and most important city, São Paulo, there was a large demonstration against Moraes. In Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, and Porto Alegre, there were also popular anti-Moraes demonstrations.
Moraes’ decision to make Elon Musk’s X inaccessible to more than 22 million Brazilian users is seen by many as an act against freedom of expression. It’s true that we live in a time when such practices seem to be in vogue, enacted by the highest international institutions, such as the European Commission with its Digital Services Act, and its social media moderators; or by the French government when it arrested the owner of Telegram, Pavel Durov, on arrival in Paris before releasing him on $5.5 million bail.
Both the European Union’s ‘moderation’ of content and the reason for Durov’s arrest are officially justified as being done to prevent hate speech; racism, discrimination based on color, gender, religion, sexual orientation; and other nastiness to which such platforms can unintentionally give expression. To perform this ‘moderation’ there are ‘experts’ who examine and decide what people can and cannot see.
This is censorship, pure and simple. All justifications for censorship, from the reasons given by the Roman Catholic Church for banning books—to avoid the contamination of faith or the corruption of morals through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books—to the various examples of state censorship, are ultimately always the same. The aim is to prevent the spread of ideas contrary to dominant doctrines by banning material considered heretical or blasphemous.
Even in the authoritarian Portuguese constitution of the Estado Novo of 1933, after announcing the principle of freedom of thought, the function of censorship was explained and justified as a way of “preventing the perversion of public opinion” and “defending it against all factors that could lead it against truth, justice, morality, good administration, and the common good.”
After the establishment of the Soviet Union, the communists created Glavlit—the General Directorate for Literary and Publishing Affairs—to control periodicals as well as poetry, fiction, theater, and history books. In one respect, socialist censorship surpassed inquisitorial and authoritarian censorship—the systematic and permanent destruction and modification of the past, creating and recreating a ‘useful past’ for the purposes of communist power.
The current globalist elites, in their attempt to promote ‘One World’ by suppressing national borders and identities, are encountering two major obstacles to these objectives. First, there is the will of the citizens of many important states in Europe and around the world, expressed in votes for nationalist, popular, or conservative parties, which globalists call the ‘far Right.’ Second, they face the resistance of some social platforms to this single narrative, thereby serving as opposition to the overwhelming hegemony that would otherwise have a monopoly on information and the formation of public opinion. One such resister is Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) which, last August, surpassed 900 million users. Musk has been actively involved in politics, both in supporting Donald Trump in the United States and in controversies over freedom of expression (as seen by the British Labour government accusing him of ‘hate speech’). He has thus become a target of the Left.
Moraes against the Right
Alexandre de Moraes is a Brazilian jurist and professor at the University of São Paulo. He fell into the good graces of former president Michel Temer when, as São Paulo’s secretary of public security, he managed to capture a blackmailer who, having cloned the cell phone of Marcela Temer, the then vice-president’s wife, threatened her with the disclosure of scandalous photos and conversations.
Moraes set up a task force, and the blackmailer was quickly discovered. Hence the recognition of Temer who, when he became president of the Republic following the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, appointed Moraes as Brazil’s Minister of Justice. The following year, Moraes was appointed to the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
This supreme body of the Brazilian judiciary is made up of 11 judges, called justices, appointed by the president of the Republic and approved by the Senate. Unlike U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are appointed for life, the Brazilian justices retire at the age of 75.
On the Supreme Court, Moraes has been characterized by the use and abuse of his powers, politicizing the institution’s action against the right-wing ex-president, Jair Bolsonaro. Furthermore, at his behest, the police made arrests on the basis of reports of private chats. In addition to his relentless pursuit of former President Jair Bolsonaro, Moraes was also extremely harsh in his repression of the rioting in the assault on Congress by some 4,000 Brazilians who were protesting against the outcome of the elections, sentencing many to lengthy prison time. Moraes has thus emerged as the number one enemy of the Brazilian Right, which he has systematically persecuted through all avenues. This action has transformed the STF and Brazil’s entire judicial system into a gigantic machine that accounts for 1.6% of GDP, while developed countries spend an average of around 0.3%, and developing countries 0.5%.
Impeachment difficulties
It’s not surprising that, while Moraes and the government were celebrating the official independence celebrations in Brasilia, the September 7th demonstration in São Paulo saw a crowd of many tens of thousands of demonstrators standing against the STF judge.
The demonstration was intended to call for the impeachment of Alexandre de Moraes as a judge on the Supreme Court. It was officially organized by Pastor Silas Malafaia, a neo-Pentecostal televangelist and president of the CIMEB (Interdenominational Council of Evangelical Ministers of Brazil). Also present were former President Bolsonaro; the governor of São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas; and several senators and congressmen.
Moraes and his decision to ban X were the focus of their criticism; dictator and psychopath were some of the nicknames directed at the all-powerful judge. Moraes had already been called Darth Vader, Dark Lord, and Voldemort (there is indeed some physical resemblance) by Elon Musk.
In recent years, Alexandre de Moraes has used his power on Brazil’s Supreme Court to relentlessly pursue what he calls the “extreme Right,” whom he accuses of endangering democracy in Brazil. Moraes’ language is similar to the arguments from the Biden Administration, to the French Left, to the German coalition: their enemies are ‘neo-Nazis’ and ‘Putin’s allies’ who want to ‘destroy democracy.’ Such slogans still convince, such is the strength of the propaganda that has managed to associate the entire Right with National Socialism—and to convince the world that Stalin, the evil man par excellence after the German dictator, is undeserving of consideration, or was at least not a left-wing figure.
After the popular demonstrations, at the beginning of the week of September 9, there was action in the institutions: the request for Moraes’ impeachment for “crimes of responsibility” was submitted to the Brazilian Senate, although there is little hope that it will go ahead because the president of the Senate himself, on whom the process depends, seems unwilling to promote it. Recently, an opposition website published the opinions of senators and MPs on the possible impeachment of Moraes. Amongst the senators, 36 are favorable; 16, against; and 29, undecided. Amongst the MPs, 157 are favorable; 128, against; and 229, undecided. Two-thirds are required for approval.
On the 10th of September, at the initiative of Senator Sérgio Moro (the famous anti-corruption judge), the Senate Economic Affairs Committee (CAE) met to assess “the possible economic impacts” of Moraes’ decision, insofar as a court order that “directly hurts the freedom of expression of 22 million Brazilians” and the blocking of the accounts of Starlink, the largest satellite Internet provider (also owned by Musk) will certainly have a negative impact on Brazil’s image as a country of economic freedom, and therefore on investment. Although Estado de Sao Paulo recently reported on a possible negotiation between Musk and Moraes in order to name an X representative in Brazil, the opposition to Moraes and the movement to impeach him will continue on.
The main complaint against Moraes is “the crime of responsibility,” provided for in Law 1079 of 1950, which prohibits STF ministers from “exercising any kind of party-political action.” But so far, Alexandre de Moraes has not stopped fighting the Right and its political and business supporters, from Jair Bolsonaro to Elon Musk.
Musk Versus Moraes: A Battle for Freedom of Expression
On 7 September 1822, Prince Pedro de Bragança, son of the King Dom João VI of Portugal, proclaimed Brazil’s symbolic independence by the Ypiranga stream in São Paulo with the cry “Independence or Death!”
Unlike the independence of the Spanish colonies, which led to long wars, Brazilian independence was resolved almost peacefully in a family agreement within the Portuguese royal house. The departure of King João VI and the Portuguese court to Brazil in 1807—to prevent the monarch, like the king of Spain, Charles IV, from being held hostage by Napoleon—led to significant development of the colony. After the liberal revolution of 1820 in Portugal, Lisbon wanted to impose a regime of subordination on the Brazilian colonial elites. In the revolt which followed, Prince Pedro himself took the lead.
The return of censorship
The anniversary of Prince Pedro’s cry has long been observed in Brazil, but this year’s September 7th celebrations had a special meaning. They were, unsurprisingly, impacted by the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to prevent Brazilians from accessing X (formerly Twitter). This led to parallel and conflicting celebrations: the official celebrations were in the capital Brasilia, where President Lula, the government, and the Supreme Federal Court (STF) judges were present, including the author of the suspension, Alexandre de Moraes. In the country’s largest and most important city, São Paulo, there was a large demonstration against Moraes. In Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, and Porto Alegre, there were also popular anti-Moraes demonstrations.
Moraes’ decision to make Elon Musk’s X inaccessible to more than 22 million Brazilian users is seen by many as an act against freedom of expression. It’s true that we live in a time when such practices seem to be in vogue, enacted by the highest international institutions, such as the European Commission with its Digital Services Act, and its social media moderators; or by the French government when it arrested the owner of Telegram, Pavel Durov, on arrival in Paris before releasing him on $5.5 million bail.
Both the European Union’s ‘moderation’ of content and the reason for Durov’s arrest are officially justified as being done to prevent hate speech; racism, discrimination based on color, gender, religion, sexual orientation; and other nastiness to which such platforms can unintentionally give expression. To perform this ‘moderation’ there are ‘experts’ who examine and decide what people can and cannot see.
This is censorship, pure and simple. All justifications for censorship, from the reasons given by the Roman Catholic Church for banning books—to avoid the contamination of faith or the corruption of morals through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books—to the various examples of state censorship, are ultimately always the same. The aim is to prevent the spread of ideas contrary to dominant doctrines by banning material considered heretical or blasphemous.
Even in the authoritarian Portuguese constitution of the Estado Novo of 1933, after announcing the principle of freedom of thought, the function of censorship was explained and justified as a way of “preventing the perversion of public opinion” and “defending it against all factors that could lead it against truth, justice, morality, good administration, and the common good.”
After the establishment of the Soviet Union, the communists created Glavlit—the General Directorate for Literary and Publishing Affairs—to control periodicals as well as poetry, fiction, theater, and history books. In one respect, socialist censorship surpassed inquisitorial and authoritarian censorship—the systematic and permanent destruction and modification of the past, creating and recreating a ‘useful past’ for the purposes of communist power.
The current globalist elites, in their attempt to promote ‘One World’ by suppressing national borders and identities, are encountering two major obstacles to these objectives. First, there is the will of the citizens of many important states in Europe and around the world, expressed in votes for nationalist, popular, or conservative parties, which globalists call the ‘far Right.’ Second, they face the resistance of some social platforms to this single narrative, thereby serving as opposition to the overwhelming hegemony that would otherwise have a monopoly on information and the formation of public opinion. One such resister is Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) which, last August, surpassed 900 million users. Musk has been actively involved in politics, both in supporting Donald Trump in the United States and in controversies over freedom of expression (as seen by the British Labour government accusing him of ‘hate speech’). He has thus become a target of the Left.
Moraes against the Right
Alexandre de Moraes is a Brazilian jurist and professor at the University of São Paulo. He fell into the good graces of former president Michel Temer when, as São Paulo’s secretary of public security, he managed to capture a blackmailer who, having cloned the cell phone of Marcela Temer, the then vice-president’s wife, threatened her with the disclosure of scandalous photos and conversations.
Moraes set up a task force, and the blackmailer was quickly discovered. Hence the recognition of Temer who, when he became president of the Republic following the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, appointed Moraes as Brazil’s Minister of Justice. The following year, Moraes was appointed to the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
This supreme body of the Brazilian judiciary is made up of 11 judges, called justices, appointed by the president of the Republic and approved by the Senate. Unlike U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are appointed for life, the Brazilian justices retire at the age of 75.
On the Supreme Court, Moraes has been characterized by the use and abuse of his powers, politicizing the institution’s action against the right-wing ex-president, Jair Bolsonaro. Furthermore, at his behest, the police made arrests on the basis of reports of private chats. In addition to his relentless pursuit of former President Jair Bolsonaro, Moraes was also extremely harsh in his repression of the rioting in the assault on Congress by some 4,000 Brazilians who were protesting against the outcome of the elections, sentencing many to lengthy prison time. Moraes has thus emerged as the number one enemy of the Brazilian Right, which he has systematically persecuted through all avenues. This action has transformed the STF and Brazil’s entire judicial system into a gigantic machine that accounts for 1.6% of GDP, while developed countries spend an average of around 0.3%, and developing countries 0.5%.
Impeachment difficulties
It’s not surprising that, while Moraes and the government were celebrating the official independence celebrations in Brasilia, the September 7th demonstration in São Paulo saw a crowd of many tens of thousands of demonstrators standing against the STF judge.
The demonstration was intended to call for the impeachment of Alexandre de Moraes as a judge on the Supreme Court. It was officially organized by Pastor Silas Malafaia, a neo-Pentecostal televangelist and president of the CIMEB (Interdenominational Council of Evangelical Ministers of Brazil). Also present were former President Bolsonaro; the governor of São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas; and several senators and congressmen.
Moraes and his decision to ban X were the focus of their criticism; dictator and psychopath were some of the nicknames directed at the all-powerful judge. Moraes had already been called Darth Vader, Dark Lord, and Voldemort (there is indeed some physical resemblance) by Elon Musk.
In recent years, Alexandre de Moraes has used his power on Brazil’s Supreme Court to relentlessly pursue what he calls the “extreme Right,” whom he accuses of endangering democracy in Brazil. Moraes’ language is similar to the arguments from the Biden Administration, to the French Left, to the German coalition: their enemies are ‘neo-Nazis’ and ‘Putin’s allies’ who want to ‘destroy democracy.’ Such slogans still convince, such is the strength of the propaganda that has managed to associate the entire Right with National Socialism—and to convince the world that Stalin, the evil man par excellence after the German dictator, is undeserving of consideration, or was at least not a left-wing figure.
After the popular demonstrations, at the beginning of the week of September 9, there was action in the institutions: the request for Moraes’ impeachment for “crimes of responsibility” was submitted to the Brazilian Senate, although there is little hope that it will go ahead because the president of the Senate himself, on whom the process depends, seems unwilling to promote it. Recently, an opposition website published the opinions of senators and MPs on the possible impeachment of Moraes. Amongst the senators, 36 are favorable; 16, against; and 29, undecided. Amongst the MPs, 157 are favorable; 128, against; and 229, undecided. Two-thirds are required for approval.
On the 10th of September, at the initiative of Senator Sérgio Moro (the famous anti-corruption judge), the Senate Economic Affairs Committee (CAE) met to assess “the possible economic impacts” of Moraes’ decision, insofar as a court order that “directly hurts the freedom of expression of 22 million Brazilians” and the blocking of the accounts of Starlink, the largest satellite Internet provider (also owned by Musk) will certainly have a negative impact on Brazil’s image as a country of economic freedom, and therefore on investment. Although Estado de Sao Paulo recently reported on a possible negotiation between Musk and Moraes in order to name an X representative in Brazil, the opposition to Moraes and the movement to impeach him will continue on.
The main complaint against Moraes is “the crime of responsibility,” provided for in Law 1079 of 1950, which prohibits STF ministers from “exercising any kind of party-political action.” But so far, Alexandre de Moraes has not stopped fighting the Right and its political and business supporters, from Jair Bolsonaro to Elon Musk.
READ NEXT
The Enterprise State
Play the Ball, not the Man: Cancel Culture’s Attempt To Capture Hungarian Academia
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics