On Sunday October 30, Brazil held a presidential runoff between incumbent Jair Bolsonaro and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (hereafter referred to as Lula).

There were many parallels between the 2022 Brazilian election and the 2020 US presidential election.  Each race featured a populist incumbent pitted against opponents who were lifelong politicians plagued by chronic corruption. Both incumbents were absurdly popular, reflected by crowds that would dwarf the throngs drawn by every other politician in their countries’ histories. Yard signs, bumper stickers, clothing, etc., that showed support for the incumbents were ubiquitous. The challengers could not draw spectators and not many people displayed support for the unlikable shills.

Despite their grass root support, both incumbents found themselves pitted against institutional establishments, including legacy politicians, the courts, and most palpably, the news media. Let’s put aside what happened and is happening in the USA and focus on what happened in Brazil.

First, the news media boldly announced that Bolsonaro had been defeated. The citizenry did not buy the narrative. Peaceful protests–not to be confused with “mostly peaceful protests” featuring newscasters droning on to a backdrop of burning buildings that would set a new standard for American journalistic silliness–followed immediately. There were trucker strikes and highway blockades in Brazil, but not much–if any–reported violence.

The protests were largely ignored by Both Brazilian and world media. In the week following the runoff, there were scattered reports that another blockade was called off, the deniers had accepted their defeat, and Brazil would usher in a new administration as she returned to a state of normalcy. 

What happened in November? The details are sketchy, but the storyline is crystal clear. A large majority of Brazilians challenged the validity of the elections, alleging that Lula had used a multitude of schemes to steal the presidency. It became hard for non-Portuguese to find out much of anything. YouTube banned discussion of Brazilian elections and protests, much as they had in the US two years prior.  Videos surfaced on Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee, but it was hard to tell if these reports were valid. It would be easy to repackage pre-election footage to an English-speaking audience. Who would know the difference?

The world press loudly ignored Brazil. The Russian media– “Tass’, “Russia Today”, “Sputnik”–can be quite heretical when discussing, say, the Ukranian war. They offer a perspective that routinely contradicts the Western mainstream media. When the subject turned to Brazil, the Russian press hit the mute button.

The Iranian press likes to bullhorn protests and civil unrest in the West. No, we are not the only country with disaffected peasants. The Iranian media has reported on recent protests in several European countries. Nothing about Brazil. 

Turkey, the Gulf States media, pan-Arab giants Aljazeera and Almayadeen love to discuss Western turmoil, but they would skip on Brazil. “The Jerusalem Post” reported on a Brazilian protest only because it took place in Jerusalem. Sometimes, the African or Asian sites will report on distant events with candor because they are distant events. Too distant this time?

The media vow of silence rumbled throughout the hemisphere and in Brazil it was deafening. Most Brazilian news sites are by paid subscription, but I can tell you that the English language newsies aggressively ignored the biggest story in their country’s history. Imagine another 9/11 in New York while “New York Times” refuses to mention anything related to the subject but insists on charging a subscription fee, and you have some idea of just how worthless the Brazilian press happens to be. Who in the world would subscribe to “The Rio Times”?

When we say media silence, we do not necessarily refer to perfect silence. The world media blasted news of Bolsonaro’s defeat. They had a series of “dwindling” protest reports. Hardly a day would go by when some far-flung outlet conjugated “dwindle” to describe the Brazilian resistance. The “dwindle” chronicles would give way to the military confirmation template. 

Brazil’s military intelligence was asked to intervene in the election, and it was widely trumpeted that they confirmed the integrity of the electoral process. Not exactly. Zamisdat linked to multiple reports.

This YouTube vid promotes the orthodox media position.

A translation of a Portuguese language tweet states that the military’s verdict was inconclusive.

https://truthsocial.com/@imyourmoderator/posts/109320848847675064

On November 25, Associated Press released “Brazilian protests intensify; Bolsonaro stays silent” For the next two days, the many customers of AP ran this story to English readers the world over. If nothing else, the many, many echoes proved that AP is still the Lion King of information. Since filing this report, the AP has grown more silent than Bolsonaro.

The Brazilian Silence illustrates the difficulty of amateur journalists and informal networks extracting information from most of the non-English world. Matthew Tyrmand, the Lone Ranger of Brazilian news, has appeared on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” and on Tucker Carlson. Stew Peters trotted out Brazilian Congressman, Gustavo Gayer, on his Rumble Channel. “Gateway Pundit” has made a yeoman effort to track events. 

There is a popular notion that if an event becomes blatantly obvious, the news media is mandated to cover the story, and cover it accurately. “They can’t ignore it.” “They got to cover it.” “They can’t sweep it under the rug.” That popular notion is being put to the test.

 The sixth largest country in the world has staged peaceful protests for over 30 days. Large gatherings, some of the largest the world (but not its inhabitants) has ever seen. Demonstrations spread across Brazil as well as New York, Israel, Europe, and of course, Qatar.

How long will the Brazilian Silence last?