© FAZRY ISMAIL/EPA
© JIM LO SCALZO/EPA
Europe is falling economically, demographically and culturally because its leaders have confused growing the state and increasing regulation with success while green policies gut its industries, says Milton Madriz Cedeño.
The post The Fall of Europe appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
© VATICAN MEDIA HANDOUT/EPA
© SARAH YENESEL/EPA
© SERGEY BOBYLEV/KREMLIN / POOL/EPA
© MICK TSIKAS/EPA
Meta Platforms revealed a plan to secure up to $95 billion in equity to fund its AI-related expansion of data centres and cloud computing, backed by chipmakers Nvidia, AMD and Broadcom.
The social media company aims to raise $35 billion in concurrent underwritten public equity offerings and up to $60 billion as part of an at-the-market programme scheduled to begin in Q1 2027.
Meta Platforms stated the chipmakers expressed an interest in becoming cornerstone investors through the equity offering.
They can purchase a total of $5 billion shares of Class A common stock in the offering, though Meta Platforms emphasised their expressions “of interest are not binding agreements or commitments to purchase”.
Meta Platforms stated AI is “creating significant opportunities” and its investments to-date are “generating tangible returns through increased engagement, improved advertising performance and increased monetisation”.
Last week, the company reported net income rose from $2.7 billion in Q3 2025 to $9.9 billion in the recent period, with revenue up 26% to $64.6 billion.
The post Meta seeks $95B to fund AI ambitions appeared first on Mobile World Live.
Verizon unveiled an agreement worth more than $2 billion with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to supply dark fibre infrastructure to meet AI workload demand, alongside Q3 figures showing a spike in post-paid customers.
The operator noted the AWS agreement “establishes a commercial framework to scale distributed compute and meet the real-time demands of agentic and generative AI workloads”.
It builds on an existing strategic partnership between the two and mirrors a dark fibre deal with Google announced earlier this year.
On the operator’s earnings call today (26 October), CEO Dan Schulman said “these two contracts are a clear signal that the largest builders of AI infrastructure in the world are choosing Verizon as a strategic connectivity partner”.
He added the company also has an “active pipeline of additional hyperscalers, neocloud providers and large enterprise clients who are in negotiations to have us supply them with either dark or lit fibre connectivity”.
Results
Verizon reported net additions of 406,000 post-paid phone customers, up 820% year-on-year, and 137,000 post-paid net account additions.
It noted the latter is its best performance for this metric in more than a decade.
Net income of $5.3 billion was up 5.2%, attributed to a “sharp focus” on operational efficiency. Total operating revenue was $34.3 billion, up 1.5%.
In its Mobility and Broadband segment, it noted service revenue growth of 2.9% was offset by a 9% drop in equipment sales, due primarily to “significantly lower upgrade volumes” as customers keep devices longer.
It also noted the impact of a “strategic decision to reduce spending on device subsidies”.
Schulman hailed the period overall as “another record-breaking quarter” adding “one year into our transformation, Verizon is fundamentally stronger, operationally, financially and competitively”.
The post Verizon bags $2B AWS deal, hails efficiency drive appeared first on Mobile World Live.
Lula da Silva es el presidente de las primeras veces. Contra pronóstico, ha protagonizado una remontada histórica frente a Flávio Bolsonaro. Nunca antes el ganador de la primera vuelta había perdido en el balotaje. Lula ha conseguido su cuarto mandato no consecutivo con el 51,78% de los votos. Bolsonaro se quedó en el 48,21%. Más de cuatro millones de votos de diferencia en favor de Lula.
El Exército de Lula, una campaña de movilización sin precedentes, ha hecho posible esta proeza. La abstención (19,2%) y el número de votos blancos y nulos fue mucho menor que en la primera vuelta. El senador Flávio Bolsonaro, como su padre o Donald Trump, se ha negado a aceptar su derrota.
Con la voz muy ronca y visiblemente cansado, Lula, a punto de cumplir los 81 años, ha agradecido a los brasileños, en especial a los jóvenes, su apoyo, con un gesto a André Janones, el diputado de Minas Gerais que ha promovido el Exército de Lula. El canal de WhatsApp, con diez millones de seguidores, ha sido clave en la activación del voto de esta segunda vuelta. "Esta elección es una derrota para el negacionismo", ha dicho en su discurso de victoria, en Sao Paulo. Ha asegurado que cambiará su forma de gobernar para contar con mayor participación popular. "Voy a gobernar para 215 millones de brasileños", ha prometido.
"Queremos ser un país clave en las decisiones políticas, económicas y de paz", ha añadido Lula."Este país tiene una Constitución. Nadie está obligado a que le guste el presidente electo, pero fue elegido para gobernar para todos. Quiero decirles una vez más que, una vez ganadas las elecciones, ya no tendremos adversarios", en un guiño a la oposición, que tiene la mayoría en el Congreso.
Minha gratidão eterna ao povo brasileiro, à juventude que tomou as ruas em defesa da democracia e a cada pessoa que fez um esforço imenso para votar e defender o futuro do nosso país.
— Lula (@LulaOficial) October 26, 2026
Vocês me emocionam e renovam minha esperança. Essa vitória é de um povo que acredita, que luta… pic.twitter.com/bYpKMdFgP0
En alusión velada a Donald Trump, ha puntualizado: "Brasil no es el patio trasero de nadie". Ha añadido que ha vencido "la intromisión" del exterior que vino "a través de las plataformas digitales". Ha anticipado que "regulará" las grandes plataformas digitales. En campaña se apuntó a Meta.
El presidente de Estados Unidos ha apostado claramente por los Bolsonaro. El triunfo de Lula es su primer revés en América Latina y sucede justo a diez días de las elecciones de mitad de mandato en Estados Unidos. Si los sondeos aciertan, los republicanos perderán la mayoría en la Cámara de los Representantes y posiblemente en el Senado. Trump las afronta con la popularidad bajo mínimos.
"Voy a hacer el mejor mandato que un presidente hizo jamás en este país", ha dicho emocionado, entre aplausos y vítores de los congregados. Será su cuarto y último mandato, que empezará en enero de 2027. Fue jefe del Estado de enero de 2003 a enero de 2011. Y volvió al Palacio de Planalto en 2023 tras vencer a Jair Mesías Bolsonaro, padre del senador Flávio Bolsonaro en 2022. Jair Mesías Bolsonaro está condenado por intento de golpe de estado, pues se negó a aceptar la derrota y promovió una asonada. Por eso eligió a su primogénito para su venganza.
Y de tal palo tal astilla. Flávio Bolsonaro ha dicho que es "imposible reconocer los resultados de las elecciones". Ha anunciado que activará al equipo legal de su campaña para solicitar la anulación de estas elecciones. "Esto nunca había ocurrido antes en la historia de Brasil. Se produjo una ruptura total de la igualdad entre los brasileños de distintas ciudades y estados. No aceptaré que las reglas del juego hayan cambiado, una vez más, por los amigos de Lula en el Tribunal Supremo Federal".
La campaña de Lula pidió que se ampliara el horario de votación debido a que la reducción de las flotas de autobuses en algunas ciudades obstaculizaba el proceso electoral. La campaña del Partido de los Trabajadores, de Lula, solicitó una prórroga en algunas ciudades de varios estados, incluidos Sao Paulo y Bahía. Los más humildes, votantes de Lula, son los que tenían más problemas para acceder a los colegios.
La campaña de Bolsonaro había solicitado una prórroga del periodo de votación en Sao Paulo y algunas ciudades del sur, debido a las fuertes lluvias que azotaron la región. La solicitud de la campaña del Partido de los Trabajadores fue seleccionada al azar por el Tribunal Supremo Federal y recayó en el magistrado Cristiano Zanin, quien se pronunció a favor de la extensión a nivel nacional.
Los presidentes del Senado, Davi Alcolumbre, y de la Cámara de Diputados, Hugo Motta, sí han felicitado a Lula durante una comparecencia conjunta. Los dos han defendido la solidez del proceso electoral.
El problema del senador Bolsonaro es que, si la inmunidad presidencial, antes o después tendrá que vérselas con la justicia. El senador es objeto de dos investigaciones de la policía federal: una, sobre el destino de un préstamo millonario que, según se desprende de una grabación, le pidió a un banquero caído en desgracia y acusado de corrupción para financiar una película biográfica sobre su padre. También afronta un presunto caso de blanqueo de capitales y una posible asociación empresarial con un amigo íntimo, el empresario del sector de las apuestas y abogado Willer Tomaz. Hay quienes anticipan que acabará en Estados Unidos, como su hermano Eduardo, sobre quien pesa una orden de arresto en Brasil.
Como señala Fabio Graner en O Globo, con su discurso el senador Flávio Bolsonaro "confirma el gran temor que rodeaba a su candidatura: su relación con la democracia. El candidato, derrotado en la segunda vuelta por el presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, tuvo un resultado electoral que superó todas las expectativas, incluso las de sus aliados, y podría haber concluido el proceso mostrando más grandeza que su padre, quien ni siquiera cedió la banda presidencial a su adversario. Optó por rebajarse. Flávio obtuvo más de cuatro millones de votos menos que Lula".
Este martes, Lula celebra su 81 cumpleaños. El más dulce en décadas. Como anticipo, ha conmemorado su victoria en las urnas esta madrugada por la Avenida Paulista.
© Tekever
By Riva ENTEEN
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Some of the remnant socialist governments appear to be sliding toward subservience
“Respect for sovereignty is the most significant norm in international politics, and its purpose is to minimize war and facilitate peaceful relations among states.”
—John Mearsheimer
American political scientist and international relations scholar and professor
The U.S. war against Vietnam was driven by the imperialist assumption that Vietnam was one of many inevitable dominoes that would fall to communism. But the communist dominos did not fall. Instead, today, we face a dramatic, devastating loss of progressive governments throughout Latin America, with the domino game won by the reactionary forces.
We must learn from history, or we are doomed to repeat it. But today, there is little public discussion and analysis of what led to these Latin American losses, if not outright condemnation of such questions.
Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?
— John Milton
English poet, polemicist, and civil servant
During the Cold War, the U.S. had a long pattern of supporting right-wing coups, dictatorships and death-squad operations, driven by the imperatives of big business which wanted to exploit Latin American resources.
One of the most notorious cases was Chile, where the CIA backed a coup against democratically elected leader Salvador Allende that brought in fascist Augusto Pinochet.
Today, as Peoples Dispatch reported: “The far right in Latin America is shaped by an anti-left agenda that it inherits from the Cold War, which means that its political formations typically endorse the era of U.S.-backed military dictatorships. The ideas of the left, whether from the Cuban Revolution (1959) or from the era of the Pink Tide (after 1998), are anathema to these political forces; these ideas include agrarian reform, state-led finance for industrialization, state sovereignty, and the importance of trade unions for all workers and peasants.”
Glenn Greenwald agrees: “Other than Uruguay, Brazil is the last country in South America still governed by a left-wing or center-left government, with one country after another electing leaders on the right: Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, etc.”
Medea Benjamin also agrees: “Across the continent—from Colombia and Peru to Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, Bolivia and Panama—there has been a stark reversal of the region’s progressives that brought hope for a more independent and socially just Latin America. The only two major powers in Latin America still governed by the left are Mexico and Brazil—and Brazil faces a fiercely contested presidential election in October.” Unfortunately, the recent election requires a runoff, as neither Bolsonaro nor Lula received over 50% of the vote. What is particularly concerning, is that Lula did not come in as strong as most predicted.
Alan MacLeod reports in Mint Press that “The United States is interfering in the Brazilian presidential elections, pressuring the Brazilian electorate into voting for right-wing candidate Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of disgraced former president, Jair Bolsonaro. If that does not work and President Lula da Silva secures a fourth term in office, the groundwork is already being laid for a potential military intervention.”
Colombia’s domino fell when its left-wing presidential candidate Ivan Cepeda conceded defeat on June 24 to hard-right populist Abelardo de la Espriella following a tight run-off race.
“There had been doubts among the Cepeda camp about the legitimacy of the vote process, with President Gustavo Petro—who was closely involved in the leftist candidate’s campaign—openly alleging fraud and foreign interference before and after the election.”
As CovertAction Magazine has warned, “Colombia is Fast Becoming a Neo-Colonial Outpost Under Its New Right-Wing President.
Nicaragua faces electoral interference as well. As reported in The Grayzone, “In his national address on July 19, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega stated that, when the country’s next elections take place in 2027, none who promoted a violent anti-government insurrection in 2018 will be allowed to stand for office.” He declared that Nicaragua has the “sovereign right to fight foreign interference in its electoral process…Washington’s plans for regime change in Nicaragua are hardly a secret…The National Endowment for Democracy’s president, Damon Wilson, bragged to a House committee in February that his organization is funding media in Nicaragua with an eye to undermining its Sandinista government.”
Lest we forget, government control of media is essential for fascism to take hold. Benjamin outlines how “The market concentration of Latin American media conglomerates is among the highest in the world, with four transnational companies controlling 89 percent of the broadcast media across six major countries…The market power of these huge media conglomerates is a real obstacle to any movement for democracy or socialism.” Even darker, she reports that Allen Weinstein, a founder of the National Endowment for Democracy, told The Washington Post in 1991, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
After Venezuela was subject to a U.S. military invasion on January 3, which resulted in the kidnapping of sitting president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Celia Flores, then-Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil said “We found ourselves alone.”
In the article titled “The U.S. Tried to Decapitate Venezuela: The Revolution Survived,” those who question whether U.S.-installed interim President Delcy Rodríguez had a choice are told that is the context which needs to be understood.
It was certainly a devastating disappointment that Russia and China, or neighboring countries such as Colombia and Brazil, did not (though under the boot of the U.S.) more militantly advocate for Maduro and Flores’s return. The illegal murders on the open seas of the Caribbean—with impunity—was writing on the wall that Venezuela was the next domino to fall. Why did the efforts to prevent the fall fail?
Months before the kidnapping, Rodríguez told The New York Times: “The Pentagon always had a strategic objective of obtaining Venezuelan reserves.” Today she asserts: “There is something that must be made absolutely clear: Venezuela retains the ownership and sovereignty over its resources.” However, former Vice President and veteran Chavista figure Elías Jaua accused Washington of stripping the nation of its sovereignty and taking control of its natural resources. When is sovereignty lost?
Maduro and Flores still sit behind bars in New York. On September 3, Maduro urged the judge to dismiss the criminal drug-trafficking charges against him, arguing he should be immune from prosecution as the head of a sovereign country.
Is Venezuela still a sovereign country? Former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said, “Everything is now negotiated” with Washington, requiring a daily give-and-take with Caracas. When does it become regime change if everything must be negotiated with Washington?
Peoples Dispatch reports that, “Despite every attempt to overthrow the government of Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro remains in charge and has mobilized large sections of the population to defend the Bolivarian Revolution against any threats.” But as is acknowledged, “…U.S. imperialism, by having a gun pointed to the government’s head, is in a position to exert substantial coercion leading to unpalatable decisions, such as Alex Saab’s deportation.”
Doesn’t “substantial coercion” trespass upon sovereignty? When domestic peace occurs due to a gun to your head, is it the measure of success? Saab’s deportation is more grievous than unpalatable.
Although María Corina Machado is now hiring D.C. lobbyists for access to Venezuela’s future, those who question Rodriguez’s decisions are compared to Machado. “It was not so long ago that it was the likes of far-right María Corina Machado who highlighted ‘cracks and fissures within the Chavista ranks’ and anticipated ‘the beginning of a social explosion’ against the elected Venezuelan government. Now some solidarity activists are saying the same.”
Criticizing a government does not make one equivalent to a particular opposition figure. Asking questions is not counterrevolutionary, but essential. What insights have we gained during this period of U.S. imperialism?
CovertAction Magazine’s “Cuba Is Not Venezuela or Jamaica as It Refuses to Become a U.S. Neo-Colony” recounts how, when Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley refused Henry Kissinger’s demand to end support for the Angola liberation struggle, the U.S. made sure Manley would lose the next election. Jamaica has been a willing servant of the Empire ever since, recently ending an essential Cuban health care program that brought doctors to the country. A neo-colony is certainly not sovereign.
It is tragic that Venezuela is used as the current example of what other countries want to avoid. Maduro recently posted that “Venezuela will be reborn.” Venezuelan popular movements now call for ‘anti-imperialist resistance’ to the recent oil deal for its lack of transparency and implications for Venezuelan sovereignty. Organizer Orlando Vega argued that the Venezuelan government “stumbled” in its response to the January 3 U.S. attacks. He urged a demand for the release of Maduro and Flores and a review of legislation approved “under U.S. coercion.”
But a key political question is: “What remains of Bolivarian sovereignty if control over the country’s primary energy resources is gradually transferred to private actors linked to U.S. interests?…A process born in the name of sovereignty and independence risks resulting in the subordination of key strategic resources to the interests of a foreign power…Venezuela faces what appears to be the liquidation of sovereignty, self-determination, and the legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution.”
“History shows that, more often than not, loss of sovereignty leads to liberalization imposed in the interests of the powerful.”—Noam Chomsky
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) recently issued a memo which states that Cuba is not Venezuela. They predict that “The same people who keep ’57 Chevrolets on the road with a coat hanger will wreak havoc against a foreign-imposed regime.”
Cuba refuses to accept a dialogue based on subordination. It declares it will engage in dialogue with Washington, but will not negotiate under pressure or cede its sovereignty. “We have no alternative but to resist. We must resist,” said Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who explicitly linked the defense of socialism to the defense of national independence and sovereignty. Is Cuba’s refusal to kneel to Uncle Sam the reason the U.S. strategy for Cuba recently shifted from the military option to sanctions?
“Our position is that we do not accept conditions of any kind which may affect the independence and sovereignty of our country just with the view to solve economic problems existing between the United States and Cuba.”—Fidel Castro
The Soviet Union helped Cuba survive its illegal sanctions, begun in 1960, but since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba suffered and struggled under increasing sanctions—mostly alone. In a promising new development, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov recently announced that Russia and Cuba will continue strengthening their strategic partnership despite attempts to undermine bilateral cooperation through intimidation and political pressure.
The Pillar of Sovereignty
The Peace of Westphalia, which established the nation-states in 1648, enshrined the concept of state sovereignty into international law, which was formalized centuries later by the United Nations Charter. The founding principle was that every State, regardless of size and economic importance, has an equal right to sovereignty. This cornerstone of modern international law establishes the concept that a nation-state has supreme, independent authority over its own territory and domestic affairs.
In tragic irony, sovereignty is used to justify the right to kill in defiance of international law. Carl Schmitt, a German philosopher and jurist who joined the Nazi Party in 1933, defined sovereignty as the “power to decide the state of exception.” William Blum’s Rogue State outlines in brutal detail how the U.S. has long been a lawless state, blind to others’ sovereignty, and the devastating danger that state of exception reflects.
Recently, Marco Rubio had the audacity to claim that “The ICC [International Criminal Court] poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty.” Then on October 9, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on the ICC, apparently because the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge who once criticized Israel.
However, “The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over conduct in the United States,” said Kenneth Roth, of Human Rights Watch. “Rubio is dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty, which ignores the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory.” Sovereignty does not imply immunity, but accountability to the rule of law.
Vijay Prashad outlines the struggle for sovereignty in the Global South: “Can the nations of the Global South act together with sovereignty and dignity? Can they build institutions that serve their peoples rather than global capital?…A political consciousness that favours sovereignty and strategic autonomy is rising in the Global South.”
When a country gives up strategic autonomy, has it compromised its sovereignty? Prashad concludes: “The peoples of the Global South demand sovereignty, equality, and peace.” Sovereignty is becoming a mantra, though its clear meaning remains elusive.
“How does any country give up any sovereignty and expect to survive as a government?…That would be political suicide.”—Benigno Aquino III
Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar explored modern global sovereignty in “Eurasia, the Hegemon, and the Three Sovereigns,” asserting that true, uncompromised national sovereignty in contemporary geopolitics requires reconceptualizing the understanding of sovereignty. He addressed the need to “pierce far beyond sovereignty as interpreted in conventional political science and predominant international relations narratives.”
When does genocide of resident civilians cancel the right to sovereignty over them? Banning a native language is legally genocide. Ukraine banned the Russian language on the first day of the 2014 coup.
So did Russia violate Ukraine’s sovereignty when it began the SMO? The Donbas, after 12,000 civilian deaths in eight years, voted—overwhelmingly—to rejoin the Russian Federation. The Duma voted to accept their request for reunification.
When international law fails, with total UN abdication, and agreements like Minsk I and Minsk II are used as a ruse, how is Ukraine’s alleged sovereignty legitimate while it commits genocide against its own people?
Cuba remains a sovereign socialist country which says it will not surrender. Venezuela reminds us how quickly a revolution can be compromised when sovereignty becomes a negotiable variable. What is the “difference between sovereignty and subordination, between resistance and surrender?”
When Castro won the Cuban Revolution, he immediately distributed guns to the peasants, because he knew that he needed the people to maintain the victory. And he certainly agreed with Frederick Douglass that “It’s better to die free, than live as a slave.”
Sovereignty requires that the people of each country are free to make their own choices, without coercion or a gun to their head.
Original article: covertactionmagazine.com
Reducing millions of Brazilians to a reactionary base of Bolsonarism reveals the limitations of progressive analyses of Brazilian society.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Since the first round of the presidential elections, segments of the Brazilian left have intensified their criticism of evangelicals, frequently portraying them as a reactionary force responsible for the rise of the right in the country. This interpretation offers a convenient explanation for progressive electoral failures, but it demonstrates a rather limited understanding of Brazilian social reality. The evangelical phenomenon has historical, cultural, and economic roots that cannot be reduced to Bolsonarism.
The first mistake is treating evangelicals as an organized political bloc. Brazil’s Protestant landscape encompasses historical denominations, Pentecostal churches, independent Neo-Pentecostal organizations, and countless local congregations, often characterized by profound doctrinal differences. There is no central ecclesiastical authority capable of coordinating this entire landscape, nor is there a uniform political orientation shared by its members. Although religious leaders have played an important role in mobilizing voters in favor of Jair Bolsonaro, their positions do not necessarily reflect the convictions of all believers.
Furthermore, the expansion of Brazilian evangelicalism has already shown signs of slowing, according to recent demographic analyses. This demonstrates that the phenomenon has its own dynamics and does not depend exclusively on the political climate. Many Brazilians find networks of solidarity, moral guidance, everyday assistance, and forms of community organization in evangelical churches. Some believers maintain conservative positions on social issues, but support social policies, workers’ rights, and causes that do not correspond to the Bolsonarist agenda. Similarly, some evangelical groups adopt more liberal approaches to cultural issues, as illustrated by the Universal Church, where support for abortion is permitted. Ultimately, this is an extraordinarily complex and broad phenomenon that cannot be reduced to simplistic political labels.
Another mistake is interpreting Brazilian evangelicalism as merely a product of American influence. The activities of foreign missionaries and international funding contributed to the expansion of certain denominations, particularly throughout the twentieth century. However, the Brazilian experience developed distinctive characteristics of its own. Churches adapted their language, practices, and organizational structures to the country’s cultural conditions, developing a form of popular religiosity deeply connected to Brazil’s national religious imagination.
In many contexts, beliefs in direct spiritual intervention, the search for healing, liberation from evil influences, and collective participation in rituals of personal transformation have parallels with practices found in Afro-Brazilian religious traditions and popular Catholicism. This does not mean that these religions are equivalent. Rather, it demonstrates that evangelical growth took place within a society profoundly shaped by syncretism and the continuous reinterpretation of its religious traditions. In practice, Brazilian evangelicalism is a genuine expression of the country’s popular spirituality, not merely an American import.
The urban dimension of this process must also be considered. For decades, the growth of Brazil’s urban peripheries and major cities created social needs that traditional institutions struggled to meet. Despite its historical importance, the Catholic Church failed to maintain a pastoral presence in every territory commensurate with the pace of urbanization. Evangelical churches occupied part of this space, establishing communities close to residents, providing everyday support, and building lasting social ties.
This presence is particularly important in favelas, peripheral neighborhoods, and prisons. These are environments where churches can offer a sense of belonging, community discipline, material assistance, and opportunities to rebuild one’s life. This reality has considerable political significance, especially because many of these same territories constitute traditional electoral strongholds of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and the Workers’ Party (PT).
This apparent contradiction exposes the limitations of the categories employed by segments of the left. A worker may vote for Lula because of his economic policies while attending a conservative church. Another may support progressive social programs while rejecting certain cultural positions held by the left. Political and religious identities do not have to coincide entirely.
Bolsonarism has managed to establish important alliances with evangelical leaders, mobilizing religious symbols and moral discourse as part of its electoral strategy. This does not give it ownership of the evangelical phenomenon. Confusing these two realities prevents the left from understanding the needs, aspirations, and contradictions of millions of Brazilians.
To build a lasting political alternative, progressives must abandon the tendency to classify entire communities as ideological enemies. Brazilian evangelicalism is plural, socially rooted, and culturally autonomous. Ignoring this complexity means giving up on understanding a decisive segment of Brazilian society.
© YURI GRIPAS / POOL/EPA
Login