https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/social-credit-brazilian-style-all-ubi-recipients-must-be-vaxxed >How to enslave/modify/cull the world 101. Anyone who got a vax post-2019 is no better than a monkey.

>>47553 Bolsonaro was preventing this, hence the elite Kikes got rid of him. The got rid of Trump even despite him going along with the Satanist plot.

>>47554 Bolsonaro was literally a neoCohen Zionist you fucking muppet. Brazil is a premonition of America's future.

>>47564 Welcome to literally every single western power. The only anti-jewish political leaders are in third world brown countries that jews don’t care about/don’t see as a threat.

>>47564 Who say I didn't know that. He was still preventing the full slide into Borg (Star Trek) dystopia >>47568 Yup sadly Jews and their master satan appear to be the chosen (by satan) master race

>>47590 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-02-10/mind-control-wef-technocrats-openly-plot-observe-and-track-human-thoughts-implants >I'm not making this stuff up. This could be the backstory to the Borg.

>>47594 I hate these articles, they're so fucking useless. They never explain the possible technologies or how they might work or what exactly the threat vector is. All they say is >Creepy WEF man said thing about brain implants >That means they're ALREADY IN YOUR FOOD >Click here to buy my book.

>>47605 No shit. Articles about technology that doesn't exist, aimed at a readership more interested in being fearmongered to, and written in order to sell books, are obviously going to focus more on fearmongering and selling books than explaining the technology.

>>47605 >>47608 Yeah, if you want more info, you can look for it nyaaa~

Lula and Bidup met for the first time this week and Brazil's pretty much off the fence right now regarding the Ukros war. I have to admit, I'm honestly surprised Lula was so adamant about supporting NATO, but seeing as he's a CIA puppet (in the sense that he'd still be in jail if not for a little deal with the devil, plus the fact that his vice-president, (((Alckmin))) was basically placed there to make sure he doesn't stray off the line too much), it should have been obvious in retrospect. I do wonder how things will look from a diplomatic standpoint from now on, especially as Lula was one of the biggest proponents of BRICS back in the 2000s.

>>47709 >I do wonder how things will look from a diplomatic standpoint from now on, especially as Lula was one of the biggest proponents of BRICS back in the 2000s. What do you mean? He will just pretend that was always his opinion and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of wrongthink. They've always been at war with Eurasia.

>>47709 It’s been fascinating to see how the narrative on the CIA has pulled a complete 180 over the last 30 years. I remember growing up hearing from leftists about how the CIA were the devil incarnate for “destroying successful socialist nations in the name of the evil AmeriKKKorpo-fascist nazi Imperial police state”. Now I hear rightists say the CIA are “enforcing rainbow globohomo tranny communism on based and redpilled nations”. It’s like zoomers and late millennials were so successfully psy-opped by leftists that they can’t even form bogeymen of their own. They just repurpose cold war-era leftist propaganda and scrape out ‘capitalist’ and replace it with ‘communist’. I’ve seen them even blame domestic stuff on the CIA, even though the CIA are the FOREIGN intelligence office. Exact same schizo copes that hippies had in the 60s and 70s about how “we were never violent or committed domestic terror, it was the CIA staging false flags to justify crackdowns on the Labour Movement”

>>49141 People on the right have been saying the CIA was a corrupt political institution since its inception, same as the FBI. Always have. The left of the 70s (the timeframe you are reminiscing) had (some) principles unlike algorithmic leftism today. 70s: >Government uses its powers to strongarm for Republicans >Leftists bitch >Republicans tell them they were full of shit >Church Commission proves the Democrats were right 20s: >Government uses its power to strongarm for Democrats >Conservatives bitch >Democrats tell them they are full of shit >You are here So where's our church commission for the FBI?

>>49141 It's almost like they're complaining about authoritarianism and government violence and the modern conceit of left/right is almost entirely a relic of 1930s wartime propaganda

>>49141 It's amusing that you seem to think both scenarios aren't simultaneously true. The CIA did interfere with socialist countries to counter Soviet influence, and they are enforcing rainbow commie tyranny in the current year, for whatever reason. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

>>49141 > I’ve seen them even blame domestic stuff on the CIA to their credit, the FBI is basically the retarded little brother to the CIA. I have zero doubt in my mind that the higher ups of the CIA come and talk to the higher ups of the FBI to touch base with them and give them the gameplan going forward. Also, the CIA BTFOing socialist nations in the 60s and 70s has little to do with what they are doing now which is promoting gay anal sex and zionist governments across the globe. The socialism of the 60s and 70s has little to do with the industrialized homosatanic(enjoy those 5 dollar mix and match words) culture that is being pushed nowadays. Its just whatever the elites in NATO want, and what they want lines up with what jews want and what they want aligns with what satan wants. Not saying socialism of the past wasnt a bad thing, but it is an entirely different beast than what is happening today

>>49142 I never said they weren’t corrupt. I was criticising the habit of using them as a scapegoat for every single time some brown nation shits the bed with its domestic politics, and how /pol/acks accuse literally every single pozzed european politician of being a CIA asset. Essentially stating the CIA are some cloak & dagger NWO super agency pulling all the strings from behind the curtain. The Church Commission found that the CIA had performed isolated experiments to try and find better ways to spy on Soviet Bloc countries, and had performed clandestine investigations on domestic political activist groups on the suspicion that they were on the Soviet payroll (they were). Both of which were related to their raison d’etre of gathering intelligence on foreign powers. Zero claims or evidence that the CIA were themselves trying to take over the world or whatever the fuck the Left believed they were doing. >>49146 >they did subvert leftist countries Not effectively. The posterchild the leftists like to put up is Chile, but the reality is Allende was just an unpopular scumbag that the Chilean people wanted gone because of how he had destroyed the country’s economy. The CIA provided some intel to Pinochet’s supporters, but the actual coup was purely Chilean. And it was much the same elsewhere. The Nicaraguan Contras only received guns from them. Believe it or not, socialism is not sustainable. >they are now responsible for rainbow globalism Proofs? No, the ramblings of a schizophrenic computer programmer and the unibomber are not proof. >>49147 The FBI predates the CIA, and the CIA predates NATO. NATO is basically ran by the US government anyway. The FBI are basically just a detective agency with federal funding, they don’t even use the same tactics as the CIA. If anything, the NSA are the CIA’s retarded little brother. You’re basing your opinions on three letter glowniggers from jokes made on American Dad. >classic socialism was actually based and redpilled, it’s just the modern lefties who lost the plot Lmao, friendly reminder that the whole counterculture movement of the 1960s-1970s originated with left wing politics and the rejection of traditional social norms. Many of the books the nazis burned were leftist musings on how gender and race are social constructs that needed to be dismantled, and that the only way to do it was by molesting children. Commies have always been perverted degenerate transhumanists.

>>49168 >Essentially stating the CIA are some cloak & dagger NWO super agency pulling all the strings from behind the curtain. Which makes absolutely no sense to me because that's called the State Department and they do it in the open. The church commission also found that the CIA was directly going behind the government's back doing unconstitutional shit which was cut out (allegedly). >Many of the books the nazis burned were leftist musings on how gender and race are social constructs that needed to be dismantled, and that the only way to do it was by molesting children. And books about pacifism. And artwork critical of the German government's policies (such as Emil Ludwig's Napoleon biography for not being critical of the French). And what today would be reality TV. They could have stopped after burning the sex shit and Jew shit but they had to be filthy leftists trying to erase history and rewrite morals. Attachments related were all banned in Nazi Germany as degenerate art. Say what you want about leftists overreacting to book burnings, but to some extent they have a point when you look at how ideological the Nazis were in deciding what to get rid of and what to keep even at their own detriment.

>>49168 >>classic socialism was actually based and redpilled, it’s just the modern lefties who lost the plot at no point did I say this. I am aware of the leftist musing before the Nazis burned those books. I was simply saying that it was largely a different beast than it is today which is objectively true

>>49175 >bans garbage art, pacifist whining, and proto-reality TV I thought you were trying to make Nazi Germany look bad?

>>49215 Yeah and I thought anyone who flew that flag you used believed in the charters and rights set out by that government, so I guess that makes two of us that are confused.

>>49222 I believe in Dixie nationalism first and foremost. Freedoms are great as well, so long as they are restrained by morality. Since degenerate art, pacifistic (but not isolationist) morals, and reality TV shlock affect peoples' morality (and intelligence), often in a negative way, then yes, I support removing that shit.

>>49179 It really wasn’t. Antifascistaktion, the leftist paramilitary froup that wreaked havoc in weimar germany, was comprised almost exclusively of university students. There are lamentations in socialist philosophers’ circles from the 1930s that went on about how “the only people talking about class struggle seem to be upper class ladies sipping tea on their front lawns in-between arguments on what roles they will take after the Revolution”. Marx himself was the spoiled rich kid of Berliner aristocrats and never worked a day in his life, instead living off his inheritance and the cash of his wealthy benefactors. The more research you do on communism, the more you realise that it has not changed. Modern day leftism is the exact same beast it was in 1960, 1920, and 1880.

>>49238 >I believe in Dixie nationalism first and foremost Soul.

>>50237 As the old adage goes only the upper-middle class are financially secure enough to be communists.

>>49238 Real dixielanders didn’t swear allegiance to Dixie, they swore allegiance to their State. That was the entire point of them seceding. Not one single Virginian or Alabaman said “I am a Confederate”. They said “I am a Virginian/Alabaman”.

>>50479 >Real dixielanders didn’t swear allegiance to Dixie Then they were just larpers taking part in gay cianigger psyop polite sage as even I am disgusted by this shitpost

>>47350 >As early as 1820 commentators in south america were saying that the whole continent was doomed to just being a revolving door of dictators because the local population was too stupid to create a functional american or european style democracy. Hard to argue against that. >>47351 >In the US, the armed forces are under the direct control of the executive (the US President, though these days the direct power is delegated to the Department of Defence for day-to-day operations. The DoD is still made up of people appointed by the president, though). The idea of the military outright defying the government is unthinkable as a result, because all of the high command not only takes orders from the president but also is mostly appointed by him and is thus usually people who would be loyal to him. The only way you’d get a military coup is if you could convince lower-level generals to oppose their upper command. Formal authority and appointing leadership figures isn't by itself what secures loyalty. In the 1960s the president and his cabinet did all they could to purge the upper ranks and place loyal generals in positions of command, aswell as loyal colonels in key regiments and so on. The president was, nonetheless, overthrown in 1964 and very few officers sided with him. Even officers who were supposed to be personally loyal joined the coup, because he was hated in the officer corps and their strong esprit de corps overpowered personal loyalties to civilians. Officers saw themselves as superior to civilian politicians and entitled to remove them, and oppositionist politicians thought it natural to ally with officers to seek power. Nowadays it seems different. Last year zealous Bolsonaro voters camped in front of dozens of military quarters demanding a coup to prevent Lula from assuming office. Nothing happened. Even if Bolsonaro thought of a coup, he clearly didn't have enough military enthusiasm for it.

The Brazilian Armed Forces are a paper tiger because they might have serious capabilities in a few areas, but can't bring it all together in a functioning conventional war effort because of their unseriousness in multiple other areas. What keeps Brazil safe is that other South American militaries are often like this, too. But take a look at antiair. To sum it up, there's nothing against middle altitude/middle range targets. Columns on land might defend themselves against drones and helicopters, and naval taskforces have point defenses, but it doesn't go much beyond that. The new Tamandaré-class frigates have one CIWS and short-range missiles, the flagship helicopter carrier has autocannons, and it doesn't get any more sophisticated than this. Land forces have SPAAGS (Gepards) and MANPADS, older Bofors and Oerlikons were deactivated this year. Last decade Pantsirs were negotiated with Russia, but the plans were dropped. For years the Ministry of Defense has a project to acquire a medium-range antiair system, but this might drag on for a very long time. On land, the Air Force's Gripens might be just barely enough to defend the Army against enemy aircraft and missiles. At sea, the Navy will have to keep its surface combatants hugging the coast, fearing anti-ship missiles, unless it's only fighting submarines.

Are there even any conflicts on the horizon in macaco lands? How does jungle warfare even look like? How is the military tackling the cartels ? What do you think would be the best way to remove cartels out of these southern shitholes?

>>54840 There's no such thing as a cartel without a corrupt army and an even worse judiciary. It's not uncommon for army weapons to fall into the hands of bandits and nobody even bothers to investigate; here in Brazil they've even found drugs on FAB planes and nobody cares; in Bolivia and Venezuela the generals are the biggest drug traffickers; this whole continent is a joke.

>>54840 >Are there even any conflicts on the horizon in macaco lands? No, everything always ends in samba and feijoada, practically all South American presidents are aligned with the São Paulo Forum, a communist event where they organize and discuss policies for the whole of Latin America, a great little club for communist dictators. The chance of any conflict in these parts is nil.

>>54840 >Are there even any conflicts on the horizon in macaco lands? Regular violence (50 thousand homicides per year) could already be considered a civil war, with cartels as insurgent groups. But nothing that looks like a regular war or insurgency is in the horizon. Maybe FARC or another insurgent group in the Amazon might dare to make another cross-border raid. For the past few decades, the nightmare scenario in the Brazilian military establishment is a First World country or coalition (e.g. France) invading a resource-rich area in the Amazon on behalf of "the environment" or "oppressed Amerindians". But this won't happen under the current leftist government. >How does jungle warfare even look like? In counterinsurgency: meticulously collect information with undercover agents, then behave like an insurgency, dispatching small, stealthy teams of special forces to decapitate the insurgent leadership and hunt down the remaining insurgents (the Araguaia model). In an invasion by a superior conventional military: apply the Vietnamese model (insurgency until the enemy loses the will to occupy your territory) In a conventional war with a peer adversary: Brazilian doctrine holds that this should be solved with a quick offensive, but that sounds unlikely, even if a lot of helicopters were used. In this theatre, civilian transport is mostly through rivers, roads are scarce and muddy. Hence the Navy should have some gunboats, but small transport aircraft will offer faster logistics from urban hubs to forward bases. Then use helicopters from those bases to the frontline. Maneuver forces will have to be light infantry, partly drawn from the local population or at least with local guides. Just as other terrains dominated by light infantry, forces will disperse into smaller groups and fight by infiltration. For a lengthy exposition, you could read this article by a Brazilian colonel, with American commentary at the end: https://web.archive.org/web/20170202122248/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/amazon/amazon.htm >How is the military tackling the cartels ? Outside of border security, tackling the cartels is constitutionally a police, not military attribution, unless civilian authorities call in the Armed Forces in exceptional circumstances. But exceptional circumstances happen all the time, so you get >>46710. Garrisoning troops in the favelas was mostly a thing of the past decade, though. So nowadays the military isn't doing much. >What do you think would be the best way to remove cartels out of these southern shitholes? The Bukele model is highly successful, but El Salvador is tiny and even a strong dictatorship would find it difficult to scale that model to a continent-sized country. In any case, cartel removal would require a serious and creative counterinsurgency. It's not a generic "war on drugs" but a war between the state and insurgent groups defying its sovereignty (this is also a strong case for using the military, as the defense of national sovereignty is one of its normal constitutional attributions). Consider geography, for instance. The classical Rio favelas are defined by their density and inaccessibility to motorized transport - an impenetrable human hive. Maybe some highways should be blasted into them to give the state easy access. This will remove a lot of houses, but new settlements can be built elsewhere, or on unused land and buildings in the city center. Furthermore, the classical favela is built on a steep slope with access to a wooded mountaintop, offering escape routes for the insurgents whenever the state invades the area. Maybe there should be permanent military/police garrisons atop the largest massifs. None of this is happening, cartels administer favelas right beside upper-class neighborhoods, where the state is supposed to be at its strongest. If they've never been dealt with it's because they're part of the system and serve some purpose for the ruling classing. A better scenario under the current system is São Paulo, which has lower crime rates and is generally far better run than Rio. Apparently the dominant cartel has a deal with the government and enforces a reduced level of violence.

The Ministry of Defense's operational requirements for a medium range/altitude AA system, published in 2020, are in this pdf. They want launchers and missiles that can simultaneously engage with at least 16 targets at a maximum altitude of at least 15 km and a maximum horizontal range of at least 40 kilometers. Item 1.1, however, specifies that it must be adaptable to a maximum range of 80 kilometers with no modifications outside of replacing/adapting the launcher and missiles (so the radar and other systems must be flexible). Airlift capability for KC-390 and C-130 transports is a must. The Navy wants sealift capabilities for the marines. Back in 2014 MBDA partnered with Avibras to offer a CAMM-launching ASTROS. Its maximum range would be above 25 kilometers, so it wouldn't fit the 2020 requirements. But 40 km is still a modest distance. The USAF would have an easier time flattening Brazil than it had in Iraq.

There are seemingly no ATGMs in operation. Several sources mention the Milan and Eryx were used in the past but have been discontinued, and it is exceedingly difficult to find information on them. Ten Spike LR2 launchers were purchased in 2021, but they haven't even arrived. An indigenous ATGM, the MSS, is tested every once in a while, but don't get your hopes up, this program is ongoing since 1986. I conclude the top brass is simply oblivious to this decades-old technology and information on their success in any war in recent years doesn't filter up to the High Command, which would much rather keep buying outdated MBTs and other flashy items just to keep up their hollow prestige. What's worrisome is that few seem to worry at all about ATGMs, which would provide some cost-effective deterrence for a poor military without threatening neighboring countries.

>>54871 weapons without a huge industrial overhead cost like man-portable systems are less desirable because they are harder to control and can threaten more complex weapons systems like the MBTs you mentioned. Tools useful for guerilla warfare are also useful for civil insurgency.

>>54873 (you don't sage just because you disagree) So the top brass will never buy ATGMs because it thinks cartels will get them? If that were the case, the Air Force would've never allowed the Armed Forces to buy MANPADS.

>>54891 (saging so as not to keep a thread at the top with incessant shitflinging between two streloks.) The Air Force is confident in their ability to circumvent portable anti-air weapons with planes that are invisible to radar. Why do you think that there is no interest in portable anti-air lasers? If you think about it there's nothing better for taking down distant, fast moving targets than a weapon with a velocity matching the speed of light in the same medium. It's not that we don't have the technology, it's that it's asinine to invent a counter to your own weapons systems.

>>54973 >(saging so as not to keep a thread at the top with incessant shitflinging between two streloks.) If you mean the ones in past months, ignore them. Content (researching shithole country armed forces and reading the official sources critically) should be bumped. >The Air Force is confident in their ability to circumvent portable anti-air weapons with planes that are invisible to radar. But this is a shithole country we're talking about. The Brazilian Air Force isn't confident on anything, the best it has is the Gripen. Yet back in the 90s, when it didn't even have those, it consented to the Army's purchase of Iglas, and even got some of them for its base security teams. The Navy bought MANPADS for its marines, too. Nobody vetoed them on the basis that Rio cartels would be shooting down Air Force jets. And no jets have been shot down. Likewise, fears of cartels or other Brazilian insurgents getting ATGMs wouldn't be brought up. That's why I attribute the current situation to the High Command's vanity and technological conservatism. From a Third World perspective, weapons might even be produced locally, but they won't be bleeding-edge technologies. Only actual military powers can push industrial boundaries. What a sensible Third World, low-budget military should do is select among existing technologies those with the greatest cost-effectiveness for destroying an invader's expensive hardware. A poor investment for a high-tech military might be the best for a shithole country. Hence, jungle infantry brigades would ideally have large stocks of MANPADs, as a hypothetical invader would rely a lot on helicopters. A resource-rich, "pacifist" Third World military's rational purpose is to maximize the cost of a high-tech invasion.

So is Argentina gonna have a civil war because of the boomers?

Venezuela is saber-rattling over the Esequibo, the western half/two-thirds of Guyana it has always claimed. It's sparsely populated and has oil offshore. This motivates speculation on a Malvinas-style irredentist war. Guyana's irrelevant armed forces might tempt Maduro with an easy victory, but it would be a stupid move. There aren't even roads over the border, western Guyana is covered in undeveloped jungle. If you request an overland travel route from Georgetown to Venezuela, Google Maps will instruct you to head south into Brazil and then back north in the Boa Vista-Georgetown road. Maybe Venezuela can win if it tries hard enough with aerial and amphibious assaults and light infantry trekking through the jungle. But the United States would almost certainly intervene. Focused as it may be on Israel and Ukraine, there's no way they'd allow a landgrab war in their backyard. If Venezuela had to rely on aerial and naval supply routes to the occupied territory, those would be easily cut off by an USN carrier in the Caribbean. The alternative scenario would be Lula allowing Venezuela to move and supply its invasion force through Brazilian territory. The ruling party in Brazilia has always been friendly to Bolivarianism. However, this would anger the military and invite American retaliation. If American carriers pass by our waters, or American missiles hit Venezuelan supply lines in Brazil, there might be an impeachment or even coup d'état in Brasília. For those in power, nothing good can come out of this. Lula should be wise enough to avoid this path. >>58856 If they didn't have it back when coups and terrorism happened every other day, they won't have it now.

>>59347 If I was a chicom who is ready to invade Taiwan once the US too distracted with other conflicts, then I would definitely try to fan the flames over there. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, but maybe it's a good idea to keep a tab on such potential conflicts and see if there is a pattern.

>>59347 Retard here, why would USA bother intervening? To make sure Russia and China don't intervene themselves?

>>59450 South America has always traditionally been the U.S.'s playground so they simply don't tolerate anyone else meddling in their sphere of influence. It's a split between defence concerns, glow nigger revenue raising and political prestige that means the US will probably, so long as they are able, keep South America exclusively under their control.

>>59347 Didnt USA make a deal with Venezuela to buy their oil in large quantities? If so messing with vuvuzela would cause a lot of economical fuckery.

>>59454 Yeah over the last two years of skimmed article headers it seems the US has started opening up to Venezuelan oil.

Under present circumstances, any outcome to this conflict would be negative for Brazil. If Venezuela annexes the Esequibo, our northernmost state (Roraima) would lose a weak neighbor and find itself surrounded on three sides by an unstable and potentially dangerous neighbor. Venezuela might give us the Pirara, a formerly disputed border zone lost to British Guyana, but it's not worth the price. If the Venezuelan invasion is annihilated by the United States, a permanent American military presence would be established in the region. And in either case, Brazil loses credibility as a regional power and guardian of stability. Under Bolsonaro's government, there'd already be a major military buildup in the border and explicit statements in support of Guyana's territorial integrity. Rumors of such a buildup already exist, but there's zero evidence for anything other than routine exercises by the small Roraima garrison, and every reason to believe the government is telling the military to stay put. The ruling leftist coalition wants a weak, humiliated military. Lula is pragmatic enough to give the generals concessions but he won't let them have the spotlight. Maduro's timing is no surprise. I still don't believe he'll invade. He just wants a cheap popularity boost to distract his populace from their economic woes. If he's too loud, an American carrier will show up in the area to dissuade an actual war. But imagine what the Argentine general staff was thinking back in 1982. "We have the most modern military in the continent, whereas the United Kingdom gave away its entire empire for free, it's a decaying power, gradually losing its ability to project power, and even if they can do it, their population won't have the stomach to fight a far off colonial war". And as it turned out, a decaying First World power could still beat a relatively modern Third World expedition. History might repeat itself. >>59450 For the same reason Russia intervened in the 2020 Azeri invasion of Artsakh. Latin America is the oldest part of the American empire and it'd lose credibility as a hegemon if it allowed this war with no consequences. And there's another reason: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/locations/guyana >ExxonMobil is firmly established in Guyana, operating an office in Georgetown, with numerous ongoing exploration and development operations offshore. ExxonMobil Guyana is the first and largest oil producer in Guyana, and is the operator of the Stabroek, Canje and Kaieteur Blocks offshore. Over 25 significant discoveries have been made since May 2015, with production beginning in December 2019 from the Liza Phase 1 development.

The only viable transport in undeveloped parts of the Amazon (broadly speaking, as the Guyanas aren't even part of the Amazon basin) is by river. There's apparently one viable invasion route for Venezuela through the Cuyuni river. That's better than relying on the sea, but would still be vulnerable to American retaliation. On closer inspection: https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuyuni-River >Although the river is approximately 350 mi (560 km) long, rapids impede navigation. Its economic significance is less as a transportation artery than as a source of alluvial gold and diamonds.

>>59454 >>59468 Not many choices when you've drained the strategic reserves selling it to China to keep prices down. Saudis don't really give a shit either since Venezuelan oil means they don't have to drill more and expose their own socialist welfare state.

>>59578 >ExxonMobil If there is one American oil company that seems to always pop up whenever shits a-brewin' it seems to be these chucklefucks. I swear they must be a direct arm of the US government at this point.