Korybko To Brazil’s PCO: You’re Useful Idiots Of US Imperialism For Accusing Me Of Being One
My response to the “Workers’ Cause Party’s” (PCO) attack will begin by summarizing its hit piece, after which I’ll then hyperlink to all my analyses of Lula that I’ve published since November so that the reader can review my work themselves in order to see that this party is manipulating their perceptions about it. The next part will then consist of debunking their ad hominem attack against me before doing the same regarding their political points, after which I’ll share my thoughts about why this hit piece was published.
The “Workers’ Cause Party” Is Waging Information Warfare Against Me
Brazil’s “Workers’ Cause Party” (PCO per its Portuguese abbreviation) published a hit piece against me on Thursday in their outlet “Diary of the Workers’ Cause” (DCO). It was written by PCO activist Camilo Duarte and titled “Confusions on the left about the character of the Lula government”. The piece is in Portuguese but can be read here by anyone using Google Translate. In short, it justifies President Lula’s condemnation of Russia while smearing me as a useful idiot of US imperialism for criticizing him for that.
My response to this attack will begin by summarizing Duarte’s hit piece, after which I’ll then hyperlink to all my analyses of Lula that I’ve published since November so that the reader can review my work themselves in order to see that he’s manipulating their perceptions about it. The next part will then consist of debunking his and the PCO’s ad hominem attack against me before doing the same regarding their political points, after which I’ll share my thoughts about why this hit piece was published.
Duarte’s Manipulative Hit Piece
According to Duarte and by extrapolation the PCO that he represents by dint of publishing this hit piece about me in his party’s official outlet without of the usual disclaimer that it’s only that author’s personal views, the Lula-Biden joint condemnation of Russia is essentially meaningless. He counterfactually maintains that this development doesn’t change the Brazil leader’s position, which Duarte described as the traditional one of his country’s bourgeoise, of not taking sides in international conflicts.
The PCO activist continues by adding that Lula’s refusal to arm Ukraine harmed the interests of US imperialism. Duarte also embedded the text of French President Macron’s tweet to Lula on 11 February where he encouraged the newly re-elected and now three-time Brazilian leader to use his Ukrainian counterpart Zelensky’s 10-point peace plan as the basis for his own G20-like peace plan. The piece then dramatically transitions to claiming that “Imperialism…start[ed] a large-scale campaign” against Lula.
From here, Duarte attacks some of my work that’ll be hyperlinked to later in my response to show readers that he’s manipulating their perceptions about what I wrote while also omitting crucial facts about myself that debunk the PCO’s smear campaign. He begins by taking issue with my comparison of the liberal-globalist faction of the Workers’ Party (PT) and its allies, who I call the Lula Liberals, with QAnon for their spewing of conspiracy theories to cover up for Lula’s condemnation of Russia.
Duarte then claims that “Lula’s position predates his government, there is nothing new in it”, which is a lie that I’ll expose later in my response. Following that, he spins Lula’s refusal to arm Ukraine as “completely pro-Russian”. Duarte’s conclusion is that “Korybko's policy not only does not clarify the situation in Ukraine, but ends up confusing relations between Brazil and Russia. This position serves only the imperialism of Korybko's home country, USA, and harms countries besieged by imperialism.”
My Latest Analyses Of Lula
Prior to debunking Duarte’s points, both those political ones that he made as well as the personal ones that were very strongly implied at the end of his hit piece regarding me being a useful idiot of US imperialism, the reader should be made aware of all my latest analyses of Lula:
* 31 October: “The Geostrategic Consequences Of Lula’s Re-Election Aren’t As Clear-Cut As Some Might Think”
* 1 November: “Biden’s Reaction To Brazil’s Latest Election Shows That The US Prefers Lula Over Bolsonaro”
* 24 November: “Korybko To Sputnik Brasil: The Workers’ Party Is Infiltrated By Pro-US Liberal-Globalists”
* 9 January: “Everyone Should Exercise Caution Before Rushing To Judgement On What Just Happened In Brazil”
* 12 January: “Korybko To Sputnik Brasil: The US Played A Decisive Role In The January 8th Incident”
* 19 January: “Brazil’s Explanation For Delaying Its BRICS Presidency Is Extremely Suspicious”
* 24 January: “Lula Just Became The First BRICS Leader To Publicly Condemn Russia’s Special Operation”
* 28 January: “Lula’s Recalibrated Multipolar Vision Makes Him Amenable To The US’ Grand Strategic Interests”
* 2 February: “A Former Donbass Diplomat Threw Cold Water On Lula’s G20-Like Peace Proposal”
* 3 February: “Why Didn’t Lavrov & His Brazilian Counterpart Discuss Lula’s G20-Like Peace Proposal?”
* 7 February: “The Russian Ambassador To India Indirectly Rubbished Lula’s G20-Like Peace Proposal”
* 8 February: “It Makes Perfect Sense Why Russia Doesn’t Support Lula’s G20-Like Peace Proposal”
* 11 February: “Lula Sealed His Deal With The Devil By Condemning Russia During His Meeting With Biden”
* 11 February: “Debunking The #LulaLiberals’ Lies For Covering Up His Condemnation Of Russia”
* 12 February: “Lula’s Condemnation Of Russia In His Joint Statement With Biden Disqualifies Him As A Mediator”
* 17 February: “Soros’ Strong Support Of Lula Discredits The Brazilian Leader’s Multipolar Credentials”
* 21 February: “Brazil’s Ambassador To India Downplayed A Key Difference In Their Stances Towards Ukraine”
My main points are that: 1) the US supports Lula due his close alignment with the Democrats’ views; 2) his third term’s foreign policy is more US-friendly than the first two; 3) Lula’s G20-like peace proposal is purely for self-promotion; 4) condemning Russia was suspicious; and 5) so is Soros’ endorsement of Lula.
Debunking The PCO’s Literal Conspiracy Theory About Me
Having explained the gist of Duarte’s hit piece that his PCO just published about me and shared a list of my latest analyses about Lula so that readers can review my work themselves to see that they’re being manipulated, it’s now time to debunk the former point-by-point. Beginning with the last and most personal attack that they made against me, strongly implying that I’m a useful idiot of US imperialism is counterfactual because it ignores several of the US Government’s polar opposite attacks against me.
The Associated Press and New York Times cited unnamed US Government officials who falsely claimed in July 2020 that Russian military intelligence’s top psychological warfare unit created all the content published on a site that I used to write for, OneWorld, which they also said was controlled by them too. The first-mentioned of them specifically cited one of my analyses here as supposed proof of an alleged disinformation product created by this same unit, which thus falsely implied that I work for it.
Everything that I’ve ever published represents my own views and was never ordered by any foreign intelligence service, which I have no contact with and never want to enter into such. By concocting a literal conspiracy theory falsely implying that I work for Russian military intelligence’s top psychological warfare unit, the US Government wanted to intimidate me into self-censoring or changing my views due to its fear of my work’s growing influence in counteracting their interests across the world.
Two years later in summer 2022, the State Department revived those unnamed US Government officials’ false innuendo against me in two hit pieces published as part of their “Disarming Disinformation” project. The first inadvertently complimented me by placing my OneWorld analysis about the food and fuel crises in the same category of influence as Lavrov’s words about the West’s responsibility for them, while the second sought to smear me as “anti-Semitic” for debunking Hitler’s bigoted worldview.
For the PCO to strongly imply in their latest hit piece that I’m a useful idiot of US imperialism after the US Government weaponized a false conspiracy theory about me on three occasions by implying that I work for Russian military intelligence’s top psychological warfare unit is a conspiracy theory in and of itself. It requires folks to believe that the US Government concocted their aforesaid conspiracy theory in order to cover up for me being their useful idiot, which is as crazy as QAnon’s conspiracy theories.
The PCO’s implied conspiracy theory ignores that the US Government literally tried to ruin my life with their false conspiracy theory that was shared by them on three occasions thus far, which also puts me in danger. By falsely implying that I work for Russian military intelligence’s top psychological warfare unit, they’re suggesting that I committed treason, the false notion of which could be exploited to persecute me for purely political reasons if I ever entered a country that has an extradition agreement with the US.
Considering this, Duarte’s denial that the liberal-globalist faction of the PT and its allies (the Lula Liberals) are akin to QAnon in terms of their kooky conspiracy theories is exposed as insincere since he and his PCO are literally putting forth their own about me being a useful idiot of US imperialism. The truth is that my analyses are such a threat to the US’ imperialist interests abroad that unnamed US Government officials have on three occasions weaponized their own conspiracy theories to discredit it.
Debunking The PCO’s Political Points In Their Hit Piece About Me
It was important for the substance of my response to first expose the PCO’s weaponized conspiracy theory that they concocted about me so that readers can see how manipulative these Lula Liberals are. This places everything that they hitherto wrote in their hit piece against me in its proper context since it’s equally manipulative of readers’ minds. I’ll now debunk all of that point-by-point so that everyone can see for themselves that the PCO is waging its own form of Hybrid Warfare against them.
1) Duarte violated basic journalistic standards by never attempting to contact me for comment prior to publishing his party’s hit piece against me, which confirms that he had malicious motives in penning it by denying me the opportunity to defend myself before his audience. This extends credence to my conclusion, that’ll be elaborated upon at the end of my response, that the PCO is functioning as useful idiots of US imperialism by attempting to manipulate people’s perceptions.
2) Duarte claims early on in his piece that “there were no objective consequences” from Lula’s joint statement with Biden in which he condemned Russia, yet the fact is that this discredited the Brazilian leader as a neutral mediator in the Ukrainian Conflict. He’s also wrong in writing that “There was nothing new on either side” within it since that joint anti-Russian condemnation actually represented the first time that any BRICS leader personally condemned Russia’s special operation in an official sense.
3) I previously described as counterfactual Duarte’s claim that Lula’s position on Ukraine as articulated in his joint statement with Biden still supposedly amounts to not taking sides. This is because the official White House readouts of former President Bolsonaro’s remarks to Biden before their meeting in June 2022 and the report published afterwards make no mention of him condemning Russia like Lula just officially did in print by agreeing to what he did in his joint statement with the US leader.
4) Duarte claims that the interests of US imperialism were harmed by Lula refusing to arm Ukraine. That’s half-true but also half-false: on the one hand, its interests would have been further advanced by him having agreed to do so, but on the other, they still made political progress by getting the Brazilian leader to break ranks with his BRICS counterparts in being the first one to personally condemn Russia. The aforementioned outcome cannot objectively be described as “harming” the US’ interests.
5) Duarte embedded the text of Macron’s proposal for Lula to consider Zelensky’s 10-point peace plan as the basis of his own G20-like one, which I assessed in my hyperlinked analyses to be a doomed-to-fail effort focused on self-promotion. This was unwittingly counterproductive for the PCO’s narrative interests since the Ukrainian leader’s plan was officially condemned by the Kremlin as detached from reality for demanding Russia’s capitulation, which raises further questions about Lula’s intentions.
6) Duarte’s claim that Lula’s G20-like peace proposal represents “an independent way out of the situation” is discredited by the abovementioned insight and the observations about Russia’s disinterested reaction to it that I discussed in my hyperlinked analyses. Moreover, after Lula condemned Russia in his joint statement with Biden, there’s no realistic chance that the Kremlin will listen to the Brazilian leader over his Chinese, Indian, and South African counterparts who all haven’t condemned it.
7) Duarte’s claim that Lula’s policy “practices concessions, seeks sovereignty and has a nationalist position” is challenged by the facts. The first part is unclear due to Google Translate so it won’t be critiqued, but the second is disproven by Lula voluntarily choosing to be the first BRICS leader to personally condemn Russia, which reduces Brazil’s foreign policy flexibility. As for the third, that selfsame choice is arguably a pro-US position as was already explained in my fourth point to Duarte.
8) Duarte is deliberately manipulating his audience’s perceptions by describing my criticisms of Lula’s condemnation of Russia as “cling[ing] to purely formal aspects…(that) does not consider their objective results.” As I explained in my hyperlinked analyses and summarized in the present piece, the objective result of him condemning Russia together with Biden is that Lula took the US’ political position towards the conflict, disqualified himself as a mediator, and raised serious questions about his new worldview.
9) As I already made clear in my second point, Duarte is wrong to write near the end of his hit piece that “there is nothing new in [Lula’s position]” since his personal condemnation of Russia is the first of any BRICS leader, including Bolsonaro when he was still in office. The PCO activist is therefore exposed for trying to push through a counterfactual claim on two occasions in the same piece, which shows that he has a narrative agenda to manipulate his audience’s perceptions.
10) Concluding that my criticisms of Lula “end up confusing relations between Brazil and Russia” flips everything around by placing responsibility for this onto me instead of onto Lula himself for being the one who unexpectedly broke with his fellow BRICS leaders by becoming the first to condemn Russia. Duarte also doesn’t inform his audience that I predicted in my pieces about how Lula disqualified himself as a mediator and the one about his Ambassador to India that ties will likely still remain strong.
11) Duarte’s last point about how my position supposedly “serves only the imperialism of [my] home country” was already debunked in detail in the preceding section of my response that was exclusively devoted to the PCO’s QAnon-like conspiracy theory and all that it ridiculously entails. I’ll also add, however, that referencing my “home country” appears to be a dog whistle to those liberal-globalist bigots in Brazil who maliciously use the “gringo” ethno-national slur against me on social media.
12) Duarte’s piece conspicuously avoids any mentioning of George Soros’ enthusiastic endorsement of Lula despite this Color Revolution mastermind being one of the most dangerous agents of US imperialism in modern history whose networks are banned by Russia for national security reasons. That figure de facto declared Hybrid War on India in the same speech where he praised Lula, yet this PCO activist doesn’t want his audience to dwell upon any of these implications, hence why it’s not addressed.
13) One of the implications of Soros’ endorsement of Lula is that it discredits his supporters’ conspiracy theory that the January 8th incident was a failed US-backed coup against him. My hyperlinked analyses explain my assessment of US involvement and the reasons behind it, which are extended further credence by one of the most dangerous agents of US imperialism in modern history declaring that the West must stand with Lula, thus signaling that it supports him and has no interest in his removal.
Speculating On The PCO’s Intentions Behind Their Hit Piece
To wrap everything up after debunking the PCO’s conspiracy theory against me and each of the political points that they made in their hit piece, I’ll now speculate on what I believe their intentions were in publishing this. It’s obvious to me that they want to discredit my criticisms of Lula, thus suggesting that they constitute some of those liberal-globalists (Lula Liberals) who I earlier identified as agents of US influence over the PT during his third term.
They’re self-described Trotskyites according to the party’s brief history from its official website that can be read here, with these sorts of leftists serving as the US’ useful idiots and even sometimes agents of influence across the world for decades, especially since the end of the Old Cold War. It therefore makes perfect sense why Lula’s Trotskyist allies would attack me for drawing attention to the “politically inconvenient” aspects of his policy regarding Russia, not to mention Soros’ endorsement of him.
Instead of sharing some political counterpoints to my own in order to show readers a different side of the issue and simply leaving it at that, the PCO tasked Duarte with manipulating their perceptions through the inclusion of those falsehoods that I debunked as well as their conspiracy theory about me. Their hit piece’s omission of the point that I made in two separate pieces about how bilateral ties will likely still remain strong despite Lula’s condemnation of Russia reinforces their manipulative intentions.
These leftist-masquerading liberal-globalists don’t feel confident enough with the facts to eschew manipulative tactics, which is another argument in favor of my observation that they have malicious intentions to defame me through their implied conspiracy theory and thus mislead their audience. The PCO is scared that Lula’s genuinely leftist base will wonder why he’s politically taking the US’ side in the Ukrainian Conflict, which is why they’re running interference for him through Hybrid Warfare means.
In this particular context, they attacked me without provocation and while denying me the right to defend myself in the hopes of dissuading their targeted audience from reading my criticisms of Lula’s foreign policy during his third term since they don’t want his base asking uncomfortable questions. The PCO, as I explained, constitute some of the liberal-globalists who I’ve accused of acting as the US’ agents of influence over the PT in their attempt to divert its priorities away from multipolarity and socialism.
In this sense, they function exactly as the US’ Democrats do, specifically its so-called “progressive” faction represented by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. These figures serve the purpose of distracting the working class from multipolarity and socialism despite their occasional rhetoric in support of the latter. Lula met with these fake leftists during his trip to DC and thus legitimized them in the eyes of the PT’s base, which Duarte also omitted to mention likely because it makes him look bad.
Everything that the PCO put forth in their hit piece against me actually advances the US’ imperialist interests that they falsely accused me of doing in my criticisms of Lula. They’re delegitimizing any discussion of him condemning Russia in his joint statement with Biden and being endorsed by Color Revolution mastermind Soros despite the first figure having served as Vice President during “Operation Car Wash” and the second’s network having organized some of the protests against Lula at that time.
Continual self-reform as informed by well-intended constructive critiques is the only way for any movement to truly stay the course in meeting its goals over the long term, which is why the Communist Party of China highlighted this as a priority after its latest National Congress in October. The PT should therefore appreciate my related critiques of Lula since they’re intended to serve as a means of generating a discussion among its members about those of his policies that I believe are troublesome.
Aggressively attempting to gatekeep and pressure folks like me through hit pieces and conspiracy theories into self-censoring or changing my views like the PCO is doing can thus be described as counterproductive to the PT’s objective interests. It comes off as suspiciously over-defensive since that Trotskyist group obviously doesn’t feel comfortable enough addressing the facts and my interpretations thereof, hence why they’ve resorted to those aforementioned Hybrid War means of manipulation.
It's for these reasons that I’m convinced that the PCO are useful idiots of US imperialism at best and deliberate agents of its influence over the PT at worst. They wouldn’t have employed the dishonest tactics that they did in their desperate attempt to discredit me and my criticisms of Lula, which includes not providing me the right to defend my ideas and personal reputation in their hit piece, if they truly had innocent intentions. They’re liberal-globalists who are trying to manipulate and mislead the PT’s base.
Lula, The greatest ever! Lula, we love you, Pátria Grande loves you! Our salvation and Hope!
Ever stop to think that the current version of Putin was never a version Lula or Dilma would have supported in their prior administrations? If people were not so eager to perpetuate some wildly distorted definition of communism and apply all conditions without regard to serious changes in political behavior or ambition, hen we would not be where we are. Lula was right. This Putin is not the Putin of BRICS, but a dangerously radicalized figure, who either changed or carefully hid his personal agenda for years.