RSS
See, earlier: Brazil’s Bolsonaro—Among Other Things, A Pentecostalist Triumph?
We constantly hear the Dem/ Main Stream Media Complex gloating that the US will be a majority non-white country by the 2040s. This prediction makes white Democrats hopeful as they naively envision a rainbow future of equality, love and electoral hegemony. It makes white Republicans despondent, as they see it as a harbinger of permanent Leftist rule and the destruction of the America they knew and cherished [Study: overhyped media narratives about America’s fading white majority fuel anxiety, By Matthew Yglesias, Vox, May 2, 2018]. But the election of Jair Bolsonaro as president of Brazil shows that even when whites are a minority—in Brazil they constitute just 47% of the population—people who value the future of the country can still win.
There is little question that becoming “majority-minority” will be bad for the US. The more ethnically diverse a society is the more conflict there is (see Ethnic Conflicts, by Tatu Vanhanen) and the less white (or Northeast Asian) it is, the less intelligent it is, meaning chaos, corruption, and out-of-control crime (see Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences, by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen).
But Bolsonaro’s election seems to show that the political consequences of this might be paradoxical. Decades of Leftist and minority rule—riven by corruption, Politically Correct hypocrisy, incompetence, the over-promotion of low IQ minority workers, the mollycoddling of criminals (especially minorities), the belief that money grows on trees, and the suppression of people of industry and originality—seems to have led to such utter bedlam that people simply had no choice but to vote for a conservative and even a “far right” (read: “genuinely conservative”) government.
Even highly liberal people will find themselves adopting a rather more robust politics when their money becomes worthless and their house is robbed at gunpoint. The result, as in Brazil, is that all but youngest and “wokest” members of the middle class will vote for a conservative candidate and all but the butchest of Feminist females within this group do likewise.
Only professional people capable of living in a dream world keep voting for the Left in such conditions. 30% of Brazilian college graduates voted for Bolsonaro in the first round (presumably more in the second round) compared to 19% for the Workers Party candidate. [Who Supports Brazil’s New Strongman?, By Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Marcelo Silva, Boston Review, October 12, 2018]
Whites, once they are a minority, can be expected to increasingly feel under threat, meaning they will increasingly vote conservative as a block. In the southern state of Santa Catarina, which is about 85% white, Bolsonaro took 76% of the vote in the second round. In some cities in Santa Catarina, he garnered more than 80% of the vote and in one town he secured a 92% vote share [Where are the main Bolsonaro strongholds in Brazil?, By Felipe Ribas, Gazeta do Povo, October 30, 2018, ]. Even Rio de Janeiro, which is only 54% white, gave Bolsonaro 60% of the vote in the first round.
Whites and Pardos—“mixed” Brazilians, many of them about 80% white but identifying as “mixed” due to attendant social benefits—dominate the densely-populated south of Brazil. It was only Bolsonaro’s relatively weak performance in the non-white Northeast, populated by Quilombolas—slave-descended black peasants who have stayed on the land upon which their ancestors were slaves, mainly to farm bananas—that prevented him from winning in the first round. [Un-mappable Fascism By Freg Stokes, Overland, October 29, 2018 ]
And, unfortunately for the Left, when they’ve been in power for a long time and things have gotten very bad, people’s basic instinct for survival tends to hit in. Under anxiety-inducing conditions, we hanker after stability, often leading us to become more conservative and rule-following [Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives’ Political Attitudes, By Bobby Azarian, Psychology Today, December 31, 2016] as well as more religiously fundamentalist.
Psychologists measure how religious people are with the so-called Fundamentalism Scale. This is comprised of a series of questions – on issues such as frequency of prayer or certainty of God’s existence – where subjects provide a response on a scale, such as 1 (“I pray every day”) to 5 (“I never pray”). Scores on this instrument correlate with scores on the “Right Wing Authoritarian Scale” (which rates you on more general conservative views, such as towards immigration) at 0.75, meaning that, to a great extent, religiousness and conservatism are the same thing [Predicting prejudice from religious fundamentalism and right wing authoritarianism, By B. Laythe et al., Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2001].
In addition, people of low IQ tend to be coldly practical, disinterested in ideology; firmly focused on surviving and on hedonism. This is at least partly because the character trait social psychologists call “Openness-Intellect” (which makes you interested in the arts and ideas) is positively associated with IQ. People with low IQ also tend to have harsh and conservative social attitudes towards issues like crime or sexual deviance. (See At Our Wits’ End, By Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018, Chapter 2 and 5.)
For all these reasons, when Leftist-run life gets shambolic enough, even a significant minority of blacks will vote for candidates like Bolsonaro, even if they do remark on how many blacks (generally meaning quilombolas) are fat, lazy, and shouldn’t breed, (see the YouTube clip of “gaffes” below) because, unless they are feckless and happy to rely on Leftist handouts, blacks understand that order and combatting crime tends to make businesses easier to run, helping to put more food on your plate.
Among the non-white Brazilians—Pardo (mixed) and Preto(black, including quilombolas)—Bolsonaro still garnered 50% of the vote in the second round. At a bus stop in Recife, in the northeast, two elderly black ladies told Overland’s Freg J. Stokes, cited above, that they’d voted for Bolsonaro because he would stop the “bandits”—“I hate the bandits; I want to be safe on the street—just kill them all!”
The outskirts of Rio Di Janeiro resemble northeast Brazil, demographically speaking. These impoverished, gang-run areas are substantially Preto. But Stokes reports that the Bolsonaro vote was actually stronger there than in the wealthy, white centre and suburbs. It is only in the Northeast, where failing black banana farmers lack the future-orientation to migrate to the cities and have become welfare junkies, that Bolsonaro performed poorly.
Incredibly (or perhaps not), Brazilian pollsters haven’t reported what percent of whites voted for Bolsonaro in Round Two. But we can make an educated guess. Turnout in the white south tends to be about 89% (voting is compulsory in Brazil) while in the non-white northeast it is roughly 75%; the national average being 80%. [Compulsory For Whom? by Timothy Power, Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2009] Based on these figures, the Brazilian electorate is just over 50% white and 60% of whites voted for Bolsonaro, almost exactly the same as the 58% of whites who voted for Trump in a country where the white electorate is much larger. [Samantha Bee on the Whites Who Helped Elect Trump, By Neal Broverman, The Advocate, November 10, 2016] In other words, even when whites are a minority someone like Trump can still get elected.
Demographics is indeed destiny and (unless immigration policy is dramatically changed) there likely will be a time in the U.S. when a junta of virtue-signalling minority-manipulating Democrats will be able to take power. But, as always happens when SJWs wrest control, society will collapse into chaos. And when it does, Bolsonaro’s election suggests that even half of non-white voters will be prepared to elect a “far right” government to put things “right” again.
Note that America’s two-party system is no bar to this. Bolsonaro received 46% of the vote in the first round, knocking out a candidate to the right even of him, two pro-business candidates, and a libertarian. Even if only half of their votes had gone to Bolsonaro he would have exceeded 50% of the poll in the first round.
It is a law of political history from the Fall of Rome and the rise of Christian Europe to Britain’s Margaret Thatcher being followed by Tony Blair’s “New Labour”: Conservatism makes you wealthy, wealth makes you decadent, decadence makes you vote Leftist, Leftism leads to chaos and chaos needs conservatives to clear up the mess and make people wealthy once again.
So even as America darkens, it is not too “audacious” to have some “hope.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
What more fascist text could be written? The election of Bolsonaro has in no way related to more or less that people (illustrated also voted for him), ideology (people with history on the left also), racial, religious or moral values (corrupt are not arrested and are going to participate in the new government) as conservatism or denial of the “plitically correct”. It was a climate of hatred and alienation deliberately induced by the media as a whole in the society, in order to disrupt the rational structures of perception. The country grew with income distribution and quality of life to levels never experienced in its history during the three governments of the Workers’ Party, becoming the fifth world economy in P.I.B. It gained worldwide diplomatic importance with its sovereign foreign relations. I think the roots of what happened in our country have origins in the geopolitical power of the western powers and a very powerful destabilizing plan was put into action. It is enough to see Dilma Roussef’s post-impeachment agendas: the de-structuring of the economy, denationalization, privatization, deinstruction, and energeticism of its main assets, such as the huge oil reserves discovered in the Pre-salt to international management, law and constitutional rules
(1) The key global role model for Jair Bolsonaro, is Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, elected on a similar anti-crime platform, with some thousands killed on the streets in police actions since Duterte took office in 2016
Quite striking to hear so many uniquely sweet, good-natured, endearing Filipina ladies, express their support for the anti-crime RWDS ‘Right Wing Death Squad’ sweeps there, a ‘good thing’ say the adorable Pinay women
(2) It is becoming increasingly clear that a helpful political proposal, is to deny the voting franchise to those receiving social benefit payments, given how the ‘free shite army’ voting bloc seems at the core of socio-political degeneracy and chaos tendencies. Like your social benefits for not working, or USA EBT food money card? – No voting for you!
This needs to be combined with strict reform of laws and courts pertaining to alimony – ending the ‘financial rape of ex-husband’ horrors, and encouraging stable marriages. Perhaps also, end voting privileges of pensioners at age 80, and end all political office-holding at that same age as well – forcibly retiring, e.g., over-aged judges on the USA Supreme Court
(3) For those who don’t know, one of the great gourmand treats are cigars made with tobacco from Brazil, often having a delicious taste suggeting chocolate and coffee and fruit. In Brazil there are even native American tribal ‘tabaquero’ tobacco doctors – who help heel illness with tobacco, with a good reputation for success.
The risk-free deeply relaxing spiritual pleasure of the occasional cigar, is one of those facts apparently hidden by the powers that be. Health studies have shown that there is virtually zero health risk from smoking 1 or 2 cigars per day (versus cigarettes), because premium cigars are all-natural & you don’t inhale into the lungs (National Cancer Institute Monograph 9, ‘Cigars – Health Effects & Trends’, 1998)
The article is terrible, but your comment is even worse. There’s not a single person accused of corruption in the new government (Onyx doesn’t qualify here, since “caixa dois” isn’t corruption and, if it were, Dilma, Haddad etc. would also have to be considered among the corrupt, which would be something that even myself would find wrong). Dilma in 2013/2014 maintained full employment (and her electoral chances of being reelected) by keeping interest rates unsustainably low, maskering inflation and budget deficits and giving tax relief to close and powerful (but struggling) industries. That’s the obvious origin of the recession, like every good economist already predicted at the time. Even Dilma knew that, since she herself started implementing the agenda that you now describe as “post-impeachment”. Besides, the press is much more opposed to the President-Elect than it ever was to Lula or Dilma, since journalists come from relatively liberal backgrounds, especially on social issues. Something similar can be said about the international community. Well, I hope you finally get used to our new President. Have a great 2019.
I have corrected you the last time you said that, and I am correcting you again. Apparently you never read your reader’s comments, but at least I will make things right for other readers. Bolsonaro said that the quilombolas he saw “were not even good for breeding”. According to historians and other people who have commented on these words, this was a reference to slavery times, when there were some slaves who were used for breeding. Therefore, and assuming that interpretation is correct, he meant that they couldn’t breed, not that they shouldn’t breed.
As for what appears to be your central thesis, things may or may not evolve in similar ways in both countries, but it wouldn’t be wise to let things in the U.S.A. reach the chaotic point where Brazil is, before things can pick up again. But that does not mean that the anti-immigrationist, and anti-diversity crowd is necessarily correct in their strategy. Even without any immigration or added diversity, the U.S.A. already looks like it has a huge racial time-bomb in their hands. It is very different from the situation in Brazil, where there is more harmony between races, and a lot of miscegenation.
Incredibly (or perhaps not), Brazilian pollsters haven’t reported what percent of whites voted for Bolsonaro in Round Two.
A last-minute poll released just before the second round had voter intentions broken down by race, among other categories. I’m inclined to believe their numbers because they accurately predicted that Bolsonaro would get 55% of the vote. Here are the racial categories and the percentages that each group intended to vote for Bolso:
Whites: 68%
Yellows: 59%
Browns: 54%
Indigenous: 53%
Blacks: 45%
https://arte.folha.uol.com.br/poder/eleicoes-2018/pesquisa-datafolha/#/presidente/segundo/brasil/intencao-de-voto-estimulada-votos-validos/total/total/total
His rock-solid support among whites (and to a lesser extent yellows) isn’t surprising, but his majority support among indigenous groups and other random browns is. And to have gotten 45% of the black vote just shows how different the electorates of Brazil and the US are.
While Trump, like all GOP presidential candidates, won the vast majority of the nation’s counties, in Brazil it was Haddad, Bolsonaro’s leftist opponent, who won a narrow majority of municipalities, the Brazilian equivalent of counties. While Trump won far more *territory* than Clinton, Haddad edged out Bolsonaro in the same category.
Bolso won 16 of Brazil’s 27 states (including the Federal District), but 21 of the state capitals, almost always the largest city in each state. Meaning that Bolso’s support was more concentrated in urban, coastal enclaves, while Haddad dominated most of Brazil’s flyover country, the exact opposite of the situation in the US.
The states of Sao Paulo (pop. 45 million) and Rio de Janeiro (17 million) are like the Brazilian equivalents of New York and California, side by side. It’s where most of the country’s commercial, financial, industrial, high tech, media and entertainment industries are located, and where the economic and cultural elites live.
Trump got only 36.5% of the vote in New York and 31.6% in California. Yet Bolsonaro won 68% of the vote in both Rio and Sao Paulo, meaning that, unlike Trump, Bolso has considerable support from these elites. And that even the anti-Bolso elites are heavily outnumbered on their home turf, which is definitely not the case in New York or California.
The Federal District in Brazil is basically Greater Brasilia, population 3 million, or about a half-size version of Metro Washington DC. In DC Trump won a paltry 4% of the vote and lost all the surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia by wide margins. In contrast Bolsonaro won an incredible 70% of the vote in the DF.
So the Brazilian Deep State, meaning the military-intelligence complex and the bureaucratic apparatus that props it up, is seemingly in lockstep behind Bolsonaro. The situation in the US vis-a-vis Trump couldn’t be more different, to say the least. Trump can only dream about the strength of the institutional support Bolso has going forward.
Nor is the Brazilian Congress in any position to foil Bolso’s agenda. A multi-party system loosely categorized into Left, Centre and Right blocs, the Rightist bloc has grown from 190 members in 2010, to 238 in 2014, to 301 in 2018, a solid majority in the 513-seat Congress. And there are no mid-term elections to worry about.
The last remaining check on Bolsonaro’s power is the Supreme Court. If the court stands in his way, he’s threatened to expand its numbers (11 right now) and pack it with his supporters. I don’t know about the legality of this move, but he feels pretty comfortable putting them on notice like this.
So the differences between Trump and Bolsonaro are more interesting than their similarities. Namely how much more absolute POWER Bolso has than Trump in implementing his agenda. I don’t know if Brazil was ever “great” in the past (not compared to the US it wasn’t), but Bolsonaro has an excellent opportunity to Make Brazil Less Corrupt, Dangerous and Poor Again.
Beto is right. Brazilians were brain-washed by the media. Glad the U.S. doesn’t have that problem.
Only reason Cuba is still in one piece is because it’s a police state. Too many blacks.
Psychologists are very jealous of their own religion — which at all times overlaps with the whole suite of dominant cultural assumptions, and the beliefs that, if publically held, best advance one’s socioeconomic status: they said homosexuality was an illness a century ago: they say who thinks homosexuality is an illness is ill a century later, to pick an example among thousands — and much keen on defaming out-of-fashion religions.
I’m not sure what that even means – how is discussing the demographics and voting patterns that resulted in the election of a conservative “fascist text”. Is “fascist” the new “raciss”? (Come to think of it, “fascist” is probably the old “raciss”.) People like you give the old-timey fascists a better name than they perhaps deserve, as we can remember that, if nothing else, they defeated the Commies, in Germany, Italy, and Spain long ago.
I’ve been in this world long enough to know, readers, that whenever anyone mentions “The Workers”, you run like hell … for your weapons stash or bug-out vehicle, depending on the exact situation.
I don’t know much about the government set-up in Brazil, but I believe you when you say that Mr. Bolsonaro will have more power than President Trump. However, I chalk up Trump’s failings to two things: 1) his pick of absolutely the wrong people for cabinet heads, advisors, etc, and 2) his lack of leadership in calling for the 100 million or so can-do Americans that could have helped him, via recalling and impeaching judges, showing up in rallies to protest the ctrl-left entrenched in our Feral Gov’t and things like this. His power could have been in the patriotic American people, but he hasn’t tapped that except to exhort them to vote. That’s not gonna do it.
Thanks for your report, Jeppo, and good luck to Mr. Bolsonaro!
That’s kinda off the subject, but I can’t argue with that one. Psychologist are purveyors of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, and most have their own problems that are worse than that of their average “patient”.
Brazilian people are on very avg stupid, politically and historically stupid [similar to whitey], just like a cattle who accumulate very little and relevant information about what’s going on on political scenario;
Majority of people who voted on bozo voted against socialist party, but, mostly influenced by [well] mainstream [”leftist”] media. Most of their electors simply were influenced by fake news spread in social medias as Whatsapp;
While left still fail to understand all social classes concerns and demands included the ”right wing from lower social class” they will continue to lose these battles. When left adapt to these demands the chances right win likely will be reduced because nobody like to be exploited.
Agree with denying welfare recipients the vote, though it would be hard to enforce and America’s PC mafia would go insane.
Disagree with denying pensioners the vote. They worked all their lives to support the system, now screw them? Retirees are an important brake on the natural radicalism of youth.
Interesting and refreshing comment on cigars. Also unlikely to have any traction in America, home of the anti-tobacco jihad.
To be fair, though, the US Democrat “Coalition of the Fringes” despises workers and wouldn’t be caught dead advocating for worker rights. We’re deplorables, after all.
The thing is, most of those rightist Brazilians and whiteys can use English grammar better that this fuckin’ guy. Weird.
True, Mr. Automata. Just because the Commies that rant about “the worker” (as they dip their goatees into their vente lattes) are idiotic scum, that doesn’t meant that those who don’t use that language are not either! There’s plenty of Stupidity to go around.
Pretty much.
At the other hand, seen that those 100 million put all their hopes, their future, on the simple act of voting ,for ONE man, well, tells something.
And that something is quite unpleasant.
I unfortunately read your vomits… do you really yhink you’re a ”master race”*
poor demon…
Maybe ”they” know more you trashy language than portuguese…
I don’t know any Portuguese, but I sure hope you’ve got that down better than your English. As for Socialism, most of us learned the lessons of that piece of stupidity during our kindergarten years.
“His rock-solid support among whites (and to a lesser extent yellows) isn’t surprising, but his majority support among indigenous groups and other random browns is.”
Portends a bad future for the effeminate SJW left 30 years hence. These various minority groups are much more socially conservative than the SJWs who run the democrat party. Don’t be surprised if they are one day cast off when they are no longer needed and issues like gay marriage are once again controversial in the year 2040.
“I unfortunately read your vomits… do you really yhink you’re a ”master race”* poor demon…Maybe ”they” know more you trashy language than portuguese…”
Brazil is definitely not the country I wish us to become, especially after reading some of the more inept comments from some likely Brazilians here:
“Brazilian soccer referee beheaded by angry fans who put his head on a stake after he stabbed player.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357453/Brazilian-referee-beheaded-Angry-fans-head-stake-stabbing-player.html
“Demographics is indeed destiny and (unless immigration policy is dramatically changed) there likely will be a time in the U.S. when a junta of virtue-signaling minority-manipulating Democrats will be able to take power … Bolsonaro’s election suggests that even half of non-white voters will be prepared to elect a “far right” government to put things “right” again.”
The flaw in this line of thinking is that the Leftist junta will allow such elections to take place. Venezuela showed that they may not. Even in Brazil, they tried to eliminate Bolsonaro before he could take office. They probably never expected a guy like that to win, so they weren’t able to revoke democracy in time.
“…fuel anxiety, By Matthew Yglesias”
Lol, isn’t Yglesias the guy who said he had no sympathy for Tucker Carlson after a crowd of antifa tried to break into his house while his wife and kids were present? Now , why exactly would people be “anxious” again buddy?
“Agree with denying welfare recipients the vote, though it would be hard to enforce and America’s PC mafia would go insane.”
That’s pretty dumb as it would 1) turn off huge numbers of urban and middle-class whites who want to be seen as “good people” 2) disenfranchise a significant chunk of the GOP’s own voting base and 3) provide ample opportunity for a damaging media feeding frenzy. Dumb ideas like this one are why guys like Romney got trounced. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the conservative right is piss poor at messaging, strategy, and organization. Repeating harmful, 90s-era welfare nonsense like this isn’t going to get you anywhere except out the door and up the creek. Besides, welfare is way less important of a concern than demographic change. Fix the latter and you fix the former almost by default.
You’re still on the childhood mental age…
Why white nordics are the best to provide socialist nations**
Socialism and not communism, is the best social model. Capitalism is quite-jewish, isn’t*
MY english, my dialect, ;)))
I believe you may have cause & effect backwards here. A large portion of demographic change in this country is due to our welfare state. Blacks and Hispanics (even Oriental immigrants some of the time) tend to have more children just due to a Socialist welfare state in existence to help raise their kids on YOUR tax money. That gives you less money to raise kids, and you are the RESPONSIBLE one. That changes, you guessed it, DEMOGRAPHICS, and not in your favor.
Without a welfare state, there would not be nearly the draw for the Latin American illegal immigrants, but also many of the legal chain migration types. Do you know that many 60 y/o parents can be brought here from overseas to stay and get on medicare and SS soon enough?
I’ve said it once, but it probably won’t sink in until you read my link, but Socialism is inherently against human nature, and IT’S NOT NICE TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE! Do you really need a 1970’s margarine commercial to get this?!
Socialism is Communism for light-weights who don’t like to use terminology like “put this on, and get into the ditch.” It’s more for the type that will tell you:
Animal Farm story is a good way to understand the difference between an ideal socio-economic system and a perverted one.
“Conservatism makes you wealthy, wealth makes you decadent, decadence makes you vote Leftist, Leftism leads to chaos and chaos needs conservatives to clear up the mess and make people wealthy once again.”
Actually, it doesen’t. What makes a society wealthy is innovation, technological advancement, a laic state where ideas that deviate from the Church are not punishable(freedom of thought), scientific rationalism and rejection of rigid social hierarchy in favor of a dynamic one based on merit, allthings that conservatives hate.
Saying that “conservatism” makes societies rich is preposterous: medieval Europe was the epitome of conservatism, with the Church dominating daily life, scientists forbidden from doing research, fossilized social hierarchies based on birth rights, strict gender and social roles, etc. And guess what? Medieval Europe was one of the worst places anywhere at any time in history. In fact, Europe only started to progress when they neutered the Church and the bourgeoise started to one-up the aristocrats and use their new power to change laws into legal equality and pro-innovation. Tbhis culminated with the Enlightenement, with it’s ideas of rejecting aristocracy and rigid social hierarchies and scientific rationalism to replace God and the Church.
In fact, one of the reasons why Latin America is so poor is because they are extremely conservative: they have been literally conserving their lifestyle for some 400 years, and the oligarchs do not allow many changes to Society.
In America, the richest states are the *least* conservative, like Vermont, Washington, California, Minessota and Massachusetts. I am talking here PPP per capita and HDI.
I do agree, however, that Marxism has been disastrous anywhere it has been tried. I suppose, also, that stupid people need conservative institutions more than smart people. I would say that the extremely poor do better under leftismthan they do in an open, market society, simply because they have nothing to offer and nothing to lose. Conversely, the social freedom of liberalism is disastrous for poor people: they lose values that are useful in their life, such as being thrifty and having work ethic, and they cannot use freedom responsibly. Many of them end up morbidly obese, addicted to opiates, etc. Liberalism is an ideology created by smart people for smart people. It tends to backfire in a very ugly way when it is applied on poor people who are not very intellectual.
Please disregard this communist scum’s comment.
By the tone of his text, which is 100% pro Worker’s Party, je’s probably someone who lost that sweet easy goverment money, which in turn was stolen from the productive sectors.
Que tudo de ruim aconteça à você, seu esquerdista ladrão e imundo.
Dilma and Lula were both corrupt scumbags, glad they’re gone. Viva Brazil !
California is a literal sht hole, wealthy? haha, they’re the most unequal. Conservative policies enrich, leftist/Marxist ones impoverish. that’s why people and businesses are fleeing California and new York.