theintercept--2020-01-17--Oakland’s Moms 4 Housing Were Evicted by a Giant Corporation That Runs National Home-Flipping Operat

Oakland’s Moms 4 Housing Were Evicted by a Giant Corporation That Runs National Home-Flipping Operation

that evicted a group of homeless mothers from a West Oakland , California , home this week is the force behind a sprawling national home-flipping operation .
Through a related entity , the company , Wedgewood Properties , also benefited from a controversial government program to offload distressed , federally insured loans to investors .
Early Tuesday morning , sheriff ’ s deputies evicted the group Moms 4 Housing , who were occupying a foreclosed , investor-owned home in West Oakland .
In November , the four women and their children moved into a home that had sat vacant for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their fight against real estate speculators they accused of exacerbating the area ’ s housing crisis .
“ There are four times as many empty homes in Oakland as there are homeless people , ” said Sameerah Karim , one of the mothers , at a press conference outside the home in November .
“ Why should anyone , especially children , sleep on the street while perfectly good homes sit empty ?
” This week , after the mothers lost a court battle to stay in the home , the Alameda County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicles and AR-15 rifles , arresting two of the women and two of their supporters .
It recalled the housing standoffs that grabbed headlines in the years following the 2008 housing market crash , as groups like the Occupy movement took over vacant , foreclosed houses .
But where housing activists once faced off against major banks , they ’ re increasingly coming up against faceless corporations operating with even less transparency .
The West Oakland home occupied by Moms 4 Housing was purchased at a foreclosure auction by a subsidiary of Wedgewood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business nationwide through an alphabet-soup of companies such as HMC Assets LLC and FI-337 LLC .
Wedgewood did not respond to a request for comment .
But after the company prevailed in court against the mothers , spokesperson Sam Singer issued a statement celebrating the ruling .
Singer also chastised three Oakland City Council members who tried to negotiate a deal to sell the home to an affordable housing land trust , thereby allowing the mothers to stay .
“ The solution to Oakland ’ s housing crisis is not the redistribution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seizures by squatters , ” said Singer , adding that the three council members “ must take real steps to address Oakland ’ s drug abuse , mental illness , and homeless issues.
” Anya Svanoe , communications director for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment , which supported the mothers ’ protest , called Wedgewood “ a displacement machine.
” Wedgewood has filed hundreds of eviction cases in the Bay Area and has been sued at least three times for wrongful eviction ; two suits ended in settlements , while a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift in the housing market , which is increasingly dominated by anonymous owners operating through a web of shell companies .
More than 3 million homes and 13 million apartment buildings are owned by LLP , LC , or LLC entities , according to 2015 census data , business structures that do not mandate naming owners or investors .
Most states no longer require limited liability companies to disclose their owners , making them an attractive vehicle for “ individuals who wish to own real estate but want to be able to hide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hamill , a University of Alabama Law professor .
That often poses a major problem for tenants trying to figure out who exactly is evicting them , or cities that want to go after the owner of vacant properties in disrepair .
In 2018 , The Guardian exposed conservative TV host Sean Hannity ’ s multimillion-dollar property empire , which he assembled via dozens of shell companies with names combining the initials of his children ’ s names .
And a series of New York Times investigations in 2015 and 2016 chronicled how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies were being used to launder money and defraud struggling homeowners .
The aftermath of the foreclosure crisis offered an unparalleled opportunity for institutional investors .
Operating through a maze of subsidiaries , they flooded the housing market to buy up cheap , foreclosed homes nationwide .
In Atlanta , the private-equity giant Blackstone bought 1,400 homes in a single day in 2013 .
In many cases , federal policies enabled the investor feeding frenzy .
After largely failing to aid homeowners at risk of defaulting , government-backed mortgage entities auctioned tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off their books .
The program was supposed to give borrowers a last shot at hanging on to their homes , but the hedge funds and private-equity firms buying loans were often quick to foreclose , as a 2015 New York Times investigation detailed .
Community organizations labeled the programs a “ Wall Street giveaway ” and staged a series of protests , winning reforms in 2016 that made it easier for nonprofits to purchase the loans .
But much of the damage had been done .
Of more than 100,000 loans sold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in the hands of just four large investors .
One of them , HMC Assets , purchased loans from the Department of Housing and Urban Development , Fannie Mae , and Freddie Mac using a series of special-purpose entities .
In 2014 , HMC Assets merged with Wedgewood .
The result of these government loans sales was the rapid concentration of ownership in many communities hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis , noted a 2017 study in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy .
“ We see the foreclosure crisis coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenburg , the study ’ s author .
“ Homeowners in communities that were previously targeted by subprime lenders are now burdened by housing markets dominated by organized money in a different form — institutional investors with consolidated holdings.
” In the Bay Area , an investigation by the local NBC affiliate found 98 active LLCs linked to Wedgewood .
Through them , it ’ s been involved in thousands of property transactions and more than 300 court cases , mostly evictions , since 2015 .
A monopoly board renamed “ Wedgewood ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company ’ s Redondo Beach headquarters .
California housing activists first faced off against Wedgewood in 2016 , when they supported an immigrant couple attempting to buy their home of 10 years back from Wedgewood .
The couple said their lender sold the home at auction while they were attempting to negotiate a loan modification , a practice known as dual-tracking .
The couple was ultimately evicted .
A pending lawsuit in Dallas County , Texas , tells a similar story .
The plaintiff , who purchased her home in 2006 , claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when her home was sold to a Wedgewood subsidiary without the required legal notice .
There are at least 500 deed records tied to Wedgewood LLCs in Dallas County .
The full scope of the company ’ s activities are exceedingly difficult to trace , but entities related to Wedgewood operate in at least 18 states , according to the NBC investigation .
The Moms 4 Housing protest in Oakland is over for now , but the organizers are looking to build a larger campaign against the kind of harmful actors they say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of our community , ” Dominique Walker told reporters on Monday .
“ They ’ re coming in , they ’ re profiting off harm that ’ s done in our community , and we want them out .
”

The California company that evicted a group of homeless mothers from a West Oakland, California, home this week is the force behind a sprawling national home-flipping operation. Through a related entity, the company, Wedgewood Properties, also benefited from a controversial government program to offload distressed, federally insured loans to investors.
Early Tuesday morning, sheriff’s deputies evicted the group Moms 4 Housing, who were occupying a foreclosed, investor-owned home in West Oakland. In November, the four women and their children moved into a home that had sat vacant for two years, rallying community support for their fight against real estate speculators they accused of exacerbating the area’s housing crisis.
“There are four times as many empty homes in Oakland as there are homeless people,” said Sameerah Karim, one of the mothers, at a press conference outside the home in November. “Why should anyone, especially children, sleep on the street while perfectly good homes sit empty?”
This week, after the mothers lost a court battle to stay in the home, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department descended with armored vehicles and AR-15 rifles, arresting two of the women and two of their supporters. It recalled the housing standoffs that grabbed headlines in the years following the 2008 housing market crash, as groups like the Occupy movement took over vacant, foreclosed houses.
But where housing activists once faced off against major banks, they’re increasingly coming up against faceless corporations operating with even less transparency. The West Oakland home occupied by Moms 4 Housing was purchased at a foreclosure auction by a subsidiary of Wedgewood Properties, a home-flipping giant that does business nationwide through an alphabet-soup of companies such as HMC Assets LLC and FI-337 LLC.
Wedgewood did not respond to a request for comment. But after the company prevailed in court against the mothers, spokesperson Sam Singer issued a statement celebrating the ruling. Singer also chastised three Oakland City Council members who tried to negotiate a deal to sell the home to an affordable housing land trust, thereby allowing the mothers to stay.
“The solution to Oakland’s housing crisis is not the redistribution of citizens’ homes through illegal break-ins and seizures by squatters,” said Singer, adding that the three council members “must take real steps to address Oakland’s drug abuse, mental illness, and homeless issues.”
Anya Svanoe, communications director for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, which supported the mothers’ protest, called Wedgewood “a displacement machine.”
Wedgewood has filed hundreds of eviction cases in the Bay Area and has been sued at least three times for wrongful eviction; two suits ended in settlements, while a third is still active.
Moms 4 Housing supporters protest in front of a vacant house in West Oakland, Calif., on Jan. 13, 2020. Photo: Jane Tyska/Digital First Media/East Bay Times via Getty Images
Wedgewood’s sprawling operation epitomizes a major shift in the housing market, which is increasingly dominated by anonymous owners operating through a web of shell companies. More than 3 million homes and 13 million apartment buildings are owned by LLP, LC, or LLC entities, according to 2015 census data, business structures that do not mandate naming owners or investors.
Most states no longer require limited liability companies to disclose their owners, making them an attractive vehicle for “individuals who wish to own real estate but want to be able to hide their identity,” said Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama Law professor. That often poses a major problem for tenants trying to figure out who exactly is evicting them, or cities that want to go after the owner of vacant properties in disrepair.
In 2018, The Guardian exposed conservative TV host Sean Hannity’s multimillion-dollar property empire, which he assembled via dozens of shell companies with names combining the initials of his children’s names. And a series of New York Times investigations in 2015 and 2016 chronicled how in New York City, limited liability companies were being used to launder money and defraud struggling homeowners.
The aftermath of the foreclosure crisis offered an unparalleled opportunity for institutional investors. Operating through a maze of subsidiaries, they flooded the housing market to buy up cheap, foreclosed homes nationwide. In Atlanta, the private-equity giant Blackstone bought 1,400 homes in a single day in 2013.
In many cases, federal policies enabled the investor feeding frenzy. After largely failing to aid homeowners at risk of defaulting, government-backed mortgage entities auctioned tens of thousands of distressed loans that they wanted off their books. The program was supposed to give borrowers a last shot at hanging on to their homes, but the hedge funds and private-equity firms buying loans were often quick to foreclose, as a 2015 New York Times investigation detailed. Community organizations labeled the programs a “Wall Street giveaway” and staged a series of protests, winning reforms in 2016 that made it easier for nonprofits to purchase the loans.
But much of the damage had been done. Of more than 100,000 loans sold through the programs, the majority ended up in the hands of just four large investors. One of them, HMC Assets, purchased loans from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac using a series of special-purpose entities. In 2014, HMC Assets merged with Wedgewood.
“We want speculators out of our community. They’re coming in, they’re profiting off harm that’s done in our community, and we want them out.”
The result of these government loans sales was the rapid concentration of ownership in many communities hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis, noted a 2017 study in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.
“We see the foreclosure crisis coming full circle,” wrote attorney Brad Greenburg, the study’s author. “Homeowners in communities that were previously targeted by subprime lenders are now burdened by housing markets dominated by organized money in a different form — institutional investors with consolidated holdings.”
In the Bay Area, an investigation by the local NBC affiliate found 98 active LLCs linked to Wedgewood. Through them, it’s been involved in thousands of property transactions and more than 300 court cases, mostly evictions, since 2015. A monopoly board renamed “Wedgewood” is affixed to the wall of the company’s Redondo Beach headquarters.
California housing activists first faced off against Wedgewood in 2016, when they supported an immigrant couple attempting to buy their home of 10 years back from Wedgewood. The couple said their lender sold the home at auction while they were attempting to negotiate a loan modification, a practice known as dual-tracking. The couple was ultimately evicted.
A pending lawsuit in Dallas County, Texas, tells a similar story. The plaintiff, who purchased her home in 2006, claimed that she had a pending loan modification when her home was sold to a Wedgewood subsidiary without the required legal notice. There are at least 500 deed records tied to Wedgewood LLCs in Dallas County.
The full scope of the company’s activities are exceedingly difficult to trace, but entities related to Wedgewood operate in at least 18 states, according to the NBC investigation.
The Moms 4 Housing protest in Oakland is over for now, but the organizers are looking to build a larger campaign against the kind of harmful actors they say Wedgewood exemplifies.
“We want speculators out of our community,” Dominique Walker told reporters on Monday. “They’re coming in, they’re profiting off harm that’s done in our community, and we want them out.”


theintercept--2020-01-18--The Sanders Campaign Researched Whether Warren Could Be Both Vice President and Treasury Secretary a

The Sanders Campaign Researched Whether Warren Could Be Both Vice President and Treasury Secretary at Once

of Sen. Bernie Sanders has researched the question of whether the same person can serve as both vice president and treasury secretary , according to three sources on the campaign .
The person the Sanders campaign had in mind with the inquiry was Sen. Elizabeth Warren , his rival for the nomination and the bane of Wall Street over the last decade .
The answer the lawyers came back with was yes : There is nothing in the Constitution that bars the vice president from also serving as treasury secretary .
Sanders has made no final decisions on a potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such questions premature and presumptuous , but the research into the question of Warren ’ s dual eligibility reflects the political affinity that has long existed between the two — an affinity that was dealt a setback over the past week , as the pair clashed over the contents of a year-old private conversation .
The sources were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations .
Warren and Sanders have been allies since at least 2008 , before she came to Washington to chair a panel with oversight of the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the struggles of the middle class and an expert on bankruptcy law , she was invited by Sanders to a Vermont town hall , where the two talked about their shared agenda .
Sanders was a strong supporter of her effort to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the wake of the financial crisis and privately lobbied President Barack Obama to name her the head of the new agency .
Ideologically , Sanders and Warren are largely aligned when it comes to Wall Street , though Warren has concentrated more attention on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sets could complement each other in the same administration .
Warren , after her election to the Senate in 2012 , lobbied for and won a seat on the Banking Committee , where she continued to hammer away at Wall Street and its feckless regulators .
Warren ’ s is the type of oversight and policymaking Sanders could envision leading from the perch at the Treasury Department , sources said , with the added power of being vice president , as well .
Though no serious discussions have begun about a cabinet or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know whether such a scenario was constitutionally permissible .
The news of the Sanders ’ s camp interest in a dual role for Warren comes after a week of tension between the longtime allies .
meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run , Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists , according to sources with knowledge of it .
At the dinner , Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders , and in the course of the discussion , she relayed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020 .
Different reporters recalled the comments differently , a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn ’ t beat Trump , while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman , not that it would work .
( The Intercept was not at the dinner .
Most politicians hold informal , off-record dinners or meetings with journalists , though it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Occasionally details from those meetings leak , but it ’ s rare . )
From there , the piece of news entered the journalistic bloodstream , circulating among reporters as gossip but not finding its way into print .
On Monday , it finally did , with CNN ’ s M.J. Lee reporting that according to four sources — described as “ two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter , and two people familiar with the meeting ” — Sanders had told Warren , according to CNN ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe a woman could win.
” It was widely assumed in the immediate aftermath of the story that Warren ’ s campaign had planted the story .
Indeed , CNN anchor Erin Burnett said as much on air .
But Burnett was merely making an assumption , and had no inside knowledge of the sources , two CNN sources told The Intercept .
On Monday , Warren told The Intercept that her campaign did not intentionally plant the CNN story .
That Warren told a number of journalists about the meeting a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Warren had only told her closest advisers about the meeting , then it would be logical to assume that her campaign dictated the timing of the story , dropping it just ahead of a debate , and just weeks before the primary , to undercut Sanders .
But since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists , CNN ’ s sources could have come from outside the campaign .
The revelation does not rule out the possibility that someone in her campaign was a source , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In chat groups and in private conversations with people outside the campaign , Warren aides have insisted that they were not the source of the leak , and only learned about it in the midst of debate prep , contributing to the delayed response .
The first time the campaign saw Sanders ’ s on-record denial was in print in the CNN story .
“ What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist , a racist , and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broke , the tension continued to escalate .
Neither camp took potential offroads .
Sanders could have allowed that since he had said that “ Trump is a sexist…who would weaponize whatever he could , ” that he could understand how Warren may have inferred from that that he didn ’ t think a woman could overcome such obstacles .
Warren could have said that she takes her friend at his word that he didn ’ t mean it , and the press could have moved on .
Neither gave an inch , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
“ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed , ” Warren said in her statement , that didn ’ t come until 7:30 in the evening , after the story had festered for much of the day .
At the debate the next night , Sanders said it was “ incomprehensible ” that he would have said such a thing .
Warren was prepared with remarks about the ability of women to win elections .
After the debate she confronted him on stage with cameras still running .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought to de-escalate .
Kristen Orthman , a spokesperson for Warren , declined to comment on the dinner , but said in a statement , “ Everyone in this primary is focused and must be focused on our shared goal : beating Donald Trump .
That ’ s the message we are sending to our supporters and our staff so we can make big , structural change to improve people ’ s lives.
” Faiz Shakir , Sanders ’ s campaign manager , similarly declined to comment on the specifics of the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message internally and externally is to stay focused , stay positive , and keep the people who are struggling out there and need transformational change at the front of our minds .
”

The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders has researched the question of whether the same person can serve as both vice president and treasury secretary, according to three sources on the campaign. The person the Sanders campaign had in mind with the inquiry was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, his rival for the nomination and the bane of Wall Street over the last decade. The inquiry did not rise to the level of an official legal analysis undertaken by the campaign attorney.
The answer is yes: There is nothing in the Constitution that bars the vice president from also serving as treasury secretary. Sanders has made no final decisions on a potential running mate or cabinet officers and did not direct the inquiry, nor was he involved in it, as he considers such questions premature and presumptuous. “No conversations are happening about any positions in a potential Sanders administration. Our campaign is focused on winning the nomination,” said campaign manager Faiz Shakir. The research into the question of Warren’s dual eligibility reflects the political affinity that has long existed between the two — an affinity that was dealt a setback over the past week, as the pair clashed over the contents of a year-old private conversation. The sources were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations. “Not only have I not written a memo, I haven’t had any phone calls, emails, or communications about it,” said Brad Deutsch, the campaign’s lawyer.
The research into the question of Warren’s dual eligibility reflects the political affinity that has long existed between the two.
Warren and Sanders have been allies since at least 2008, before she came to Washington to chair a panel with oversight of the Wall Street bailout. An author of books on the struggles of the middle class and an expert on bankruptcy law, she was invited by Sanders to a Vermont town hall, where the two talked about their shared agenda. Sanders was a strong supporter of her effort to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the wake of the financial crisis and privately lobbied President Barack Obama to name her the head of the new agency. Ideologically, Sanders and Warren are largely aligned when it comes to Wall Street, though Warren has concentrated more attention on bankers, meaning that the two different skill sets could complement each other in the same administration.
Warren, after her election to the Senate in 2012, lobbied for and won a seat on the Banking Committee, where she continued to hammer away at Wall Street and its feckless regulators. Warren’s is the type of oversight and policymaking Sanders could envision leading from the perch at the Treasury Department, sources said, with the added power of being vice president as well. Though no serious discussions have begun about a cabinet or running mate, the campaign wanted to know whether such a scenario was constitutionally permissible.
The news of the Sanders’s camp interest in a dual role for Warren comes after a week of tension between the longtime allies.
Not long after meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Donald Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said that Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work. (The Intercept was not at the dinner. Most politicians hold informal, off-record dinners or meetings with journalists, though it’s not something Sanders is known to do. Occasionally details from those meetings leak, but it’s rare.)
From there, the piece of news entered the journalistic bloodstream, circulating among reporters as gossip but not finding its way into print. On Monday, it finally did, with CNN’s M.J. Lee reporting that according to four sources — described as “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting” — Sanders had told Warren, according to CNN’s paraphrasing, that “he did not believe a woman could win.”
It was widely assumed in the immediate aftermath of the story that Warren’s campaign had planted the story. Indeed, CNN anchor Erin Burnett said as much on air. But Burnett was merely making an assumption and had no inside knowledge of the sources, two CNN sources told The Intercept.
Since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN’s sources could have come from outside the campaign.
On Monday, Warren told The Intercept that her campaign did not intentionally plant the CNN story. That Warren told a number of journalists about the meeting a year ago adds context to that statement. If Warren had only told her closest advisers about the meeting, then it would be logical to assume that her campaign dictated the timing of the story, dropping it just ahead of a debate, and just weeks before the primary, to undercut Sanders. But since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN’s sources could have come from outside the campaign. The revelation does not rule out the possibility that someone in her campaign was a source, but it opens up other possibilities as well.
In chat groups and in private conversations with people outside the campaign, Warren aides have insisted that they were not the source of the leak and only learned about it in the midst of debate prep, contributing to the delayed response. The first time the campaign saw Sanders’s on-record denial was in print in the CNN story. “What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist, and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders said. After the story broke, the tension continued to escalate.
Neither camp took potential off-roads. Sanders could have allowed that since he had said that “Trump is a sexist … who would weaponize whatever he could,” he could understand how Warren may have inferred that he didn’t think a woman could overcome such obstacles. Warren could have said that she takes her friend at his word that he didn’t mean it, and the press could have moved on. Neither gave an inch, though, and Warren issued a blunt statement. “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” Warren said in her statement, that didn’t come until 7:30 in the evening, after the story had festered for much of the day.
https://twitter.com/KristenOrthman/status/1216879913078329344
At the debate the next night, Sanders said it was “incomprehensible” that he would have said such a thing. Warren was prepared with remarks about the ability of women to win elections. After the debate, she confronted him on stage with cameras still running.
Since then, though, the camps have sought to deescalate.
Kristen Orthman, a spokesperson for Warren, declined to comment on the dinner, but said in a statement, “Everyone in this primary is focused and must be focused on our shared goal: beating Donald Trump. That’s the message we are sending to our supporters and our staff so we can make big, structural change to improve people’s lives.”
Shakir had a similar message. “Our message internally and externally is to stay focused, stay positive, and keep the people who are struggling out there and need transformational change at the front of our minds,” he said.
Update: January 18, 2020
This story was updated with comment from campaign attorney Brad Deutsch.


theintercept--2020-01-18--Bolsonaro, Under Fire, Dismisses His Culture Minister For Giving a Nazi Speech, But It Is Still Repr

Bolsonaro, Under Fire, Dismisses His Culture Minister For Giving a Nazi Speech, But It Is Still Representative of Brazil’s Governing Ethos

The Nazi content , style and aesthetics of the 6-minute speech , set to the score of a Wagnerian opera , are impossible to overstate or even adequately describe in words .
It has to be seen to be believed .
For that reason , the Intercept has translated the video of the speech and is publishing the first English-subtitled copy of it because it should be seen by everyone : “ The Brazilian art of the next decade will be heroic and national .
It will be endowed with a great capacity for emotional involvement and will be equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the urgent aspirations of our people , or else it will be nothing ” — Roberto Alvin , Brazil ’ s Culture Minister , January 15 , 2020 .
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro , under severe pressure from multiple corners , on Friday fired his Culture Minister , Roberto Alvim , for recording and publishing what can only be described — with no hyperbole — as a Nazi speech about Brazilian art .
Indeed , the speech , published by Alvim on Thursday , plagiarized Hitler ’ s Minister of Culture and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ style and aesthetic when decreeing what Brazilian art must be in the years to come : Brazil ’ s O Globo newspaper featured this surreal headline on its front page : “ Bolsonaro fires Culture Minister after he copies Nazi speech.
” The German paper Deutsche Welle featured the photo of the 1933 speech of Goebbels which Alvim copied next to the one delivered by the Brazilian Culture Minister to juxtapose how similar it was on all levels , beyond just the words : Bolsonaro , somewhat ironically in light of the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Israel critical to his political and religious identity ( he has traveled to Israel repeatedly , offered unstinting support for the Netanyahu government against Palestinians , and was baptized in 2016 in the Jordan River while the Brazilian Senate voted to impeach the center-left president Dilma Rousseff ) .
Whatever else is true , Alvim ’ s speech , though more stylistically extreme and indelicate in how crassly it copied pure Nazisms , is consistent in content with the posture of the Bolsonaro government toward artistic expression and cultural norms generally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife while still claiming to be devoutly Catholic — has also adopted a form of evangelic fanaticism , a rapidly growing political force in the country , as part of his public identity and ideology ( his current wife is evangelical ) .
But it is difficult to believe that absent those reactions , Bolsonaro would have fired his Culture Minister , whom he has repeatedly defended and praised , including in a Facebook live chat immediately prior to the instantly notorious Nazi speech , hailing him as representative of “ the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his speech , the Brazilian president said : “ Beside me , here , Roberto Alvim , our Culture Secretary .
Now we do have a real Culture Secretary , that serves the interest of the majority of the Brazilian population , conservative and Christian population.
” Notably , Alvim was fired only after the embassies of Germany and , far more importantly to Bolsonaro , Israel issued condemnations containing harsh language rare for diplomatic communications .
The Israeli Confederation of Brazil said : “ Such a person can not command the culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from office immediately.
” The German Embassy in Brazil said : “ The period of National Socialism is the darkest chapter in German history , bringing infinite suffering to humanity….We oppose any attempt to trivialize or even glorify the era of National Socialism.
” The center-right presidents of the Brazilian Senate and House also demanded Alvim ’ s firing , leaving Bolsonaro with little choice .
When announcing the firing , Bolsonaro called the speech “ an unfortunate pronouncement.
” On social media , he has declared himself fighting a “ cultural war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ; denounced one of Brazil ’ s most beloved actresses , the 90-year-old Fernanda Montenegro , as a “ dirty liar ” for whom he harbors “ contempt ” ; and attacked the Brazilian filmmaker Petra Costa , whose documentary “ Edge of Democracy ” was just nominated for an Academy Award , as a leftist propagandist disseminating lies .
The content of Thursday ’ s speech was nothing new for Alvim , once a respected theatre director who re-invented himself as a far-right religious fanatic .
In his short stint as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the months leading up to his appointment by the Brazilian president , he has issued a series of similarly shocking comments , just not quite as shocking as blatantly and deliberately mimicking the speech , style and mannerisms of Adolf Hitler ’ s most notorious propagandist .
While all of this has caused many of Brazil ’ s small Jewish communities in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro to support him , it has little to do with affection for Jews .
Like many evangelicals , Bolsonaro appears to believe in some form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its crudest form , holds that Israel must be united in order for Jesus to return and send all non-believers ( including Jews ) to hell ) , and like many authoritarians , adores Israel ’ s capacity of military and intelligence superiority and its animus towards Muslims , and wants as much of its surveillance technology as he can get for domestic purposes .
As is true of many far-right leaders , Bolsonaro worships Israel but not necessarily Jews .
Aggressive and harsh public morality is a central prong of Bolsonaro ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of his 2018 campaign cultural themes similar to Alvim ’ s speech — including a false but highly effective warning that elementary school teachers were using something he calls “ gay kits ” to convert young children in order to allow homosexuals to recruit them as sex partners — and generally has waged a war on any art or artists who diverge from Bolsonaro ’ s vision of what pure nationalist art is .
One of Alvim ’ s predecessors as Culture Minister resigned after the Bolsonaro government cut funding specifically to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academy Award nominations were unveiled and one of the five contenders for Best Documentary was a Netflix film by the Brazilian director Petra Costa called “ Edge of Democracy , ” which warns of the dangers faced by Brazilian democracy .
Though the film principally focuses not on Bolsonaro but on the impeachment of Dilma and imprisonment and election-barring of Lula , it has become a target of contempt by the Brazilian Right .
After it received its Oscar nod , both Alvim and Bolsonaro publicly denounced the film as leftist agitprop “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked , acknowledged he never saw it ) .
A far graver assault on artistic expression occurred on Christmas Eve when a member of the right-wing party to which Bolsonaro belonged until recently threw a Molotov Cocktail at the building that houses Porta das Fundos , the production company responsible for a Netflix film that features a gay Jesus with a boyfriend .
Bolsonaro ’ s Congressman-son had inveighed against the film as “ trash.
” Last week , a Bolsonaro-linked right-wing judge stunned the country , and Netflix , by issuing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film from its streaming platform , a ruling overturned by a Justice of the Supreme Court .
Nazi-style nationalism and crude public assaults have been repeatedly featured by Bolsonaro in his remarks to journalists .
On Thursady , addressing a new book critical of his government by a Brazilian reporter of Japanese descent , Thaís Oyama , Bolsonaro said he does not know what she is doing in Brazil , adding : “ This journalist … In Japan she was going to starve to death.
” Last month , in response to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandal involving his Senator-son ’ s corruption and the family ’ s links to violent paramilitary militias , the president said “ you have a terribly gay face , ” and told another reporter to “ ask your mother about your father.
” When questioned earlier this week about a scandal involving his Communications Minister who has private contracts with the same television outlets whose public budget he is responsible for determining , the president responded : “ are you talking about your mother ?
” A report issued earlier this week by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is directly responsible for the majority of the attacks on journalists and media outlets .
It cited , among other things , Bolsonaro ’ s repeated public incitements against journalists as well as his public threats that I might be imprisoned for the series of exposés published this year by the Intercept about his Justice Minister and his accusations that my marriage to a Brazilian Congressman and adoption of Brazilian children was a fraud .
Earlier this month , Bolsonaro pronounced that books in schools have too much content and need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ beginning in 2021 , all the books will be ours , ” proclaiming that they will have the Brazilian flag and national anthem on their cover .
He added that “ they will be made for us .
The country will vibrate… .
There will be the Brazilian flag on the cover , there will be the national anthem there.
” He claimed that the “ idiots ” who have been in charge of Brazilian education have been propagandizing children with the “ gender of ideology ” that “ encourages boys to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I don ’ t want to talk about here.
” On Thursday , he said leftists “ do not deserve to be treated like normal people.
” In sum , Bolsonaro has spent years spouting classically fascist ideology .
The manifestation of undisguised Nazism by his Culture Minister was just a slightly more crass and naked expression of his ideology and mentality .
Many Brazilian elites who supported Bolsonaro largely because of their admiration for his Chicago-trained , austerity-loving Economics Minister Paulo Gedes and his corrupt law-and-order Justice Minister Sergio Moro ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s exposés ) are now feigning shock and outrage .
But Alvim ’ s speech simply shined a light on the true face of the Bolsonaro movement — one which all to many political and media elites decided to ignore , or pretend was just a game , because they were eager for the parts of Bolsonaro ’ s ideology that served their interests .

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, under severe pressure from multiple corners, on Friday fired his culture minister, Roberto Alvim, for recording and publishing what can only be described — with no hyperbole — as a Nazi speech about Brazilian art. Indeed, the speech, published by Alvim on Thursday, plagiarized Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Culture and Communications Joseph Goebbels and deliberately copied his style and aesthetic when decreeing what Brazilian art must be in the years to come:
“The Brazilian art of the next decade will be heroic and national. It will be endowed with a great capacity for emotional involvement and will be equally imperative, since it is deeply linked to the urgent aspirations of our people, or else it will be nothing” — Roberto Alvin, Brazil’s culture minister, January 15, 2020. “The German art of the next decade will be heroic, romantic, objective, and free of sentimentality, national with great pathos and equally imperative and binding, or nothing” — Joseph Goebbels, Nazi culture minister, October 8, 1933.
The Nazi content, style, and aesthetics of the six-minute speech, set to the score of a Wagnerian opera, are impossible to overstate or even adequately describe in words. It has to be seen to be believed. For that reason, The Intercept has translated the speech into English and is publishing a video of it because it should be seen by everyone:
Brazil’s O Globo newspaper featured this surreal headline on its front page: “Bolsonaro fires Culture Minister after he copies Nazi speech.” The German paper Deutsche Welle featured the photo of the 1933 speech of Goebbels that Alvim copied next to the one delivered by the Brazilian culture minister to juxtapose how similar it was on all levels, beyond just the words.
Deutsche Welle
The content of Thursday’s speech was nothing new for Alvim, once a respected theater director who reinvented himself as a far-right religious fanatic. In his short stint as Bolsonaro’s culture minister and in the months leading up to his appointment by the Brazilian president, he has issued a series of similarly shocking comments — just not quite as shocking as blatantly and deliberately mimicking the speech, style, and mannerisms of Hitler’s most notorious propagandist.
On social media, he has declared himself fighting a “cultural war” in favor of “conservative artists”; denounced one of Brazil’s most beloved actresses, the 90-year-old Fernanda Montenegro, as a “dirty liar” for whom he harbors “contempt”; and attacked the Brazilian filmmaker Petra Costa, whose documentary “Edge of Democracy” was just nominated for an Academy Award, as a leftist propagandist disseminating lies.
Notably, Alvim was fired only after the embassies of Germany and — far more importantly to Bolsonaro — Israel issued condemnations containing harsh language rare for diplomatic communications. The Israeli Confederation of Brazil said, “Such a person cannot command the culture of our country and must be removed from office immediately.” The German Embassy in Brazil said, “The period of National Socialism is the darkest chapter in German history, bringing infinite suffering to humanity. …We oppose any attempt to trivialize or even glorify the era of National Socialism.” The center-right presidents of the Brazilian Senate and House also demanded Alvim’s firing, leaving Bolsonaro with little choice. When announcing the firing, Bolsonaro called the speech “an unfortunate pronouncement.”
But it is difficult to believe that absent those reactions, Bolsonaro would have fired his culture minister, whom he has repeatedly defended and praised, including in a Facebook Live chat immediately prior to the instantly notorious Nazi speech, hailing him as representative of “the real culture.” Sitting with Alvim prior to his speech, the Brazilian president said, “Beside me, here, Roberto Alvim, our culture secretary. Now we do have a real culture secretary that serves the interest of the majority of the Brazilian population, conservative and Christian population.”
Whatever else is true, Alvim’s speech, though more stylistically extreme and indelicate in how crassly it copied pure Nazism, is consistent in content with the posture of the Bolsonaro government toward artistic expression and cultural norms generally. Bolsonaro — though currently on his third wife while still claiming to be devoutly Catholic — has also adopted a form of evangelic fanaticism, a rapidly growing political force in the country, as part of his public identity and ideology (his current wife is evangelical).
Bolsonaro, somewhat ironically in light of the current controversy, has also made unyielding devotion to Israel critical to his political and religious identity (he has traveled to Israel repeatedly, offered unstinting support for the Netanyahu government against Palestinians, and was baptized in 2016 in the Jordan River while the Brazilian Senate voted to impeach the center-left President Dilma Rousseff).
While all of this has caused many of Brazil’s small Jewish communities in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro to support him, it has little to do with affection for Jews. Like many evangelicals, Bolsonaro appears to believe in some form of the Rapture (which, in its crudest form, holds that Israel must be united in order for Jesus to return and send all nonbelievers — including Jews — to hell), and like many authoritarians, adores Israel’s capacity of military and intelligence superiority and its animus toward Muslims, and wants as much of its surveillance technology as he can get for domestic purposes. As is true of many far-right leaders, Bolsonaro worships Israel but not necessarily Jews.
Aggressive and harsh public morality is a central prong of Bolsonaro’s political appeal. He featured as part of his 2018 campaign cultural themes similar to Alvim’s speech — including a false but highly effective warning that elementary school teachers were using something he calls “gay kits” to convert young children in order to allow homosexuals to recruit them as sex partners — and generally has waged a war on any art or artists who diverge from Bolsonaro’s vision of what pure nationalist art is. One of Alvim’s predecessors as culture minister resigned after the Bolsonaro government cut funding specifically to LGBT-themed art.
Earlier this week, Academy Award nominations were unveiled and one of the five contenders for Best Documentary was a Netflix film by the Brazilian director Petra Costa called “Edge of Democracy,” which warns of the dangers faced by Brazilian democracy. Though the film principally focuses not on Bolsonaro but on the impeachment of Dilma and imprisonment and election-barring of Lula, it has become a target of contempt by the Brazilian Right. After it received its Oscar nod, both Alvim and Bolsonaro publicly denounced the film as leftist agitprop “fiction” (though Bolsonaro, when asked, acknowledged he never saw it).
A far graver assault on artistic expression occurred on Christmas Eve when a member of the right-wing party to which Bolsonaro belonged until recently threw a Molotov cocktail at the building that houses Porta das Fundos, the production company responsible for a Netflix film that features a gay Jesus with a boyfriend. Bolsonaro’s Congressman-son had inveighed against the film as “trash.” Last week, a Bolsonaro-linked right-wing judge stunned the country, and Netflix, by issuing a censorship order forcing Netflix to remove the film from its streaming platform, a ruling overturned by a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Nazi-style nationalism and crude public assaults have been repeatedly featured by Bolsonaro in his remarks to journalists. On Thursady, addressing a new book critical of his government by a Brazilian reporter of Japanese descent, Thaís Oyama, Bolsonaro said he does not know what she is doing in Brazil, adding: “This journalist … In Japan she was going to starve to death.”
Last month, in response to a reporter’s question about the still-unfolding scandal involving his Senator-son’s corruption and the family’s links to violent paramilitary militias, the president said “you have a terribly gay face,” and told another reporter to “ask your mother about your father.” When questioned earlier this week about a scandal involving his Communications Minister who has private contracts with the same television outlets whose public budget he is responsible for determining, the president responded: “are you talking about your mother?”
A report issued earlier this week by a press freedom group documented that Bolsonaro is directly responsible for the majority of the attacks on journalists and media outlets. It cited, among other things, Bolsonaro’s repeated public incitements against journalists as well as his public threats that I might be imprisoned for the series of exposés published this year by the Intercept about his Justice Minister and his accusations that my marriage to a Brazilian Congressman and adoption of Brazilian children was a fraud.
Earlier this month, Bolsonaro pronounced that books in schools have too much content and need to be made “softer” and warned that “beginning in 2021, all the books will be ours,” proclaiming that they will have the Brazilian flag and national anthem on their cover. He added that “they will be made for us. The country will vibrate…. There will be the Brazilian flag on the cover, there will be the national anthem there.” He claimed that the “idiots” who have been in charge of Brazilian education have been propagandizing children with the “gender of ideology” that “encourages boys to wear skirts” and “other things that I don’t want to talk about here.” On Thursday, he said leftists “do not deserve to be treated like normal people.”
In sum, Bolsonaro has spent years spouting classically fascist ideology. The manifestation of undisguised Nazism by his Culture Minister was just a slightly more crass and naked expression of his ideology and mentality. Many Brazilian elites who supported Bolsonaro largely because of their admiration for his Chicago-trained, austerity-loving Economics Minister Paulo Gedes and his corrupt law-and-order Justice Minister Sergio Moro (the subject of the 2019 Intercept’s exposés) are now feigning shock and outrage. But Alvim’s speech simply shined a light on the true face of the Bolsonaro movement — one which all to many political and media elites decided to ignore, or pretend was just a game, because they were eager for the parts of Bolsonaro’s ideology that served their interests.