Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta censura. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta censura. Mostrar todas as mensagens
segunda-feira, 2 de fevereiro de 2026
quarta-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2026
Jornalista Independente: " Como é que a U.E. literalmente faz morrer de fome peritos dissidentes»
Transcrevo artigo publicado no RT:
On December 15, 2025, the European Union slapped sanctions on former Swiss intelligence officer and ex-NATO employee Jacques Baud. No day in court, no charges filed, just abrupt, suffocating, sanctions.
Why did the EU sanction Baud? For “Russian propaganda,” of course, although many of the sources he cites in his reports on the West provoking war with Russia years prior to Russia’s military operation are Western and Ukrainian – including the SBU and Aleksey Arestovich, a former adviser to Vladimir Zelensky.
Welcome to the latest EU insanity.
Widely respected for his deep knowledge and analysis, much of which is based on his own research while working with NATO, Baud has grown increasingly popular over the years, appearing on numerous podcasts and interviews, authoring numerous books and articles as well.
Since Russia began its military operation in Ukraine, Western media have been howling about an “unprovoked invasion.” Baud has written and spoken extensively about realities which counter this claim: facts on the ground prior to February 2022, going back (unlike most legacy media who have developed selective amnesia) to even before the 2014 Maidan coup.
What is interesting about Baud is he does not use Russian sources to back his claims and he has not taken a public position in favor of either Russia or Ukraine.
He has simply analyzed the situation, based on information he had access to. How did he have access to this information? In 2014, when working for NATO in charge of countering proliferation of small arms, he was tasked with investigating accusations of Russia supplying arms to Donbass resistance.
He wrote of this in 2022, noting, “The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not ‘fit’ with the information coming from the OSCE – despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.
“The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists.”
As a result of his research, he was also able to unequivocally debunk accusations of Russia sending military units into Donbass, by quoting the SBU (Ukrainian security service) itself as well as other Ukrainian sources.
In a September 2024 interview I did with Baud, he spoke of this.
“I can categorically say no, there were no Russian forces in Donbass. The guy you encountered (I had mentioned meeting one sole Russian former soldier when I went to the Donbass in 2019) represents exactly the kind of Russian presence that was at that time, recognized by the SBU and recognized also by the Ukrainian Chief of Staff.
“In a public interview in 2015, just after the signature of the Minsk Agreement 2, the head of the Ukrainian General Staff said publicly that there were no Russian military units fighting in Donbass; that there were only individual soldiers exactly the same case as the one you just mentioned.”
It is clear he is not citing Russian information (or “propaganda”) but Ukrainian and Western sources. An even better illustration of this is what he had to say about the prelude to Russia commencing its Special Military Operation in February 2022.
Referring to a March 2021 decree by Zelensky (to take back Crimea and the south of Ukraine), Baud spoke of an interview two years prior with Zelensky’s former adviser, Arestovich.
“He says in order to join NATO, we had to have a war with Russia. When the interviewer asked him when would this conflict happen, Arestovich says end of 2021 or 2022.” A position, Baud noted, which aligned with a March 2019 300-page document published by the Rand Corporation, “that explains how to defeat and to destabilize Russia.”
The EU is almost certainly pissed off that Baud likewise demolished the Western propaganda claims about Russia invading Crimea in 2014. He told me, “The Ukrainian army at that time was a conscript army, meaning that within the Ukrainian army you had both Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers. When the army was ordered to shoot or to fight against demonstrators, those who were Russian speakers just defected, they just changed side. They just went to support the protesters and they became in fact those the famous ‘little green men’.”
Keep in mind that Baud was working for NATO then. “There was absolutely not the slightest indication that Russia brought new troops to Crimea. Based on the status of force agreement signed between Russia and Ukraine, you had up to 25,000 Russian troops stationed in the Crimean peninsula. At that time they were not even 25,000, there were 22,000. A Ukrainian lawmaker on Ukrainian TV said that out of the 20,000 (sic) Ukrainian soldiers that were deployed in Crimea, 20,000 defected to the Russian-speaking side.”
As for “Russian propaganda,” it is a term bandied about quite easily by legacy media and NATO mouthpieces to taint reputations or lead to censorship of voices. The war backers are upset that their own “Russia started it” propaganda isn’t working.
Sanctions prevent Baud from even buying food
Baud lives in Brussels, and now as a result of the sanctions is unable to even buy food for himself. Nor can well-intending people do so on his behalf. In an interview on Dialogue Works at the end of December, 2025, Baud said:
“Yesterday, a friend of mine tried from Switzerland to buy food for me, to be delivered to my home (in Belgium). She could order, but the payment was blocked. Any delivery to my home is prohibited, even if the funds come from Switzerland.”
People who are aware of his unjust situation have been physically bringing him food, to alleviate his inability to purchase it himself.
In a more recent interview on Judging Freedom, Baud highlighted that his case was a foreign policy decision, denying him due process.
“This is not a decision that has been taken by any court. I was not judged by anybody. In fact I was not in front of a jury. I could not present my case. I could not defend my case. This decision was not taken by a court but by the council of the foreign ministers of the European union.”
The most he can do, Baud explained, is, “go to the European Court of Justice and try to make my case saying that the decision was not just, and the court of justice may then study the case and have an assessment on that.” Even if the court concludes the sanctions are not justified, all it can then do is “advise the council of foreign ministers to change their mind.”
Given that the sanctions against Baud are punitive for his not toeing the line, it is unlikely minds will be changed.
A growing list of EU-sanctioned voices
Jacques Baud isn’t the first to be sanctioned by the EU. Many journalists and public figures have been sanctioned for their writings or words on the Donbass, Crimea, corruption in Ukraine, and so on. However, many have safety in Russia or elsewhere, and while their foreign bank accounts have been unjustly frozen, they can at least buy food and otherwise live normally.
A recent article in Forum Geopolitica notes the brazen illegality of these sanctions. “In contrast to Article 11 of its own charter, the EU has decided to punish, disenfranchise and expropriate the citizens of all countries without any offence having been committed, as was last seen in Nazi Germany.
“This elimination of dissidents is not ordered by a court, but by the ‘Council of the European Union’, the political arm of the EU. The Council, in which non-democratically elected apparatchiks lead a good life, is chaired by Kaja Kallas, herself not democratically elected. We are back in the Middle Ages.”
French journalist Xavier Moreau was also sanctioned, and roughly half a year prior, Swiss-Cameroonian political activist Nathalie Yamb was targeted.
German journalist Huseyin Dogru was sanctioned in May 2025 for being a “Russian disinformation actors, and for, according to him, “pro-Palestine reporting and documenting the repression of activists in Germany + the EU.”
As with the others sanctioned, no “evidence” of the EU’s accusations was provided, particularly no proof of financial ties to Russia or Russian media.
A petition demanding “the immediate lifting of the illegal sanctions against Jacques Baud as well as against alljournalists, scholars, and EU citizens,” rightly notes it is not a crime to name the true reasons for the Ukraine war.
“It is not a crime to draw readers’ attention to untruths and to the EU’s and NATO’s own propaganda. It is not a crime to point out the thoughtless cooperation of the West with Ukrainian forces that show a dangerous proximity to fascists.”
Further noting the sanctions have targeted 59 journalists and scholars, it points out, the EU is “using the sanctions list as an instrument to silence critics and is maneuvering itself ever deeper into an abyss of lawlessness.”
Quite amusingly, the president of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (also known as Ursula von der Lying), posted of “protecting” freedom of speech. The EU Commission website claims the right to freedom of expression, “also means the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.”
The sanctions are part of the broader desperate campaign of threatening and censoring voices that report truthfully on matters related to Ukraine, the ongoing Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and other timely topics. Yes, they can censor us by deleting our YouTube and social media platforms, or by imposing sanctions on journalists, authors, and other public figures.
But, it doesn’t work. Baud said he now has more visibility and more credibility. “It’s always a bad idea when you start preventing someone to speak. This attracts more attention.”
quinta-feira, 25 de dezembro de 2025
"PROPAGANDA 21" (n°30): SANCIONAMENTO DE JACQUES BAUD
...e a deriva crescente na UE, com medidas repressivas contra cidadãos ou residentes não-conformes com o Status quo !
Estas medidas de coação violentas, arbitrárias, são destinadas a intimidar pessoas que se "atrevem" a exercer o seu direito de opinião. Penso que já foram sancionadas dezenas de pessoas na União Europeia.
Estamos em plena transição para um regime totalitário, como tenho repetidas vezes chamado a atenção. Nesta ocasião, parece-me que os intelectuais dos países da UE estão demasiado passivos. Será por cumplicidade, por indiferença ou por medo?
Jacques Baud é sancionado, sem que seja ouvido, sem processo, sem meio prático de defesa e de recurso, submetido a restrições arbitrárias sem um limite temporal, que se traduzem na impossibilidade de uma vida normal: Não pode exercer atividade remunerada, nem receber dinheiro, não pode viajar, não pode exercer os seus direitos cívicos...
Se Jacques Baud, por exprimir sua opinião em artigos e livros, é arbitrariamente sancionado hoje, nós também podemos sê-lo amanhã.
É um golpe mortal na liberdade de expressão, a essência da democracia... que eles tanto dizem defender.
Entrevista a Jacques Baud em francês:
Relacionado:
https://on.rt.com/di3j : O fecho de contas bancárias na Alemanha, dirigidas contra o Partido Comunista e contra a AfD (ambos são partidos legais).
https://youtu.be/_tEoYZe7AdQ?si=RmIQIoE1HuLT2ytW Uma análise do processo kafkiano contra Jacques Baud.
François Asselineau diz a verdade sobre o banimento administrativo de Xavier Moreau e Jacques Baud.
sexta-feira, 12 de dezembro de 2025
OS ALVORES DUM NOVO REICH???
Transcrevo parte de uma carta de CJ Hopkins. Um caso que pode parecer absurdo, mas que é - pelo contrário - muito real, pois as autoridades policiais e judiciais alemãs sabem perfeitamente o que dizem as leis e a constituição da própria Alemanha, sobre a liberdade de opinião e o direito de expressão do pensamento e opiniões, oralmente ou por escrito. Também as autoridades respectivas do IIIº Reich sabiam aquilo que estava consignado na constituição da República de Weimar, mas «estavam-se nas tintas».
[....]
A Swiss organization defending freedom of speech in Switzerland and Germany, Bündnis Redefreiheit (Free Speech Union) has taken on my case, and they published a rather good introduction to it and the issues in question.
The German version is on their website. The English version is below.
Before you read it, I want to say a few words about “book burning,” which the folks at Bündnis Redefreiheit mean metaphorically, of course. The German authorities are not literally burning books or organizing public book-burning rituals like the Nazis.
However, I am being criminally investigated for publishing and promoting a book. The police raided my home looking for evidence that I am the publisher of a book. That is the “crime” that is cited as grounds for this second investigation.
Please, reflect on that for a minute.
The book in question has been banned in Germany since the summer of 2022. As far as I know, the German authorities still deny that it is banned, but it is. It was pulled from distribution by German booksellers (presumably by Libri and the other major German book distributors) at the same time that it was officially banned in Germany by Amazon and the previous criminal investigation of me was launched. And now I’m being criminally investigated for the second time, and having my home raided and searched by the police, for the “crime” of publishing, distributing, and promoting it.
A book.
Obviously, at this point, it is clear that the German authorities have absolutely zero respect for the law, or the rule of law, or the Grundgesetz (i.e., basically the German constitution), or basic democratic rights and principles like freedom of speech. The fact that a German judge actually signed a search warrant authorizing the police to raid my home because I wrote and published a book, well, I don’t know what to say exactly, other than … welcome to the New Normal Reich!
I’ll have more to say about it as time goes by, and after the German authorities send my attorney the new case file, and after I recover and regain my strength a bit. I am extremely worn out at the moment. I just did an exhausting two-month road trip all over the USA. And of course I caught a nasty winter bug upon my return. And, well, honestly, I’m utterly burnt-out from the last five years of opposing this new form of totalitarianism that is taking hold, not just here in Germany, but all throughout the West. I’ll dig into all that once again after I get my sea legs back.
For now, here’s the overview of my case(s) by Bündnis Redefreiheit.
The C. J. Hopkins Case: Modern Book Burning
Bündnis Redefreiheit
On the morning of Wednesday, 26 November 2025, three armed police officers arrived at the Berlin apartment of American writer C. J. Hopkins with a search warrant issued by the Amtsgericht Tiergarten. As he reports on his Substack, the officers not only searched the apartment but also confiscated his computer and interrogated his wife.
Hopkins is an award-winning playwright, novelist, and political satirist. In 2022, he published The Rise of the New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III (2020–2021), a book that delivers a sustained and sharply argued critique of the authoritarian tendencies that emerged during the Covid era. It was this book that brought the police to his door that morning.
The cover of the book makes Hopkins’ point immediately visible. Drawing on the familiar design of William L. Shirer’s history book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which features a large swastika, Hopkins’ version shows the same symbol partly obscured by a Covid mask. It is a direct visual statement: in Hopkins’ view, the coercive measures of the Covid period bore an uncomfortable resemblance to an earlier authoritarian system that also invoked emergency measures to override basic rights. The image is unmistakably political commentary of the anti-authoritarian kind.
But the Berlin state prosecutor sees it differently. According to the warrant for the house search, the cover allegedly violates §86a of the German Criminal Code, the law that forbids the use of unconstitutional symbols when used in a supportive way. Hopkins is accused of publishing, selling, and displaying his book, and of showing the cover on his website. In other words, the prosecutor is treating an anti-authoritarian book as a criminal act.
The police search was authorized to determine whether Hopkins published, distributes, and promotes his book, and whether he is the owner and operator of his blog, consentfactory.org, where the book is advertised. But these questions are not mysteries. The answers are public knowledge. Hopkins is the author. His website bears his name, his photo, and his biography. His books are advertised and sold by booksellers worldwide. There is nothing hidden here.
A house search, however, is one of the most invasive measures the state can take. It must be proportionate and requires a clear need to uncover evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. That bar was not met. There was no serious question that required armed officers to enter the home of an author. The search served no legitimate investigative purpose. It served a symbolic one. It sent a message: we can come into your home and harass you for what you write.
This alone should concern anyone who values free expression. But the core issue runs deeper. Hopkins’ book does not promote fascism. It warns against it. It uses the symbol of the swastika not to support Nazi ideology, but to condemn modern political trends that he believes resemble it. The entire point of the book is to say: “Be careful. This looks familiar.” And the phrase “The New Normal Reich” carries just a trace of satire, enough to signal discomfort and alert the grey cells that danger is afoot.
In any healthy democracy, such a warning falls squarely under protected political speech. It is the kind of analogy that writers, historians, and political thinkers have always made. One may find it exaggerated, uncomfortable, or even unfair, but that is not the same as illegal. Satire is not propaganda. Criticism is not endorsement. A warning is not a celebration.
By treating a critical image as criminal use of Nazi symbols, the state prosecutor collapses distinctions that are essential to free debate. It is a category error with serious consequences. If this interpretation of the state prosecutor stands, then any critical representation of a Nazi symbol, whether in a documentary, a satirical cartoon, a historical comparison, or a work of fiction, could be targeted in exactly the same way.
The result is predictable: people stop speaking. Writers avoid certain topics. Artists censor themselves. Publishers become nervous. And so, the range of permitted thought narrows. This is how censorship works today: through the banning of books, and the steady pressure of enforced legal threats backed by bureaucratic intimidation.
The fact that this search occurred at all is evidence of such pressure. A police raid is frightening, disruptive, and humiliating. It disturbs daily life. It seizes tools required for work. It intrudes into private space. And it does all this without any real necessity. The message is unmistakable: writing and publishing this book will cost you.
As Hopkins’ lawyer has rightly argued, the raid was not merely a procedural excess but an assault on several of the most basic guarantees of a democratic society: freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, artistic freedom, and the inviolability of the home. These principles are not decorative features of a constitution; they are the very bedrock by which a people keep power from coagulating into something unaccountable and oppressive. That the German authorities are acting arbitrarily here is beyond question, since Der Spiegel and Stern have already employed the swastika critically on their respective magazine’s covers, without police searching their offices.
It takes only a moment’s honest reading to see that Hopkins cannot, by any stretch available to common sense or literary judgment, be aligned with fascism or Nazism, for his entire argument depends on the premise that the Covid era represented, in miniature and in embryo, a repetition of the authoritarian temptations that disfigured the twentieth century. A man does not praise what he holds up as a warning sign; he does not revere the very phenomenon he uses as the yardstick of political decay.
Hopkins invokes the Third Reich not as a beacon but as a boundary, the outer edge of what a society must never again permit itself to become. And in doing so he places Nazism in the same conceptual space one reserves for toxic substances, useful only as a reference point for recognizing when the air has gone foul. To accuse him of sympathy with fascism is to miss the entire structure of his criticism, to mistake the smoke alarm for the fire. Hopkins is not flirting with Nazism; he is arguing that its ghost walks more easily in modern halls than we care to admit, and he is pleading for the vigilance necessary to keep that ghost from taking on flesh once more.
Germany no longer burns books in the literal sense. Instead, it restricts their distribution. It removes them from platforms. It harasses their authors. It treats political criticism as criminal offenses. The flames are gone, but the censorial principle survives. Indeed, you can no longer buy Hopkins’ book in German book stores, nor on Amazon in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands.
One does not have to agree with C. J. Hopkins to recognize what is at stake. Today, it is a satirical book cover. Tomorrow, it could be Shirer’s history book about the Third Reich (which is still freely available in Germany). The next day, a political cartoon. Once the state begins treating dissent as danger, and criticism as extremism, the slope quickly becomes very slippery and steep.
In this case, the German authorities have done something abominable in a state that still considers itself liberal and democratic. They have taken a critic of authoritarianism and responded to his critique with authoritarian methods. And that is precisely the problem Hopkins has been writing about all along.
C. J. Hopkins wrote about the house search on his Substack: https://cjhopkins.substack.
Hopkins’ lawyer gave Junge Freiheit an interview about the house search and the charges filed: https://jungefreiheit.de/
A note on an earlier, pending case
Hopkins’ has had dealings with the German state before. That first trouble began with two tweets he posted in August 2022, each accompanied by the same image of his book now at the center of this newest case: a medical mask over a still visible swastika. One tweet quoted Germany’s then health minister saying that masks “always send a signal,” and the other described masks as symbols of ideological conformity. The meaning was obvious: Hopkins was criticizing coercive government measures, not supporting Nazism.
But the Berlin prosecutor treated the image as “dissemination of Nazi symbols,” ignoring the context entirely and pursuing him as if he were a propagandist rather than a satirist. What should have been recognized instantly as a political warning was instead hauled into court as a criminal offense. This case of Hopkins’ tweets is currently pending in Germany’s constitutional court.
POST SCRIPTUM:
A raiva persecutória estende-se a Elon Musk e a «X» com uma avultada multa, dentro do mesmo espírito de reprimir, desencentivar, intimidar, para que as críticas sejam silenciadas. Porém, esta indiferença pelos valores (supostamente) defendidos nas democracias liberais, só mostra que - afinal - a adesão a tais princípios e valores é uma fachada, para os poderes. Apenas tolerados, na medida em que não incomodem.
Hoje CJ Hopkins, Elon Musk e muitos outros de que nem ouvimos falar, amanhã a mordaça para todos os que não estão ao diapasão do Novo Reich e da Comissão de Bruxelas, com a Führerin Úrsula... Eis, de novo, os fantasmas que se introduzem nas nações europeias, sem terem sido convidados. A cidadania tem de acordar e reagir. Isto já foi longe demais.
RELACIONADO:
ALEMANHA É OFICIALMENTE UM ESTADO DE VIGILÂNCIA GENERALIZADO
terça-feira, 9 de dezembro de 2025
COMO A MÉDIA MAINSTREAM SE CONVERTEU EM PROPAGANDA DOS ESTADOS
Patrik Baab: A Propaganda de Guerra Destruíu a Média & a Liberdade de Pensamento...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1l4c5fWn8M
Um artigo circunstanciado, em como as «elites» ocidentais e o jornalismo mainstream apagaram das notícias as referências à ideologia nazi e aos atos criminosos contra os russo-falantes ucranianos, após o golpe de Maidan em 2014:
«Ucrânia : as provas apagadas» por Manlio Dinucci
PS1: Na minha opinião, a crise do COVID foi pretexto para alcançar um novo patamar de censura e discriminação contra tudo o que não se conformasse com a ditadura globalista.
PS2:
Documentário Censurado Expõe Como o Governo dos EUA Difunde Propaganda Como Sendo «Jornalismo Independente», por The Dissident
quinta-feira, 15 de maio de 2025
PEDRO BAÑOS E CRISTINA JIMÉNEZ: «A TIRANIA DA MENTIRA»
[INÍCIO aos 2' 10'' no vídeo]
Transcrevo o texto de apresentação da memorável conversa, do vídeo acima «A Tirania Da Mentira»:
"Cristina Martín Jiménez crê firmemente que vivemos na época da desinformação, da mentira e do caos. Mas, que são os que nos governam, diretamente ou na sombra, os maiores mentirosos, os mesmos que nos impõem a ditadura da neocensura.
Cristina é escritora, conferencista e divulgadora. Além de doutorada em Ciências da Comunicação/Jornalismo. Tem sido considerada como uma das maiores especialistas mundiais sobre o Club Bilderberg.
Ela tem passado muitos anos desfazendo os fios com que é tecido o poder, exibindo à luz do dia os que verdadeiramente manipulam as nossas vidas, segundo os seus caprichos.
Para Cristina, é claro: quem controla a informação, controla o poder e molda a sociedade em seu proveito.
Hoje, como se fosse de pouca importância, os poderosos tratam de aniquilar o pensamento crítico das sociedades. Para estas élites, a liberdade de expressão é vista como ameaça. Desta forma, controlam com descaramento os meios de comunicação, incluindo as redes sociais.
São perseguidos os que não pensam como os governantes, os quaistentam submeter o nosso intelecto e a nossa vontade por por todos os meios. Vale tudo, para nos roubar em nome da Agenda 2030, da OTAN e da UE, com a cumplicidade de «jornalistas», segundo afirma Cristina. Enquanto lutadora pela verdade e pela liberdade, é objeto de censura permanente nas redes.
Neste vídeo, ela fala-nos de todos estes temas e de muitos outros, como os planos do Club de Bilderberg para Espanha, ou quem são realmente os donos do mundo.
Está na hora de despertar e de recuperar a nossa liberdade."
Comentário de Manuel Banet:
A retórica dos governos ocidentais atuais afirma que eles seriam sempre os mais zelosos guardiães da nossa liberdade, da sociedade baseada em valores democráticos, etc. Porém, o que todos nós vemos é o inverso. Temos uma sociedade que despreza o indivíduo, despreza a sua necessidade mais elementar de privacidade, nos obriga todos a adoptar um padrão de comportamento arbitrário e mesmo prejudicial: São estes os casos das máscaras «anti-COVID» e da vacinação «anti-COVID», que já terá causado maior dano (mortes ou incapacidades graves) do que o causado pelo próprio vírus.
Outro exemplo chocante, é a retórica «de democracia» dos referidos governos, quando apoiam um regime autoritário, um governo recheado de elementos claramente fascistas, que consideram «heróis» os assassinos de populações indefesas, às dezendas de milhares, durante a IIªGuerra Mundial, em colaboração com as SS alemãs.
Mas as contradições não se ficam por aqui; todos sabemos a enorme quantidade de criminalidade de «colarinho branco» que existe, na qual elementos dos governos estão diretamente implicados.
O desprezo pela vontade popular ao longo destes últimos 30 anos, foi desencadear o crescimento da rejeição da UE e do globalismo, pelo eleitorado. Rejeição, já não marginal, mas claramente maioritária, se juntarmos as votações nesse sentido, do lado direito do espectro político, com as o lado esquerdo. Já em 2005, isto aconteceu à escala de duas nações da UE, na França e na Holanda, com a rejeição em referendo da «Constituição Europeia».
Agora, o 2º maior partido nas eleições alemãs é a nacionalista e conservadora AfD ameaçada, pelos poderes instalados, de ilegalização. Marine Le Pen, candidata à presidência em França (ficou em 2º lugar nas últimas presidenciais), foi condenada com uma sentença extremamente severa, que a proíbe de se apresentar às próximas presidenciais.
Os manifestantes que clamam pelo fim do genocídio em Gaza e na Palestina, são tratados brutalmente pelas polícias.
Há muitos militantes e jornalistas perseguidos judicialmente e até presos pelas suas opiniões, mesmo quando estas são postadas em redes sociais. Os tribunais não apenas anulam a liberdade de opinião e de palavra de alguns, mas de todos e em todas as circunstâncias. Com efeito, as sentenças arbitrárias e contradizendo as constituições e a jurisprudência, vêm «legitimar» tal repressão.
A máscara de «defensores dos direitos humanos» das oligarquias caíu completamente, ficando a descoberto a face horrível da tirania, do poder sem freio, do fascismo.
Só alguns jornalistas (muitos dos quais têm sido referidos aqui, neste blog), mantêm a postura de independência e de não compromisso.
Globalmente, a comunicação social, o chamado «IVº Poder», deixou de ser um contra-poder - como era visto nos anos 60 e 70 do século passado, nas sociedades ocidentais - para se transformar num «exército de escribas e censores» ao serviço do poder político e económico.
sexta-feira, 25 de abril de 2025
CRÓNICA DA IIIª GUERRA MUNDIAL, Nº 43: A GUERRA DE NARRATIVAS
A GUERRA DE NARRATIVAS É A MAIS MORTÍFERA... Porque ajuda a manter e prolongar a guerra militar e seus morticínios.
No que respeita às guerras acesas entre ucranianos e russos, ou entre palestinianos e israelitas, a propaganda ou narrativa, de ambos os lados, tornou-se o fator que predomina sobre a realidade do terreno.
A forma totalmente distorcida das notícias relativas a estes conflitos na media mainstream desempenha um papel de relevo, mas a iniciativa não vem dos jornalistas, «proletários ou prostitutos da pena e da palavra»: Estes recebem as ordens dos poderes. O controlo da narrativa vem das oligarquias, de pseudo-elites que controlam o poder, qualquer que seja o campo. No século XXI, quem controla a narrativa, consegue manter-se no poder; a narrativa -portanto - torna-se o veículo principal para manutenção no poder.
Já Machiavel tinha antecipado esta viragem, quando enunciou no famoso tratado «O Príncipe», que o detentor do poder deveria - de preferência - seduzir os súbditos, adormecê-los com histórias que os confortassem nos seus anseios e esperanças, porque - dizia Machiavel - é muito mais fácil governá-los pelo engano - hoje diríamos pela propaganda - do que pela força bruta, pela repressão.
Não quero, com isto, dizer que a repressão esteja ausente nos dias de hoje. Pelo contrário, numa tradução prática dos ensinamentos de Machiavel, os poderes têm-se dedicado seletivamente a ostracizar, reprimir, deportar ou prender as vozes dissidentes, quando estas desmascaram as narrativas do poder e revelam as facetas mais cruéis e obscuras desse mesmo poder. Para todos os dissidentes a tarefa de levar o esclarecimento às massas tornou-se mais difícil pois enfrentam, além da hostilidade dos poderes, a difamação da média e a indiferença do público.
Esta indeferença é fabricada, ao longo do tempo, através da supressão selectiva das narrativas contraditórias e, sobretudo, pela afirmação obsessiva da narrativa oficial, pelo que resulta daí o condicionamento total das massas.
O nosso Mundo evolui em deriva acelerada para regimes totalitários. Este fenómeno tem maior expressão nos países que não eram classificados como totalitários, as chamadas «democracias liberais» ou o «campo ocidental».
Hoje, ainda existe alguma expressão de dissidência nesses regimes, mas ela é - cada vez mais - uma expressão da "oposição controlada".
Com efeito, o facto de ser possível e mesmo provável que a manifestação de dissidência tenha consequências na vida das pessoas, desencadeia um reflexo de medo. Por exemplo, a pessoa dissidente pode perder o emprego, pode ser ostracizada, como certas figuras públicas sujeitas a «black-out»: O facto de já não serem entrevistadas ou citadas na media mainstream; ou quando seus artigos ou livros deixam de ser publicados ou encontram muita dificuldade em sê-lo. Este ambiente hostil vai inibir muitas pessoas de exprimir sinceramente e sem auto-censura, aquilo que pensam.
O poder «neo-feudal», ou como queiram chamá-lo, está mais dependente da conquista da opinião pública, que da conquista de território inimigo, ou da derrota militar dos adversários.
Aliás, a quantidade de destruição, mortes, feridos e deslocados numa guerra é secundária para os senhores do poder e da guerra. Ao contrário dos senhores da guerra típicos das eras feudais, os atuais 'chefes' comandam os exércitos a partir de seus palácios do Governo. Eles obrigam estes exércitos a fazer mil e uma manobras absurdas, suicidárias, ou vãs. São frequentes tais ordens, que não se destinam, sequer, a atingir um objetivo genuinamente militar. Pois os senhores da guerra contemporâneos estão preocupados, sobretudo, em mostrar que são os «bons», que pertencem ao «campo do bem». Portanto, o que realmente procuram não é a vitória no terreno militar (ao contrário, aliás, dos senhores da guerra nos séculos passados); interessa-lhes - sobretudo - alimentar a narrativa do poder, dos bons contra os maus. É assim que se mantêm no poder. Se morrerem milhões, assim seja: Os poderosos garantiram para eles próprios e para suas famílias, que não irão padecer de nenhum daqueles males. Os danos patrimoniais também não os sofrerão, pois asseguraram uma «confortável reforma» com suas contas na Súiça ou noutros paraísos fiscais e um «exílio dourado» em vivendas de luxo em locais seletos (Miami, Riviera, Côte d'Azur, etc). Quanto mais uma guerra durar, mais estes «senhores da guerra» enriquecem.
Eu poderia dar muitos exemplos concretos do quadro que descrevo acima. Mas, penso que os meus leitores têm vontade e meios para pesquisar na Internet, os factos, os indícios e as realidades que contrariam os discursos dos poderes.
Sejam quais forem as simpatias ou antipatias dos leitores, parece-me que devem ter a máxima simpatia por eles próprios e não se deixarem enganar, seja por quem for. Infelizmente, nesta sociedade atual, o comportamento de autonomia e de independência, não é valorizado e até chega a ser incompreendido, por uma parte da cidadania.
Para defesa dos valores humanos fundamentais, torna-se imperioso denunciar a verdadeira causa das guerras de hoje: Elas resultam do poder exercido de um modo totalitário - seja abertamente, ou de modo camuflado - pelos «nossos» governantes. Claro que seus crimes e cobardias não surgem do vazio, ou de mentes intrinsecamente perversas e malévolas: Os dirigentes estão rodeados por uma corte de bajualdores e de conselheiros, que os manipulam. Mas - obviamente - neste caso, tanto manipuladores como manipulados estão na barca do poder.
A necessidade imperiosa de salvar da morte muitos milhares de inocentes, ou destes ficarem estropiados para sempre na guerra e suas famílias ficarem destruídas, obriga-nos a repudiar a forma suja como os poderosos usam e abusam criminosamente das alavancas do governo para iniciar, continuar e prolongar a guerra. Infelizmente, não existe Tribunal da Haia, de Nuremberga ou doutra juridisção, capaz de os prender e julgar. Os muito poderosos, hoje, têm muitas probabilidades de ficar impunes pelos crimes hediondos de são os responsáveis máximos.
O que nós precisamos não é do regresso ao tempo «em que a cabeça do monarca derrubado por uma insurreição, era exibida na ponta de uma lança». Mas, o regresso à visão universalmente partilhada do Direito Internacional e da jurisprudência que decorre da sua aplicação, durante os 80 anos após o fim da IIª Guerra Mundial.
A 25 de Abril de 2025 (*)
-------------
(*) No dia 25 de Abril de 1976 foi aprovada a Constituição democrática de Portugal, dois anos depois da revolução não-sangrenta do 25 de Abril de 74. Depois, esta revolução foi desvirtuada por muitos, mas tal não impedíu o facto de ter sido viabilizada tal transformação política.
Subscrever:
Comentários (Atom)