Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta perseguição política. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta perseguição política. Mostrar todas as mensagens

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:

‘We are back in the Middle Ages’: How the EU literally starves dissenting experts











   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.


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.

quarta-feira, 4 de junho de 2025

U.E DESTRÓI A DEMOCRACIA POR DENTRO


 Ulrike Guérot, dá uma série de exemplos concretos, que nos indicam que a democracia e os direitos civis estão em grave risco na Alemanha e na U.E. 
São sintomas de que a oligarquia e seus agentes políticos nos governos estão numa «onda» autoritária. Esta situação é análoga à que nos trouxe as ditaduras, no século XX.

sexta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2024

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS DIZ A REALIDADE DO QUE SE PASSA COM OS EUA

E A INCAPACIDADE DOS RUSSOS LHES FAZEREM FRENTE, APESAR DE TEREM OS MEIOS.



Paul Craig Roberts (PCR) has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.

President Reagan appointed Dr. Roberts Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and he was confirmed in office by the U.S. Senate. From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy. After leaving the Treasury, he served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Dr. Roberts has held academic appointments at Virginia Tech, Tulane University, University of New Mexico, Stanford University where he was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution, George Mason University where he had a joint appointment as professor of economics and professor of business administration, and Georgetown University where he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Cardoza Law Review, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance.

He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Policy Review, National Review, The Independent Review, Harper’s, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, The International Economy, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.

quinta-feira, 25 de janeiro de 2024

DECLARAÇÃO DE CJ HOPKINS AO TRIBUNAL DE BERLIM (23 de Janeiro de 2023)

Esta declaração é - na verdade - um rol de acusação daquilo em que se transformou a «justiça» na Alemanha e por extensão em todos os países europeus cujos governos (e status quo) se dedicaram a perseguir, excluir, censurar e difamar as pessoas que legitimamente contestavam as medidas ditas de «contenção» do COVID. Sabemos pelos factos que estas últimas tinham plena razão; que as «medidas de contenção» tinham apenas um fim: a sujeição da cidadania. Um traço típico de poderes totalitários. 



É absolutamente claro, qual foi e é a intenção do autor, nunca havendo o mínimo traço de «propaganda pró-nazi». O facto dessa acusação ter sido formulada e admitida em tribunal e do próprio julgamento ter tido lugar (mesmo que tenha havido absolvição) equivale - antes de mais - a perseguição e difamação, pelo próprio aparelho de «justiça», nesse país. É grave, na medida em que o poder do Estado (poder judicial, neste caso) usou a lei de forma totalmente distorcida e isenta de qualquer fundamento razoável, para perseguir um autor com uma visão crítica, dissidente. 

Goste-se ou não, concorde-se ou não, CJ Hopkins tem direito a exprimir a sua opinião por todos os meios, sendo que todo o atentado à sua integridade e aos direitos básicos de autor são índice seguro de que novo tipo de totalitarismo se está a instalar e domina  em certo número de consciências, incluindo nas de autoridades que deveriam zelar pelo cumprimento da legalidade democrática. 

Um caso em que o aparelho judicial alemão é humilhado pela sua própria conduta, enquanto o réu CJ Hopkins fica claramente em posição de vencedor. Seria justo que o Estado de Berlim fosse processado e tivesse que pagar indemnização pelos danos materiais e morais causados. 

Abaixo, a declaração de CJ Hopkins ao tribunal:

Berlin District Court, January 23, 2024

My name is CJ Hopkins. I am an American playwright, author, and political satirist. My plays have been produced and received critical acclaim internationally. My political satire and commentary is read by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. 20 years ago, I left my own country because of the fascistic atmosphere that had taken hold of the USA at that time, the time of the US invasion of Iraq, a war of aggression based on my government's lies. I emigrated to Germany and made a new life here in Berlin, because I believed that Germany, given its history, would be the last place on earth to ever have anything to do with any form of totalitarianism again.

The gods have a strange sense of humor. This past week, thousands of people have been out in the streets all over Germany protesting against fascism, chanting "never again is now." Many of these people spent the past three years, 2020 to 2023, unquestioningly obeying orders, parroting official propaganda, and demonizing anyone who dared to question the government's unconstitutional and authoritarian actions during the so-called Covid pandemic. Many of these same people, those who support Palestinian rights, are now shocked that the new form of totalitarianism they helped usher into existence is being turned against them.

And here I am, in criminal court in Berlin, accused of disseminating pro-Nazi propaganda in two Tweets about mask mandates. The German authorities have had my speech censored on the Internet, and have damaged my reputation and income as an author. One of my books has been banned by Amazon in Germany. All this because I criticized the German authorities, because I mocked one of their decrees, because I pointed out one of their lies.

This turn of events would be absurdly comical if it were not so infuriating. I cannot adequately express how insulting it is to be forced to sit here and affirm my opposition to fascism. For over thirty years, I have written and spoken out against fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism etc. Anyone can do an Internet search, find my books, read the reviews of my plays, read my essays, and discover who I am and what my political views are in two or three minutes. And yet I am accused by the German authorities of disseminating pro-Nazi propaganda. I am accused of doing this because I posted two Tweets challenging the official Covid narrative and comparing the new, nascent form of totalitarianism that it has brought into being -- i.e., the so-called "New Normal" -- to Nazi Germany.

Let me be very clear. In those two Tweets, and in my essays throughout 2020 to 2022, and in my current essays, I have indeed compared the rise of this new form of totalitarianism to the rise of the best-known 20th-Century form of totalitarianism, i.e., Nazi Germany. I have made this comparison, and analyzed the similarities and differences between these two forms of totalitarianism, over and over again. And I will continue to do so. I will continue to analyze and attempt to explain this new, emerging form of totalitarianism, and to oppose it, and warn my readers about it.

The two Tweets at issue here feature a swastika covered by one of the medical masks that everyone was forced to wear in public during 2020 to 2022. That is the cover art of my book. The message conveyed by this artwork is clear. In Nazi Germany, the swastika was the symbol of conformity to the official ideology. During 2020 to 2022, the masks functioned as the symbol of conformity to a new official ideology. That was their purpose. Their purpose was to enforce people's compliance with government decrees and conformity to the official Covid-pandemic narrative, most of which has now been proven to have been propaganda and lies.

Mask mandates do not work against airborne viruses. This had been understood and acknowledged by medical experts for decades prior to the Spring of 2020. It has now been proven to everyone and acknowledged by medical experts again. The science of mask mandates did not suddenly change in March of 2020. The official narrative changed. The official ideology changed. The official "reality" changed. Karl Lauterbach was absolutely correct when he said, "The masks always send out a signal." They signal they sent out from 2020 to 2022 was, "I conform. I do not ask questions. I obey orders."

That is not how democratic societies function. That is how totalitarian systems function.

Not every form of totalitarianism is the same, but they share common hallmarks. Forcing people to display symbols of conformity to official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Declaring a "state of emergency" and revoking constitutional rights for no justifiable reason is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Banning protests against government decrees is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Inundating the public with lies and propaganda designed to terrify people into mindless obedience is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Segregating societies is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Censoring dissent is a hallmark of totalitarianism. Stripping people of their jobs because they refuse to conform to official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Fomenting mass hatred of a "scapegoat" class of people is a hallmark of totalitarianism. Demonizing critics of the official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Instrumentalizing the law to punish dissidents and make examples of critics of the authorities is a hallmark of totalitarianism.

I have documented the emergence of all of these hallmarks of totalitarianism in societies throughout the West — including but not limited to Germany — since March of 2020. I will continue to do so. I will continue to warn readers about this new, emerging form of totalitarianism and attempt to understand it, and oppose it. I will compare this new form of totalitarianism to earlier forms of totalitarianism, and specifically to Nazi Germany, whenever it is appropriate and contributes to our understanding of current events. That is my job as a political satirist and commentator, and as an author, and my responsibility as a human being.

The German authorities can punish me for doing that. You have the power to do that. You can make an example of me. You can fine me. You can imprison me. You can ban my books. You can censor my content on the Internet, which you have done. You can defame me, and damage my income and reputation as an author, as you have done. You can demonize me as a "conspiracy theorist," as an "anti-vaxxer," a "Covid denier," an "idiot," and an "extremist," which you have done. You can haul me into criminal court and make me sit here, in Germany, in front of my wife, who is Jewish, and deny that I am an anti-Semite who wants to relativize the Holocaust. You have the power to do all these things.

However, I hope that you will at least have the integrity to call this what it is, and not hide behind false accusations that I am somehow supporting the Nazis by comparing the rise of a new form of totalitarianism to the rise of an earlier totalitarian system, one that took hold of and ultimately destroyed this country in the 20th Century, and murdered millions in the process, because too few Germans had the courage to stand up and oppose it when it first began. I hope that you will at least have the integrity to not pretend that you actually believe I am disseminating pro-Nazi propaganda, when you know very well that is not what I am doing.

No one with any integrity believes that is what I am doing. No one with any integrity believes that is what my Tweets in 2022 were doing. Every journalist that has covered my case, everyone in this courtroom, understands what this prosecution is actually about. It has nothing to do with punishing people who actually disseminate pro-Nazi propaganda. It is about punishing dissent, and making an example of dissidents in order to intimidate others into silence.

That is not how democratic nations function. That is how totalitarian systems function.

What I hope even more is that this court will put an end to this prosecution, and apply the law fairly, and not allow it to be used as a pretext to punish people like me who criticize government dictates, people who expose the lies of government officials, people who refuse to deny facts, who refuse to perform absurd rituals of obedience on command, who refuse to unquestioningly follow orders.

Because the issue here is much larger and much more important than my little "Tweet" case.

We are, once again, at a crossroads. Not just here in Germany, but throughout the West. People went a little crazy, a little fascist, during the so-called Covid pandemic. And now, here we are. There are two roads ahead. We have to choose ... you, me, all of us. One road leads back to the rule of law, to democratic principles. The other road leads to authoritarianism, to societies where authorities rule by decree, and force, and twist the law into anything they want, and dictate what is and isn't reality, and abuse their power to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

That is the road to totalitarianism. We have been down that road before. Please, let's not do it again.


N.B. A German version of the statement is available in Aya Velázquez’s article and on Bastian Barucker’s blog.

---------------------------

PS (21/03/2024): O caso não foi encerrado. O procurador do tribunal de Berlim decidiu recorrer da sentença. É - simultaneamente - uma história absurda e angustiante, pelo facto dos supostos guardiães da legalidade e direitos civis, estarem a usar os tribunais para perseguição política. Mas, isto passa-se em todo o «Ocidente». Leia o artigo e entrevista a CJ Hopkins, de autoria de Matt Taibbi:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/its-not-about-trump-american-cj-hopkins-charged-again-germany-describes-global-censorship