by Hugo Dionísio, Strategic Culture:
The European Union shows all the symptoms of a structure in deep crisis. Like other organizations in the past, the more it tries to convey an image of internal cohesion, the greater the fissures it creates, based on the increasingly rigid demand for compliance with the rules that this appearance of cohesion requires.
In order to assert its political power, Brussels is presented as a power that is as distant as it is unattainable, so superior that everything it has is unquestionable. Placing itself on such a pedestal, Brussels arrogates to itself a presumed wisdom and omniscience, relying on a very well-constructed communication process, based on the idea of a power above all others, above the elected powers, above the “people’s governments”: “The EU said that…”; “the EU says you can’t…”; “the government asked the EU to…”; “the EU warned that…”; “the government was forced by the EU to…”. One gets all this, without question, criticism or reflection. A sort of European extension of the “one indispensable nation” theory.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
If, until a certain point, we were faced with a power that was self-imposed, self-sufficient, whose unattainability was enough to discourage any contradictory idea, given the monumentality of the task that consisted of facing not one government, but “the government of all governments”; today, Brussels is no longer content with this ontological superiority and demands an unequivocal proof of loyalty.
This means that adhering or not to the “narrative” presented by the European bureaucracy has long since ceased to be a voluntary act. Loyalty is now demonstrated by the vigor and rigor with which the EU’s ideology is internalized — in my opinion, it is more like an idolatry. There was a moment that acted as a signal for the activation of mechanisms to conform opinions to the “narrative” emanating from the Union. That moment was 25/02/2022. Even with Covid, although there was already an iron grip on the circulation of information that questioned the vaccines, methods and policies being developed, in Europe we have not seen the current use of direct coercive means to silence, condition or hold accountable those who did not adhere to the “narrative”.
But in the last two years, just like in past and more inquisitorial times, proof of loyalty has been demanded, in the form of adherence to a discourse, a narrative, an idolatry. And the very truth is that powers of this kind, throughout history, have always chosen the “disinformation” and “propaganda” of their enemies as the original seed of conditioning!
It was therefore at the sound of the thunder of war that we began to see the arrival of the EU’s “state of war” and the need to prove loyalty. They didn’t report it, question it or analyze it. As with everything that characterizes European power these days, we only see the facts, their inexorable existence. The discourse, on the other hand, continues to be as luminous as ever, or perhaps even more so.
We know this, for example, when we use a generative text Artificial Intelligence tool and ask it about “journalists persecuted in the European Union as part of the conflict in Ukraine”. The answer is invariably the same: “brave journalists that are persecuted” you find them only in Russia, my friends. However, when we ask about the names of journalists like Alina Lipp, Graham Phillips or Pablo Gonzalez, we discover that, in fact, there are journalists: accused of espionage and preventively detained (Pablo Gonzalez in Poland for more than a year and a half); accused and subjected to a prison sentence of up to 3 years for the opinion crime of “supporting the Russian invasion” (Alina Lipp from Germany); and, accused of acts of propaganda and “glorification” of “Russian invasion and its atrocities” (Graham Philips from the UK), coming to the point of being accused, by some politicians, of having “committed war crimes”, just because having interviewed Aiden Aslin, a British mercenary imprisoned in Mariupol and therefore targeted with his name inclusion on a personal sanctions list, that prevents him from re-entering his country of origin.
These were some of the first cases — never admitted — of not providing proof of loyalty. As if to set an example, a handful of journalists have experienced the weight with which Ursula von der Leyen’s hand treats disloyalty to her narrative. Even when she talks about washing machine chips that equip missiles and economies in pieces that are actually growing more than the EU’s, you need to fulfill the loyalty requirement.
Read More @ Strategic-Culture.org
