Julian Assange
571 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
571 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
The same people who are always boasting about the freedom of the press and their openness, compared to « bad guys » like Putin, are more silent when it comes to creating debate, and therefore to hearing contradictory points of view that they do not like. If they display a fight, it is the one that will allow them indirectly to criticize « the dictatorship » and in mirror to present themselves as good: Olivier Vandecasteele on the pediment of the communal houses, but not Julian Assange(1).
The same process takes place when the mainstream media refuses Anne Morelli’s carte blanche(2), and anyone who does not understand the significance of this refusal shows a lack of understanding, whether naive or voluntary, of the function of the media of power. A function that the latter will obviously never recognize. Thus, when Vladimir Putin, in his speech, explains: » We have done everything possible, really everything possible to resolve this problem by peaceful means, we have patiently negotiated a peaceful solution to this serious conflict « s chief editorial writer, the Evening pretends not to understand, and writes in an editorial that perfectly illustrates the arrogance of the West: » For a year now, this man has held the fate of Ukraine and the fate of world peace in his hands, regularly raising fears of a third world war, the possibility of which he has put back on the agenda « .
Béatrice Delvaux forgets the recent words of Merkel admitting that the Minsk agreements were only a dilatory measure allowing the Kiev government, supported by NATO, to better prepare for war. Amnesia also on the oral promises made at the time by the United States to Gorbachev not to extend the borders of NATO. More recently, blindness to the conclusions of one of the most illustrious American journalists, Seymour Hersch, as to the evidence of US responsibility for the attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines — a notorious act of war.(3).
Is it any wonder then that Anne Morelli’s article does not please her and the daily La Libre, when the historian, author of Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre has the courage(4) to say: » The public must be persuaded that we are in self-defense and that the « other » started it. It was his expansionist aims that dictated his attack. It is therefore obviously Russia that is presented as solely responsible for the war in Ukraine. Yet Machiavelli (1469–1527) had already warned that the one who draws his sword first should not necessarily be considered responsible for the conflict. He may indeed have been put in such a situation that there is no other option for him than to enter into open war. The West thus speaks of Russia « attacking » Ukraine in February 2022, without taking into account the fact that NATO’s advance towards the East is, from the Russian point of view, a concrete threat against its territory to which — cornered — it must eventually « respond ». »
Selective indignation. They are blind to the crimes committed by those they defend, worse than 6 year olds playing soccer or adults… in a playground who denounce the foul when it is committed by a player of the opposing team, but are indignant when it is committed by one of their own and sanctioned. If they can’t keep quiet, they process the information in a partial way according to its ideological proximity. Thus, the official media rely on Amnesty’s reports when Russia is accused of committing « war crimes », but above all they refer to the criticisms that the NGO faces(5) when it dares to denounce the actions of the Ukrainian army(6).
The « despicable » editorial of Beatrice Delvaux, rather than invalidating the remarks made during the Russian presidential speech, only supports them. Thus, if Europe likes the nice dogs who obey the diktats of the Commission, even if it means destroying their people like Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s, it does not support those who make their independence a supreme value: » This man, we did not see him coming (sic) in the years following the end of the Soviet Union. We
we even thought we could domesticate and « neutralize »(7) by multiplying the economic links « … that is, imposing the Washington consensus on the country: privatization, liberalization, deregulation, opening the borders to foreign capital… the usual Euro-Atlantic recipe that colonizes, domesticates, places and formalizes the tyrants who serve it. As Alexander Dugin says, » liberal modernity is deeply hegemonic, racist, supremacist, colonial. It considers its values as universal values applicable to all humanity. Today the liberals behave in a totalitarian way by wanting to impose their LGBT+ and gender norms, marriage for all, wokism, ultracapitalism as the only possible values. I accuse this liberalism of being a new fascism by wanting to impose its own norms on the whole of humanity at all costs (…) Moreover, liberals call all those who do not agree with them « fascists », which is contradictory to the very principle of liberalism « (8).
If the editorialist evokes « Putin and his henchmen », she does not fail to quote one of her mentors, Charles Michel, President of the Council: » There is only one aggressor, and that is the Kremlin. There is a victim: it is the Ukrainians first, and it is the endangerment of international law and democratic values second. « Perhaps Le Soir has taken its information directly from the source, when we know that one of its former journalists, Jurek Kuczkiewicz, has become, after 18 years of loyal service to the daily’s editorial staff, « Strategic communication advisor » to the new president, Charles Michel(9). To whom do journalists render good and loyal service? Isn’t that right? Perhaps Kuczkiewicz’s enthusiasm upon learning of his appointment speaks for itself: » For his part, Jurek Kuczkiewicz said he was honored to have been invited to join Charles Michel and his team to serve, in another place, the European ideals « (10).
To serve and protect the European and therefore American ideals — this could be the motto of the journalistic caste, with the editorial offices serving as a folding seat to join the political services. It was thus obvious that Anne Morelli’s article(11), could not in this period of artificial unanimity come to disturb the party of the-good-war-to-save-our-brothers-Ukrainians, 3rd latent world war that some, in their hushed living rooms or their office far from the bullets, would like to see « solved » by a victory of Ukraine(12). « Impossible dream », that the same people will continue to comment on, to desire, therefore to make happen, far from the splashes of blood spilt and torn flesh, of their war for which others pay the price.
Alexandre Penasse
