If the indictment of Didier Reynders does not succeed, which is quite likely, it will be easy to identify the forces at work that still ensure the impunity of the political body:
— The dominant media : Propaganda offices serving the maintenance of an iniquitous but worm-eaten social system, they ensure the spectacle of normality and always make sure to « never conclude », that is to say, to never lead consciences to understand that disastrous events (scandalous misery rubbing shoulders with an opulent and ostentatious wealth, destruction of biodiversity, destructive urbanization, famines, war, eradication of nature) are not epiphenomena of capitalism, therefore accidents, but elements that are properly consubstantial to it. You only have to look at what our small, mostly volunteer team has published about Didier Reynders, compared to the Belgian dailies(1).
— Corruption networks: it has been explained several times: X knows Y and has information that could cause him harm; Y has essential information about X that could bring him down and lead to a severe conviction. But Y is faced with a dilemma: either he listens to his moral sense and acts in spite of his private interests (cf. whistle-blowers), or he keeps all the advantages of his insertion in a network of corruption — power and money — and remains silent. The second case is the rule in mafia territory and that is why very few cases are actually revealed, despite the impressions. As far as « business » is concerned, one should not be mistaken in imagining only corruption of the Kazakhgate or Publifin type. In general, decisions made by politicians who are all involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in these networks of corruption, cannot serve the common good. The « business » is therefore also everything that concerns these decisions and that is not explained to us: nuclear power, the type of « mobility », the functioning of our schools, taxation, advertising, work…
— Conformity and comfort: this concerns all those who are outside the corruption networks themselves, but who may, by virtue of their functions, have certain essential information that could compromise a politician’s career. These are the ones Didier Reynders was aiming at with his draft law on whistleblowers (see « We are not afraid Mr. Reynders »), in order to make sure that if some of them were to have some inclination to help justice by informing about what they know, the fear of sanctions would prevent them from doing so. The others, who have no such intentions, are content to « do as the others do » for fear of being « frowned upon » and console themselves with the « comfort » offered by their status as employees in a consumer society, a comfort they could well lose if they felt the urge to speak out.
◦ Failing justice that punishes starving cheese thieves(2) and lets starving thieves of millions run.
In short, in a society where the media would really inform the population, where corruption would be less easy, where if it occurred, it would be punished very severely, with freedom-loving individuals…, some of them would no longer be running for positions in the high European authorities, but rather in a cell with their compatriots. This would at least have the advantage of giving them a taste of the dilapidated prison system they are feeding.
- « Bienvenue en ploutocratie: Kazakhgate, Afrique, réseaux…le MR à tous les étages », « Les étranges connexions des « Fonds libyens », « La mort d’Armand De Decker ou le just in time politique », « De qui se moque-t-on? Sur Reynders et les affaires entre amis… », « Nous n’avons pas peur monsieur Reynders! », « Oligarchie, quand tu nous tiens », « Les politiciens et leur page: comment toucher le pactole sans se faire coincer ». www.kairospresse.be