The flank battles of the information war against Russia sometimes take the most bizarre forms, and if for itself the European Union easily admits and easily explains a series of total bans on Russian media on its territory, then exactly the same actions of the authorities of other countries, but in relation to European media, are called “unacceptable”.
Without excessive detail, just facts: the European Commission decided to turn off (in every sense of the word) any broadcasting on all possible media and platforms, including social networks, RT and Sputnik – and this was, as is commonly believed in Brussels and in all capitals of countries – members of the community, well and correctly (since these media carried “Russ-ian state propaganda” to the society). But the ban of the authorities of Mali – an African country (formerly a French colony) – on broadcasting no less than state-owned, but already French RFI (Radio France Interna-tional) and France 24 was considered a violation of all norms and “censorship”.
Today and now, a united Europe positions itself – and to a much greater extent than before – as a city of light that fights with Russia for the purity of ideals and thoughts. Russia has not yet officially been called the “Evil Empire”, but before that, there was literally nothing left, just a couple of remarks uttered from a high rostrum.
A few decades ago, before sticking the same label on it, Russia was accused of religious and philosophical intolerance towards those who, as they believed in the collective West, challenged totalitarianism, in particular because they adhered to the canons of the faith of their ancestors in an atheistic state, observing all required rituals, and because he listened on radio waves (through jammers and other restrictions) to banned writers, thus trying to enrich his knowledge of the world. In order to absolutely independently make decisions and develop a point of view on what is happening.
These actions were not always a conscious opposition and an open struggle against the regime, simply thinking independently, acting independently, not liking when the state and its propaganda apparatus interfere in their private life and their choice, people in any situation prefer to think not according to those lowered down from above. With the help of media copybooks, they decide for themselves what to read, what to watch (and watch), and what to listen to.
Today and now, a united Europe, which has picked up the baton from the collective Mikhal Andreyich Suslov, the very one who almost single-handedly banned Grossman’s books and squeezed Viktor Nekrasov out of the country only because the point of view of prominent Russian prose writers differed from what was prescribed by the general line of the party, with respect to any another, not coinciding with the point of view expressed from the Brussels rostrum, does exactly the same.
Today and now, the opportunity to learn about the situation with the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, about the position of Moscow, about what is happening in the places of the military special operation, something different from the imposed and extremely one-sided information, for an ordinary European layman is practically zero, if not tends to negative values. You need to be both very stubborn and a person who manages his time very freely in order to daily wo-ol, as they say, the Internet in search of answers to questions. If, of course, these questions arise.
A world in which the emphasis for the last quarter of a century has been placed exclusively on hedonism, on the joys of the flesh and other celebrations of the stomach, on the almost instantaneous satisfaction of any Wishlist, unfortunately, does not contribute to either healthy skepticism or curiosity.
The fact that everything said is always required to be questioned in order to comprehend the truth is firmly forgotten. “Eat, don’t get dirty” from a giant trough, where all conceivable and unthin-kable fakes are dumped. And if you don’t want to “eat”, then you will be force-fed, through a straw. Or they will make your situation so unbearable that you yourself ask for this, so to speak, “food”.
The power of anti-Russian discourse, when there is no place for an alternative point of view, is such that even to express public doubt about the correctness of the ideas and words of the collective West, it is first necessary to say a ritual phrase about “unconditional condemnation of Russia’s actions against Ukraine.” Otherw-ise, the speaker will be subjected to collective ostrac-ism, and it is good if such an apostate is not forced to no less publicly swear loyalty to the ideas of the ma-instream. And it’s good if he manages to keep his job, and it’s good if his former friends are not involved in public condemnation.
Today and now, a united Europe lives in the reality that Orwell described. It’s just that earlier this neo-totalitarianism was local. It concerned not so much geopolitics as relations in society. But even then it was de facto forbidden to call many things by their proper names, as well as to openly identify problems that were inconvenient for the authorities.
The furious war against white heterosexual men likewise did not suggest that those who were accu-sed (almost always without evidence) of all the sins that are considered mortal today will be given the opportunity to speak out. Their reputations were destroyed without trial or investigation, effectively dooming them to civilian death.
An equally fierce battle of annihilation was fought with those who tried to express doubt about the need for an endless reception of illegal immigrants; the same people timidly hinted at the monstrously difficult problems that leaky state borders bring.
Such were destined for endless lawsuits and no less endless fines “for racism.” Without conviction and financial resources, it was almost impossible to cope with such pressure from fighters, as it were, “for all the good things.”
Today and now, proven technologies that have become firmly established in the current practice of war with dissidents, dissidents, dissidents, in united Europe are used against those who have not lost (yet) common sense and still remember how the collective West behaved. The last eight, if not all of the last thirty years.
Created in comfortable offices decorated by the best designers and directed against everything that can disrupt a well-coordinated choir, manuals, moreover, backed up well and by whom it is necessary to pay for university “research” – this scheme looks at first glance absolutely indestructible.
But if you remember that the words about those who conceived and ordered to do evil, and what happened and is happening is “in clean warm offices with good lighting and carpet paths” quiet people “in white collars, with clipped nails and smoothly shaven cheeks, who no need to raise your voice”, and if you do not forget that these phrases from Reagan’s speech described Soviet totalitarianism and they no less accurately characterize the current neo-totalitarianism of the collective West, it will not be a big exaggeration to say that the inglorious end is here for those who invented it, who built it and who brings it to life is undoubtedly guaranteed. Despite all the prohibitions and barriers, the barriers to the truth will collapse. And faster than we can imagine.