Yesterday the EU passed a resolution on a minority vote (yes – more people abstained than voted a pass!) to start counter propaganda programs against the news organisation Russia Today (RT)
So a legitimate news organisation (state sponsored in the same way as the BBC) that reports the same news but covers alternative points of view and a broader perspective than other mainstream outlets is now a propaganda machine?
1.information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
In this post truth world, I guess one would have to define more clearly what is biased and misleading because it becomes very hard when the starting point being taken is bias and misleading to begin with. All despots the world over show the same characteristic towards any criticism – they call it propaganda, whilst anything that they produce is the truth (they clearly haven’t heard about post truth politics!).
In a free democratic society, there is no propaganda, there is only free speech. And whilst one group may not agree with another, it is all the same because both groups have the equal opportunity to have their point of view heard and the plebs get to decide which one they like more whether by voting with their pocket in commerce or at the ballot box in politics.
This has generally worked well as the basis of democracy is the plebs considered are able to know what is best for themselves, which they have proven to do and remained centrist swinging slightly left and right through recent times. The political establishment has not remained centrist though and is keen to hand over power to a non democratic authoritarian organisation of the EU. It seems this hand over decision had already been made with out full transparency to the public, progressed, and by the time the plebs are asked their opinion, the establishment seem some what surprised that they haven’t got a standing ovation.
Contrary to common sense where one would think that it would call for a rethink of policy and a process of adapting, the attitude has been taken that the plebs are feeble minded and don’t know what is best for them. Attempting to take the power from the pleb to think and act for himself will ultimately prove to be a dangerous move, especially when it is clear that acting in the interests of the pleb is not a high priority. Revolution in Europe has often been the result.
I do understand there is a fear that a fractured Europe is a weak Europe that could be susceptible to another world war, however, there is certainly a better way of achieving this than to impose authoritarian rule over its people. And indeed the EU is no less vulnerable to war in its forced unification as it beats the war drum against Russia with zero interest in peace and cooperation.
Free speech underpins a free society and the European Union is making it clear it does not believe in a free society. This resolution is the first step in removing free speech and ramping up the indoctrination and brain washing to their way of thinking. Not only is it the wrong move, but it is the wrong move too late. Society is already deeply fractured and pursuing this agenda will only end in blood shed.
UK /dɪˈmɒk.rə.si/ US /-ˈmɑː.krə-/
B2 [ U ] the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves:
- A strong opposition is vital to a healthy democracy.
(Cambridge Online Dictionary)