The participation of Pedro Sanchez at an event with Lula da Silva this Tuesday in New York to talk about fake news reveals something important: the president’s fixation on the problem of disinformation goes beyond the local circumstance of a counterattack against the media in response to investigations that affect his family environment.
We see how a new discourse is taking shape in the imagination of international progressivism. It is a story of a threat to democracy from extremist forces, whose main fuel would be the proliferation of hoaxes and messages inciting violence, and which would ultimately lead to attempts to seize power by force.
The contamination of national conversations by the vitriolic dynamics of social networks provides a perfect ideological alibi for progressivism to legitimize its crusade against pluralism.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inázio Lula da Silva at a side event at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.
Efe
The real reason why the issue of “disinformation” has become part of the vocabulary of today’s left is that, for the progressive mindset, aligned with the unassailable course of history, There can be no disagreement with the principles of his political program that is not the result of deception.
That is to say, for progressivism, dissent can only be an error, a political heresy to be fought. The postulates of its adversaries do not enter into the framework of saying (which, on the other hand, regulates progressivism), because they directly deny the evidence of social progress, which amounts to affirming that the earth is flat.
These are the “enemies of democracy” that Sánchez referred to. Those who “do not recognize the electoral results, deny science or climate change and question the participation of women in politics and economic affairs.”
Which, translated into Paladin Roman, becomes:
1. Opposing the government is electoral denial.
2. Questioning predictions of ecological cataclysm amounts to climate denial.
3. Rejecting feminist dogma is tantamount to denying gender violence.
4. Using strong rhetoric against the abuses of socio-liberal technocracy is violence. Hate speech that justifies intolerance towards the intolerant.
Thus, with this discursive strategy of positivist physiognomy, progressivism reduces the margin of what can be discussed and widens that of the incontestable truths that cement the democratic order.
The Gnostic ideal of a perfectly developed society justifies the removal of all obstacles on the path to “democratization.” Thus, for some time now, the left has seized upon freedom of expression, which, as Lula reminds us, “is a right, but it is not absolute.”
This is how the closure of X ordered by the Supreme Court of Brazil is justified. We also see it in the United Kingdom and in other countries led by defenders of democracy towards progress: This involves intervening in discussion forums that are outside state control..
The condition for not being able to overturn the precious legacy of “social conquests” is that neither the official version nor the authorized memory can leak.
