Until just five years ago, the elites' speech was accepted by most of the parties with parliamentary representation in the world. With few exceptions, the differences between government and opposition formations were very small. With small nuances, all defended the same economic, social and foreign policies.

The media bought the established discourse and were limited, depending on whether one party or another was in government, to reproach some specific aspects of their decisions.

New mass media

The emergence of mass-use social networks generated a problem for the political class: citizens found an autonomous speaker whose limits of scope and diffusion were unlimited. Anyone from home could question the postulates of the political class and denounce their lies without the control of traditional media. That is, politicians lost a part of the control of mass communication.

The economic and social situation of many countries, the result of decades of suicide policies of many governments unable to see what they had before their eyes, generated the ideal breeding ground for the emergence of new parties. As soon as these formations questioned the established discourse, the traditional political class and the media began fierce discredit campaigns that included the old arguments of nationalism, racism or xenophobia. Although they achieved their goal with a part of the electorate, the establishment was unable to convince most of the population that already chose to inform themselves through social networks.

Following this process, governments begin to maneuver to control social networks, so-called verifiers emerge and preventive censorship is formalized: Everyone who posts political content on Twitter or Facebook must stick to the consequences.

Far from adhering to a principle of justice, these verification companies share ownership and ideological bias with the traditional media. It is not acceptable that the same journalist who crosses VOX as a xenophobic party and insults its voters daily is responsible for validating its content on social networks.

Bullying and censorship

This preventive censorship, based on intimidation, is not new: it was used by a part of the Muslim community to prevent European citizens from questioning their integration in the West and the benefit of multicultural societies. In 1989, the ayatolah Khomeini launched the first fatwa of history against Salman Rushdie, author of 'Satanic Verses': "I appeal to all the Muslim faithful, wherever they are, to execute this sentence quickly so that no one dares to insult the Muslim saints," he said in the death sentence against Rushdie.

The threat of Khomeini created a precedent that a small part of the Muslim community in many countries used to persecute and encourage violence against those authors, writers or cartoonists who dared to criticize Islam. The examples are very numerous: the controversy with the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark, the case of Hirsi Ali in Holland or the attempt against Charlie Hebdo in France.

Bullying took effect and for more than a decade Only a handful of brave men dared to denounce the reality of Islam, its damage to European society and its low capacity for integration.

Saving the distances, the objective of the establishment with the current preventive censorship in social networks is the same: to silence the alternative speeches, turn off its loudspeaker and achieve valuable time to impose its ideological agenda before a society that fears the consequences of exposing its ideas in freedom.

Europe is paying the consequences of this silence imposed by the established power. It is necessary to fight on all fronts to prevent this situation from reproducing ten years later.

VOX Spain

Source of the new