Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents slashed the tires of a couple who were recording the agents in an incident near Portland, Oregon, earlier this month. The agents then drove away without arresting or talking to the couple, video footage shows.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which released the footage today, says it is yet another example of ICE agents retaliating against people for protected First Amendment activity. In an administrative complaint on behalf of the anonymous couple, the ACLU and the ACLU of Oregon are demanding an investigation and answers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about why agents tailed, boxed in, and "vandalized" the vehicle of a U.S. citizen.

The stunning video does not resemble any sort of normal law enforcement:

"What happened to us is not unique, and that is what is so terrifying," A.P. and M.P., the unnamed husband and wife, said in a statement provided by the ACLU. "We observe and record public ICE activity in order to shine a light on their abusive behavior and to create a record of what our government is up to. Because of that, they are terrorizing us and anyone else who dares to exercise their First Amendment right to hold our government accountable. We hope that sharing our story will bring attention to their reckless and unconstitutional attacks on our communities."

According to the ACLU complaint, the unnamed married couple was driving in Hillsboro, Oregon, on the morning of October 7 when they spotted an ICE SUV. The couple followed the SUV to a supermarket parking lot, where there were also two other ICE vehicles. The couple lowered their windows and began yelling "This is ICE! This is ICE!" as well as blowing whistles and honking the car's horn.

One ICE agent grabbed a shopping cart and began approaching the couple's car. The complaint states that the couple heard the agent say something to the effect of, "Let's block them in with the cart." As the couple began driving away, several ICE agents began chasing after them on foot. 

The three ICE vehicles chased the couple after they left the parking lot, "driving aggressively and nearly colliding into" their car, according to the complaint. Additional video shows the ICE vehicles swerving aggressively in front of the couple's car and later unsuccessfully attempting to box in their car. "None of the ICE vehicles had their flashing lights or sirens on during this entire sequence of events," the complaint states.

The couple cut through an empty parking lot, and the chase continued down several more streets before the ICE vehicles turned on their emergency lights and sirens. According to the complaint, the couple continued driving for roughly a minute, fearing to pull over on an empty road with no bystanders. 

Video shows that when they stopped at a traffic light, a masked ICE agent exited his vehicle, walked up to the couple's car, stabbed one of its rear tires with a knife, and then walked back to his car. The couple's car moved slowly forward and into a turn lane before stopping again. Then the same agent got back out of his vehicle and stabbed the tire a second time before returning to his vehicle without attempting to speak to the couple.

"All three ICE vehicles turned off their flashing lights and sirens and drove off," the ACLU complaint states.

The complaint notes that the couple "experienced retaliatory action similar to that experienced by many other individuals across the country engaged in these same First Amendment protected activities."

"In particular, individuals around the country have reported being similarly tailed, boxed in, and threatened with or subjected to violence after observing, gathering information about, and recording ICE agents performing their duties in public," the complaint states.

Last October, ICE agents in the Portland area busted out the car windows of a U.S. citizen who had been filming them, dragged her out of her vehicle, and detained her for roughly seven hours before releasing her without charges.

The ACLU of Tennessee filed a class-action lawsuit in May against a federal law enforcement task force in Memphis for harassing legal observers. Memphis residents allege in declarations that they have been violently arrested, surveilled at their houses, pulled over under false pretenses, and jailed for trying to film the task force. In September, the ACLU of Tennessee published videos showing federal agents arresting the lead plaintiff in its lawsuit while he was attempting to film task force operations.

DHS and immigration officers have repeatedly accused videographers and legal observers of obstruction of justice and "doxxing," but civil liberties advocates say the DHS is flat wrong about the law: Every federal appeals court that has considered the issue—nine so far—has firmly upheld the right to record law enforcement in public.

The Supreme Court has also unequivocally upheld the First Amendment right to criticize or oppose police activity, whether verbally or through other expressive activity.

"The right to record publicly visible law enforcement activity is fundamental to our democracy," Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a press release. "Like many people across the country, our clients have been observing and recording ICE activity in their community. These videos have proven critical to exposing ICE's abuses. If we cannot see and document what our own government is doing on our streets, we cannot hold it accountable for running roughshod over our rights."

The ACLU complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General and two other DHS oversight offices demands that the agents involved in the incident be identified, investigated, and disciplined. The ACLU is also requesting a "comprehensive investigation of a disturbing pattern of ICE agents retaliating against individuals who observe, gather information about, and record ICE activity."

The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post Video Shows ICE Agents Slashing Portland Couple's Car Tire Then Driving Off appeared first on Reason Magazine.

By Hüseyin DOĞRU

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Built to fight foreign interference, Europe’s security apparatus is now turning on its own people. Muslims and critics of Israel are first in line.

On 8 October 2026, the European Parliament passed a deeply Islamophobic resolution on “Islamist entryism”. Behind the text is the hand of the European People’s Party, the conservative bloc that holds sway over EU politics. Backed by the liberals of Renew Europe and the far right, it was put to a vote and passed 381 to 167. The resolution is put forward as a way to shield European democracy from extremists, but its provisions are enough to give pause to anyone with an eye on the future of our rights and freedoms in Europe.

Take for instance the matter of “hatred of Israel”. The resolution puts this undefined notion forward as an indicator of ideological radicalisation, while also sounding the alarm on the “instrumentalisation of anti-discrimination frameworks”. One has to wonder at the implications: does this mean that a campaign against discrimination or even criticism of a state under accusation for war crimes can be subsumed under the EU’s widening net of security threats?

This resolution is more than an assault on a Muslim population already demonised in Europe; it is part of a broader, unexamined shift in the Union where dissent is viewed with suspicion. I am living with the consequences of it.

From foreign interference to domestic dissent

For years, the EU has been building a security apparatus around the alleged threats of disinformation, foreign interference and hybrid warfare.

Central to this is Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI), a framework developed largely in response to “Russian information operations”. The EU’s diplomatic service describes FIMI as a “mostly non-illegal” pattern of behaviour that can negatively affect political processes and values.

The definition is telling in what it leaves out. Political officials, not judicial ones, are left to decide what constitutes a manipulation of European values and what does not. What becomes of political critique and journalism when their arbitrary judgments are applied?

In May 2025, the EU sanctioned me and my media company, red., under its Russia-related hybrid-threats regime. My alleged offence was my journalism, particularly my coverage of Palestine solidarity protests in Germany, which the EU claims supported Russia’s efforts to destabilise Europe. The evidence against me consists of screenshots of factual posts from red. and my personal social media accounts, most of them reporting or criticism of German domestic and foreign policy. Not one page of the evidence dossier so much as mentions Russia.

Without a criminal charge, trial or conviction, my bank accounts were frozen and I was banned from working and travelling.

Then there is the question of administrative sanctions. The EU will say due process is observed since one can take them to court, but by the time a judge is sitting in on the case the damage has been done. Livelihoods are in ruins, bank accounts frozen and lives in disarray, all while the sanctioned individual endures years of expensive and politicised legal wrangling to have restrictions lifted. It is an extraordinary power to wield; the punishment is meted out first and the chance to contest it later, with no need to prove criminality. Violate a sanction and you face prosecution and prison, even if your only offence was buying nappies for your own babies, which could be deemed to have circumvented the rules.

On 8 October, the same day Parliament voted on “Islamist entryism”, the EU Council renewed the sanctions regime I am listed under until October 2027 and reinstated the reasons for my listing. The new text still describes the protesters whose university occupation red. covered as “anti-Israel rioters”. To justify the renewal, the Council cited a Parliament report from September on hybrid threats. One institution supplies the political mood, another uses that mood to put names like mine on a list.

The enemy within

The Islamist entryism resolution takes this logic in another direction. “Entryism” refers to political groups infiltrating established institutions to influence them from within. In this case, the Parliament warns that Islamist networks are using charities, youth organisations, universities and other parts of civil society to gain influence over European politics. The idea was imported from Paris; the resolution leans on a May 2025 report by the French interior ministry, the same ministry that once governed Algeria’s Muslims as colonial subjects.

The threat is no longer just a foreign power supposedly interfering in European affairs. Now the EU is turning its attention to an enemy within.

The phrase has a history. In July 1984, Margaret Thatcher told Conservative backbenchers that Britain had fought the “enemy without” in the Falklands and now faced the “enemy within”. She meant the striking miners.

The way in which the resolution singles out “hatred of Israel” as a sign of radicalisation without defining the term is noteworthy. A couple of paragraphs on it concedes this is not a bar to “legitimate criticism” of the state, yet it offers no guidance on how the line between the two will be drawn, or by whom. Since when has hostility to a government been cause for suspecting extremism? Or are we to assume Europeans must love Israel? One might ask whose interests are really being served. The European Commission tells us the EU was Israel’s top trading partner in 2024, with €42.6 billion in goods. To call for an end to that trade or an arms embargo is not a danger to democracy, but to the business interests of Europe.

Working with other organisations, maintaining certain associations or allegedly misusing anti-discrimination campaigns can also become grounds for suspicion. Among the warning signs the resolution lists are “the recurrence of certain partnerships”, “proximity to already identified networks” and even “the production of activist reports”.¹⁷ The resolution calls for restrictions on institutional access and funding, as well as tighter checks on visas, residence permits and mobility involving people, including academics, linked to individuals designated as “hate preachers”.

Even the European Network Against Racism is cast in doubt, its funding said to raise “serious questions”. When an anti-racism body is conflated with entryism, the whole concept is made to look suspect. Under the terms of the resolution, a professor could be slapped with travel restrictions because of a tenuous association with a so-called “hate preacher”, having broken no law in the process. We have seen this sort of thing before. In 1972, Germany’s Radikalenerlass saw the domestic intelligence service vet some 3.5 million public sector applicants. Communists and others on the left were dismissed or denied their jobs as teachers, postmen or train drivers for who they were rather than any act they had committed.

The resolution also tells us which Muslims Europe is willing to tolerate. It promises support for “Muslim representatives” who defend democratic values and resist “Islamist pressure”.²² The good Muslim, in other words, is the one the state approves of.

Not being legally binding does not make the resolution any less alarming. The Parliament has rubber-stamped the idea that lawful activity is a security risk, laying the groundwork for enforceable restrictions down the line. The same rationale once used to counter foreign interference is now being turned on organisations and people here in Europe.

Repression in the name of democracy

Both the FIMI sanctions regime and the Islamist entryism resolution are justified in the name of defending democracy and protecting European values. Yet the EU is increasingly treating the exercise of those very freedoms as grounds for suspicion.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. Europe is rearming on a scale not seen since the Cold War (the Commission’s ReArm Europe plan alone aims to mobilise up to €800 billion) while standing by Israel through the destruction of Gaza. A state preparing for war needs a quiet home front. Those who object, to genocide abroad or to paying for rearmament with cuts at home, have to be recast as foreign agents or fifth columnists.

What counts as “hatred of Israel”? Who decides when fighting discrimination becomes “instrumentalising” it? When does criticism of EU foreign policy become foreign interference? And how many connections does it take before a journalist, academic or activist is branded a security threat?

These are not abstract questions for those of us already living with the consequences. The EU’s authoritarian turn exposes the limits of its professed liberal values, where freedom of expression and political participation are celebrated until they challenge the interests of capital and the states that serve it. Liberal democracies have always kept a second rulebook in the drawer, for strikers, communists and the colonised.

What began as a campaign against foreign interference is increasingly being turned against dissent at home, with Muslims and critics of Israel, already among the most marginalised and harassed people in Europe, first in the firing line. But they won’t be the last. Trade unionists, climate activists and anyone who stands in the way of the war economy should take note.

While Europe’s political establishment continues to congratulate itself on defending democracy, the machinery for silencing its opponents is being built in plain sight.

Original article:  braveneweurope.com

Milano assurge così a paradigma di un Occidente che esclude ed emargina, privo di prospettive, privo di un’autentica volontà di invertire la rotta, votato più o meno consapevolmente all’autodistruzione.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Martedì 13 ottobre 2026 – mattina

Salone di rappresentanza del Comune di Milano, tra stucchi e affreschi, una composita schiera degli anziani più abbienti della città premia dei loro pari grado per età e per reddito, in mezzo a un effluvio di parole tanto vuote quanto altisonanti, un imbarazzante racconto di una città immaginaria, che esiste solo nelle chiacchiere dei loro ristretti circoli di amici e conoscenti, è tutta una narrazione di frizzi e lazzi, scoppiettanti meraviglie, luminose eccellenze, immancabili successi, se la suonano e se la cantano tra di loro, in mezzo a un tonitruante profluvio di aggettivi tutti superlativi, anzi, ultra – superlativi, un coretto autoreferenziale parossistico ed entusiastico in cui scambiano –  forse inconsapevolmente – lo specchio dentro cui si rimirano felici e beati per una finestra sulla città.

D’altronde si frequentano abitualmente e assolutamente solo tra loro nell’ora dell’aperitivo e della cena e non riescono a vedere null’altro che loro stessi, anche la cameriera che porta i piatti in tavola è una specie di fantasmatica presenza a suo modo sconosciuta ed evanescente, di cui a mala pena ricordano l’esotico nome peruviano o filippino. Sono i campioni della società neo – schiavile[1], inventata con maestria palazzinara dai maggiorenti politici della città, ogni vagonata di cemento, riversatasi su Milano nell’ultimo decennio in quantità impressionanti, ha avuto effetti sociali dirompenti e deflagranti aumentando il divario sociale, costruendo schiere di poveri, lavoratori a basso reddito e pensionati, con i primi spesso a servizio del sempre più ristretto, ma pur considerevole, cerchio dei benestanti.

Domenica 18 ottobre 2026 – pomeriggio

Come non fosse bastata la guerriglia urbana scatenatasi in piazza Duomo e tutto attorno, a margine della manifestazione di sabato 17 ottobre contro il caro – vita, il caro – carburanti, il prezzo sempre più proibitivo dei prodotti alimentari, le bollette aumentate di un terzo e per ciò stesso sempre più intollerabili, almeno per quella metà di milanesi che a fatica arriva alla terza settimana del mese, ecco che ragazzini a mala pena quattordicenni si danno appuntamento in branco per la domenica.

È rabbia pura, scriteriata e distruttrice, è odio per tutto quello che vedono e da cui sono esclusi. Spaccano e rubano, è un esproprio proletario compiuto da masse di ragazzini che non hanno nessuna consapevolezza di essere proletari, ma che in ogni caso si comportano in questo modo perché non vogliono essere proletari, ovvero l’ultimo gradino di una società pesantemente ingiusta, diseguale, escludente, hanno un istintuale desiderio di uguaglianza, ma non la sanno declinare in nessun modo, anche perché tanto è impossibile, il divario sociale non è colmabile, l’ammissione al ristretto circolo dei possidenti che possono permettersi di comprare e possedere quello che vogliono non li riguarda, purtroppo non tocca neppure tutte e tutti quei milanesi che son scesi in piazza pacificamente il giorno precedente.

Questi ragazzini sono fuori da tutto, vittime di una città e di una società in cui gli abbienti organizzano convegni sull’inclusività, in cui volano paroloni e discorsoni pieni di propositi, i quali terminano appunto all’ora dell’aperitivo.

Sono ragazzine e ragazzini cresciuti nelle periferie invisibili, povere, quelle in cui non arriva la metropolitana e gli autobus e i tram sono stati dimezzati negli ultimi anni, non credono in niente e in nessuno. Si muovono in branco, perché solo dentro il branco dei loro pari riconoscono quel minimo di uguaglianza che non trovano da nessuna altra parte.

Odiano la scuola, perché è vuota, perché non offre prospettive, perché usa parole antiche e a volte incomprensibili, perché i professori sono vecchi e hanno l’età dei loro nonni che stanno a Lima, al Cairo, a Manila, perché studiare molto difficilmente potrà permettere loro di emanciparsi dalla povertà, anzi è certamente inutile, perché tanto sanno già benissimo a dodici anni che i loro genitori non avranno mai i soldi per mandarli all’università.

Disprezzano i loro genitori, li disprezzano profondamente, con una rabbia che spesso cancella ogni affetto. Li guardano consumarsi di fatica per portare a casa il pane della sopravvivenza, donne e uomini italiani e più spesso di tutto il mondo che si alzano alle quattro del mattino, il papà per andare a pulire gli uffici degli abbienti, la mamma per sbrigare fino alle sei del mattino le questioni di casa propria e poi prendere anche lei quel bus che non arriva mai per andare a pulire le case di quegli stessi abbienti, per portare a passeggio i loro cani, per stirare le loro camicie e per preparare la loro cena. Gli uomini lavorano anche nell’edilizia, ogni cantiere è una babele di lingue, nell’urbanistica, là dove si rifanno marciapiedi e strade asfaltate si sente solo parlare arabo, chissà se per appalto diretto o subappalto, o purtroppo, come accade non di rado, per subappalto di un altro subappalto, fanno i custodi dei palazzi in cui gli abbienti a mala pena passando la mattina biascicano loro un annoiato “buongiorno”.

Lo schianto tra la città immaginaria, o per meglio dire reale per una ristrettissima minoranza, e quella reale, o per meglio dire dura e povera per la stragrande maggioranza, ha la violenza delle vetrine mandate in frantumi, così la società, come quei vetri sfondati, collassa senza lasciare margine alcuno di ricomposizione.

Un mondo peggiorato dall’individualismo, un universo  che ha perso ogni spazio sociale e collettivo in cui ritrovarsi e confrontarsi, in cui la fatica e il sacrificio sono visti come la condizione dello sfruttato neo – schiavile, non del lavoratore, anche perché il lavoratore riceve sempre meno diritti e meno rispetto e dunque ha sempre meno dignità.

Una società che coltiva il culto della ricchezza e che (auto)premia e (auto)celebra chi l’esibisce, che marginalizza e giudica negativamente chi da quella ricchezza è escluso.

Una società senza pietà, piena di un’arroganza diffusa e cattiva, che ha elevato l’esibizionismo della ricchezza e il disprezzo per chi non la possiede a massima espressione di giudizio verso le altre e gli altri.

Le ragazzine e i ragazzini delle periferie respirano questo clima tossico in cui l’avere è tutto e l’essere gli è totalmente subordinato.

Respirano la violenza del disprezzo che li marginalizza e a loro volta – come detto – hanno fatto proprio quel disprezzo al punto da riversarlo sui loro genitori, li osservano senza capirli, guardandoli schiacciati dalla fatica quotidiana, inginocchiati davanti all’arroganza e alla prepotenza degli abbienti.

I genitori tristi e sconfortati si interrogano mestamente su una società, quella occidentale, così violenta da aver distrutto qualsiasi valore, qualsiasi rispetto, qualsiasi affetto. Amano i loro figli, cercano di mostrare con il loro impegno quell’amore, ma appunto non sono capiti e non sono ricambiati, maturando indicibile interiore dolore.

È una società divaricata, del tutto frammentata e atomizzata, non vi è assolutamente alcun progetto per la costruzione di una città partecipata e condivisa, non esiste alcuna autentica volontà di una ricomposizione comunitaria.

È la deriva finale di una società priva di autentica empatia, di sincero interesse per il prossimo.

Ora il governo italiano vara leggi per la punibilità dei minorenni, aumenteranno i carcerati dei penitenziari minorili, un muro con le sbarre che terrà nascosta per un po’ una minuscola porzione del disagio sociale e giovanile.

Nulla più.

Milano assurge così a paradigma di un Occidente che esclude ed emargina, privo di prospettive, privo di un’autentica volontà di invertire la rotta, votato più o meno consapevolmente all’autodistruzione.

____

^[1]      Leggasi quanto già dettagliatamente spiegato in https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/07/27/beppe-sala-sindaco-di-milano-inventore-della-post-modernita-neo-schiavile/

One month after Washington, D.C., celebrated America's 250th anniversary, it marked a more ignominious milestone: a full year since President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard soldiers to the capital.

The approximately 4,600 National Guard members have been an unavoidable presence in D.C., wandering the National Mall and downtown streets in groups of three or four, or standing idly in Metro stations chatting. Occasionally, they're tasked with picking up trash at parks. Tourists take selfies with them by the now-fenced-off Lafayette Square in front of the White House.

They're not going anywhere. The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to acquire up to 2,000 housing units to support long-term National Guard deployments. The Department of Defense has estimated that extending the mission from October 2026 through to the end of the Trump administration in January 2029 will cost about $1.4 billion.

According to the Trump administration, all of this has been necessary to transform D.C. "from a crime-ridden city into a safe and beautiful haven for residents and visitors alike."

Crime in D.C. is down 20 percent from 2025, according to the Metropolitan Police Department, but an August Reuters investigation found National Guard soldiers were involved in only a tiny fraction of arrests in the safer parts of the city, mostly for minor offenses such as shoplifting and turnstile jumping. Crime has been dropping nationwide, a trend that started before Trump took office and includes cities that aren't occupied by federal law enforcement and soldiers.

Even if the Guard presence has contributed to a drop in crime, it's a civil liberties nightmare. It puts untrained military in the role of policing civilians. It usurps local police departments that are ostensibly answerable to the communities they police, and it normalizes the deployment of military forces domestically—a red line for a free society.

"There's a deep irony that here we are in the capital of the free world, and our president is treating it like a police state," Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, told PBS in August. "D.C. residents have lived with our National Guard troops in our neighborhoods for about a year, despite the absence of any genuine emergency and really any reason for them to be here."

Last November, a federal court preliminarily ruled that the deployment was illegal. However, an appeals court allowed the Trump administration to keep troops deployed in D.C. while it considers the administration's appeal of that ruling.

The appeals court decision is absurd. The appellate panel is fully aware that every day the case drags on is another day that D.C. residents are being subjected to a potentially illegal military occupation, and another day that taxpayers will foot the bill for a wasteful fit of presidential hubris.

The damages are compounding. The first anniversary of Trump's deployment of National Guard soldiers to D.C. should be the last.

The post Crime Is Down in D.C., but Trump's National Guard Deployment Probably Isn't the Cause appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Macron, com 15% de aprovação, prepara guerra com Rússia e dissolve associação Egalité et Réconciliation de Alain Soral por “extremismo político”.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Macron é, hoje, muito possivelmente, o presidente mais impopular do planeta, contando com apenas 15% de aprovação, segundo uma enquete Ipsos BVA-Cesi. Sob seu comando, a França se depara com a estagnação econômica (crescimento de 0,6% em 2025) e com o endividamento (120% do PIB). Sob Macron, a França viu também a desindustrialização acelerada do país, com as indústrias correspondendo a apenas 9% do PIB, menor patamar da União Europeia, e não surpreendentemente, o poder de compra despencou, com metade dos franceses dizendo que sua renda dá apenas para o essencial e apenas 70% dos cidadãos em idade ativa ocupando um posto de trabalho, atualmente.

Como se isso já não fosse o bastante, em aproximadamente 10 anos de governo Macron, aproximadamente 4 milhões de imigrantes entraram no país (muitos dos quais não trabalham, mas recebem benefícios sociais); quantia que torna impossível a absorção econômica bem como a assimilação etnocultural dos recém-chegados. Naturalmente, ao descontrole imigratório estão vinculadas taxas de criminalidade, favelização de centros urbanos e aumento das tensões sociais. Muitos franceses étnicos sentem-se demograficamente substituídos em sua terra natal, e não por acaso, tudo indica que Marine Le Pen ganhará (finalmente) as eleições presidenciais francesas em 2027.

Não sabemos quais seriam os resultados de uma presidência Le Pen e é razoável ser cético a respeito, mas claramente o atual curso da França é perigosíssimo, inclusive em sua política externa.

Gradualmente, nos últimos 2 anos, começaram a aparecer inúmeros sinais de que Macron estaria preparando o país para uma guerra com a Rússia. O governo francês criou um serviço militar voluntário e aprovou a expansão das forças armadas permanentes a 275 mil homens, bem como um aumento orçamentário para a defesa. O general Fabien Mandon, do Estado-Maior, afirmou em 2025 que a França deveria se preparar para um conflito de alta intensidade com a Rússia no prazo de três a quatro anos, e agora em setembro de 2026 Macron declarou que a França “poderia” se tornar alvo de drones explosivos. Constantemente, também, se ouve discursos sobre a necessidade de transformar a economia francesa numa “economia de guerra”.

Por isso, talvez seja surpreendente para muitos (mas não para nós) que em meio a tudo isso que tem acontecido no país, o governo Macron ainda encontre tempo para a implementação de um aparato de censura e repressão de níveis totalitários.

Sua nova vítima é a associação Egalité et Réconciliation (Igualdade e Reconciliação), criada pelo sociólogo e escritor Alain Soral. A associação se identifica como “nacionalista de esquerda” e tem como principal slogan “esquerda do trabalho, direita dos valores”, apelando a uma superação da falsa dicotomia entre esquerda e direita e, ainda mais importantemente, por uma reconciliação nacional entre todos os setores sociais; em anos recentes, ela esteve envolvida nas manifestações dos Coletes Amarelos, em algumas atividades ligadas ao partido Reagrupamento Nacional (apesar de, simultaneamente, manter uma postura de “crítica construtiva” contra certas tendências sionistas e liberais presentes no partido) e à militância pró-Palestina.

Ocorre que, no dia 9 de outubro, o Ministro do Interior do governo de Macron, Laurent Nuñez, anunciou a abertura de um procedimento de dissolução contra a associação Egalité et Réconciliation, sob a acusação de “extremismo político”. A sua equipe jurídica recebeu um prazo de 1 semana para se defender, e a decisão a respeito deve ocorrer, ainda, em outubro.

O próprio Alain Soral é uma figura de elevado espírito inconformista, razão pela qual já foi vítima de incontáveis perseguições judiciais – dezenas de fato – majoritariamente por “delitos de opinião”, ou seja, por comentários críticos contra pessoas específicas ou “minorias protegidas”. Em condenações, Soral já acumulou milhões de euros a serem pagos em indenização para ONGs globalistas diversas, soma obviamente impagável, bem como já foi encarcerado algumas vezes, também pelos mesmos motivos. A perseguição judicial foi tão intensa que Soral teve que se exilar de sua pátria, primeiro na Suíça e depois na Rússia.

Agora, para além das justificativas oficiais, por qual motivo o Estado francês baniria uma organização relativamente pequena e de poucos recursos financeiros?

É possível analisar o “ângulo” da presença de Alain Soral na Rússia, em mais de um sentido. Primeiro, porque ao estar na Rússia Soral finalmente tornou-se imune à constante perseguição judicial e às ameaças de prisão que ele sofria na França, ao mesmo tempo em que seguia tomando parte ativa no debate político e cultural francês, mesmo à distância. Nisso, ele era capaz de exercer e expandir a sua influência, “sob a proteção dos russos”, o que certamente alimenta as típicas paranoias atuais da elite francesa sobre uma “guerra informacional” russa.

Existe, porém, também um aspecto interno. Recentemente, Alain Soral voltou a ser bastante comentado pela mídia francesa por dois motivos. Um é o “caso Bardella”, o qual diz respeito à descoberta de supostos escritos “politicamente incorretos” de Jordan Bardella, presidente do partido Reagrupamento Nacional, e à informação de que em sua juventude a principal influência intelectual de Bardella era Alain Soral. O segundo é uma pesquisa de opinião indicando que 15% dos homens franceses com menos de 35 anos de idade se identificam com as ideias de Soral.

Isso às vésperas das eleições presidenciais representa um risco significativo para Macron e para o establishment francês. Ainda que, aparentemente, não haja chance de vitória para qualquer candidato contra Le Pen, não podemos duvidar da possibilidade de manipulação do processo eleitoral, tal como aconteceu na Romênia.

Esse silenciamento é ainda mais preocupante pelo fato de que Soral e o E&R serem praticamente os únicos personagens socialmente e culturalmente relevantes na França hoje que defendem a reconciliação nacional e que evitam a incitação do tensionamento interno, promovido pelos elementos mais islamofóbicos do RN e pela própria liderança do LFI de Mélenchon com seu “exército” de antifas e imigrantes.

Read full story here…