Although the French love to paint the U.S. as a rudimentary country compared to European nations (especially France), France itself served as a representation of European cultural decadence at the Olympics. The Last Supper with an obese smurf and transvestites spoke for itself.

We don’t have to believe, however, that the French are generally woke. This horror show can easily be explained by the capture of political institutions in France, as well as in Western Europe in general. The replacement of the Union Jack with the brand new LGBT flag on the streets of London does not imply that every Englishman is a transsexual fan, but rather that the institutions of England are occupied by transsexual fans. So, if we want to understand how Europeans think, we have to consider that public expression is not a faithful representation of their private thoughts. It’s not that there are no woke French and Germans; it’s just that, since they have greater access to public space, they will appear more representative than they really are.

The problem is also visible in another way. If we look at the media and even at European universities, it seems that all Europeans think it is great to have expensive energy because of Ukraine, and that they have all become champions of the fight against anti-Semitism. Now, I find it easier to believe that all Europeans are fans of transvestites than to believe in a passion for high energy bills. It is much more reasonable to believe that critical thinking in Europe has been silenced, and that this is happening through the capture of institutions by pro-NATO minorities.

Of course, the seasoned reader will be suspicious of the expression “critical thinking”, so often used by sectarians to describe “those who think like me”. If we are to abandon this term, however, we will have to say that all thinking is of equal quality, since there are no critics or uncritics. Well, there are a thousand ways to defend Ukraine; saying that Putin is Hitler and needs to be stopped is not the most cerebral way to do it. In fact, given the costs imposed on Europe, it would take a genius of sophistry to create an argument capable of convincing intelligent Europeans to support NATO. So, all that is left is the outcry that Putin is evil incarnate and needs to be stopped. Something that only very uncritical people can believe, after spending the day hypnotized by the most Manichean and stupid Western propaganda. I’m not going to say that everyone who believes this propaganda is uncritical all the time; sometimes people have prior feelings (love for liberalism, hatred of Russians, etc.) that make them uncritical when faced with propaganda related to the subject.

An interesting description of the stifling of critical thought in Europe is given in the article “McCarthyism, European Style: The elite crackdown on Ukraine dissent,” published by Responsible Statecraft. In it, we see that there are European academics who are critical of supporting Ukraine, but they are labeled as unworthy Russian propagandists – an accusation that leads them to ostracism. According to the article, even though the U.S. is the epicenter of the Ukrainian cause, there is freedom for people like Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearshimer to accumulate large audiences criticizing pro-Ukraine policies; on the other hand, in Europe, cancel culture manages to stifle dissenting voices.

I do not believe, however, that this is due to a greater freedom in the U.S., but rather to the consequences of being the most populous and most important country in the Western world, speaking a language understood throughout the globe and full of technological innovation. In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Jeffrey Sachs complained about being canceled by the media. Tucker himself is another person who has been canceled by the traditional media. They have found shelter in brand-new media outlets.

I can think of a country with more freedom than the U.S. to defend Russia and Palestine: Brazil. The freedom that university students have to defend Palestine in the best universities is absolutely enviable, both for Americans and Europeans. Here, it is considered bad form for someone on the left to defend Israel. As for Russia, only Brazilian right-wingers run the risk of being canceled for defending it. It is still natural for the Brazilian left to support the former land of the Bolsheviks against the Empire and its satellites.

But it is not so easy to do so in the Brazilian press. The difference is easy to explain: while Brazilian universities are state-owned, the press belongs to big businessmen. What is private aims to enrich its owner. What is state-owned aims, or should aim, to serve the common good of the citizens. Thus, Brazilian teachers and students can afford to defend Palestine – no one loses money by doing so. A journalist, however, will have to satisfy his boss, who will not like to see his sponsorship decrease. Even so, in a country of the size of Brazil, it is possible for left-wing media outlets to use the internet to defend the Palestinian cause, as well as the Russian side in the war with Ukraine.

Now let’s look at the U.S. A old journalist from the Christian left, Chris Hedges, lost his job for defending Palestine, and had to create a YouTube channel to continue his program. I couldn’t help but remember that he, like the journalist Abby Martin, also left-wing and pro-Palestine, worked for the channel RT America, that is, the U.S. branch of the Russian TV network financed by the government. As in Brazilian public universities, the fact that this Russian TV channel aims at the common good of citizens has made it possible to defend agendas that repel private sponsors. With the war in Ukraine, RT was shut down in the U.S. and Western Europe, and access to the website was even made difficult. Europe is in fact tougher than the U.S. and Brazil in restricting the Internet.

The Europeans therefore face a series of difficulties: 1) ostracism at universities; 2) ostracism at Western corporate media; 3) state oppression, which prevents access to Russian sources; 4) difficulties inherent to the size of its population (it is more difficult to maintain an alternative media outlet in French or Italian than in English, for example, and English-language channels in England generally have smaller audiences than American ones); 5) difficulties inherent to the aging of its population (older journalists who write blogs will hardly have the same ability to find readers as young journalists who know how to use social networks).

Finally, we can conclude that the State, even when foreign, has a healthy role in promoting freedom of expression, as it allows popular causes and opinions to reach their audience without needing the approval of big business.

Bruna Frascolla é historiadora da filosofia, doutora pela UFBA, e ensaísta.

Read More