#FAKE NEWS. Papa: Difundir noticias falsas es pecado

26 Ago 2013
Fake Pope decries Fake News: A Critical Commentary

January 26, 2018

Message for World Communications Day

Fake Pope decries Fake News:
A Critical Commentary


Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) has the uncanny gift of inserting himself into every possible problem arising among human beings, except into those that the job description of the office he claims to hold actually require him to.

Clarifying that adultery is still a mortal sin that bars one from Holy Communion? Silence. Oversight in liturgical translations? Decentralized. Teaching fundamental theology? Boring. Watching over the purity of the Faith? Not his problem. Yet for every opportunity to promote “integral human development”, for every political conference, for every mudslide in Cambodia, Francis has something to say. It was no different this past Wednesday.

On the occasion of World Communications Day, the “Pope” released the following document:

What is meant by fake news? In its most general sense, fake news is simply misinformation. More specifically, it is misinformation that comes under the guise of legitimate news reporting. It is really not a new phenomenon at all — it’s just that everybody has been talking about it since an article appeared in the Washington Post in 2016 that introduced the term to a popular audience.

We will now proceed to critically examine Francis’ text. It is full of gratuitous assertions and emotionally attractive but philosophically bankrupt ideas. Indeed, it is its very own example of fake news. We will not reproduce the text in full but will only quote the most salient parts, with our own commentary interspersed.

The “Pope” says:

The effectiveness of fake news is primarily due to its ability to mimic real news, to seem plausible. Secondly, this false but believable news is “captious”, inasmuch as it grasps people’s attention by appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions like anxiety, contempt, anger and frustration. The ability to spread such fake news often relies on a manipulative use of the social networks and the way they function. Untrue stories can spread so quickly that even authoritative denials fail to contain the damage.

Francis is drawing a necessary connection between fake news and “appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions”. But why should this be an essential characteristic of fake news? We are not told. The claim is gratuitous, that is, it is made without evidence, yet it is far from obvious. Prejudices can be right or wrong, just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable. If a false news story does not exhibit any stereotypes or prejudices, does that mean it is not fake news? If the “instantaneous emotion” elicited is not one of anxiety, contempt, anger, or frustration but one of joy, laughter, or relief, does that make the misinformation any less fake?

The fake Pope continues:

The difficulty of unmasking and eliminating fake news is due also to the fact that many people interact in homogeneous digital environments impervious to differing perspectives and opinions. Disinformation thus thrives on the absence of healthy confrontation with other sources of information that could effectively challenge prejudices and generate constructive dialogue; instead, it risks turning people into unwilling accomplices in spreading biased and baseless ideas. The tragedy of disinformation is that it discredits others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict. Fake news is a sign of intolerant and hypersensitive attitudes, and leads only to the spread of arrogance and hatred. That is the end result of untruth.

Here we find more unjustified assertions. Again Francis claims there is a necessary link between fake news and “discredit[ing] others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict.” What necessary connection is there between these things and the scourge of misinformation? Discrediting others is not necessarily wrong — especially not if the other ought to be discredited. The same goes for enemies.

Let us turn for a moment to an episode in the Gospels where a certain Protagonist discredits others, presents them as enemies even to the point of demonizing them, and thus foments conflict. You may have read this passage before:

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves. Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it: And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, and say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

(Mt 23:13-33)

How’s that for discrediting and demonizing others? And yet, what we have here is a divinely inspired account of how God Himself communicated with certain sinners. In other words, what we have here is the greatest possible opposite of fake news. It is the Good News. Could it be that Francis is the one spreading disinformation here?

Yet preventing and identifying the way disinformation works also calls for a profound and careful process of discernment.

Ah, another discernment process! We should have figured. The last one he proposed, in Amoris Laetitia, is a sure-fire way of arriving at fake news about the validity of one’s marriage bond.

We continue with the world’s most famous apostate:

We need to unmask what could be called the “snake-tactics” used by those who disguise themselves in order to strike at any time and place. This was the strategy employed by the “crafty serpent” in the Book of Genesis, who, at the dawn of humanity, created the first fake news (cf. Gen 3:1-15), which began the tragic history of human sin, beginning with the first fratricide (cf. Gen 4) and issuing in the countless other evils committed against God, neighbour, society and creation. The strategy of this skilled “Father of Lies” (Jn 8:44) is precisely mimicry, that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments.

Don’t think for a minute that Francis actually believes Chapter 3 of Genesis to be literally and historically true. He’s just pretending for the moment because it’s expedient for the argument he’s making. The man is a 21st-century Jesuit.

He writes further:

This biblical episode brings to light an essential element for our reflection: there is no such thing as harmless disinformation; on the contrary, trusting in falsehood can have dire consequences. Even a seemingly slight distortion of the truth can have dangerous effects.

Yes indeed, that is so. But now apply that insight to how Francis treats doctrinal truth:

How’s that for encouraging the dangerous effects of even a “seemingly slight distortion of the truth”?

Back to Mr. Bergoglio:

Constant contamination by deceptive language can end up darkening our interior life. Dostoevsky’s observation is illuminating: “People who lie to themselves and listen to their own lie come to such a pass that they cannot distinguish the truth within them, or around them, and so lose all respect for themselves and for others. And having no respect, they cease to love, and in order to occupy and distract themselves without love they give way to passions and to coarse pleasures, and sink to bestiality in their vices, all from continual lying to others and to themselves.” (The Brothers Karamazov, II, 2).

Here we have to congratulate Francis. He found a way to include the word “bestiality” in a document about lying. That’s quite an accomplishment. Was this the trade-off for not bringing up those nasty c-words again he’d mentioned twice before?

We return to his text:

So how do we defend ourselves? The most radical antidote to the virus of falsehood is purification by the truth. In Christianity, truth is not just a conceptual reality that regards how we judge things, defining them as true or false. The truth is not just bringing to light things that are concealed, “revealing reality”, as the ancient Greek term aletheia (from a-lethès, “not hidden”) might lead us to believe. Truth involves our whole life. In the Bible, it carries with it the sense of support, solidity, and trust, as implied by the root ‘aman, the source of our liturgical expression Amen. Truth is something you can lean on, so as not to fall. In this relational sense, the only truly reliable and trustworthy One – the One on whom we can count – is the living God. Hence, Jesus can say: “I am the truth” (Jn 14:6). We discover and rediscover the truth when we experience it within ourselves in the loyalty and trustworthiness of the One who loves us. This alone can liberate us: “The truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32).

At first sight this may all sound very profound and noble because Francis indicates that only God is the source of all truth. How conservative!

But what about the rest of what he says? It would have been a perfect opportunity for him to repeat and then elaborate on the traditional definition of truth once provided by Aristotle and endorsed by St. Thomas Aquinas: Truth is “the conformity of thing and intellect”, that is, the conformity of the mind to reality (see Disputed Questions on Truth, q. 1, a. 1). This definition was always good enough for the Church, but is it good enough for Francis? Of course not. No, the enlightened Modernists know better than to repeat such peasanty black-and-white olden-day thought, and so Francis talks about how truth supposedly has something to do with leaning on something and claims it must be personally experienced — before kindly informing us that truth also has to involve a search for relationship:

Freedom from falsehood and the search for relationship: these two ingredients cannot be lacking if our words and gestures are to be true, authentic, and trustworthy. To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.

Only someone like Francis could get away with putting out such utter rubbish. If a college student were to write this in a term paper, the professor would write in the margin: “gratuitous” and “you’re not proving your thesis, you’re only making claims.”

So Francis asserts: “To discern the truth, we need to discern everything that encourages communion and promotes goodness from whatever instead tends to isolate, divide, and oppose.” Aside from the question what this abstruse statement even means, we notice that he provides not a shred of evidence to back up his curious claim. Can truth not isolate, divide, and oppose? Why should that be a characteristic peculiar to falsehood?

Let us turn to the Scriptures once more. Our Lord Himself, who is “full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14), warned that His doctrine would isolate, divide, and oppose people:

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

(Mt 10:34-37)

Does this sound like it “encourages communion”?

The Bergoglian drivel continues:

Truth, therefore, is not really grasped when it is imposed from without as something impersonal, but only when it flows from free relationships between persons, from listening to one another.

Somehow, this “impersonal imposition of truth from without” worked really well for the Church for 2,000 years, especially for the Apostles. After simply preaching a sermon to people with whom he had no meaningful relationship (see Acts 2:22-36), Pope St. Peter made massive converts on the day of Pentecost: “They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls… And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved” (Acts 2:41,47). Thank heavens they didn’t have Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Sect around in those days, else they would have started an interreligious dialogue and would still be talking today.

Returning now to Francis, it gets worse. The papal pretender has the chutzpah to come up with an entirely novel and pragmatic definition of truth:

Nor can we ever stop seeking the truth, because falsehood can always creep in, even when we state things that are true. An impeccable argument can indeed rest on undeniable facts, but if it is used to hurt another and to discredit that person in the eyes of others, however correct it may appear, it is not truthful. We can recognize the truth of statements from their fruits: whether they provoke quarrels, foment division, encourage resignation; or, on the other hand, they promote informed and mature reflection leading to constructive dialogue and fruitful results.

To disseminate such baloney in a document supposedly dedicated to truth is pretty audacious. Since when is the truth of an argument determined by the motive for which it is made? Quite simply, I can tell the truth for a bad motive, and I can tell a lie for a good motive. In both cases there is sin, but the nature of truth and falsehood is not touched in the slightest.

To claim, as Francis does, that truth uttered with the intent of discrediting or hurting another becomes a lie, is absurdity on stilts! Aside from that, we must repeat that the intention of discrediting someone is not necessarily wrong — some people simply ought to be discredited (such individuals as Martin Luther, Margaret Sanger, and Peter Singer come to mind). Even Francis would have to agree that not all discrediting of people is to be avoided, seeing that his entire ridiculous screed here has the purpose of discrediting the purveyors of fake news in the eyes of others.

Likewise, it is simply false to say that the truth of a statement is judged by its fruits. That is untenable philosophically and unjustifiable theologically. We may say it is, in fact, fake news, contradicted even by Divine Revelation: “For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12).

Next, Francis has an invitation to make:

I would like, then, to invite everyone to promote a journalism of peace. By that, I do not mean the saccharine kind of journalism that refuses to acknowledge the existence of serious problems or smacks of sentimentalism. On the contrary, I mean a journalism that is truthful and opposed to falsehoods, rhetorical slogans, and sensational headlines.

Now that’s just rich: Francis speaks out against “rhetorical slogans” and “sensational headlines”, when he is the biggest author of precisely those two things! Just think about how many headlines Francis has caused since 2013 because of his constant use of vivid slogans and idiotic remarks! From denouncing “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians” and launching a “revolution of tenderness” to asking “Who am I to judge?”, there hasn’t been a dull day yet since Francis paid his hotel bill on Day 1 in front of running cameras.

We arrive now at the last part of Francis’ message for the 2018 World Communications Day. The “Pope” ends with a version of the famous so-called Prayer of Saint Francis, properly adapted to his new “journalism for peace” doctrine:

Lord, make us instruments of your peace.
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion.
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements.
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters.
You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world:
where there is shouting, let us practise listening;
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony;
where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity;
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity;
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety;
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions;
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust;
where there is hostility, let us bring respect;
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth.

We interrupt this post for a brief moment so you can facepalm….

After all the drama that has transpired about Francis’ exhortation Amoris Laetitia, especially his refusal to answer five specific questions (“dubia“) to help bring clarity to what the document intends to teach, he now implores, “Where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity”! You’ve got to hand it to Mr. Bergoglio: He’s got a sense of humor.

Now that we’ve examined Francis’ fake news against fake news, let’s be clear about something: Yes, the internet is full of false reporting. There is news that is distorted, inadequate, biased, exaggerated, flawed, and sometimes simply made up entirely. The rapid spread of information through social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook adds to the problem. At the same time, even mainstream news organizations around the globe have on occasion disseminated false information, whether unwittingly and by accident or with full deliberation. While it is important to keep in mind that not everything one sees, reads, or hears about somewhere is for that reason true and accurate, we must also take great care that any attempted cure for this will not be worse than the disease. What Francis is proposing here is a revolutionary redefinition of truth under the mask of peace and charity, custom-tailored to suit the Masonic-Naturalist agenda that seeks to gag or eliminate any remaining opposition.

Speaking of fake news, the Vatican II Church has been a veritable waterfall of theological and philosophical fake news since its inception after the death of Pope Pius XII. Here are some examples:

  • Martin Luther was a witness to the Gospel — fake news!
  • elements of the Catholic Church exist in other religions — fake news!
  • God may want adulterers to continue in their adultery — fake news!
  • the United Nations is the last hope of mankind — fake news!
  • heretics and schismatics have a divine mission to preach the Gospel — fake news!
  • converting heretics to Catholicism is a sin — fake news!
  • the existence of God cannot be proved by reason — fake news!
  • God cannot be God without man — fake news!
  • Christians ought not to fear the Last Judgment — fake news!
  • the Church’s early martyrs died for religious liberty — fake news!
  • the Church of England has validly ordained clergy — fake news!
  • man-made global warming and climate change — fake news!
  • no one is condemned forever because that is not the logic of the gospel — fake news!
  • time is greater than space — fake news!
  • abortion and brevity of conjugal life are grounds for annulment — fake news!
  • the Talmudic Jews are Catholics’ “elder brothers in the faith” — fake news!
  • the Luminous Mysteries are part of the Holy Rosary — fake news!
  • the Novus Ordo worship service is the Catholic Mass — fake news!
  • Our Lady of Fatima came to warn the world of what would ultimately be a failed assassination attempt on a man the world recognized as Pope — fake news!
  • Muslims worship the same God as Catholics — fake news!
  • hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of marriages declared invalid — fake news!
  • Islam is a religion of peace — fake news!
  • Joseph Ratzinger is a conservative, traditionalist, orthodox Catholic — fake news!
  • every deceased supposed Pope since 1958 is a saint — fake news!
  • genuine martyrdom is possible outside the Catholic Church — fake news!
  • the Talmudic Jews have a valid covenant with God and are His Chosen People — fake news!
  • John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are Roman Catholic Popes — fake news!
This is but a tiny sampler of what is a virtually endless list of lies, errors, and heresies promoted by the Vatican II Church. To make it a complete list would be impossible, for we would be interrupted by the Second Coming of Christ before we could finish it.

The upshot of all this is that fake news is indeed a problem, but the last entity on earth that could credibly complain about it is “Club Jorge” in Vatican City. Was it not “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro of La Civilta Cattolica, the famous fellow-Jesuit and bosom buddy of “Pope” Francis, who once claimed that in sacred theology, two plus two could equal five because it “has to do with God and real life of people” (see tweet here)? This effectively means that anything is possible in theology. And that’s exactly how the Modernist squatters in the Vatican have been acting since the last true Pope was taken out of the way.

What is Francis’ document against fake news ultimately aiming at? What does he think this “papal” message will actually accomplish? Is it perhaps a first step to the setting up of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth for the whole globe? Is it the initial “papal” endorsement? It is important to think long-term. Francis is a big fan of putting the necessary premises in place so he can draw their conclusions later. Already he is praising “those institutional and legal initiatives aimed at developing regulations for curbing the phenomenon….” Really, the one thing worse than having to sift through the news to tell the true from the false is to have the Freemasonic elites and other anti-Catholic oligarchs of the world tell us what is true and what is false!

And yet it is clear that the only way to effectively combat fake news is to impose censorship. Is this where all the obsession about fake news is headed?

Censorship is not wrong as long as it is Catholic censorship imposed by a lawful Catholic authority, ecclesiastical or civil. But such is only possible or desirable in a Catholic confessional state, not in any secular or otherwise non-Catholic nation, such as all countries of the world are at this point, including the United States. There is a reason why the Catholic Church requires that any writings on faith, morals, and related subjects receive the official approval from the diocesan authorities before they are allowed to be published (typically the nihil obstat and imprimatur); there is a reason why Holy Mother Church has an Index of Forbidden Books. These things are legislated in Canons 1384-1405 of the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917.

Presumptuously appealing to the “mature conscience of the faithful” and expressing a foolish “hope in the vigilant care of the individual Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences”, “Pope” Paul VI in 1966 ordered the suppression of the Index of Forbidden Books (see Notification Post Litteras Apostolicas) and later reduced the required Church approbation for books to a minimum. Despite the typical specks of plausible deniability that are always included in a document like this, whether tucked away in a subordinate clause or buried in a footnote, it is clear that the Modernist Vatican has fostered the idea that Catholics ought not to be given a spiritual babysitter who tells them what is and isn’t safe for them to read.

And now they’re complaining about the proliferation of fake news.

Oh, the irony.

Image source: Wikipedia, modified
License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Share the knowledge!
  • 4
in Novus Ordo Wire Existentialism, Francis 0
26 Ago 2013
Ciudadanos apoya la ley socialista que castigaría con hasta dos años de cárcel a quien hable bien de la España de Franco


El grupo parlamentario del PSOE ha presentado una reforma de la Ley de Memoria Histórica que pretende establecer una versión única de la historia a la vez que el castigo judicial de cuanto español pretenda disentir de esa versión. Es una imposición que proviene de la izquierda más revanchista, pero que contará con el apoyo de Ciudadanos, que ya ha anunciado que apoya el nuevo texto, y la abstención del PP, que nuevamente se sumerge en su abstención cómplice.

El articulado del nuevo proyecto legal sobre la memoria histórica tipifica como delito el enaltecimiento de la labor política del franquismo, así como la oposición a los dictados de la nueva ley que se pretende aprobar. Así, se considerará “apología franquista” destacar por ejemplo los logros del régimen anterior en cualquier campo. Sostener que, con la creación de la Seguridad Social por parte de Franco, España experimentó un notable progreso social, o defender que las universidades populares respondieron al interés del régimen franquista de propiciar la integración universitaria de los hijos de los trabajadores, podrían convertirse en sendos pronunciamientos delictivos. Respecto a cuál sería la tipificación por identificar el desarrollo de la industria turística española con los ministros de Turismo nombrados por Franco, se espera que Rivera nos lo aclare pronto.

La ley socialista apoyada por Ciudadanos pretende exhumar a Franco del Valle de los Caídos y apropiarse de este monumento, construido en honor a todas las víctimas del conflicto.

Para ello propone ‘reconvertirlo’ en un “centro nacional de Memoria, impulsor de la cultura de la reconciliación, la memoria colectiva democrática y la dignificación y reconocimiento de las víctimas de la Guerra Civil y la Dictadura”.

Si se aprueba la reforma, el 31 de octubre pasaría a ser reconocido como día de recuerdo y homenaje a las víctimas en recuerdo del 31 de octubre de 1978, fecha en el que fue aprobada en en el Congreso y en el Senado la Constitución del 78.

Además, se pondrán placas en aquellos lugares que se hayan cometido crímenes de guerra, según los expertos escogidos por PP, PSOE, C´s, Unidos Podemos, etc. Asimismo se endurecerán las sanciones a quienes no retiren los símbolos franquistas como se indica en la actual ley.

Se incluiría en el currículo de todas las edades la memoria democrática y se promocionaría la investigación sobre la represión franquista

También se obliga al Ministerio de Educación a incluir en los programas educativos “la enseñanza de la historia democrática española y la lucha por los valores y libertades democráticas”, así como a la formación de profesores con los nuevos datos obtenidos de la investigación sobre la memoria democrática, la inclusión en el currículo de todas las edades (de Primaria a la Universidad) de la memoria democrática y la promoción de investigaciones sobre la “represión franquista”.

Por otra parte, la ley insta a los medios de comunicación públicos, a promocionar “el conocimiento de la memoria democrática española mediante programas específicos de divulgación y mediante la cobertura informativa de actividades relacionadas con la materia” y dando difusión al relato de las víctimas. Asimismo, se elaborará un manual de estilo para el adecuado tratamiento de la información en materia de memoria histórica.

En lo que respecta a las medidas represivas contempladas por la nueva ley socialista que apoyan los de Rivera, se impondrán multas de 2.000 a 10.000 euros de multa para quienes se nieguen a cumplir una resolución sobre la retirada de un símbolo por considerarse franquista. Ha habido muchos casos de este tipo al querer retirar cruces por considerarse franquistas.

De 200 a 2.000 euros de multa para los que exhiban públicamente elementos contrarios a la Memoria Histórica.

De uno a cuatro años de prisión para los que públicamente “fomenten, promuevan o inciten directa o indirectamente al odio, hostilidad, discriminación o violencia contras las víctimas de la Guerra Civil y del franquismo por su condición”.

También para quienes distribuyan o vendan escritos con la misma condición del apartado anterior.

Se contemplan asimismo penas de seis meses a dos años cárcel para quienes enaltezcan o justifiquen el franquismo y se destruirán los libros que se atrevan a cuestionar los dogmas ideológicos de la Memoria Histórica

En todos los casos, se impondrá además la pena de inhabilitación especial para profesión u oficio educativo por un tiempo superior entre tres y diez años de la pena por privación de libertad que se le imponga por el delito relacionado con faltar a la Memoria Histórica.

Se aprueba la destrucción, borrado o inutilización de los libros, archivos, etc. que den soporte a los delitos de los apartados anteriores.

Para los funcionarios públicos que por sí mismo o como miembro de un organismo colegiado voten en contra de medidas que supongan la aplicación de la memoria democrática, resultando en el bloqueo e incumplimiento de las mismas, será castigado con entre un año y medio a cuatro años de prisión e inhabilitación especial de empleo o cargo.

Origen: Ciudadanos apoya la ley socialista que castigaría con hasta dos años de cárcel a quien hable bien de la España de Franco – Alerta Digital
26 Ago 2013
El “Ministerio de la verdad” de Orwell que el PSOE y Podemos promueven con la modificacion de la ley de desmemoria historica.

Un adelanto:

«Artículo 510 bis.

  1. Serán castigados con la pena de prisión de seis meses a dos años y multa de seis a doce meses:

  2. Quienes enaltezcan o justifiquen por cualquier medio de expresión pública o de difusión el franquismo, o los delitos que hubieran sido cometidos contra las víctimas de la Guerra Civil Española o del franquismo por su condición como tales, o a quienes hayan participado en su ejecución.
Pasen y lean:




PROPOSICIONES DE LEY 22 de diciembre de 2017


Núm. 190-1 Pág. 1
122/000157 Proposición de Ley para la reforma de la Ley 52/2007, de 26 de diciembre, por la que se reconocen y amplían derechos y se establecen medidas en favor de quienes padecieron persecución o violencia durante la guerra civil y la dictadura.

Presentada por el Grupo Parlamentario Socialista.

La Mesa de la Cámara, en su reunión del día de hoy, ha adoptado el acuerdo que se indica respecto del asunto de referencia.

(122) Proposición de Ley de Grupos Parlamentarios del Congreso.

Autor: Grupo Parlamentario Socialista.

Proposición de Ley para la reforma de la Ley 52/2007, de 26 de diciembre, por la que se reconocen y amplían derechos y se establecen medidas en favor de quienes padecieron persecución o violencia durante la guerra civil y la dictadura.


Admitir a trámite, trasladar al Gobierno a los efectos del artículo 126 del Reglamento, publicar en el Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales y notificar al autor de la iniciativa.

En ejecución de dicho acuerdo se ordena la publicación de conformidad con el artículo 97 del Reglamento de la Cámara.

Palacio del Congreso de los Diputados, 19 de diciembre de 2017.— P.D. El Secretario General del Congreso de los Diputados, Carlos Gutiérrez Vicén.

A la Mesa del Congreso de los Diputados

En nombre del Grupo Parlamentario Socialista me dirijo a esa Mesa para, al amparo de lo establecido en el artículo 124 y siguientes del vigente Reglamento del Congreso de los Diputados, presentar la siguiente Proposición de Ley para la reforma de la Ley 52/2007, de 26 de diciembre, por la que se reconocen y amplían derechos y se establecen medidas en favor de quienes padecieron persecución o violencia durante la guerra civil y la dictadura.

Palacio del Congreso de los Diputados, 14 de diciembre de 2017.—Margarita Robles Fernández, Portavoz del Grupo Parlamentario Socialista.



Exposición de motivos

TODO AQUÍ: El “Ministerio de la verdad” de Orwell que el PSOE y Posemos promueven con la modificacion de la ley de desmemoria histórica.
9 Jul 2012
Las fake news se nos esta yendo de las manos

Es cierto.Ya no sabemos donde está la verdad y quien miente,si los que dicen que eso es un bulo y los que dicen que no,es otra manera de crear confusión,y la ganancia siempre es de los mismos,mientras estamos entretenidos en estas merdes,no tenemos tiempo de ver por nosotros mismos, otras realidades que sufrimos en nuestras propias carnes.
16 Mar 2013

efectivamente, es para flipar...

Russian military plane with 14 on board disappears during Israeli strikes on Latakia
Published time: 17 Sep, 2018 22:42 Edited time: 18 Sep, 2018 10:54
Get short URL

Il-20 Coot reconnaissance aircraft © arms-expo.ru
A Russian military Il-20 aircraft with 14 service members on board went off the radar during an attack by four Israeli jets on Syria’s Latakia province, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
Air traffic controllers at Khmeimim Airbase “lost contact” with the aircraft on Monday evening, during an attack by Israeli F-16 fighters on Latakia, said the MoD. The plane was 35km off the coast of Syria when it vanished.

READ MORE: Russia detects missile launches from French frigate off Syria’s coast in Mediterranean – MoD

Russian radars also registered the launch of missiles from a French frigate in the Mediterranean on the evening of September 17.

Read more
Syrian port city Latakia 'attacked by missiles from sea' – local media (VIDEOS)
A total of 14 people were on board the plane at the time of the disappearance. A search and rescue mission is underway.

The Ilyushin 20 (IL-20) surveillance turboprop plane is an Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) platform, equipped with a wide range of antennas, infrared and optical sensors. The aircraft's SLAR (Side-Looking Airborne Radar) and the plane's satellite link allows the Russian military to monitor Syrian skies in real time.

An hour-long attack on Latakia began around 10pm local time, and targeted a power station as well as two facilities belonging to the Syrian military. Syrian officials said the attack was “foreign” and came “from the sea,” but could not initially confirm rumors that Israel was behind it. Seven people were injured in the attack, according to Syrian officials.

While the Russian military said it recorded four F-16 Israeli jets over Syria at the time of the attack on Latakia, the IDF has refused to comment on the report.

Read more
Putin & Erdogan agree Idlib buffer zone to avert new Syria crisis

Despite the fact that Israel rarely acknowledges striking specific targets inside Syria, earlier this month the IDF admitted hitting at least 202 “Iranian targets” in the country. Overall, Israel has launched 792 bombs and missiles at Syria since 2017, arguing that the strikes were necessary to prevent Iran from setting up bases in the country in order to stage attacks against the Jewish state.

As Israel continues to claim the right to intrude in Syria, despite repeated condemnations from Damascus, France had said that it will join the US-led campaign to strike Syria again if there are reports of chemical weapons use.

Over the last few weeks, Moscow has been beating drums about a false-flag chemical attack that is being prepared by the notorious White Helmets and jihadists in Idlib province in order to frame government forces. Such a provocation, the Russian military argues, will be used to trigger a US-led attack against Damascus.

The attack on Latakia came just hours after Russia and Turkey negotiated a partial demilitarization of Idlib province, which is the last remaining stronghold of anti-government militants, including the Al-Qaeda affiliate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (also known as the Jabhat Al-Nusra).


...pero no, ha sido Assad :rolleyes::banghead::banghead::banghead:

...por cierto, visto que solo Russia Today ha quedado fuera del control de La Piovra de la propaganda OTAN, recuerdo que el año pasado RT fue proclamada non grata (en una votación más que dudosa en el Parlamento Europeo) y sus cuentas congeladas sin preaviso en Inglaterra (desde donde emite)..qué cosas...cuanta democracia y libertad de expresión :rolleyes::ROFLMAO::banghead: