Cancellation of our mind

 By, Milton Lima

12-06-2025

Are you able to finance our activities? Donate here

Calls

What I read during the first week of June was extremely interesting. I deliberately draw attention to communication and worldview. As a researcher, I analyse the extreme politics and discourse used by those in power to construct their arguments. I also strive daily to broaden my worldview. History is my passion. From an early age, I was curious and loved reading, and my tastes improved when I learnt other languages.

As this is a brief note, we must choose our battles carefully. I have been writing in this space for some time, and you can find a series of texts about the books I have read from around the world. I usually avoid delving too deeply into communication, but today, out of respect for the reader, I would like to present a logical approach to how I gather and share news.

Having a world view is essential for reading with a cognitive bias. The more you read, the more you stray from reality because nothing is as it seems. People in power who make decisions lead different lives. What does that mean? It means that we have been fooled for too long by distractions such as colour revolutions. Or by news reports that condemn some and acquit others.

In this worldview, news follows the current pattern and is reported accordingly. When I analyse the chaos and the way communication is presented, I wonder how readers interpret the news without distancing themselves from the medium. To understand the economists' thoughts on war, geopolitics and artificial intelligence, I look for sources validated by this group. By this, I mean newspapers that are widely regarded as prestigious.

So, in each country, you find the traditional press validating what is right and wrong. This is why, when I comment on the news I read in the second week of June 2025, I feel like we're still discussing what we read when we should be talking about what we didn't read.

No matter which source you choose to believe, everything is very relative: who is writing; who they are writing for; why; how; what they are reading; what they believe; who they are representing; and so on.

When you go back to modern thinking, cancel culture becomes commonplace. The obvious response to cancel culture is to ignore it, but what happens in a capitalist society? The culture of cancelling affects not only public image, but also what is valued in the competitive economic landscape.

The current crisis of values experienced by society is structural and unequal. The media will never question the status quo; they will simply follow the rules of the game. If you read the main French newspapers, for example, you will notice a consistent editorial stance and clear criteria for what is or isn't considered relevant for publication. The same applies to Germany, Spain and Italy. However, the world is not divided between London and Washington. We know how the financial elite operates. Do we? Just look at how complex it is.

Turning to Latin America, the most pressing issue is identity. Politically, news moves from one interest group to another, and it's clear that they all the sources come from the same place: the Anglo-Saxon world.

The other day, I read a story about young Indians who were worried that the university and immigration crises would stop them from studying in the US. The desire for knowledge is a natural aspiration for young people, and culture has always encouraged them to pursue it. We have visited almost every continent.

These prestigious newspapers around the world do not address the repercussions of Russia and China seeking an alternative to global trade. I'm not defending a particular model, but I am questioning why we are not exploring other models. The BRICs are countries that have long dreamed of independence.

What I've read this week is history being demonised once again. It's astonishing how eager the West is to portray the Russians as villains, while the Chinese, with their ancient culture, are committed to the national power project they established, which they must maintain at all costs.

Trump needs to understand the deep state's game and see who remains allied, because the behind-the-scenes fight is happening now and isn't reported in the newspapers. If Trump didn't give the green light to attack Russia, who did? Have you heard any rumours of a possible coup? And if there is a coup, what will the cost be? Clearly, part of the global elite wants a hot war. This would maintain the debt and the system, and nothing would change except how history is recorded. The risk of war is immense, and Trump is a completely manipulated figure in this game. Only the three leaders of these powers — Putin, Xi and Trump — can prevent disaster. However, all sides are promoting division and forcing people to choose sides, and not everyone is interested in the side they're given.