Ruben Gisbert: Do elites provoke unrest to justify mass surveillance?
Analyst Ruben Gisbert has raised a thesis that resonates with skeptical circles: street conflicts are not spontaneous, but promoted by elites to justify imposing control measures, such as facial recognition without a judicial order. He spoke after the Belfast riots, which he claims could spread across Europe. The comparison with farmers' protests—violent but fruitless—reinforces his argument: violence changes nothing if it is not directed toward a specific goal.
A global agenda or a local pattern
The thesis extends beyond Europe. Supporters point out that the same pattern repeats in American countries and South Africa: mass protests against immigration or the regime, which vanish when the internet is cut. The example of Iran, where protests ceased when the network was disconnected, is cited as proof that many movements are orchestrated. "We live in a play," summarizes one current of analysis.
Criticism and counterarguments
Not everyone buys the narrative. Criticism of Gisbert is harsh: he is accused of being a "Trevijano-style Memokrates" and acting as a mouthpiece for Moscow's interests. His alternative, according to detractors, would be to subjugate the West through Russian imperialism. Furthermore, his public image is questioned, comparing him with other media figures. The debate, however, reflects growing distrust toward the official narrative of social conflicts.
The question lingering in the air is whether there is truly global coordination or if these are coincidences fueling conspiracy theories. For now, the data do not allow confirming or entirely discarding Gisbert's hypothesis.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication.
Read the full discussion (11 replies).
A viral tweet claims a lawyer was attacked after filming the Malas Lenguas team, reaching nearly half a million views without independent verification.