A decree published in the Official Gazette (annex to Decree 864 2025) establishes new guidelines for the State Intelligence Secretariat (CIDE) and causes great concern. In dialogue with Fontevecchia modefrom Net TV And Radio profile (AM 1190) The journalist Santiago Martínez Laino explained that the document contains concepts related to the issue of communication and discourse, such as: “discursive sovereignty”, “information and decision-making sovereignty” and “strategic communication”.“.
These terms are taken into account highly problematicbecause they violate the freedom of expression enshrined in the law Article 14 of the National Constitution and the intelligence law, which prohibits the observation of people because of their political opinions, said Martínez Laino. The regulations appear to make it easier to educate citizens whose legal activities can be interpreted as a threat, especially those who “change the perception of strategic projects.”
This policy has been associated with a “war doctrine” which takes into account the idea of an “inner enemy” or “cultural struggle” and enables the study of political opponents and social movements. It is observed that language also contains concepts like “social volatility” This suggests that the goal is to avoid challenging the current economic model.
Authoritarians don’t like that
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a mainstay of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
Given the possibility that “Unconventional Actors” When it comes to “undermining social cohesion” or “weakening institutional legitimacy through manipulated narratives,” intelligence is able to identify “discursive patterns” and design “evidence-based preventative responses.” The aim is to strengthen “national information resilience” and enable new forms of “deterrence”, with a response that “convincing“. The “elegant” language used in the appendix disguises the severity of the proposals.
ADEPA defended press freedom, warned against criminal code reform and hinted at pressure from the AFA
Santiago Martinez Laino: When I look at the official bulletin from last Friday, I see that the President, together with the Chief of Staff, issued a decree, a decree establishing the guidelines for the SIDEthe State Secretariat. And some concepts established as discursive sovereignty, contested narratives, strategic communication, information and decision-making sovereignty caught my attention. Then there are all the concepts, i.e. a whole section dedicated to the topic of communication contrary to Article 14 the national constitution, which stipulates Freedom of expressionthe Internet Law, the accession of our country to the Pact of San José of Costa Rica and also to the National Intelligence Law. Because that’s exactly what the National Intelligence Act itself says can neither observe nor gain knowledge against people because of their race, religious or political opinions. Given the legal activities that every citizen of our country carries out, An educational process cannot be established. This caught my attention and I find it very concerning. Because a facility would be set up to provide information to those who, for example “Changing the perception of strategic projects.” And what does it mean to change the perception of strategic projects? For example, the opinion of an economist who says that the dollar can fall and rise, that if it needs to be devalued, it should not be devalued, It can be assumed that they change the information.
The figure is beautiful. Let’s go back. Changes…
Changes in the question of who changes the perception of strategic projects.
Changing perceptions
Clear. And the question of national cohesion comes up all the time, right? That is, every figure, every sector that changes national cohesion. As if there was national cohesion. First of all, he speaks of “discursive sovereignty”, as if there were only one discourse in our country, as if there were not several opinions that different citizens can discuss, who do not have to experience prior censorship about anything.
If I’m not mistaken… What’s inherent in this is the idea of the enemy within. In other words, it implies a kind of war doctrine that there is an internal enemy.
Exactly. He presents it as a war doctrine.
Daniel Kerner: “Politically, Milei goes with the world, but economically he goes against the grain”
The war of the famous cultural battle, right?
The cultural battle brings it into this. There is even a section that warns of possible problems that may arise from internal migration and the possible social conflicts. It is precisely about examining social movements, political opponents, those who are “in front of” or questioning. What would those who question labor reform then do in the face of this labor reform?
Change perception
They change the perception of the strategic project and are therefore worth investigating and raising awareness about, which I find extremely worrying.
When changing the perception of strategic projects, it seems to me that there is a very interesting glossary in which one can, in a sense, find a common thread. At the beginning you mentioned that there were other similar words of this kind.
Well, the question of discursive sovereignty and information sovereignty.
And how can this be translated into real everyday language?
I just made a note and posted it notalpie.com.ar, a cooperative portal. I marked that a little bit there. Because there is a part that deals with the whole question of defending national sovereignty, very laudable terms, but they do not correspond to other issues raised by the government as a whole. For example, yesterday I read a message that said that They are in the process of extracting oil from the Malvinas. A North American company licensed by the Kelper. And we haven’t seen a statement on this from either the Chancellor or the President. However, there is a whole part here that is about sovereignty, but above all about discursive sovereignty.
Discourse and information sovereignty would be the sovereignty of the government. There would be a sovereignty in which there would be a single discourse and a single sovereign information, namely that of the government, if I understand that correctly.
Yes, there are even other parts, for example on page 20, which say: “The evolution of the economic and financial order can influence scope for sovereign maneuvers, trigger geopolitical pressures or create an environment of “social volatility”. How does that sound to you? That is, various political, social, activist movements,
Conditions for confident maneuvers.
And trigger geopolitical pressure or create an environment of social volatility.
The Tucumán judge banned a television station from broadcasting criticism of prosecutors and judges for six months
Social volatility. I’ll stick with social volatility. I think it’s wonderful. There is a glossary that the International Monetary Fund always uses. If you analyze the glossary of the Monetary Fund when it produces these reports, it always explains in a way, with really elegant words, situations that, when translated into everyday language, are impressively harsh. suggestions in this way. With this more elegant language they seem more disguised, don’t they? But I still have social volatility, discursive sovereignty and a changing perception of strategic projects. Yes, it looks like Big Brother.
The way it is.
I mean, it looks like Orwell
It even says, and I quote: “These operations, often of covert origin or articulated by unconventional actors, aim to undermine social cohesion and weaken institutional legitimacy through manipulated narratives. Given this, intelligence services make it possible to identify discursive patterns, map networks of influence, track operational traceability and design preventive responses based on evidence, thereby increasing national information resilience and the ability to To anticipate risk scenarios, I asked myself whether this is a convincing response.” for example in connection with troll gangs that work with the government.
Sorry, sorry, are you asking for convincing answers? Is that a sentence from you or does it require convincing answers?
No, they say it elsewhere on page 26: “These capabilities not only redefine operational thresholds in defense, intelligence and logistics, but also enable new forms of deterrence, power projection and institutional resilience in the face of disruptive scenarios.”
He is obviously proposing a glossary, a language that deals with the implementation of a state policy, a culture war and a state authority, the implementation of an ideology, one might say. This is just to be absolutely sure that it will be published.
This was published in the Official Journal last Friday, a week ago. It is an appendix to the decree 864/2025. That’s it. It’s legal. It is already in force and has already been published in the Official Journal.
About The Author
