Related videos:
The narrative driven by the propaganda apparatus of the Cuban regime following the arrest of the athlete Javier Ernesto Martín Gutiérrez, known as the "Spiderman of Cuba," has not only sparked controversy: it has triggered a wave of reactions that reveal a deep crisis of institutional credibility.
The post published by , a platform linked to State Security, sought to impose a classic framework: portraying the protester as someone with possible mental disorders, minimizing their protest as “public disorder,” and discrediting independent media that amplified the case.
However, users' responses on social media show a massive rejection of that narrative.
Far from accepting the official version, hundreds of comments directly question the consistency of the narrative. The most repeated doubt, almost like a collective refrain, summed up the core of the rejection: “If he is crazy, why was he taken to Villa Marista and not to a psychiatric hospital?”.
This question, posed in various ways, became the main citizen argument against the official narrative.
Since when has Villa Marista been a hospital?, ironized a comment. Another insisted: To evaluate a mental patient, you call an ambulance, not State Security.
The logic was repeated time and again, dismantling the attempt to present the arrest as an act of “medical assistance.”
Many users also pointed out the double standard in the authorities' actions. “In my neighborhood there are scandals every day and the police never show up, but shout against the government and they pick you up in hours,” one noted.
Another questioned: “Why don't they pick up the many mentally ill people on the streets? Why only this one?”.
The contrast between the supposed concern for the "noise" of the protester and the daily reality of the country was also widely noted. “Nine days without sleep? What about the blackouts lasting 20 hours?”, asked a user.
The children can't sleep due to the mosquitoes and the power outage, but that doesn't worry them, another added.
This type of comment shifted the focus from the individual to the context: the structural crisis that Cuba is experiencing. For many, the behavior of the “Spiderman” is not an isolated incident, but rather an expression of widespread discontent.
Anyone goes crazy living like this, summarized one comment. Another put it more directly: “If he’s crazy, it’s because he lives in Cuba.”
In parallel, there was also a strong rejection of the strategy to pathologize dissent. “It's always the same: if you protest, you're crazy, a criminal, or you're being paid,” wrote a user. Another added: “They can't accept that someone speaks the truth; they have to make something up about them.”
This pattern, widely recognized by commentators, revealed that the label of "mental illness" no longer serves as an effective discrediting mechanism. On the contrary, it generates immediate suspicion. “We already know the script: now they will say he is schizophrenic to justify whatever they do to him,” one comment warned.
Even some users who did not openly defend the protester expressed skepticism about the official version. “
Another recurring element in the conversation was the denunciation of the selective use of the law. “If it’s disorderly conduct, that's a fine, not Villa Marista,” pointed out a user. “No one is taken there for shouting; that’s for opponents,” added another. The general perception is that this is not an issue of public order, but rather of political content.
There were also many comments that pointed directly to media manipulation. “This is just another poorly constructed story that no one believes,” wrote a user. Another summarized: “It’s not that one is in favor of one or the other, it’s that we no longer believe anything from them.”
In the face of this wave of criticism, comments aligned with the official narrative—many of them echoing similar arguments about "public disorder," "affected neighbors," or "mental health issues"—emerged as part of a recognizable pattern for the users themselves. Many identified them as coordinated interventions from the so-called "ciberclarias," a term commonly used to describe accounts that systematically defend the regime.
The same people always show up to tell the same story, a comment noted. Another one quipped: The internet clowns have arrived to explain the inexplicable. This perception reinforces the idea that the debate is not organic, but rather partially induced.
The tone of the conversation also reflects a high level of social tension. Accumulated frustration translates into harsh language, filled with indignation. Beyond the insults, what matters is the underlying context: a society increasingly divided between a dwindling yet vocal group of regime supporters and a growing mass of Cubans fed up with the totalitarian power.
Ultimately, the reaction to the post by Razones de Cuba revealed a broader phenomenon. The attempt to delegitimize the protest through pathologization not only loses effectiveness, but can also backfire against the state discourse itself. More and more citizens recognize this tactic as a form of manipulation.
The case of the "Spiderman of Cuba" is no longer just the story of an individual protesting from a balcony. It is also a barometer of public opinion: a society that, even amidst fear and fragmentation, is beginning to openly question official narratives.
And in that context, one question continues to resonate strongly, repeated over and over in the comments: if this is truly a mental health issue, why did it end up at the heart of the State's repressive apparatus?
Filed under: