The democratic enemy

Anyone who opposes my principles, values, interests, is an adversary. I have an obligation to respond with better ideas and arguments. Whoever prevents me from expressing, disseminating and defending those values, those principles, those interests, is an enemy. Today's enemy is the democrat. There are, in the collective unconscious, certain “divine”, untouchable words, whose equivocal, elastic meanings cannot be opposed under pain of exclusion and penal repression. The noun democracy and the adjective democratic are the totem words - together with progress - of the present.

We do not stand for this: we proudly affirm that we are not democratic, not in the current sense. First a clarification: real democracy is not a principle, but a method. Even Norberto Bobbio, the overrated “pope” of Italian culture for decades, came to this conclusion. A method for organising political society by measuring consensus in quantitative terms, based on the - debatable - idea that every living person endowed with citizenship (conferred according to the most varied criteria), once they have reached a certain age, corresponds to one vote. From the arithmetical sum of the votes democracy derives the right to exercise power. The first objections arise: the most obvious one concerns merit. No one guarantees that the most popular opinion is the right one. Mockingly, Nicolàs Gòmez Dàvila pointed out that the democrat should deduce from his defeat that he is wrong, since this is what the wisdom of most has decreed. The strongest objection, however, concerns, in mass societies, the evidence that consent or dissent is not autonomous, free, but heterodirected, determined by a powerful propaganda apparatus that orients choices, opinions, convictions, words.

As youngsters - visceral anti-communists - we were annoyed by the Marxist objection to the “formal” nature of bourgeois democracies, which denied, among other things, the value of voting on opposing lists, the pride of western political systems. An immense inscription displayed itself along a wall in a working-class neighbourhood: proletarian, if your vote was worth anything, they wouldn't let you vote. At the time - it was the 1970s - we thought it was nonsense. Instead, today it is a truth that concerns not only proletarians (a social class that has become antiquated, which not even the surviving Marxists talk about any more) but the whole of society.

The propaganda and communication apparatus is so pervasive, powerful, omnipresent, that the formation of common opinion is almost automatic. He who has the loudest voice in the media wins, proving Marshall Mc Luhan right: the medium is the message. We must be wary of any word or concept that needs qualifying adjectives: liberal democracy, people's democracy, and so on. Both communist Germany - the German Democratic Republic - and its western sister were democratic. Increasingly, we tend to confuse democracy - which is originally the right of the people to participate, to make their own decisions that affect them - with formally free elections. An increasingly apparent competition, in which some have more rights than others and those who do not participate in the chorus - the repertoire is determined by who pays for the music - are children of a lesser God. In a democracy, some have all rights, others have very few or none at all. The difference with the various forms of dictatorship or authoritarianism is one of form; in this the Marxists were right.

Today the enemy is democratic. It is right, it is good, it is true, what the majority likes. Decided a priori, shaped by those who control the media, i.e. mass culture. Democrats are today the repressors of dissent. Heterogenesis of ends: in order to maintain democracy - that is, its appearances - its partisans must deny legitimacy to ideas that conflict with their visions, opinions risen to the rank of unquestionable truths because they come from above, spread through unified media networks believed by accumulation, forced repetition and mockery of the Other. Nazi Goebbels said that repeating a lie a thousand times turns it into truth in the eyes of the majority. The Schmittian lesson of the absolute enemy bent on destroying the Other has been put into practice by the Good, the Righteous, the Democrats. Whose name is now synonymous with the repression of dissent from the Good of which they are the sole interpreters. The people, finally, like what they are made to like.

Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays, in the democratic and liberal America of the first half of the 20th century, openly theorised this: it is necessary to direct the people, to orient them in order to avoid disorder, a term that for them was synonymous with opposition to market society. Better than Antonio Gramsci it was they who theorised hegemony. Not of the collective intellectual builder of communism, but of a mercantile, utilitarian vision of existence, to deny which is a symptom of mental illness. As in Stalinist communism: those who oppose the Right, the Good, the Democratic, must be repressed as bearers of “hatred”.

Another heterogenesis of ends: those who do not think like the copyright holders of democracy must be put on criminal trial for hate crime. More refined than Karl Popper, Soros's mentor: the ‘open’ society, for the Austrian Jewish thinker, must be closed to those who do not share its assumptions. What is the substantial difference with totalitarianisms?

The new democrats have reached further heights: the open society acquires a moral halo in that it is closed to those it hates. Principles that differ from their own are no longer free expression (the flagship of the self-styled open society) but intolerable deviations to which inflexible prohibitions apply. The topics on which it is forbidden to dissent increase every day. The absolute taboos concern opposition to indiscriminate immigration; to abortion as a universal right; to gender theories and the LGBT universe (homo-marriage, transition and sexual self-perception with all that goes with it); to climate millenarianism; to the privatisation of the world. To these themes are added euthanasia (death as a solution to the problems of life!) the uterus for rent, the multicultural society. In Great Britain, the government is punishing protests against ethnic substitution with severe penalties, while it sends admitted paedophiles free. It is no longer the world in reverse, but a new world becoming law, imposition, repression. Always by democratic hands and in the name of ‘divine’ words: inclusion, welcome, rights.

Total is the change of line with respect to the fathers: forbidden to forbid was the slogan half a century ago. Forbidden to hate, that is, to think otherwise, today. The matrix is the same: the Jacobin instinct of those who erected guillotines in the name of the ‘nation’ and human rights. Class struggle has been abandoned - leaving the weak defenceless - in favour of ‘civil rights understood as compensation to minority groups. (...). Anyone who criticises on the merits any measure invoked in the name of non-discrimination commits an act of violence against minority groups already discriminated against. On those measures political correctness only authorises a favourable position regardless: pluralism automatically becomes hate speech, and must therefore be prevented, branding as “racist” “supremacist”, or “phobic” any opponent of the “rightist drift promoted in the name of the new tribal myth of progress” ( Eugenio Capozzi).

We live in post-democracy at the hands of democrats! It is worth recalling the cordon sanitaire imposed in France, in Spain, in Germany, against political formations guilty of not sharing the dominant model, accused of every nefariousness, summed up in the supreme crime, immense and eternal fascism. In the US, the Democrats - the party-state with that name, imitated in Italy by the PD - probably organised electoral fraud in 2020 and continue not to oppose their opponents with political arguments or alternative economic recipes, preferring demonisation. Money power has essentially bought the party, subverting the (Democratic...) primary election verdict to force Joe Biden to retire. The American “Democratic” party convention is a sign of what Western power wants and does. Outside, free abortions are offered by the billionaire Parent Parenthood and male sterilisations are offered. For some it is a culture of death, for others sacrosanct rights.

There can be no mediation; on one side hardened haters to be criminally repressed, on the other side the Good and Righteous. The villains hate the planet because they are perplexed by climate ideology, and humanity as a whole because they do not approve of the restrictions on freedoms in the name of pandemic control sanctioned by “democratic” regimes. The same ones who, after decades of pacifist rhetoric and rainbow flags, have converted to anti-Russian bellicism in the same moralistic tones as yesterday. They cry for Palestine but support Israel's violence, they call anti-Semitic hatred dissenting from the acts of a state - the only democracy in the Middle East, according to the official vulgate - against its neighbours.

Democrats are the opposite of what they claim to be. They repudiate pluralism and run towards the reduction of democracy to a regime in which only one option is allowed, theirs: the updated version of the propaganda of twentieth-century dictatorships. What is new is the transformation of the political dialectic into an edifying and emotional reconstruction of every issue, proposed by a chorus of media, agencies, institutions, coordinated by a common director. If a media, an intellectual, an artist stands in opposition to the chorus, the demand for censorship is triggered, indignant, angry. That is why the enemy is the democrat; one must have no qualms about attacking the totem and taboo words inverted, distorted to eliminate debate through demonisation, criminalisation, psychiatry (“hate speech”). The enemies of the democrats are today - another paradox - the true democrats, in the sense of power exercised through the participation of the people in their destiny (A. Moeller Van den Bruck). Totalitarian is the pretence of reserving the term democratic for itself and the export of democracy in the liberal, libertarian liberalist, i.e. globalist version.

Democrats bomb, but they do it for the good of the people; they open lagers like Guantanamo, but to fight terrorism. They intervene with weapons everywhere, but only to preserve democracy, calling, as in America, the Patriot Act (‘patriotic law’) restrictions on freedoms. The enemy is democratic and is founded on the power of money: it owns almost all channels of information, acculturation and education of peoples. We do not know whether he enjoys the consent of the majority. Rather, it counts on indifference, depoliticisation, the absence of debate and thought, the inability to develop alternatives. But if even these democratic enemies are a majority, who guarantees, if not tautology, that their ideas, actions, ends are just?

Number, Goethe argued, is the negation of truth. Especially if truth is seized, abolished, proclaimed without contradiction. For Soren Kierkegaard, the political majority is the craziest of all categories. Under these conditions, because of the means available to power, because of the prevalence of money (plutocracy, the true name for democracy), because of the lies it spreads, because of the way current opinion is formed/deformed, the philosopher of Aut Aut (or of the alternative) was right when he said that there is nothing more repugnant than the majority. And, more false, the enemy of reality, than what they call democracy.

Translation by Costantino Ceoldo