Elite are cracking down on free speech to stop true democracy

Although this might seem counterintuitive given the current political culture, but there is a realistic chance that voting for what the media calls the “far Right” is the best way to save democracy. Contrary to what one might believe, the true threat to a democratic system comes rarely from the Left or the Right per se, but from those who simply assume that they are entitled to rule, regardless of the will of the voters.

The true beauty of democracy is less its moral content, but the fact that it is designed to vote those out who got a little too comfortable with holding power. By nature in democracies power is not supposed to be hereditary, even though there are always attempts by the ruling elites to make it so. A healthy democracy will rise up against those very elites at the voting booth, installing a new elite – which then is supposed to be replaced as well if they should get too comfortable with power.

To be clear, I am not using the term elite in a conspiratorial sense, but to describe the media, culture, and political establishment that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at all costs. Think about former German Chancellor Angela Merkel claiming her policies are “without alternatives” or the 2016 presidential elections in the United States, where the establishment dream was not a contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but between Jeb Bush (the son and brother of two former presidents) and Hillary (the wife of a former president). This is about as hereditary as it could get in supposedly democratic republic, and among the left leaning elite this urge is still strong.

This is the reason why so many were hoping that Michelle Obama would enter the race, so a new dynasty could continue the status quo policies of the last 30 years. Alas, the voters decided that it is not enough to be a democracy in name only, and enough votes were cast for Donald Trump to upset the entire political consensus of the United States.

Sure, Trump was running as a Republican, but his true appeal was as an anti-establishment candidate. To this very day, the Republican aristocracy despises him, and it comes as no surprise that names like Cheney, Bush, or Romney will vote for Kamala Harris in the upcoming election cycle. Dick Cheney, vice president under George W. Bush, was dubbed “Darth Vader” by the mainstream media and accused of bringing “war, torture and moral rot” like one of the apocalyptic horsemen. Now all is forgotten, since “Bushhitler’s” former VP has endorsed “Comrade Kamala” – one of the most left-liberal senators in modern American history. The alleged former crypto-fascist endorses the alleged crypto-communist.

Maybe the dividing line really is not Left vs. Right, but establishment vs. anti-establishment. Whether it is the Cheneys or the Bidens of the world, in their view they are entitled to rule and it is their exclusive privilege, not an obligation one has to earn. The anti-Trump coalition is the realisation of what mocking commentators describe as the “uniparty.” The phenomenon where you have two parties on the ballot, but both more or less subscribe to the same policy preferences on all the things that matter, with maybe some minor disagreements on tax policy.

True change becomes all but impossible unless you have people sufficiently narcissistic and sociopathic that they are willing to go to war with the unified front of the media-political cartel. If President Eisenhower feared the power of the military-industrial complex, nowadays it is the collusion between the establishment media and establishment politics. Which is why they hate the internet and Elon Musk. From Kamala Harris in the US to Thierry Breton in Europe, those in power are gearing up to regulate wherever and whatever they can on the worldwide web. Supposedly, to protect democracy, in truth, to protect their own claim to power.

Don’t take my word for it. Reporting on the crackdown on free speech and Musk’s X in Brazil, the Wall Street Journal reports that recent court decision are intended “to block anti-establishment opinion makers” who use “irreverence and derision as rhetorical weapons against the ruling establishment.” Who would have thought?

Using the courts to suppress those who make fun of the establishment, certainly such a thing can only happen in Latin America. Well, and maybe in Germany where the Greens are already suggesting a ban on X and the left-wing coalition is constantly trying to sue those who dare to make fun of them, forcing the country’s highest courts to remind Scholz et al. that (for now) free speech is still a thing in Germany.

But that does not stop Berlin from bending the laws in order to quash views it does not like. In an precedented act of legal chutzpa, Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser applied a law designed to ban criminal and radical organisations in order to ban a right-wing publication. Because, in her reasoning, a magazine is sort-of, kind-of also an organisation and should therefore be treated equally under the law.

To put it differently, the guy publishing a magazine is no different from whoever runs the ISIS or al-Qaeda branch in Berlin. This time, however, the higher courts once again overturned this blatant government overreach, but wait until the types like Faeser have a say in who is supposed to be on the Supreme Courts of the land. Again, I am not exaggerating. The current German government is frantically trying to alter laws in order to prevent a growing AfD from having any say in the composition of future courts, which would be akin to US Democrats passing a law that would prevent a Republican president from nominating and a Republican Senate from confirming federal judges.

One starts to suspect that “defending democracy” is increasingly turning into “defending from democracy” by all means necessary. Similarly, in the United Kingdom the new Starmer government is trying to prevent “hate” by sending the coppers on everyone who might feel some slight discomfort with seeing more Palestine than England flags in his neighbourhood – and dares to say so on social media. From the uniparty’s perspective, this makes complete sense. After all, mass migration and multiculturalism are yet another flag the establishment has nailed to the mast of its sinking ship. 

If, as is currently happening all over the world, you have to alter democratic institutions to shield them from the will of the voters, it is you who is a threat to democracy, not those for whom the people vote. If they cannot legally compel you into the preferred way of thinking, they simply start lying to you. Take, for example, a look at this graph: The red bar (SPD) and the Green bar (the Greens) appear higher than the blue bar (AfD), despite the former two having lower values (15 per cent and 11 per cent compared to 17 per cent).

Take a look at this graph:

The red bar (SPD) and the Green bar (the Greens) appear higher than the blue bar (AfD), despite the former two having lower values (15% and 11% compared to 17%).

This is misleading propaganda by a German public broadcaster. pic.twitter.com/XErQGGnih7

— Ralph Schoellhammer (@Raphfel) September 9, 2024

This is misleading propaganda by a German public broadcaster, financed by the taxpayer. After 24 hours the graph was replaced with an apology, claiming that the original one was put up by mistake. By whom? The blind and dyslexic intern responsible for the graphics department? If you do not know that 17 is a higher number than 15 and 11, you are either a moron or have an agenda. And we all know which one is more likely in this case. 

I might be going out on a limb here, but I believe that a vote for Trump is the best thing that could happen to democracy, just as I believe that voting AfD or National Rally is a good thing for democracy. It is the right of the electorate to remove from office those who they feel no longer represent them or have taken it upon themselves to ignore what voters care about and instead try to tell them what they are supposed to care about. The establishment parties need to take a break from power and reflect on their positions and how to appeal to voters again. If they do, they might one day return to power, with the approval of the people.