Opinion
Globalist elites around the world are trying to ‘protect democracy’ by eliminating right leaning competition
Marine Le Pen of the National Rally Party in France has been completely vilified by the establishment
From LifeSiteNews
By Emily Finley
The classic definition of democracy is ‘rule by the people’. The elites have a new definition of ‘democracy,’ denoting democracy as hypothetical ideal.
Many are calling the present political turmoil in Europe a crisis of democracy. The German establishment is trying to ban the right-wing AfD Party for its alleged desire to return Germany to fascism. In France, the progressives are doing their darndest to hamstring conservative Marine Le Pen and her National Rally Party after they won the first round of the French elections. And in Romania, the Constitutional Court just nullified the results of a presidential election because the “right wing” victor ostensibly benefited from Russian “election interference.”
But which definition of “democracy” are we talking about? For the establishment leaders, the AfD, the National Rally Party, and Calin Georgescu are threats to democracy. For the supporters of these right-of-center parties and politicians, the progressive authorities are the threat to democracy.
It is time we make a clear distinction between these two varieties of “democracy” that we are told are in crisis.
The classic definition of democracy is “rule by the people” and indicates a concrete form of government. There is another definition of “democracy,” in currency among many elites, denoting democracy as hypothetical ideal. I call this ideological understanding “democratism.”
Populists worry about the survival of the former kind of democracy. The establishment worries about the survival of democratism.
On what basis do establishment leaders argue that excluding popularly elected parties and representatives of the people saves democracy? And that nullifying the results of a democratic election is in the name of democracy? There is, in fact, in America and Western Europe and its colonial satellites a tradition of conceiving of democracy as an ideal rather than the actual will of the people. Jean-Jacques Rousseau outlined this new understanding of democracy in his Social Contract in 1762. He argues that democracy is not the expressed will of the people but rather its ideal will, which he calls the General Will. Because the people are often uninformed, inclined to self-interest, and generally too narrow-minded to see the whole picture, they often deviate from that which is in their true interest, which is synonymous with the General Will. Therefore, an all-knowing and all-powerful Legislator must midwife the General Will into existence, even against the wishes of the people. If the people were to look deep down, Rousseau insists, they would see that the Legislator’s General Will really is their own individual will.
How often do we hear that those who voted for Donald Trump did not really know what was in their best interest? That they were duped? Or that the results of a popular election in Europe in which a “far right” candidate won was due to “interference” or social media misinformation adulterating the results of the election? Headlines and academic articles about this or that politician or political measure or social media platform subverting democracy to “save it” are too numerous to count.
It turns out that an entirely different notion of democracy, the one elaborated by Rousseau, is under discussion. For Rousseau as well as our own elite ministers of democracy, pluralism, coalition governments, compromise as imagined by the American founders, and genuine tolerance of opposing viewpoints are like so many defeats for “democracy” of the democratist variety.
Under democratism, there can be but one Public Will, which is identical to the will of the establishment elites. That a genuine plurality of legitimate political viewpoints could exist is inconceivable. John Rawls confirmed this Rousseauean interpretation of democracy with his Theory of Justice, which states outright that certain viewpoints are outside of the bounds of liberal democracy (as he conceives of it). This enormously influential work has largely set the tone for democratic studies inside and outside of the academy.
The concept of “democratic backsliding” is along these same lines. Backsliding from what? From the hypothetical ideal as conceived by the academicians and foreign policy establishment. The highly theoretical, democratist interpretation of democracy has now become the norm for many of our thought leaders.
In the face of legitimate popular grievances with the status quo, ruling elites are canceling elections, shutting down social media accounts, and using lawfare to take down political opponents. This makes clear that when these elites talk about “democracy,” they’re not talking about rule by the people.
How will this tension between the elites and the people be resolved? Handing down goals of “carbon neutrality,” ideological notions of “gender equality,” spreading democracy abroad, and other abstractions only further distances the elite from ordinary people who are concerned with high consumer prices, the abominable state of public education for their kids, and big hurdles to homeownership. Trump put his finger on the pulse, and he won the election because of it. The ascendency of populist and anti-establishment parties in Europe indicates that the same is happening there.
As the ruling elites continue to take repressive measures against their political opponents, we will see an increase in the rift between them and the people they claim to represent. If modern history is any indicator, a ruling body acting in its own interest and against the body politic will not enjoy power for long.
MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump warned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he risks losing Ukraine entirely if he continues resisting a peace settlement. Trump said Moscow is ready for peace, but Kyiv’s refusal to recognize Crimea as Russian territory could derail the effort.
Key Details:
- Trump said Zelensky “can have Peace or… lose the whole Country” and claimed Russia is ready to make a deal.
- Zelensky reiterated Ukraine’s refusal to recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea, a key sticking point in current peace talks.
- White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is frustrated and warned peace efforts may end if no deal is reached this week.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump issued a blunt warning to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday, saying the Ukrainian leader must choose between accepting peace or facing the collapse of his nation.
“He can have Peace or… fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” Trump posted on Truth Social. The statement followed Zelensky’s firm declaration that Ukraine “will not legally recognize the [Russian] occupation of Crimea,” a stance at odds with a proposed peace plan under discussion in London between U.S., British, and European officials.
Trump blasted Zelensky’s comment as damaging, declaring, “Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion.” The president added that such rhetoric undermines delicate peace negotiations.
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said, “I think Russia is ready,” referring to a peace deal, but questioned whether Ukraine is. Kyiv reportedly signed on to a Trump-proposed ceasefire more than a month ago. Trump hinted that progress has been stymied by Zelensky’s reluctance to compromise.
Despite Russian officials signaling a desire to prolong negotiations—with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissing Trump’s efforts as “futile”—Trump maintained optimism, stating, “I think we have a deal with Russia… we have to get a deal with Zelensky.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump’s patience is wearing thin. “President Zelensky has been trying to litigate this peace negotiation in the press, and that’s unacceptable,” she said, calling for closed-door diplomacy. “The American taxpayer has funded billions… enough is enough.”
Trump, 78, has consistently criticized Obama for allowing Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea to go unanswered. Now, under the Trump administration’s push for peace, a senior official revealed the U.S. is considering recognizing Crimea as Russian territory—a reversal of longstanding American policy based on the 1940 Welles Declaration.
Still, Trump refrained from criticizing Vladimir Putin directly, instead blaming Zelensky for inflammatory statements. “He has nothing to boast about!” Trump said, referencing a heated Feb. 28 Oval Office exchange with Zelensky and Vice President JD Vance.
“I have nothing to do with Russia,” Trump wrote, “but have much to do with wanting to save… five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week.”
Trump warned that time is running out: “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.”
With London talks underway and pressure mounting, officials hinted that if no agreement is reached this week, the U.S. could walk away from its efforts in Eastern Europe. Asked whether Trump is ready to give up, Leavitt said, “Not by the end of the day today… but the President… needs to see this thing come to an end.”
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Pedro Pascal, star of HBO’s The Last of Us, ignited backlash this week after publicly hurling an expletive-laced insult at author J.K. Rowling in response to her support for a landmark UK ruling that upheld the legal definition of sex as biological. Rowling celebrated the decision, which affirms the rights of women to single-sex spaces—a view shared by many who advocate for the safety and integrity of women’s rights. Pascal, a vocal progressive and LGBTQ+ activist, labeled Rowling a “heinous loser,” aligning himself with calls to boycott HBO’s upcoming Harry Potter reboot.
Pedro Pascal calls J.K. Rowling a “heinous loser” after she celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding trans women’s legal identities. pic.twitter.com/LEGMD79PjQ
— Pop Base (@PopBase) April 24, 2025
Key Details:
-
Pedro Pascal responded on Instagram to Rowling’s post celebrating a UK court ruling that legally defined “sex” as biological.
-
Pascal echoed an activist’s call for a fan-led boycott of the Harry Potter reboot, saying Rowling’s stance was “heinous LOSER behavior.”
-
HBO has downplayed concerns of a boycott, citing the blockbuster success of Hogwarts Legacy despite similar activist campaigns.
Diving Deeper:
The latest clash in the culture war surrounding Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and the trans activist movement reached a new level of hostility this week when actor Pedro Pascal, a key face of HBO’s entertainment slate, stooped to name-calling on social media. His remarks came in response to Rowling’s defense of the United Kingdom’s recent court decision, which reaffirmed that sex, under British law, means biological sex—a ruling many women’s rights advocates hailed as a long-overdue step toward protecting vulnerable female spaces such as shelters, hospital wards, and sports.
Rowling, whose views on the importance of distinguishing biological sex from gender identity have made her a target of trans activists for years, posted a pointed but unapologetic reaction: “I love it when a plan comes together.” She added, “I get the same royalties whether you read [my books] or burn them. Enjoy your marshmallows!”
In the comments of a post by activist Tariq Ra’ouf—who had attacked Rowling and promoted a boycott of HBO’s Harry Potter reboot—Pascal added his own vulgar commentary: “Awful disgusting SHIT is exactly right. Heinous LOSER behavior.” While Pascal did not explicitly mention Harry Potter, the post he endorsed included calls to tank all future franchise content, including theme parks and merchandise.
Pascal’s involvement with HBO places the network in a difficult position. As the Emmy-nominated co-lead of The Last of Us, one of HBO’s crown jewels, Pascal’s comments are being widely interpreted as an implicit endorsement of the boycott. While HBO has attempted to downplay the activist push, the tension is palpable. Casey Bloys, HBO’s chief content officer, previously noted that the 2023 video game Hogwarts Legacy, which also faced calls for boycotts due to Rowling’s views, still became the year’s top-selling game.
Pascal’s activism is personal as well as political. His sister, Lux Pascal, publicly transitioned in 2021, and he has frequently signaled support for trans activism. At the UK premiere of Marvel’s Thunderbolts, Pascal wore a shirt that read “Protect the Dolls,” a slogan popularized in trans activist circles.
Rather than “heinous,” Rowling’s remarks represent a reasoned defense of biological reality and a pushback against an increasingly aggressive ideology that demands conformity and punishes dissent. Her critics, like Pascal, resort to vulgarity and character attacks instead of engaging with the substance of her argument. But Rowling has stood firm in supporting women’s rights and advocating for clarity in laws that impact everything from sports to safety in single-sex spaces—positions grounded in truth, not hate.
The “Hardhat Vote” Has Embraced Pierre Poilievre
The Pandemic Justice Phase Begins as Criminal Investigations Commence
RFK Jr. Completely Shatters the Media’s Favorite Lie About Autism
CPP another example of Albertans’ outsized contribution to Canada
The Net-Zero Dream Is Unravelling And The Consequences Are Global
PRC-Linked Disinformation Claims Conservatives Threaten Chinese Diaspora Interests, Take Aim at PM Carney’s Debate Remark
Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan Ramp Up Pressure On Google Parent Company To Deal With ‘Censorship’
-
2025 Federal Election15 hours agoStudy links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution
-
Alberta2 days agoRed Deer Justice Centre Grand Opening: Building access to justice for Albertans
-
Business2 days agoTrump: China’s tariffs to “come down substantially” after negotiations with Xi
-
conflict1 day agoMarco Rubio says US could soon ‘move on’ from Ukraine conflict: ‘This is not our war’
-
Business1 day agoChinese firm unveils palm-based biometric ID payments, sparking fresh privacy concerns
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoMark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoPolice Associations Endorse Conservatives. Poilievre Will Shut Down Tent Cities
-
2025 Federal Election17 hours agoCarney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda