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.
Digital ID
The Global Push for Government Mandated Digital IDs And Why You Should Worry
From StosselTV
Countries all over the world are imposing digital IDs. They tie your identity to everything you do. Spain’s Prime Minister wants “An end to anonymity online!”
Tech privacy expert Naomi Brockwell @NaomiBrockwellTV warns that’s dangerous. “Privacy is not about hiding,” she tells Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. “It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A Digital ID… will strip individuals of that choice.”
The new government mandated digital IDs aren’t just a digital version of your driver’s license or passport. “It connects everything,” Brockwell explains. “Your financial decisions, to your social media posts, your likes, the things that you’re watching, places that you’re going… Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”
And once everything runs through a single government ID, access to services becomes something you need permission for. That’s already a reality in China where citizens are tracked, scored, and punished for “bad” behavior.
Brockwell warns the western world is “skyrocketing in that direction.” She says Americans need to push back now.
———
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib...
———
International
China Stages Massive Live-Fire Encirclement Drill Around Taiwan as Washington and Japan Fortify
Taiwan says 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels surged into the island’s air and maritime approaches.
Following massive military sales from Washington to Taiwan and rapidly scaled defensive preparations from Japan, Beijing on Monday launched a sweeping show-of-force including live-fire activity around Taiwan.
The encirclement-style operation brought 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels into the waters and skies around the island, one of the heaviest single-day tallies reported in more than a year.
Taiwan’s Presidential Office condemned the operation as a “unilateral provocation” that destabilizes regional peace, while stressing that Taiwan’s security agencies had “complete situational awareness” and had made preparations. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said it activated an emergency response posture and conducted immediate readiness drills.
Beijing, for its part, framed the action as a warning—an operation the PLA’s Eastern Theater Command dubbed “Justice Mission 2025,” involving the army, navy, air force, and rocket force, with designated zones for live-fire activity and sea-and-airspace restrictions.
Global coverage described the drills as rehearsing the mechanics of isolation: blockade-style pressure against key approaches and ports, integrated sea-air patrols, and “deterrence” aimed at what the PLA calls “external interference.”
In a statement circulated by former Taiwanese foreign minister Joseph Wu, now head of the nation’s national security council, the message from Taipei was readiness to deploy force.
“As China ramps up military threats against Taiwan, our armed forces are conducting Rapid Response Exercises in response,” Wu stated Monday morning. “We remain resolute and unafraid. We’ll defend our sovereignty and democracy at all times.”
Across international coverage, analysts assessed Beijing’s actions as escalation through rehearsal, designed to demonstrate a capacity to encircle Taiwan, with live-fire elements and disruption to regional routes. Coverage also emphasized the “stern warning” language aimed at “Taiwan independence” forces and foreign actors, and Taiwan’s elevated alert posture.
The choreography of this operation matters as much as the raw numbers.
The PLA appears to be practicing the operational geometry of denying outside forces access—the kind of posture meant to complicate U.S. and allied intervention in a blockade or assault scenario. That emphasis has been widely noted in contemporaneous coverage, including reporting that the Eastern Theater Command’s messaging explicitly framed the drill as “deterrence” against “external interference.”
This helps explain why the drill lands amid a knot of accelerating pressures.
A number of analysts speculated that Washington’s major arms package and Japan’s “re-militarization”—Tokyo’s rapid defense buildup in response to Beijing’s expanding military footprint—now feed into an escalating drill cycle in which China aims to demonstrate that outside support can be deterred, delayed, or priced prohibitively high.
One clear trigger is the Trump administration’s newly announced $11.1 billion arms package for Taiwan, which Beijing cast as proof of U.S. “interference.”
Another is Japan.
Regional reporting and analysis have framed the drill as a warning shot aimed not only at Taipei but at the alliance architecture around it—especially as Japanese leaders and planners speak more openly about a “Taiwan contingency” and expand defense spending and capabilities that Beijing portrays as destabilizing.
A third is the longer arc Beijing itself has helped set.
U.S. officials have repeatedly stated their assessment that Xi Jinping has directed the PLA to be capable of taking Taiwan by force by 2027—a milestone that continues to shape planning assumptions across the region.
In reporting The Bureau gathered during a September 2023 visit to Taiwan, Taiwanese military experts and officials warned that Beijing’s pressure campaign had reached a new plateau: Chinese aircraft and vessels were crossing into—and remaining in—Taiwan’s territory longer, in actions they described as cognitive warfare designed to erode the public’s will to resist.
“China makes many excuses to conduct military exercises around Taiwan, and I don’t think this is only political,” said Dr. Tzu-Chieh Hung of the Institute for National Defense Security Research, a think tank funded by Taiwan’s government. “I think they are expanding the area of their military operations.”
“We think they are trying to create a new normal, when we will become numb to their actions, and make it a fait accompli,” another senior Taiwanese official told The Bureau.
Those warnings sit directly beneath Monday’s encirclement-style operation. Beyond the raw tallies—89 aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels—Taiwan’s defense community sees a pattern of repeated rehearsals that stretch time, distance, and ambiguity, steadily conditioning the region to accept blockade-style actions as irreversible.
Yet the fatalism that Taiwan cannot be defended has not been the conclusion in major U.S. war-game work—and Washington’s $11-billion Taiwan arms package signals an intent to strengthen deterrence.
Back in 2023, a widely cited wargaming study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found Taiwan could repel a Chinese invasion—if Taiwan is prepared to fight immediately, and the United States and Japan move fast to deliver overwhelming air and missile firepower against the fleets that would attempt a blockade and landing.
“There is no question, two years ago most people would have said China has the ability to conquer Taiwan in a fait accompli,” Mark Cancian, one of the study’s authors, told The Bureau in 2023. “But we showed that is not true.”
“The Chinese defensive bubble at the start of the war is so strong, that Taiwan needs what it has to fight with for the first month or two,” Cancian said. “And the United States has to participate en masse and quickly. Japan must at least provide base capacity for U.S. forces, and Taiwan must defend itself.”
-
Haultain Research1 day agoSweden Fixed What Canada Won’t Even Name
-
Business1 day agoWhat Do Loyalty Rewards Programs Cost Us?
-
Business23 hours agoLand use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026
-
Digital ID10 hours agoThe Global Push for Government Mandated Digital IDs And Why You Should Worry
-
Business8 hours agoFeds pull the plug on small business grants to Minnesota after massive fraud reports
-
Energy24 hours agoWhy Japan wants Western Canadian LNG
-
Business20 hours agoMainstream media missing in action as YouTuber blows lid off massive taxpayer fraud
-
Business20 hours agoStripped and shipped: Patel pushes denaturalization, deportation in Minnesota fraud




