International
Globalist elites 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.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The U.S. is mulling military strikes on cartel-associated targets in Venezuela, multiple sources told the Wall Street Journal Thursday.
The possible strikes would reportedly include among the targets Venezuelan military airports and seaports involved in the illicit drug trade. They would serve an additional purpose of warning dictator Nicolás Maduro he should step down from power, sources with knowledge of the matter told the WSJ.
The strikes could reportedly happen in a matter of days or hours, sources with knowledge of the situation told the Miami Herald Friday. President Donald Trump has stepped up his pressure campaign against the South American leader, taking a more forceful military posture than during his first term.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Most recently, the USS Gerald Ford carrier strike group was deployed to the Caribbean Sea October 24, adding to an already impressive U.S. presence off the Venezuelan coast in international waters. The Trump administration deployed naval assets to the southern Caribbean in August following their designation of Latin American cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
The White House told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the anonymous sources reporting the story “don’t know what they’re talking about,” and that “any announcements regarding Venezuela policy would come directly from the President.”
From LifeSiteNews
Despite a majority of national governments and Christian prelates demanding a two-state solution, experts warn that Israel and the US aim to crush all hope for a Palestinian state.
After killing 104 Palestinians, including 46 children and 20 women with aggressive overnight airstrikes, Israel announced Wednesday that it was resuming observation of its ceasefire deal with Hamas that was penned earlier this month.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the Israeli army on Tuesday to “immediately carry out forceful strikes in the Gaza Strip,” signaling a collapse of the October 10 agreement brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Israel claimed the strikes were retaliation for its forces coming under fire from Hamas fighters in the southern city of Rafah. And though Palestinian sources reported hearing gunshots and strikes in the area, Hamas stated they had “no relation to the shooting incident” and reaffirmed their “commitment to the cease-fire agreement.”
Though the Israeli army has currently taken control of 58% of the Gaza Strip, local media reported a decision of the prime minister to expand its occupation to more land in response to the reported attack.
Following Netanyahu’s order, a series of Israeli strikes were reported in Gaza City, Rafah and later Khan Younis. These included one “massive” explosion near al-Shifa Hospital with and Al Jazeera correspondent reporting from the ground “major activity in the air over Gaza’s skies, with drones hovering above.”
Israeli bombardment targets also included a refugee camp in central Gaza, homes and tents with additional injury numbers logged at 253, including 78 children. With no medical supplies or medicines to treat the wounded, the hospital director at al-Shifa said the health situation was “catastrophic.”
Netanyahu’s strike order also followed an accusation from the Israeli government that Hamas was in violation of the ceasefire due to their delaying the return of bodies of deceased hostages. But before the agreement being signed, Israeli officials acknowledged it may take significant time to locate and return these corpses and CNN quoted Israeli officials who acknowledged some of the bodies may never be returned.
Additionally, according to Al Jazeera, while Israel maintains pressure on Hamas to return these bodies, the Palestinian militant group continues to call on Israel to allow the entry of heavy bulldozer equipment for facilitating this process since some of these bodies are believed to be buried deep under the rubble of buildings destroyed by Israeli bombardments.
Israel violates ceasefire 125 times, kills hundreds with Trump’s support
Even prior to the Israeli army reporting one reservist soldier being killed in the Rafah attack on Tuesday, from unidentified assailants, the Gaza-based Government Media Office had tallied 125 breaches of the ceasefire agreement by Israel which claimed the lives of 107 Palestinians and wounded nearly 350.
Israel has additionally violated the ceasefire agreement by allowing only a fraction of the agreed-upon number of humanitarian aid trucks to enter the enclave that had been officially declared by a UN agency in August to be suffering under a man-made famine.
A further violation of the deal includes Israel’s decision to keep the Rafah crossing with Egypt closed preventing tens of thousands of critically wounded Palestinians to seek medical treatment abroad because Israel has all but completely destroyed the health care system in Gaza. According to reports, thus far 983 patients have died while waiting for the permission from Israel to travel abroad for treatments.
Trump backed Israel’s massive strikes, which killed dozens of children, saying they had a “right to (retaliate)” due to the killing of the Israeli soldier, maintaining that these many violations would not jeopardize the ceasefire agreement.
Ceasefire deal ‘scam’ to retrieve Israeli hostages; Trump complicit with genocide
In a Wednesday interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano, former U.S. Marines Officer, author, and military commentator, Scott Ritter classified the Tuesday bombings as Israel sending “a signal that they are the permanent occupiers, that even under ceasefire conditions, Israel retains the right to strike anytime, anyplace against anyone without any fear of consequence.”
He expressed his belief that Hamas is “serious about this ceasefire agreement” while Israel is not, that the current ceasefire plan is merely a “scam to get the Israeli hostages home” before “finish(ing) the job,” of genocide in Gaza as a means of preventing any possibility of a Palestinian state.
He further assessed that since “the genocide that Netanyahu is carrying out in Gaza couldn’t have been done without the support of Donald Trump and the United States. So, Donald Trump is as guilty for the deaths of the Gazans in Palestine and Gaza as Netanyahu is.”
Solution to conflict affirmed by 96% of world’s nations: establishment of sovereign State of Palestine
In initially evaluating the current ceasefire agreement on October 9, Columbia University economist and senior UN adviser Jeffrey Sachs stated that the solution to the conflict is “very straightforward” and has been affirmed by the “the world community, overwhelmingly, for decades” and this is the call “for a State of Palestine.”
By “massive votes” in the UN General Assembly “more than 90% of the world community” has consistently demanded the establishment of the State of Palestine for many years.
With an overwhelming majority of UN member states (81.3%) formally recognizing the State of Palestine (157 of 193), Sachs has said elsewhere that nations demanding the full establishment of such a sovereign state is even much higher, including 185 of these national governments (95.8%) who have consistently voiced support for this two-state-solution.
This also means these nations demand an end to the ongoing 58-year brutal military occupation of internationally recognized Palestinian territory that was also confirmed as illegal by the International Court of Justice just last year.
Holy Land prelates: Only by ending Israel’s illegal occupation can ‘lasting peace be established’
Consistently affirming and echoing this overwhelming consensus is the Catholic Church, including the unanimous and constant voices of her bishops in the Middle East, those from around the world, and with statements from the Vatican as well. Indeed, in June, the Holy See commemorated the 10th anniversary of its formal recognition of the State of Palestine in 2015 after welcoming UN recognition of the state “with favour” in 2012.
In a formal joint statement celebrating the enactment of the ceasefire earlier this month, the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in the Holy Land, including Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, rejoiced at the expected ceasing of hostilities, expressed hope for the future and appealed for the international community to “widen the scope of the current negotiations to include an end of the Occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the present State of Israel.”
“Only in this way, we believe, will a just and lasting peace be truly established in the Holy Land and throughout the larger Middle East,” they concluded.
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
Carney speech highlights how easily newsrooms are played by politicians
-
Alberta17 hours ago
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Media13 hours ago
Carney speech highlights how easily newsrooms are played by politicians
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense
-
International1 day agoPrince Andrew banished from the British monarchy
-
Business1 day ago“We have a deal”: Trump, Xi strike breakthrough on trade and fentanyl
-
Crime1 day agoCanada Seizes 4,300 Litres of Chinese Drug Precursors Amid Trump’s Tariff Pressure Over Fentanyl Flows
-
Alberta1 day agoHow one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoGet Ready: Your House May Not Be Yours Much Longer