Recently, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classified the Alternative for Germany party, which is notably the most prominent conservative party in the country, as a “right-wing extremist” group. This designation came after the party achieved a significant milestone, placing second in February’s federal election with 20.8% of the votes. Such a label paves the way for potential bans, allowing the authorities to extend investigations into both the party and its supporters.
Currently, Germany joins a number of Western nations that are postponing elections, disqualifying candidates, and prohibiting opposition parties.
It could be said that democracy has become somewhat of a marketing tool. It’s utilized to rationalize conflicts and globalist ambitions but is easily set aside when it conflicts with the interests of those in power.
Describing Germany’s ties to authoritarianism as “complex” is an understatement. The nation’s historical perspective is heavily impacted by the memory of Nazism, seen as the extremity of right-wing ideologies and public violence. However, this singular emphasis overshadows the reality that the Soviet Union, which contributed to defeating the Third Reich, enforced its own harsh regime in East Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In more recent times, Germany has faced oppression from both the far right and the far left, but its national identity now firmly rejects right-wing ideologies. Anti-fascism has evolved into almost a state religion. Still, when countries wrap their identity around shame, the risk of cultural disruption looms large. We’ve witnessed similar damaging narratives where elite institutions focus predominantly on themes of slavery and racial guilt.
Every nation harbors a dark past. A mature society learns from such chapters rather than allowing them to permanently define its identity.
While German history sheds light on the prevailing aversion toward nationalism, the suppression of populist movements under the guise of defending democracy is becoming an expansive trend, far beyond Germany.
In Brazil, the Supreme Court has postponed former President Jair Bolsonaro’s return to public office until 2030. Meanwhile, the Romanian Constitutional Court has invalidated the 2024 election, citing Russian influence regarding the populist candidate Karin Georgek. In the U.S., courts are dangerously close to disqualifying Donald Trump from running. Simultaneously, he finds himself embroiled in legal disputes concerning his executive powers under Article II of the Constitution.
This behavior does not reflect a self-defending democracy. Rather, it illustrates a ruling elite attempting to stifle dissent.
Western elites often justify their governance by invoking democracy and individual liberty, a stark contrast to historical perspectives when the West was once defined by its Christian roots, a foundation based on faith, tradition, and truth. Now, it seems they have abandoned these principles in favor of secular admiration.
The U.S. engaged in wars under the pretext of spreading democracy to nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, initiatives that were inevitably flawed from the outset, yet they enveloped American power in a narrative of benevolence.
Presently, that narrative seems to have faded away.
The contemporary West appears to treat democracy more as a marketing tactic than as a genuine principle. There’s a certain irony in leaders, like Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau, who lecture the world about “liberal norms,” yet simultaneously engage in censorship of political opposition and monitor their own citizens. They condemn the authoritarianism of figures like Vladimir Putin while remaining silent about similar actions taken against dissidents at home.
In short, democracy has become a mere slogan, one that validates wars and supports globalism, yet is easily discarded when it contradicts the priorities of those in power.
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio voiced their concerns about the German government’s designation of its political opposition as extremists. Rubio, on social media, further criticized Germany’s open border policies, arguing that these measures facilitate the rise of alternatives, extending state surveillance and hinting at tyranny.
The German Foreign Ministry responded formally, asserting that these labels stem from “independent” and “thorough” investigations.
This claim is inherently flawed.
The government cannot claim to “independently” investigate and denounce its leading political opposition, especially when the term “extremism” is employed. In this context, “extremism” merely reflects views that the ruling elite find bothersome.
I have expressed my reservations about contemporary popular democracy. Yet, the original notion had its worth. It was supposed to embody the rule of the people – the demo, citizens anchored in shared history, culture, and identity. Its legitimacy arises from the connections between citizens and their nation, rather than from procedural norms.
Today’s ruling elite have manipulated this definition beyond recognition. As I noted before, globalist factions now use the term “democracy” to describe systems governed by institutions that do not answer solely to the populace. Populism is deemed a threat, they argue for the preservation of democracy, yet in reality, they oppose the will of the people and protect only the processes that they dominate.
Elections have morphed into rituals—sacraments that support bureaucratic control rather than expressions of the will of the citizens. The process has become more significant than the outcome, leading to discussions about “our sacred democracy.”
Western leaders still attempt to validate their influence by citing freedom and liberty. But their credibility has dwindled significantly. It’s almost ironic to hear leaders like Trudeau or Keir Starmer preach “shared Western values” while stifling opposition domestically.
The moral authority of liberal democracies is crumbling. The responsible parties for this decline are not Putin or China. Instead, they are Western leaders who have undermined the electoral process, substituting it with governance by an administrative elite.
The Trump administration should keep exposing this hypocrisy; action is essential. That could involve offering political refuge to dissidents facing persecution in places like Germany, Canada, and the UK.
Americans correctly respond to oppression in Russia. They should harbor the same sense of outrage toward it occurring in Berlin, Ottawa, or London.
