The Pete Quiñones Show - Pete Reads Ryszard Legutko's 'Demon in Democracy' Part 4

Episode Date: December 4, 2024

53 MinutesPG-13Pete continues a reading of a book that greatly influenced him, "The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies" by Ryszard Legutko.The Demon in DemocracyPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Antelope Hill - Promo code "peteq" for 5% off - https://antelopehillpublishing.com/FoxnSons Coffee - Promo code "peter" for 18% off - https://www.foxnsons.com/Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera.

Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen, Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings?

We'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November.

Lidl, more to value. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa. Savour sumptuous farm-fresh dining. Relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surrounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind. Give the gift of a unique experience this Christmas,

with vouchers from Trump-Dunbeg. Search Trump-Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Doonbiog, Kush Faragea. If you want to support the show and get the episodes early and add free, head on over to freeman Beyond the Wall.com forward slash support. I want to explain something right now. If you support me through Substack or Patreon, you have access to an RSS feed that you can plug into any podcatcher,

including Apple, and you'll be able to listen to the episodes through there. If you support me through Subscrib Star, Gumroad, or on my website directly, I will send you a link where you can download the file, and you can listen to it any way you wish. I really appreciate the support everyone gives me. It keeps the show going. It allows me to basically put out an episode every day now, and I'm not going to stop. I'm just going to accelerate. I think sometimes you see that I'm putting out two, even three a day. And yeah, can't do it without you. So thank you for the support.

Head on over to freeman beyond the wall.com forward slash support and do it there. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone back to part four of my reading of Rizard Lagutko's Demon in Democracy. We left off right in the middle of Chapter 2. Let's finish up Chapter 2 today, shall we? All right, let's do this. But Churchill's statement can also have another interpretation. Democracy is not good, but a better system has not been invented.

So many people today, this sentence is unquestionably true, but it is patently false. Of course, a better system was invented, and it happened, conceptually, in antiquity as a result of a long debate about the best political regime. It first appeared in Plato's late works and was further developed by Aristotle. The argument of the ancient thinkers was simple, and it rose from an accurate observation, well-grounded in political experience, that most regimes were defective by being one-sided, that is, by going too much in one direction determined by the specificity of the group that exerts the predominant influence in the functioning of the system.

This observation, one could say, anticipated Churchill's view, or rather than, Churchill's view reiterated in a slightly changed form, the classical insight. The ancients distinguished three basic types of regimes. Monarchy, one-man rule, oligarchy, called sometimes aristocracy, minority rule, and democracy, majority rule. They regarded each of them as good in some aspects and deficience in others. Each system then, while being superior to the alternatives, was also inferior to them. For example, the advantage of the monarchy was that it was simplified, that it simplified the decision-making process and gave it greater consistency.

Its disadvantage, among other things, was the danger of tyranny. The advantage of oligarchy was its educational elitism, and its disadvantage a possible subordination of the public interest to that of a minority group. The advantage of democracy was its representativeness, and its disadvantages, anarchy, and factionalism. A possible solution of the problem of one-sidedness was to mix the three types. One could therefore devise a political structure that combined monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy in such a way that each would foster the advantages and neutralize the disadvantages of the others. We would then have, for example, a democratic representativeness, but at the same time, some oligarchic aristocratic institutions that would perform a form of eliteism,

as well as some form of monarchy guaranteeing the efficiency of government. governance. Such combination depended on the ingenuity of the politicians and the character of a particular society and could produce a variety of hybrid political forms. When Cicero referred to this mixed regime, he used the term res publica. This was the beginning of a very important Republican tradition in Western civilization. In its modern versions, republicanism moved a long complex path, sometimes losing the original meaning, especially when used sole as a shorthand for revolutionary anti-monarchism, but the main message given to it by the ancients was often preserved. The political community organized as a republic was a structure containing various

elements, one being a democratic component. Even the American system, which today is regarded as the exemplary embodiment of representative democracy, was established as a hybrid constructionism. Some of the founding fathers regarded it as a major problem how to limit the rule of the demos and secure the proper role of the aristocratic element, whose responsibility would be the defense and propagation of ethical and political virtues. That's the job of the elite. The aristocrats Tocqueville contemplated a similar problem, which seemed to him even more pressing, considering that he saw the advent of democracy,

is irresistible. In the new times that were approaching, it then became a matter of utmost urgency to inject some aristocratic spirit into an ever more egalitarian society. Even in the 20th century, approximately up to the 30s, this hybrid view of political regimes was still quite widespread, although the word democracy started making it as rapid career, becoming not just a description, but also the norm, what World War I gave us. intentionally, in my opinion. This meant moving away from thinking about political regimes in terms of pros and cons to the idolatry of one type of political arrangement whose flaws were systematically disregarded.

With Simon, it has become a common practice, unfortunately rather ridiculous, to complement certain political conducts and actions as democratic and condemn others as undemocratic. Sometimes such labeling may be quite amusing, but it's very, but it's funny side. escapes most observers. So when a politician is criticized for being undemocratic because in the parliament, he disobeys the speaker and refuses to yield the floor, one cannot but laugh. This is a democratic behavior in its purest form, invented in a democracy and having a very long tradition in a democratic history. At any rate, before it disappeared, giving way to the idolatry of democracy, the concept of a hybrid system known as a mixed regime had played a

creative role in political thought and practice as it prevented the politicians from falling into utopianism. There was no one combination model in the particular political arrangements reflected national traditions, usually dating from pre-democratic times. Given that France, post-revolutionary, was considered a republic just like England and the Netherlands, despite the last two formerly being monarchies, and the United States, to a certain degree, the Republican formula, allowed for a considerable diversity, political experimentation, and a great number of innovations that combine modern elements with traditional ones at various levels of public life. In several decades, this approach to political systems not only completely disappeared from

the public consciousness, but was also marginalized by political science. The word republic is used today only in the sense of the form of government, and any attempts to extend its meaning and to restore its former scope, provoke. the irritation of political scientists. So you're free to use the term republic. Yours is not free to practice to set up to govern as a republic. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back.

We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye.

Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance, and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves.

Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunbeg.

Unwind in our luxurious spa. savor sumptuous farm-fresh dining, relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surrounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind. Give the gift of a unique experience this Christmas with vouchers from Trump-Dunbeg. Search Trump-Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Dunbioghush Farage.

Politicians are equally reluctant to use the word republic, because people tend to associate it with some form of oppressive statism. People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of North Korea, yada, yada. They definitely prefer the word democracy, which they have been taught to associate with freedom, openness, and diversity. These associations are wrong, of course, because a republic has a higher internal diversity than a liberal democracy, also incorporating undemocratic institutions, for example, aristocratic and monarchical, and satisfying non-democratic sensibilities. Liberal democracy is more restrictive, being strongly correlated with egalitarian principles that are quite wrongly believed to generate diversity. The opposite is true.

Egalitarianism does not tolerate aristocratic and monarchical tendencies, not only in the political structures of the state, which might be understandable, but in any other area. of public life. Get that. Mark that down. Egalitarianism does not tolerate aristocratic and monarchical tendencies, not only in the political structures of the state, which might be understandable, but in any other area of public life. So when aristocratical, when you have an institution that may be aristocratic and monarchical, let's say the church, that can't be tolerated. And yet liberal democracy, being the single most homogenizing force in the modern world, creates the illusion that it alone stands for social differentiation.

A liberal democratic man surrenders to the illusion, he believes quite wrongly, that he has managed to make his inner self more and more intrinsically diversified, and therefore, while imprinting his ideas on the world or not, around him. He cherishes a reassuring conviction that though, that through him, the world also becomes more diversified. But since, in fact, he himself dramatically loses his sensitivity to diversity, he is utterly unable to see how, by his influence, the world around him slowly submerges in an ever more stifling uniformity. The consequences of this version of Churchill's saying are similar to those of the socialist doctrine.

The system is not subject to any criticism. In practical terms, this means that one cannot move away from liberal democracy in any aspect or area of life, just as one could not move away from socialism in any aspect or area. And even if such a retreat were actually happening by accident or under the pressure of circumstances, one must not admit it or call it a retreat or even speak. or think of it in a way that would suggest a deviation from the liberal democratic model.

Not allowed to talk about the failures, folks. The failures are just progress. And these people just need to be able to fix what they've screwed up. Five, there's a possible counterargument to this. One can say that modern Western political countries are actually hybrid regimes despite the fact that they are called democracies. Their mixed character is well expressed by the name itself. As liberal democracies, they are combinations of liberalism and democracy, which, it can be

argued further, retains the original specificity of the mixed regime, although modified in accordance with modern realities. But is it indeed the case? Is liberal democracy a mixed regime? We do not know exactly when the term liberal democracy entered into a wider usage, but it certainly happened fairly recently. In the mid-19th century, John Stuart Mill wrote how freedom was threatened after the fall of traditional autocracies, particularly by the process of democratization through which a society gained an indirect,

but more profound control of the mind of an individual. He argued that a possible countervailing force to this dangerous tendency was liberalism, which would open the space for individual disobedience, and eccentricity. In the 20th century, Ortega Igasette advocated some form of aristocratic liberalism, also as a counterweight to a stage of democratization that he called a mass society. In short, it was obvious for a long time that liberalism and democracy point in two opposite directions and generate incompatible attitudes. Combining them looked, therefore, like an enterprise well worth undertaking. The establishment of democracy seems to require an urgent counteraction,

more so because democracy, as pointed out by such shrewd observers as Tocqueville and Ortega, was something more than a mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power. It had also an ability to change the whole mindset of society by depriving it of all intellectual and psychological impulses, all social habits and aspirations, however creative and valuable, that did not conform to democratic practices. Those writers used a different language and faced a different political reality than the ancient philosophers, but expressed similar concerns, notably arguing that democracy tends to enslave people's minds through methods that are not easily legible and controllable, yet no less

perfidious. I, this is quotes. I know no country in which there is less independence of mind and less genuine freedom of thought than in America, wrote Tocqueville in his democracy in America. And when he spoke about limitations on freedom, he did not mean the legal constraints to express one's ideas, but rather the pressure to remove from one's mind, everything that a democratic society did not give a stamp of legitimacy.

Think about it. Today, anything that's outside the box of the regime is immediate attacked. It's called fascism. It's called totalitarianism. It's a threat. And it's a threat to be put down. The regime thinks that having to show an ID to vote is undemocratic, therefore, and racist somehow. Therefore, if you say, you know, everyone really should have an ID to vote, you're undemocratic and even racist.

The aridity of the democratic mind could be discerned and deplored at the same time because classical education was still in force, providing an outside non-democratic perspective of evaluation. People educated on Aristotle, Plutarch, and Cicero could not help but notice that rampant democratization was accompanied by the unification of thinking that was an direct offshoot of an anti-harchical conformity so typical of the democratic man. It might seem, therefore, and it did seem to people such as Mill and Tocqueville, that liberalism functions as a vehicle of an aristocratic factor along the lines previously indicated by the ancients. By introducing more individual freedom, liberalism could reawaken strong desires for high aspirations and infuse some life into the omnipresent pressure of mediocrity. A wave of liberalism was to encourage an attitude of eccentricity which Mill hoped would stimulate the human spirit to search for the new and the extraordinary. Putting democracy and

liberalism together seemed a most promising idea. Democracy ensured the overall balance of the entire political order, while liberalism was responsible for enriching the society with individual aspirations to improve things, supporting a human desire for creativity and for change. For adventure. On and on. The concept of liberal democracy understood as the mix of democracy and liberalism is usually explained by contrasting it with the totalitarian democracy. The latter term was popularized by Jacob Talman, who coined it while analyzing the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The favorite quote with which Rousseau was said to seal his fate as a totalitarian comes

from the social contract from the passage in which he wrote that the general will is entitled to coerce the individual will to obey, because such action constitutes coercion to freedom, quote unquote, coercion to freedom. The expression is unfortunate, indeed, though the idea behind it is more complex than most critics of Rousseau admit. In any case, wrote Talman and subsequent other authors, totalitarian democracy is one in which, in principle, the conflict between the state and the individual should not exist, and in the events of such a conflict, the state has to moral duty to coerce the individual to obey.

The people with liberal sensitivity rejected this possibility with indignation, asserting, quite rightly, that it defies the most elementary assumption that freedom and coercion are exclusive. Thus, from the onset, the liberals emphasized a principle, considered unchallengeable, that in liberal democracy, man must not be coerced to freedom because the decision is not of the government, the church, the nation, or any community, but of the man himself. Of course, the Republican democracy, as developed in America and later in Europe, never resembled Rousseau's quasi-totalitarian system, at least in its structural mechanism.

They were not ruled by the general will, but by political parties and factions, which Rousseau would have considered the exact antithesis of his conception. When Tocqueville Ortega and others postulated introducing a more libertarian element in democracy, they were less concerned with the political structure of democracy, but more with its social and cultural content. What they feared was the tyranny of sentiment and opinion and the general gravitation of a democratic society towards conformist mediocrity. Although the introduction of several liberties, the Bill of Rights and various legal guarantees, could sometimes but not always create a barrier against the concentration of political power, this was not really a response to the dangers of democracy that were so accurately identified by the representatives of what I called, for once of a better term, aristocratic liberalism.

Six. When we look at the changes in liberal democratic societies, especially in recent decades, at a time when the Republican model lost its impact, we see what actually happened was not so much the introduction of liberalism into democracy, but the democratization. of liberalism. The effect proved to be the opposite of the expected. Divergent elements such as the Democratic and the aristocratic, where one would offset the weakness of the other, were not incorporated into one system. Liberalism did not diversify democracy because it was a different type of liberalism than the one of the American founding fathers, Tocqueville, and Ortega hoped for, not aristocratic,

but egalitarian and as such it reinforced what it should have moderated. This should not have been a surprise because the original idea of liberalism was indeed egalitarian. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go for. fast. Come see for yourself.

The Lidl New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range.

For Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and description. our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited.

Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunbeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa. Saver sumptuous farm-fresh

dining. Relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside. and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surrounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind. Give the gift of a unique experience this Christmas with vouchers from Trump-Dunbeg. Search Trump-Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Doonbiog, Kush Farage. Isn't it great how well he writes and how simple it is,

where I just feel like reading and it's like, well, what am I going to comments on? I'm just going to agree with him? I mean, I may have some points here and everything to make and maybe relate to something you know, in the modern day or out of history, but this all makes sense. This all makes so much sense and it's so simple that, you know, well, the starting position of liberalism and at the same time a final perspective is a hypothetical situation in which relative independent units cooperate through a system of contracts. The democratization turned liberalism into a doctrine in which the primary agents were no longer

individuals, but groups and the institutions of the democratic state. Instead of individuals striving for the enrichment of social capital with new ideas and aspirations, there emerged people voicing demands called rights and acting within the scope of organized groups. These groups subsequently petitioned state institutions. and exerted pressure on them to change legislation and political practices. Over time, they began to affect judicial decisions by the courts, demanding legal acceptance of their position and acquired privileges. In the final outcome, the state and liberal democracy ceased to be an institution pursuing the common good,

but became a hostage of groups that treated it solely as an instrument of change securing their interests. I don't even know whether I agree, I don't think I agree with the state being, the state of liberal democracy being an institution pursuing the common good. But you could see how it just becomes a vehicle for special interests. That doesn't even need to be explained. We even have things called NGOs, non-genital, I mean, non-governmental organizations. The state, more and more involved in the process of supporting group aspirations, largely lost its general Republican character and turned into a conglomerate of the social, economic, cultural, and other policy programs enacted and imposed through democratic

procedures. This, in turn, meant that the state had to take over more and more specific responsibilities far beyond the normal operations of the state apparatus, as the new expectations of the groups had more and more to do with their status and social recognition, the traditional means of the state policy were no longer sufficient. It became necessary to intervene deeply into the social substance, where the roots of status and recognition resided, either through direct political action or indirectly by changing the laws, making appropriate traditional decisions, and adjusting morality and social more as drastically to guarantee equality. politics is not downstream from culture.

Culture is downstream from power. Understand that. Anyone who's saying that politics is downstream from culture does not understand power. Does not understand what Laguko wrote right here. The state represents, armed with the rhetoric of anti-discrimination, felt it was their due... The state representatives, armed with the rhetoric of anti-discrimination, felt

it was their duty to regulate matters that for far too long had remained unregulated, which often meant giving privileges to certain groups and taking them away from others. Once the liberal democracy became established, those who in the past had complained about the growth of the communist state and compared it with a glorious example of the asceticism of a liberal state could invoke such contrast no longer. The liberal democratic state, still more effective than a communist state, slowly and steadily underwent a similar expansion and likewise deeply intruded in the lives of its citizens.

However, while the communist states spread an intrusive interference had their source and the determination of the authorities who, in order to survive, had to impose forcefully more and more controls of social spontaneity in a liberal democratic state. The source of this growing intrusion was the citizens themselves, both as individuals and as members of privilege-seeking groups. With the democratization of liberalism, the state unleashed a drive for hyperactivity by those groups, which in turn resulted in the hyperactivity of political and legal institutions. The government, the courts, and the legislative bodies were under constant pressure to continue their policy of distributing further privileges and granting further rights. Politicians soon discovered that giving way to this pressure or even preempting it was to their advantage,

because the continuation of the policy of equality was the best method to acquire electoral votes to secure democratic legitimacy and to stay in power. Thus, a peculiar race began. On the one hand, the groups were inventing more and more effective means to influence the policies of the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches, and on the other, politicians, lawmakers, and judges were increasingly involved in a competition to see which would be the best provider of the new privileges and rights to those. those groups. A growing number of group claims required new legislative and judicial decisions, new rules of all sorts to impose the existing law, and to provide it with new and even more up-to-date interpretations. The legislatures and the court struggled tirelessly with the new

political reality and often assume the initiatives themselves in order to strengthen and legitimize their political role. Reversing this process was impossible. The withdrawal all of the state from some areas would entail reducing the activity of the government ministers, local officials, parliamentarians, provincial and regional governors, and others. And such a thing could not and is not to be permitted because in democratic politics, it is in nobody's interest. The democratic mechanism itself was created not to limit political activity, but to keep it going at an ever higher speed. Restless acting and reacting, amending and modifying, initiating and taking over, responding to new challenges and challenging others, all of these have been perceived

by politicians, society, and the media as the proper conduct according to which the man of politics is to be evaluated. Naturally, it is sometimes difficult to see the relationship between the interests of a particular group and those of the state due to the constant activity of the politicians and political institutions. The state does not engage in a flurry of activity or effectively convince its citizens that it will vigorously hustle and bustle to ensure better conditions for specific groups quickly passes into the hands of new parties or new trustees of political power. The slogan to change and reform is repeated during every election, regardless of the economic and political situation. Oftentimes, the changes are superficial and unnecessary.

They complicate simple things, replace better with worse or a lesser evil with a greater one. but everyone feels the urge to act, even if the activity is phony. They just have to appear to be doing something, because this is all about progress. This is all about improvement. This is all about a goal that changes constantly, and you never reach it there. And you have special interest groups that come in and go, well, we can't achieve that goal unless we're given this. and politicians are willing to start a committee to look into that because it not only increases their power, but it increases the need for them. It is also typical of our time that the growth of the state does not go along with belief as exhibited in the past in its miraculous power.

The state has ceased to be associated with great hopes and is no longer viewed as a political object of worship. Rather, it appears that with its growing influence and progressive taking on of new responsibilities, the state has lost a respect of its citizens. Demands directed at the state are nowadays expressed in a tone of exasperation and angry impatience rather than with belief in its charitable omnipotence. It can be considered a paradox that a liberal democratic man expects more and more from the state that he values less and less. I mean, that is pretty much people who vote for Democrats because of the Gibbs. That's it, right there. They care nothing about the state. They don't value it in the least.

They wouldn't even vote if it wasn't for Gibbs. And yet, surprisingly, despite this somewhat cynical view of today's politics and political institutions, to faith in the absolute superiority of liberal democracy remains unshaken. The coalescing of liberal and democratic institutions that we observe today, which contributes to the notion that liberal democracy has no alternative, is nowhere seen more clearly than in the European Union. The current EU doctrine explicitly states that it is the ultimate system, a culminating emanation of European values,

a final stage of history of the European peoples, worthy of absolute protection and praise. The countries that break loose to the process of the politicians who express reservations, no matter how timidly, are immediately subject to disproportionately harsh criticism. EU propaganda has it that

has it that the ongoing political debate in Europe for two and a half thousand years has come to an end and that Europeans have finally resolved all major political problems, not only on an intellectual level or at the level of the institutions across, not only on an intellectual level

or at the level of the institutions across the continent and globally. The U.S. become the highest arbiter of gauging all political developments in the world and, as the Soviet Union once did, the hope of the oppressed peoples of all continents. Put a nice new wrapper on it. Ready for huge savings?

Well, mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th Because the Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye.

Distinctive, by design, they move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range For Mentor, Leon and Terramar Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro Search Coopera and discover our latest offers Coopera Design that moves Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement

from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited Subject to lending criteria Terms and conditions apply Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regular by the Central Bank of Ireland. And now, she's chocked

Rehaw-Nation of the hamciere, is leargoal to the Glea and a year to Aundoon and lehands the Gala to give the

father Gaulda deirin. In Ergred, we're dig to talk in Woonagh with Funeifunner, it's

a question to do again on angach Lectrachach and as for all Tull and

Pubble Tareof Wend Atopopal A Wend-E A-Ear O Coo-E, following this more it ergrid ponkai

Not surprisingly, the EU has become a major regulating power in Europe and its politicians proudly state that they are responsible for 70% of the national legislation. This legislation is mostly unnecessary in view of the majority of the citizens but necessary from the perspective of the European institutions. It confirms their power regardless of whether it is beneficial for the people or not. The process of legislation involves vast, numbers of people, organizations, and committees, and thus creates a colossal army preparing

the ground for subsequent legislation and, so far very effectively, neutralizing any critics. All this is submerged in a sea of propaganda and ideology. Every piece of legislative regulation is presented not as a simple organizational or administrative decision, but as a step towards something great for which we the Europeans should be grateful. Every directive, council document, resolution, or report of the European Parliament must be accompanied by a boastful rhetoric proclaiming it to be another irresistible proof of the coming victory of the European project. It was about, you know, I want to be the first one to stop clapping with Stalin.

with these people, you can never stop clapping. Even what seems to be an obvious failure is presented as a resounding success. The year 2012, in which the Euro system collapsed, was in the words of the President of Europe, that is, the President of the Council, the Anas Horribilis. And my Latin is so bad. The Onos Horribalus, which, he added, in the future will be consistent. considered the anis mirabilis. The communist politicians resorted to the same device.

They also categorically brushed away any suggestion that the system had an inherent weakness and kept busy convincing the citizens that a constant struggle with the permanent crisis only confirmed the system's superiority. Seven. Taken for granted that liberal democracy as an ultimate political solution had another consequence, perhaps more disconcerting than others because it contradicted a fundamental assumption of the liberal democratic doctrine. As we recall, liberal democracy was said to differ from a totalitarian democracy in one crucial respect. In the former, the citizens could not be coerced to be free.

It appears, however, that the regime has not only been persistently violating this principle, but exhibiting a powerful tendency to go in the opposite direction. What we have been observing over the last decades is an emergence of a kind of liberal democratic general will, whether the meaning of the term itself is identical with that used by Rousseau is of negligible significance. The fact is that we have been more and more exposed to an overwhelming liberal democratic omnipresence, which seems independent of the will of individuals to which they humbly submit and which they perceive as compatible with their innermost. feelings. Reminds me of Ted K's over socialization. This will permeates public and private lives emanates from the media, advertising films, theater, and visual arts, expresses itself through common wisdom and persistently brazen stereotypes, though educational curricula from kindergartens to universities and through works of art. This liberal Democratic general will,

this liberal Democratic General Will does not recognize geographical or political borders, and although it does not have a control center or an executive body, it seems to move forward relentlessly and to conquer new territories as if under a single well-structured and well-organized command following a superbly devised strategy. Legislatures that are free, independent, and accountable only to voters make laws in accordance with its requirements, and the judges, even more free, more independent, and accountable. accountable to no one, issue adjudications as its most faithful servants. The liberal Democratic general will reaches the area that Rousseau never dreamed of, language, gestures, and thoughts.

Remember, Orwell wrote 1984 and 1948. He wasn't talking about the Soviet Union. He was describing what he thought England would become. Through people's actions and minds, this will ruthlessly imposes liberal democratic patterns on everything and everyone, including those who should firmly stand for alternative proposals. The Socialists and Communists, while defending their position, are trying to prove that they are more democratic and liberal than the liberal Democrats, more open, pluralistic, tolerant, inclusive, and enthusiastically devoted to entitlements of individuals and groups, more feminist-minded and non-discriminatory.

The conservatives who, in principle, should oppose the socialists and liberal Democrats, quite sincerely argue that they, too, are open, pluralistic, tolerant, and inclusive, dedicated to the entitlements of individuals and groups, non-discriminatory, and even supportive of the claims of feminists and homosexual activists. All in all, the liberal Democrats, the socialists, and the conservatives are unanimous in their condemnation. They condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination, intolerance, and all the other sins listed in the liberal democratic catechism, while also participating in an unimaginable stretching of the meaning of these concepts and depriving them of any explanatory power. So if you see people who especially groups that advocate for absolute freedom, decrying racism, sexism, homosexuals. homophobia, discrimination, intolerance. If you see them decrying it, even if they say, well, we don't want to make a law against it. Just remember where the spirit of that comes from.

All thoughts and all modes of linguistic expression are moving within the circle of the same cliches, slogans, spells, ideas, and arguments. All are involved in the grand design of which those who think and speak are not the authors, but with whose authorship they deeply identify or, in case, of doubt, from which they do not find strength or reasons enough to distance themselves. The grand design, its supporters say, should be implemented at all costs because it is believed to bring with itself freedom, autonomy, tolerance, pluralism, and all other liberal democratic treasures. Therefore, all barriers that block its coming can and must be broken down, also for the benefit of those who put up these barriers. If abortion means freedom, then we should

raise the consciousness of those who think differently, forced doctors to support this freedom and silence priests so they do not interfere with it. If same-sex marriage means freedom, we should then compel its opponents to accept it and silence fools who may have doubts about it. If political correctness is a necessity of life in the liberal democratic society, then imposing it is, after all, nothing else but a measure of its emancipation for all. The groups that managed to capture this liberal phraseology and the logic that underlies it, such as homosexuals and feminists, have exerted a disproportionate influence on the government to the extent that the state institutions, including the courts, have taken upon themselves the task of breaking the

resistance of less conscious and more stubborn groups. That is, of coercing them to freedom. We're back to Rousseau. When they seek to break you of your, if you're against gay marriage, if you're against abortion. They're coercing you or they're trying to convince you or to shame you. This is coercion to freedom. They're forcing you to be free. So obvious, right? Today, those who write and speak not only face more limitations than they used to,

but all the institutions and communities that traditionally stood in the way of this coercion to freedom are being dismantled. As in all utopia, so in a liberal democracy, it is believed that the irrational residues of the past should be removed. Over the last few decades, we have observed legislation that has been passed in the name of freedom and of liberal democracy, but which led, with little social resistance, to a considerable limitation of freedom. Parity and quota regulations are a case in point. Although they are typical egalitarian measures and as such inherently inimical to freedom, they have been largely accepted as a political imperative of a liberal society.

One cannot nowadays appoint an executive or elected representatives be it in politics, business, or art, without a prior selection according to sex, ethnicity, or some other non-relevant criterion. Another type of legislation, extremely dangerous and also illustrating coercions of freedom, relates to what has been called hate speech, and still another to domestic violence, These phrases tend to incriminate more and more acts of conduct and of speech, allowing for further drastic intervention by the government and courts and family life, the media, public institutions, and schools. When such laws were being passed in some European countries some time ago,

an immediate reaction was far from favorable. Many people in institutions, especially in the United States, voiced an opinion that such measures were Orwellian in nature, in the sense that the libertarian rhetoric was used to cover up coercion, making people believe that freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom. Oh, those libertarians. Just the best dupes. They come up with ideas and phrases and people in power just steal them and mangle them

and turn them into something else. Oh, thank you so much, libertarians. later on the adjective Orwellian was dropped and more and more countries including the United States adopted similar regulations spontaneously carried by the general will

with more and more support by the people or those who claim to claim to represent the people's will anyhow the citizens did not protest probably having been convinced that they were witnessing a global civilization of freedom in the making A similar pressure is exerted on education in general, the result being a rigorous conformity

of thought and conduct, all naturally in the name of empowerment of students and teachers. Consequently, teachers, like parents, can do less than less, although most of them probably think that the changes are inevitable, and that never before did they enjoy so much freedom. The real power has been shifting to government officials who, ostensibly in order to empower young people decide how their minds should be formed free from the potential subversive influence of teachers and parents. But then both teachers and parents have ceased to rebel because over time they have become part of the great universal liberal democratic will, bragging about their sincere and deep devotion to it. This is what we call the post-war consensus or the boomer truth

regime. Coercion and spontaneity overlap in an almost perfect symbiosis. And if there is still someone who has not resigned himself to it, he will soon be called to order by the government and the courts. The universities are undergoing the same process, which is most unfortunate because they were regarded for centuries as free industries of the human mind. Today, any such belief is clearly in discord with zealot. Today, any such belief is clearly in discord with reality. The entire education process has been systematically standardized to make it as close as possible to the liberal democratic model in which group rights are carefully watched,

detailed verification, and appeal procedures have been established, and the principle of equality is increasingly more influential in academic community relations. The humanities and social sciences have long since declared a keen interest in participating in the process of liberal democratic changes and are vigorously supported in their actions by ministries of education, political associations, and supranational institutions. The liberal democratic jargon, which so painfully dominates political life, also invaded academic life, which slowly became a reflection of the entire public sphere. Universities are increasingly eager to introduce the liberal democratic regime, which makes the vast majority of academics convinced that they operate

an institution that enjoys the greatest freedom in its history, but in fact, freedom is in retreat. The emergence of liberal democracy at educational institutions led, as elsewhere, to considerable restrictions of the very liberty that universities enjoyed previously. These developments are undermining a long and admirable academic tradition. Of course, in the post-communist countries, not much was left to be undermined because the old regime managed to deal with the academic tradition very effectively, with no small participation of the academics themselves. Remnants of tradition were occasionally still invoked as a weapon against the excessive intrusion of the communist government.

Whatever else remained in the old days was wiped clean by the new order. In an age of an increasing number of rights, continuous group demands, equality, and officially hunted deviations from the established political line, academic tradition did not stand a chance. The universities began to resemble businesses, on the other hand, and liberal democratic political structures on the other, on one hand, and liberal democratic political structures on the other. Let us note here the disappearance of the academic eccentric, a well-known personality for centuries almost inseparably associated with the academic tradition and its peculiar atmosphere of the freedom of inquiry and inimitable relations between teachers and students.

It is not only the ominous presence of political correctness that makes the life of a dissonant unbearable. The functioning of the university itself has become so heavily controlled by procedures, rules, and regulations that all deviations from the routine are strictly controlled. If the legendary professors of old whose unconventional behavior persists in real or imaginary stories to this very day, suddenly, by some miracle, managed to find themselves at today's universities, they would soon be coerced to submission or disposed of as unruly troublemakers. The coercions of freedom also occurs in the supernatural, supernational institutions, and particularly in the European Union, which, as I previously noted, considers itself the

ultimate product of the liberal democratic idea. Its coercive policies are not something that happens by accident. They derive from the heart of the European Union and from the logic of integration as it is conceived today. European institutions are supposed to represent European society, which theoretically seems understandable. The problem is that the EU institutions exist, whereas European society does not. Such a society will, we are told, come into existence sometime in the future, but this belief is a part of the EU creed for which evidence, is, to say the least, shaky.

Because people like their culture. But once we accept the basic premise that the existing institutions may act for, and in the name of, the society that is believed to emerge in the future, we give them extraordinary powers far exceeding those that are granted within the framework of an ordinary society. Those institutions tend to ignore the rules followed in nation-states, whose governments cannot ignore them because they are answerable to real societies with real identities and loyalties, not to some fictional future...

Futurabilia. That's a good word. The European institutions ignore these rules out of the conviction that by doing so, they represent what serve European societies best, and what those societies really want, even if they are temporary diluted by the unlawful. reason of national particularisms. The European Union, in other words, believes itself to be a vanguard in relation to the rest of the population ahead of them in recognizing what is real and what is fictional, and that on their belief, it is pursuing a goal whose value the public will understand only in the

future. A popular EU maxim that is striking in its stupidity, but repeated as a sign of great wisdom, is that integration is like riding a bicycle. You have to keep going, otherwise you will fall. It thus assumes that two groups exist in the EU, one that knows the final goal and that it is imperative for the whole process to be carried out, and one that is not cognizant of the final goal, does not understand it, and rejects it to the detriment of itself and others. This second group represents resistance, and this resistance must be overcome for the sake of the whole, something the group will thoroughly understand over time, when it gets over its own peculiarity and comprehends the full benefits of integration. Here we encounter a replication of the well-known pattern found in the theory and practice of communism. On the one hand, there is a party, which knows the ultimate goal of socialism,

identifies with it completely and understands the need for its existence. On the other are the real people who are not fully aware of what is good for them and who should be firmly guided toward the final goal, despite their posed resistance. The emergence of such a pattern of thought and practice at the European level, for example, on the occasion of explicitly and unjustly forcing the Lisbon Treaty on all societies, shows that the coercion to freedom has gone very far, so far that it has eliminated several retreat mechanisms. There is no indication that the EU will break up with these self-destructive and demoralizing practices,

The EU mind, yes, there is such a thing, generated such a mental habit that every dissent is considered a blasphemous assault in the very idea of the European Union and the noble principles that constitute it. Just as in socialism, every dissent was an incomprehensible act of treason that did not deserve to be left unpunished. The European Union has become the guardian of all diseases of the supernational liberal democracy, while itself being the most vivid illustration of these diseases. diseases. It has led its institutions' actions at human minds to such a level of dogmatization that any future remedial movements aimed at restoring freedom and reason will have conflicted with it to a higher or lesser degree in the course of which the EU itself will increasingly sentence itself to play the role of the Ancian regime. It is hard to imagine that while producing so much regulatory power, the EU would suddenly dismantle it and come to the conclusion that integrational abstinence would better serve peace and cooperation than the coercion to freedom.

The emergence of such beliefs in the EU sphere would encourage a European perestroika, something that the European Union might not survive. All right, that's the end of chapter two. If you take away anything from this, the concept of coercions of freedom, I think that is one of the most insightful things from chapter two and insightful things in this book. And it's something that you can, I think you can even explain it to your Normie family. It should be able to understand what it means. Now, we know that they'll be like, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And the next day, not care anything about it.

But, hey, some may. So that's it. I'll be back with part five, and we'll start chapter three in a couple of days. And until then, take care of yourselves. See ya. And thanks for tuning in.