The radical left is still convinced that it can issue democracy certificates. What’s intriguing is that they persist in this belief despite the beatings they receive in every election. Indeed, as soon as they smell trouble, they reach unprecedented levels of hypocrisy, labeling elections as “a danger to democracy” (as per the New York Times a few days ago).
To put it in perspective, it’s a bit like a football club, realizing they’ve assembled a non-competitive team, declaring the championship or the Champions League a “danger to football.”
Gaining access to the constitutional arc that hovers in the minds of these “democrats” is simple; you just have to meet one criterion: think exactly like them. Anyone daring to dissent, even on a comma of the woke uniform thought, is automatically labeled fascist and, as such, has no right to obtain the designated Red Pass granting access to elite circles and a series of privileges, including being treated with kid gloves by the so-called mainstream media.
In the name of such a sense of democracy, for the gentlemen of the Italian Democratic Party and their allies, opponents must declare themselves antifascists, but they are not required to define themselves as anticommunists, despite the approximately 100 million deaths (a conservative estimate) caused by communist regimes that sowed death, poverty, and terror wherever they seized power.
Let’s say that anyone today who persists in denying the crimes of communism shows a little problem with the concept of democracy, wouldn’t you agree?
Well, in this case, the pathology is acute to the point that they have gone so far as to contest the resolution by which the European Parliament condemns Nazi and communist totalitarian regimes or – to cite just the latest in an endless series of cases – vehemently attack Gennaro Sangiuliano for urging them to define themselves as anticommunists.
Their exaggerated reactions confirm that the Minister of Culture has touched a nerve because the communist legacy still underlies their actions, founded on pillars such as the systematic delegitimization of the opponent (who becomes an enemy) and the distortion of reality.
In terms of communication, the most important operation they have carried out – undoubtedly intelligent from their point of view – is semantic: they have changed the meaning of some words, turning them into weapons for political struggle and tools for self-legitimization.
First example: Antifascism = Communism
They have given the term antifascism a meaning opposite to its literal one: in the name of what should be a universal value of freedom against the oppression of totalitarianism (in this case, that of the fascist regime), post-war settling of scores has been carried out, young people have been killed in the years of lead, and entire cities have been set ablaze in the 2000s.
Words are crucial: the greatest mistake has been made against antifascism itself, the authentic one, as it is used by the left as an ideological club to eliminate the opponent, increasingly resembling fascism in the long run and revealing itself for what it really is: communism masquerading as antifascism. Therefore, a form of totalitarianism.
It’s obvious that someone like myself, driven by the values at the core of Western Civilization (the sanctity of life, freedom, and human dignity), cannot adhere to this antifascism. It would mean legitimizing the meaning the left has attributed to it, as well as the crimes committed in its name.
Second example: Constitution = Red Pass
Within this strategy, which we can define as the Big Lie, the Constitution is also continuously pulled by the hair to defend the narrative tailored by the left: whenever they start with the pantomime of antifascism, they claim that the Constitution is antifascist, implying that it draws from their values blatantly contrary to freedom, which thankfully is false.
In this case, they do a disservice to the Constitution, which, being democratic, is inherently antifascist and anticommunist, proclaiming the right to vote and freedom of expression, as well as the pluralism of parties – rights entirely incompatible with any form of totalitarianism, be it fascist or communist.
Third example: Anticommunism vs. “Communism defeated fascism in Italy and did not rule”
First and foremost, the goal of Italian communists was not to replace fascism with democracy but with another dictatorship, the communist one. Therefore, Italian communists were not pursuing democracy but the implementation of communism. Once it became clear that this was not possible, the described Plan B was activated.
Beyond this, asserting that there is no need to be anticommunist because there has never been a communist regime in Italy is equivalent to claiming that outside of Germany, there is no need to be anti-Nazi.
That said, it is obvious that anyone who has genuinely participated in the Italian Communist Party, serving the interests of their community without overpowering political opponents, deserves absolute respect.
Similarly, those who, in good faith, have been active in the Italian Social Movement must be respected: in both cases, we are dealing with people who have acted within the democratic framework, even if motivated by post-ideological principles.
I am convinced that, in a debate free from the enormous contradictions of the Big Lie, both sides would have no difficulty defining themselves as antifascists and anticommunists, feeling free to return to dividing themselves not on prejudiced issues but on the plane of ideas, with mutual respect. It’s called democracy.