March 11, 2025 - 10:40am
Whatever happened to the notion that, faced with the enemies of democracy, we should fight their ideas but, equally, for their right to express them? The answer, unfortunately, is that it died an ignominious death on Sunday, as Romania’s Central Electoral Bureau, with the full support of the European Union’s liberal establishment, banned far-Right candidate Cǎlin Georgescu from running for president.
What makes this cherished principle’s death personally unbearable is that I detest the likes of Georgescu, just as I oppose with every sinew of my body the Nationalist International of which he is a part. So, why the pain? Because I cherish my right, and duty, to defeat them at the ballot box — and I shall challenge to my last breath the liberal totalitarians who deny me this right, this duty.
Romania’s Central Electoral Bureau justified its ban on Georgescu with the allegation that the candidate “violated the very obligation to defend democracy”. This is preposterous. The right to vote and to stand for election is exactly that: an unearned right automatically afforded to anyone with the correct passport and the capacity to breathe. Unlike a medal or a university degree, it is not an award or a privilege to be earned. The moment anyone — a judge, a commissioner, even a wise philosopher king — acquires the power to limit that right, a new power is created to restrict the franchise which is by definition anti-democratic.
Before anyone reaches for the “naïve liberal” or “useful idiot” labels, hear me out. I grew up under a fascist totalitarian regime. I know ultra-Rightists better than most. As a kid, I watched them beat my mother, abduct my father, and imprison my favourite uncle. If given the chance, these people will happily set up authoritarian regimes while luring the masses with toxic delusions of grandeur. Yet nothing reinforces them more than the sights and sounds of liberal totalitarianism at work: ideological judges and electoral commissions banning them as if to prove that everyone is in on it, and that democracy is just a cover for the stealthier form of authoritarianism.
To those who are prepared to turn a blind eye because Georgescu is allegedly a Kremlin plant, I have a question: can you really not see what a magnificent gift this ban is to Putin? How he is loving the spectacle of liberal Europe copying his methods of eliminating a political opponent? And to those who fear Trump more than Putin, I have another question: how smart was it for the EU, weeks after JD Vance accused Europe of endorsing the dissolution of Romanian democracy, to vindicate him?
Yanis Varoufakis is an economist and former Greek Minister of Finance. He is the author of several best-selling books, most recently Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present.
yanisvaroufakis
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt seems to me that the so-called far right, is infinately preferable to the treacherous orwellian liberal elites were currently stuck with.
Yes, and also, don’t call the fascistic left ‘liberals’ or ‘elites’. Fascists and oppressors, yes, but not liberal and elite.
The effective mainstream media blackout across Europe on this issue has been particularly striking. There has been more media attention on the political turmoil in South Korea than on a stolen election in a substantial EU member state.
From Canada I have to agree the MSM has generally ignored this story. I also agree with the point of the article. We’ve had our recent experience with Trudeau’s dubious use of lawfare against citizens with “dangerous and unacceptable views”. Not a great moment for democracy. So what’s the problem with Georgescu? If he’s the far-Right fringe neo-nutter the establishment claims he is then why ban his candidacy? Clearly he won’t get enough votes to matter.
But wait. He’s already a proven vote-getter. So. So does that mean that many more Romanians than we thought are actually far Right neo-nutters? How many votes does one have to get in order to no longer be considered ‘fringe’. How many votes do you have to lose to the opposition before you get over yourself and wonder if maybe it’s you that’s the problem and not Georgescu. (side point: the Democrats are still wrestling with this question).
Varoufakis failes to mention the grounds of Georgescu being banned from running and, I gotta say, expected him to be better informed.
Mr. Călin Georgescu broke the law on several accounts: initially, he declared that he had 0 (zero!) expenses during his campaign, a statement that he reneged later on (prior to his banning) when he submitted his file for candidacy, and that alone is enough for him to be banned. The Romanian law (just like other rules governing the elections) clearly states that you need to point to the source of the money spent during the campaign. He failed to do that.
Secundo, Romania’s laws on fascism/nazism are pretty strict (albeit, sometimes, poorly enforced). The man had numerous statements praising the 20th century fascist leaders that actively contributed to the massacring of hundreds of thousands of Jews during WWII, namely Corneliu Zelea Codreanu (leader of the Iron Guard, a vile antisemitic, murderous thug) and General Antonescu (the guy that allowed hundreds of thousands of Jews to be slaughtered in just a few years, a guy under whose leadership we ended up in total disaster during and after Stalingrad).
It’s somewhat surprising to see that the MSM, both Left and Right didn’t bother to discuss these facts and that the commentariat was left thinking that Georgescu was banned from running because of his anti-EU, anti-NATO, pro-Russia stance (the latter being an anathema in Romania, even for those who hate the EU or the West in general).
So, no, he wasn’t barred from running on the account of his lunacy or vile anti-Western stance, but because he broke the laws of the country he wanted to be President of.
Thank you for that alternative view of the subject.
I would be interested in seeing the guy’s statement in support of Codreanu and Antonescu, comparing them with the neo Nazis in Ukraine support for Bandera.. Amy one interested can read Aris Roussinos article I the Guardian in 2018, which describes his interviews with the guys with the interesting patches. I don’t intend whataboutery, but a serious comparison with someone alleged here to support the very nasty but very nationalistic Codreanu ( defeated by Antonescu, I believe, who led the puppet state).
I am not claiming any particular knowledge of current politics in Romania although I visited few times in 70s.
Problem with bans like this is that they always effect people with views not eligned with current EU dogma.
Somehow people who support vile ideology of communism and praise muss murderers like Lenin and Stalin and support terrorists like Hamas are not banned from elections.
Let’s try a mental experiment. Say Hitler made it to toady and mainstream history is correct about nazism, the Holocaust, XXth Century nationalisms and dictatorships and so on. Say, furthermore, that 45% of the current population is ignorant of history and lacks the tools to evaluate critically virtually anything (45% of the Romanian population is functionally illiterate), because education sucks and (mis/dis)information technology changes faster than a dysfunctional and corrupt state like, say, Romania, can keep up. Say Hitler runs for president: his discursive style is Cicero grade (in form not content, the latter being trash can grade, or anyway it doesn’t matter), he gathers millions of dollars and puts up a cutting edge propaganda machine avoiding mainstream media channels, confrontations with potential critics, generally laying low wherever criticism might occur, and has a strong support network of discrete or just impossible-to-take-seriously nostalgics, many in the right places (pun intended: the army, mercenaries, the influent and afluent secret services, some of their members openly supporting historical fascism). His support team knows the history about Hitler, but they like him a lot for what he really is, and for what he promises to do. Thus: Hitler organises a campaign falsely and illegally declaring no funding in official documents (because, say, the funding is illegal and thus cannot be divulged, but his motives are of little importance here), he openly and illegally (in Romania) promotes fascist friends of his time (dear Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, amore!), he promises to crash any dissent and eliminate political parties (his discourse; btw, the guy was indicted in the past for promoting fascist leaders and figures accused of genocide based on his explicit declarations, but his case was miraculously dismissed — friends are treasures), his friends plot a coup d’etat (prosecutors obtained recordings) to transform the state into a theological dictatorship (think Iran), for which they have prepared a massive (for Romania) arsenal provided by a mercenary affiliated with Rusia (Potra, who flew to Moscow in November 2024 or so, who we know paid Georgescu’s campaign, who had on him 20.000.000 dollars in cash), against the Constitution (even though one of the main roles of a Romanian president is as guarantor of the Constitution). And, finally, idiots in power support Hitler indirectly in a quest to undermine other adversaries and increase their own chances (see PNL).
Those who see him coming and know the history have a hard time believing it’s possible for Hitler to get more than a few percents (I am one of them), polls suggest the same, so such people think just like many of you do now: let him run, for the sake of democracy (?), why bother with the nutsy guy, the institutions are underfunded and overwhelmed anyway under piles of corruption. Those targeted by Hitler’s campaign, precisely targeted because they know neither him nor history, are convinced that Jesus Christ himself is running, due to an exquisite campaign. These are mostly part of the 45% of functionally illiterate citizens, many of them rightfully angry, poor people disillusioned by corruption and hardship, by witnessing a rampant increase in wealth inequality all due to politicians and people who stole poor people’s money in the 90s getting insanely rich, while they themselves, the poor, struggle to make ends meet in some Western country which looks down on them at best, while they do their dirty cheap work none of their citizens would consider touching. There are also some opportunists, some fair and square nazis, and also some sheer idiots. Anyway, the day comes and of the population with voting rights (~80%) 60% actually votes, of which 23% votes for Hitler. This is about 10% of the population voting for nutsy, well within the 45%. Many admit they just voted against the system, and they saw this guy on TikTok being liked by their friends.
However, the guy, we know (by fiat, in this experiment), is still damn’ Hitler! The heck we do? We risk having another 3rd German Reich (well, poorer, so the risk is mostly internal, for the citizens, not the sovereignty of other countries). First, we panic. Second, …
Fill in the gaps, please. I’m curious, I really don’t know what ought to be filled in.
So you think he would immediately make war on countries that stole Romanian land and people? Romania did quite well out of Versailles, but then again Ukraine when part of the USSR filched a lot of it, right up to the Danube Delta. So would the bad guy invade Ukraine to get it back ? An interesting proposition.
“Awaiting for approval: Spam.” Jeez, freedom of speech rulez. Thanks Unherd.
Let’s try a mental experiment. Say Hitler made it to toady and mainstream history is correct about nazism, the Holocaust, XXth Century nationalisms and dictatorships and so on. Say, furthermore, that 45% of the current population is ignorant of history and lacks the tools to evaluate critically virtually anything (45% of the Romanian population is functionally illiterate), because education sucks and (mis/dis)information technology changes faster than a dysfunctional and corrupt state like, say, Romania, can keep up. Say Hitler runs for president: his discursive style is Cicero grade (in form not content, the latter being trash can grade, or anyway it doesn’t matter), he gathers millions of dollars and puts up a cutting edge propaganda machine avoiding mainstream media channels, confrontations with potential critics, generally laying low wherever criticism might occur, and has a strong support network of discrete or just impossible-to-take-seriously nostalgics, many in the right places (pun intended: the army, mercenaries, the influent and afluent secret services, some of their members openly supporting historical fascism). His support team knows the history about Hitler, but they like him a lot for what he really is, and for what he promises to do. Thus: Hitler organises a campaign falsely and illegally declaring no funding in official documents (because, say, the funding is illegal and thus cannot be divulged, but his motives are of little importance here), he openly and illegally (in Romania) promotes fascist friends of his time (dear Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, amore!), he promises to crash any dissent and eliminate political parties (his discourse; btw, the guy was indicted in the past for promoting fascist leaders and figures accused of genocide based on his explicit declarations, but his case was miraculously dismissed – friends are treasures), his friends plot a coup d’etat (prosecutors obtained recordings) to transform the state into a theological dictatorship (think Iran), for which they have prepared a massive (for Romania) arsenal provided by a mercenary affiliated with Rusia (Potra, who flew to Moscow in November 2024 or so, who we know paid Georgescu’s campaign, who had on him 20.000.000 dollars in cash), against the Constitution (even though one of the main roles of a Romanian president is as guarantor of the Constitution). And, finally, idiots in power support Hitler indirectly in a quest to undermine other adversaries and increase their chances (see PNL).
Those who see him coming and know the history have a hard time believing it’s possible for Hitler to get more than a few percents (I am one of them), polls suggest the same, so such people think just like many of you do now: let him run, for the sake of democracy (?), why bother with the nutsy guy, the institutions are underfunded and overwhelmed anyway under piles of corruption. Those targeted by Hitler’s campaign, precisely targeted because they know neither him nor history, are convinced that Jesus Christ himself is running, due to an exquisite campaign. These are mostly part of the 45% of functionally illiterate citizens, many of them rightfully angry, poor people disillusioned by corruption and hardship, by witnessing a rampant increase in wealth inequality among politicians and people who stole poor people’s money in the 90s, while they themselves, the poor, struggle to make ends meet in some Western country which looks down on them at best, while they do their dirty cheap work none of their citizens would consider touching.
There are also some opportunists, some fair and square nazis, and also some sheer idiots. Anyway, the day comes and of the population with voting rights (~80%) 60% actually votes, of which 23% votes for Hitler. This is about 10% of the population voting for nutsy, well within the 45%. Many admit they just voted against the system, and they saw this guy on TikTok being liked by their friends.
However, the guy, we know (by fiat, in this experiment), is still damn’ Hitler!
The heck we do? We risk having another 3rd German Reich (well, poorer, so the risk is mostly internal, for the citizens, not the sovereignty of other countries). First, we panic. Second, …
Fill in the gaps, please. I’m curious, I really don’t know what ought to be filled in.
Very interesting comparison.
Why is it striking? Honestly, did you really expect leftist organs of propaganda to highlight the fascistic nature of leftist ideology?
The presidency of Romania is a ceremonial post. He has no power. That’s why no one cares.
Varoufakis is not a politician I would vote for but everything he says here is 100% right. The Romanian Central Electoral Bureau is the one not defending democracy. Unfortunately the EU is not a democracy as traditionally understood.
I seem to recall Varoufakis writing in “Adults in the Room” that the EU is remarkable in that it brings 27 (well, at the time of writing it was still 28) democracies together to form one big democracy-free zone, aka Brussels (meant in an institutional sense, not a geographical one).
The Elites gain power and eventually gain absolute power. But as the aphorism asserts absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In the Western world the Liberal Elites have ruled for decades and are now perhaps into the ‘corrupts absolutely’ phase which apparently includes undemocratic behaviour. This makes the non-Liberals appear attractive.
Their demosphobia might have been less obvious if they had come up with some vague proposals to restructure government and on the back of that, “postpone” the election. Of course we would never do anything like that in the UK. Would we?
Absolutely right. It’s hard to see how someone standing for election and getting significant popular support is undermining democracy. Probably the only time I’ll agree with Yanis Varoufakis !
Yes, Russia is probably trying – with some limited effect – to interfere in elections in Romania. But this certainly can only make things worse.
From what I’ve read, the principle “interference” in the first round turned out to be in the form of efforts by one of the two “main stream” parties to undercut its rival “main stream” party by supporting Georgescu’s candidacy. It was a tactical move that blew up in everyone’s faces. It’s kind of like how Hillary Clinton’s campaign boosted Trump’s candidacy in 2016 because he was thought to be the easiest one to defeat.
Peter, Călin Georgescu wasn’t barred from running on account of his views (which, in my opinion, should be more than enough to disqualify him, as they’re blatanly anti-constitutional) but because he broke the law on several counts: he failed to point to a source of funding (his claim that he had 0 expenses is patently false, as the way he conducted his campaign required huge amounts of money; he later walked back on his statement). It was discovered that he was promised financial support from shady businessmen, some of which clearly stated a coup was needed for them to take absolute power.
Georgescu also said that, as soon as he’ anointed President, he will make do with all parties, as they’re not needed anymore. That, alone, is illegal and runs contrary to any democratic Constitution. In a decent, democratic country, this is more than enough to bar you running for President.
There’s also his strong support and admiration for extreme-right past leaders of Romania. And no, I’m not talking Meloni, Le Pen, Wilders, Farage – all wrongfully dubbed extreme right by Left-leaning media. No, I’m talking the real deal: people that massacred tens of thousands of Jews in the span of three days, people that sent other hundreds of thousands of Jews to their death, people that killed opposition leaders in cold blood in the streets of pre- and during WWII Romania. There’s laws (poorly enforced, unfortunately) that clearly state these acts as felonies, and he clearly broke them. We can discuss the merits of these laws, but, all in all, he clearly violated them.
It’s surprising and disconcerting that the Right-leaning media failed to cast some light on these facts, leaving you, outsiders, believing that a man was wrongfully stopped from running. I thought that said media was better, at least compared to its Left counterpart.
Long story short, no, we didn’t irreparably damage democracy, we saved it.
A few clarifications are needed. 1. There is no legal way in Romanian law to forbid someone to run or to vote in elections because they are accused of crimes. They can be punished so, but only when they are finally convicted for the crime they are accused for. So if a prosecutor accuses mr. Ionut for spreading misinformation, mr. Ionut can still vote, but if he is convicted, he can receive a complementary/ accesory punishment interdicting him to vote. Same with the accusations against mr. Georgescu and the interdiction to run. 2. The actual way mr. Georgescu was forbidden to run is by hijacking the power of the Electoral Commission and of Constitutional Court to supervise the electoral process. They extended this procedural power to encompass the power to evaluate the merits of the candidate. If this new interpretation stays, in the future elections the local electoral commissions and local courts could select the candidates in local circumscriptions. That is a new and interesting power they did not know they have. 3. There is a powerful constituency among the romanian middle class, public functionaries, and the like, that is really bothered by the fact that the uneducated underclasses have the unconditional right to vote. This is the same constituency that is bothered by the appearent ascension of Russian power and is somewhat pleased with the status quo. So while these people say they are protecting democracy, in reality they are simply opportunistic. They do not want the uneducated classes to imperil the strategical options of the Romanian state and the established order of things. So they feel the need to protect the uneducated from the their own poor electoral choices. A similar feeling animated the Egyptian establishment in overturning the electoral succes of the Muslim Brotherhood. The only difference is that the Romanian establishment and the constituency attached to it think it is best to claim their unending attachment to democracy, while in Egypt such a claim was not considered necessary or useful.
Love her, or loathe her, you know fine well that Thatcher wouldn’t have stood for it. Inside the EU or from without, handbag at the ready, she’d have given them a piece of her mind and no mistake.
Of course, if Thatcher tried to get elected today, one assumes, she would have been shoved in the same box as Calvin Georgescu marked ‘Somewhere to the right of that German chap with the funny moustache’.
If you look back at the history of Reagan and Thatcher with the knowledge we have today, you will see that they were both puppets—puppets of the very system that is causing the issues we face now.
They didn’t just shift power from government to private entities—they provided the blueprint for how to do it (making voting for government into performance act since the real power is not voted on). And the very method they used became the foundation for the successful creation of the EU. They were not the masterminds; they were the workhorses executing the agenda of those behind the scenes.
Even though Thatcher publicly opposed European integration, every action she took signaled to private corporations and financial elites exactly how to dismantle national sovereignty with ease. She may have said “no” with her words, but her policies paved the way for deeper economic entrenchment under centralized, supranational control.
What made their strategy so effective was the language of obfuscation and humor they used—deliberately vague and misleading rhetoric designed to hide the real objectives behind their policies. Just in case it is not clear – they were neoconservative and neoliberalism. They were both low IQ without critical thinking of the day after their administration, so they were easily led from behind. It’s no surprise they both ended up with dementia shortly after they lost power, while Nixon, Carter or Bush lived close to 100 and remained lucid. Those two were high on the fake power!
Reagan and Thatcher were not independent leaders—they were agents of a larger plan. They systematically dismantled existing economic structures, and once it was demonstrated how those systems could be broken so easily within 8years or so, we are arrived here today in complete disorientation!
Their policies shaped the very foundation of how the EU and US operate in the world today, and now we stand at a crossroads of collective delusion. Do we descend further into ideological decay, or do we forge new neural pathways to think differently and break free from the cycle?
If I read you correctly, anyone on the right — especially successful politicians on the right — are mere puppets of what? The barons of finance? International arms dealers? The Illuminati? The Knights of Columbus? Who?
It is hard to take seriously anyone who says Thatcher had low IQ.
She had chemistry degree from Oxbridge.
Great comment. Both Reagan and Thatcher white-anted civil society and economic sovereignty under the guise of being conservative patriots, and were essentially servants of the financial elites.
I made the point in Comments about the European response to those they deem “far-right” in relation to JD Vance’s speech the other day.
I take issue with many of this author’s views, but in his defence of the most basic principles of democracy, he’s unchallengeable.
We all know he wasn’t a Putin plant he was just not ideologically aligned with the socialist/Globalist/ Liberal EU.
Wrong answer Romania … vote again please.
Oh, trampling over the basic tenets of democracy to “save democracy”! Riiiiiiight…
It reminds me of the Vietnam war quote by an unnamed US officer – “It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.”
Except that comment was made in conscious irony. The Romanian Central Electoral Bureau presumably announced its decision with po-faced sincerity.
Finally some coverage of the authoritarian crapshow taking place in Romania. This is yet another nail in the coffin of democratic liberalism in Europe. NATO is in the process of a massive expansion of its military base in Romania. It will be twice as big as anything Germany. This Georgescu guy has questioned the wisdom of such a project so he is deposed by the utterly corrupt judiciary, which is taking its marching orders from the EU. The lack of any coverage of this is baffling. I get why the regime media won’t touch it, but there’s been crickets in alternative media as well.
Ironically I did see you using same critical mind when we do it OVER THERE! what we are doing to Georgescu!
What makes you think the EU is involved? I’ve seen no evidence of that. Quite the contrary. I know JD Vance claimed that Thierry Breton admitted the EU annulled the first election but that was false.
That said, I haven’t followed this that closely so maybe I am missing something.
(By the way, have you ever listened to Colin Georgescu? The man is as nutty as fruitcake.)
He can be nuts, unpleasant and unpalatable, but a member state of the EU is forbidding the citizens of the country to vote for, or against, his ideas.
Fair play to the author of this article. And for that matter to JD Vance, whose Munich speech seems more valid by the day.
Part of the reason why no one is paying much attention to the Romanian presidential election is because the president has almost no power. He’s a figurehead while all the real power is in the prime minister. So it doesn’t matter substantively if a nutcase like Colin Georgescu gets in but it would embarrass the country.
The man believes that the moon landings were faked, that he worked with people at the UN who were really space aliens, that the Covid-19 pandemic was faked, that we are all controlled by nanoparticles the government puts in our food, that 5G cell phone radiation harms people, and so on.
The weirdest belief is that water is not just H2O but it contains information. We can’t access the information in water any more because it’s kept in plastic bottles. Or something like that. I must admit I could not follow his thinking on this, so I probably got it all wrong.
The EU didn’t bother to weigh in on this election in Romania because it wouldn’t matter if Colin Georgescu won. Romanian policy would not change.
Romanians are certainly paying attention. Tens of thousands have been protesting for months now. And clearly the Romanian judiciary thinks the position is important. Otherwise they wouldn’t cancel the election.
Speaking of nutty beliefs, politicians across the west think women can actually be men, that you can run an industrial economy on wind and solar, and that locking down the globe for two years is a perfectly reasonable response to a disease that harms a tiny fraction of the most compromised people. Funny that.
If you could provide some links to Georgescu‘a nutty beliefs, I would appreciate that.
My computer stopped working and I am just on my phone which is hard to research on. I’ll see if I can find those nuttiness sources for you tomorrow.
But the fact that the Romanian president is just a ceremonial head of state with no power is easily found on Wikipedia. The parliamentary elections held December were the important ones, and there were no hiccups with that.
The water thing sounds like homeopathy.
This is exactly what he said; “We’ll also have to do it in Germany, if necessary.”
I sure as hell don’t see the EU lifting a finger to reverse the decision. It’s not like the EU is reluctant to get involved in the domestic politics of member nations.
Thierry Breton said we did it in Romania, and we’ll do it in Germany if needed. The “it” was not the annulment of the Romanian election but the opening by the EU at Romania’s request of an investigation under the Digital Services Act into whether TikTok had violated the Act’s provisions in the run up to the election. TikTok was reportedly happy to cooperate in the probe.
Thierry Breton explained this in a tweet. The remark was made in a French television interview and though I do not speak French I did get confirmation from someone who does that Thierry Breton was correct.
Of course the EU didn’t try to reverse the decision. The EU is not concerned with individual court decisions in member country courts but with whether the judiciary in a country is independent. Though there is plenty to criticize the EU about, that’s one thing they get right.
There’s plenty the EU can do. It routinely withholds funds when it disagrees with the internal politics of member states. It happens all the time. Clearly, the EU doesn’t have an issue with the events that took place in Romania. It convened some BS commission, like it usually does in situations like this, and came up with the answer it wanted.
Look, you don’t have to like Georgescu, but canceling elections and refusing to let people run in future elections is the stuff of banana republics. Although the police raided his home, he hasn’t been charged or convicted of any crime, as far as I know. To defend the EU in this is laughable.
And yes, parliament and prime minister have more power than the president in Romania, but the president has a long list of responsibilities. The future of the NATO base there, and its expansion, appears to be something the president would have tremendous influence on. It’s not a ceremonial role like governor general. They wouldn’t have elections if it was otherwise.
Leftists are essentially fascists. Calling them ‘liberal’ is the prime mistake. If you view them as fascistic from the outset, then their behaviour won’t come as a surprise.
It’s always seemed strange to me that the spittle-flecked little fascists who punch cyber trucks, scream at the sky, set up firewalls, arrest people for ‘thought crimes’, cancel elections, etc., etc., can ever be considered ‘liberal‘. There’s nothing remotely liberal at all about the ‘woke’ far left. So stop calling them liberal. It really does make a difference.
Defending democracy by subverting democracy, an idea so ludicrous only “experts” can rationalize it. I wonder how many Europeans realized that the EU would one day come for their national sovereignty.
None so blind as those who will not see.
Wow, you’ve framed the issue powerfully
EU perspective vs its opposition’s perspective
I think this article raises an important distinction between democratic principles and liberal censorship, as well as the hypocrisy within democratic ideology itself. However, I believe we need to go a few layers deeper in our analysis, Mr. Yanis, and I trust that you will understand the point I am making.
First, I want to acknowledge what your family went through.
Here we must ask fundamental questions: Why do we instinctively label certain political movements as fascist, totalitarian, or authoritarian? There are two key issues at play here.
1. Fascism, as understood in Europe, has a history rooted in European conflicts. The primary reason we associate these ideologies with oppression is that they led to war in Europe. That is our main point of reference. The division of the world and European borders was structured in a way that creates an “us vs. them” dynamic, framing the narrative as democratic versus non-democratic (fascist, communist, or other opposing ideologies).
2. After World War II, when European colonial powers lost their colonies, they began applying those same labels—fascist, totalitarian, authoritarian—to the newly independent nations in Africa, Asia, South America, and Russia for not folding. The reason for this is straightforward: These nations did not agree with the world order set by Europe, just as Europeans themselves did not agree with each other when these concepts were first applied. I hope you see the similarities!
This is a basic human dynamic—when an abuser loses control over their victim, they often accuse the victim of being undermining or rebellious why else they are abused? It’s like a person abusing their partner and then becoming outraged that the partner resists or undermines them.
Power and opposition go hand in hand.
In Europe, democracy has always been assumed to be the foundation of humanity itself. Anyone who challenges this assumption is immediately labeled a fascist/communist etc. This makes Europe, and by extension the West, an expert in silencing opposing views and refusing to allow alternative perspectives. But what is opposition to democracy if we never allow alternative thinking?
So we must ask: Why is this happening in Europe today? Why are we seeing a rise in so-called fascist, totalitarian, or authoritarian movements across the continent?
In the U.S., the conservative movement is reacting internally—it is not claiming that China is oppressing them. Instead, it is responding to domestic neoliberal economic policies and foreign intervention policies within the U.S. itself. But in Europe, the situation is different. Countries like Hungary, Romania, and perhaps even Greece are reacting against the EU.
The EU, in its current form, functions like a colonizer. It dictates policies, controls economies, and imposes its ideological framework onto diverse nations – sounds familiar right? European countries are now reacting in the same way African and South American countries reacted against Europe and the U.S. in the past. Naturally, countries like Hungary and Romania are resisting—not because they are becoming fascist or authoritarian, but because they are pushing back against an overreaching centralized authority.
With due respect, this is why your argument remains at a superficial level, Mr. Yanis. You are framing these issues through the lens of liberalism and using terms like “Putin plant” to dismiss dissenting views. But what is Putin’s actual crime? He is simply saying no to rules created by other men with whom he does not agree. He refuses to conform, not because he seeks power for power’s sake (or maybe just like EU), but because he recognizes that others do not think the same way. He is rejecting the EU’s authority and asserting that Russia has the right to govern itself. That is not inherently authoritarian—it is simply a different perspective.
If this way of thinking is so flawed, then how has China outmaneuvered the West? Because they simply ignore us and our ideas. That is the most effective way to undermine dominant power—by refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy. Where does attention and energy go?
To truly understand this dynamic, we must go further back in history. Europe positioned itself as the ruler of the world, and in doing so, created a system where any deviation from its rules is seen as dangerous or threatening (the idea of collaboration does not exist in the white man’s mind). But if you step outside the framework of EU power, you will see that people in Romania, Hungary, and even Greece are not becoming agitators—they are resisting the consolidation of power in Brussels. Democracy (as your ancestors thought) should be like air—allowing all other elements to coexist and interact without overpowering one another (the collaboration of Athenians that we dissociated from). However, we are now treating democracy as if it were oxygen, demanding that it dominate and control all other elements.
I follow your work, Mr. Yanis, and I know you are the best person to understand this, having served as finance minister when your people spoke from their deepest, most human instinct to resist intrusion. This is no different.
You, more than most, should recognize that what is happening in Eastern Europe is the same thing that happened in Greece. The people in these nations feel what Greece felt—economic control, loss of sovereignty, and subjugation under an unelected bureaucracy.
Brussels is a form of centralized power that many European nations do not need—just as Asia does not need Beijing to dictate policy (i.e. Singapore Malaysia etc. we can learn from them), and the Americas do not need Washington to rule over them. Every country must have the freedom to determine its own course while still maintaining connections and collaborations with others without coercion.
Diversity of thought is essential for knowledge to grow. But when sovereignty is artificially concentrated at the top, it does not create unity—it suppresses knowledge and erases the very differences that make nations unique. That is the real problem, not the superficial divide between conservative and liberal. These are identity-based perceptions with no grounding in reality – they are like hair color!
Banning Georgescu is the canary in the coal mine for European democracy, signaling the rise of liberal authoritarianism.
This is about trusting, or indeed not trusting, one’s own electorate and its views. Even if Georgescu is everything the establishment says and more (which I doubt), he and his views are still, demonstrably, the favoured preference of the people and he and they should not be interfered with and oppressed. Complete and obvious mischarge of democracy.
It is sad to see the Romanian government ban Colin Georgescu from running. But I see no evidence EU officials had anything to do with it. Just like they had nothing to the annulment of the first election (contrary to JD Vance’s claim).
I completely agree. No matter what one thinks of Georgescu (and I too think nothing good of him), the idea that a democratic institution can override electoral outcomes based on how voters arrived at their decisions in lieu of proof of any direct wrongdoing by the candidate should be alarming.
I don’t think people fully grasp that if we decide it’s acceptable to retroactively disqualify candidates because voters were influenced the “wrong” way, that precedent can work both ways. Once you normalize the idea that certain votes don’t count because of who or what shaped them, you’re handing an incredibly powerful tool to whoever holds the reins next.
Banning a candidate like this only reinforces the idea that democracy is just an illusion, where only the “correct” people are allowed to win. If we’re so concerned about Russian influence, maybe we shouldn’t be handing them this kind of propaganda victory on a silver platter.
Who defines and gatekeeps the definition of ‘just bigotry’?
When centrism censors radicalism, centrism becomes radicalism in the form of liberal bigotry!
You ultimately become what you hate.
George William Russell – “By intensity of hatred, nations create in themselves the characters they imagine in their enemies.
It would seem that Vance is proven right every day as Europe edges closer and closer to the Salazarist model, although, in fairness to Salazar, he didn’t care must for the EEC, as it then was.