As Germany approaches its February 23 elections, statements from European Union officials have sparked serious concerns about whether “democracy” is truly being upheld or if an attempt at election engineering is underway. Thierry Breton’s remark that “even if the AfD wins, we will not accept it” has raised major questions about the neutrality of the democratic process in Europe.
Breton’s comments come in the wake of the annulment of Romania’s recent elections, where the victory of right-wing populist Călin Georgescu was overturned under the pretext of “Russian interference.” Was this a genuine move to protect democracy, or was it simply an excuse to nullify an undesirable election outcome?
Now, the same concerns are emerging in Germany. If the AfD secures a strong result, will Brussels attempt to intervene in a similar fashion?
“Protecting Democracy” or Enforcing Ideological Rule?
The European Union frequently presents itself as a champion of democracy, freedom, and the will of the people. Yet, when election results do not align with its ideological leanings, the EU appears all too willing to interfere.
In Romania, a right-wing candidate’s unexpected victory led to election annulment due to alleged “Russian disinformation.” However, there was no such concern when Hungary’s opposition received millions in U.S. and Swiss funding before its elections.
This double standard is not unique to Romania. The rising popularity of the AfD in Germany is now being framed as a “threat.” But is this really about election security, or is it simply an effort to prevent any political outcome that challenges the EU’s leftist establishment?
The Power of Unelected Bureaucrats
Breton’s statements, and the broader issue of EU election interventions, bring to light a deeper problem: Europe is increasingly governed by unelected officials with unchecked power.
Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF) dictate global policies, yet no citizen has ever voted for them.
The World Health Organization (WHO) imposed sweeping pandemic policies, yet its leaders were never elected.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was never directly elected by the people, yet she holds enormous influence over their lives.
Despite this, when figures like Elon Musk challenge the establishment, they are labeled as “dangerous” because they were “not elected.” The hypocrisy is glaring: unelected leaders are only a problem when they refuse to align with the globalist agenda.
The Digital Services Act: A Tool for Censorship
With the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in 2024, the EU has taken a major step toward controlling speech and suppressing dissent.
Under the DSA, the EU can:
- Decide what content is allowed on social media platforms.
- Pressure platforms like X (Twitter) to remove posts they don’t approve of.
- Filter out political views they deem “harmful” before elections.
Google and other tech companies have already resisted compliance, while Elon Musk has described the law as “an attempt to impose totalitarian control over Europe.”
Where does free speech fit into this? If leftists claim that information should be freely accessible, why are they so eager to censor opposing viewpoints?
The Contradictions of Modern Politics:
In today’s political landscape, contradictions have become more apparent than ever. While progressive and leftist movements advocate for equality, inclusivity, and justice, their policies and actions often contradict these very principles. From gender issues to race relations, from democracy to scientific discourse, a pattern of selective application of values emerges. These contradictions not only expose ideological inconsistencies but also create confusion, division, and growing distrust among the public.
Women’s Rights vs. Transgender Inclusion
For decades, feminists and progressives have fought for women’s rights, arguing for equality and opportunities for women in all aspects of life. However, the same groups now support the inclusion of transgender women—biological males—into female-exclusive spaces such as sports, shelters, and prisons. This has led to unfair advantages in women’s sports, safety concerns in women’s shelters, and cases of violence in female prison populations.
Women who question this policy or express concerns about biological differences are labeled “transphobic,” effectively silencing any discussion about the impact of these policies on real women. The contradiction here is clear: while advocating for women’s rights, these policies actively undermine them by prioritizing transgender inclusion at their expense.
Anti-Racism vs. White Exclusion
The progressive movement has long championed anti-racism and equality, yet modern anti-racist initiatives often promote racial exclusion. Universities and institutions are implementing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies that sometimes disadvantage white individuals, effectively reversing the discrimination they claim to oppose.
Examples include race-based admissions policies, corporate hiring quotas, and racialized training sessions that suggest all white people benefit from systemic privilege. In essence, fighting racism has, in many cases, turned into a form of racial exclusion and division, contradicting the very ideals of equality and fairness.
Trust the Science—But Only When It Supports Our Narrative
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the phrase “trust the science” was widely used to justify lockdowns, mandates, and policies. Yet, scientific dissent was often suppressed. Experts who questioned the origins of COVID-19, the effectiveness of lockdowns, or vaccine mandates faced censorship and professional consequences. The voices that challenged research narratives shaped by the institutions and funding sources that supported them were swiftly suppressed.
Similarly, the left advocates for science-based policymaking but disregards biological science when it comes to gender identity, arguing that gender is a social construct. This inconsistency raises questions about whether science is truly valued or merely used as a political tool.
Defending Democracy—Unless We Disagree With the Results
Democratic processes are considered sacred, but only when the outcomes align with progressive interests. When Donald Trump won in 2016, accusations of Russian interference were widespread, and his legitimacy was questioned. However, when conservatives raised concerns about the 2020 election, they were branded as conspiracy theorists and threats to democracy.
Similarly, Brexit—a decision made through a democratic referendum—was met with intense opposition from progressives, who tried to overturn or delay it. This selective approach to democracy—where elections are only valid when the left wins—undermines trust in democratic institutions.
Free Speech for All—Except for Those Who Disagree
Free speech is often touted as a fundamental right, yet progressive platforms have aggressively censored conservative views. Social media companies have deplatformed individuals who express opinions counter to leftist ideology, labeling them as misinformation or hate speech.
Universities, once centers for open discourse, now silence dissenting voices through speech codes and cancel culture. The contradiction is evident: while advocating for open dialogue and tolerance, progressives have embraced censorship as a tool to suppress opposition.
Protecting Children—Except When It Comes to Gender Ideology
Progressives claim to champion children’s rights, yet they support policies that encourage minors to undergo gender transitions, including hormone therapies and surgeries. In many places, parental consent is bypassed, and parents who oppose these interventions are labeled as abusive.
At the same time, progressives argue that minors are too young to enroll themselves in school without a guardian, open a bank account on their own, or even sign a legally binding contract—acknowledging their lack of maturity in other areas of life. The contradiction is striking: if children cannot handle major decisions about their day-to-day affairs in one context, why are they allowed to make irreversible choices about gender identity?
Gun Control for the Public—But Armed Protection for the Elites
Progressives push for strict gun control measures, arguing that fewer guns lead to a safer society. However, many of the same politicians advocating for disarmament have armed security for themselves. Hollywood elites who promote gun bans star in action movies glorifying firearms.
This contradiction highlights the divide between the ruling class and ordinary citizens. If guns are dangerous for the public, why are they necessary for the elite?
We Oppose Police Violence, But Remain Silent When It Benefits Us
During the 2020 BLM protests, those who demanded to “defund the police” applauded officers who intervened against Trump supporters. For left-wing politics, the police should only exist when it serves their own agenda.
Opposing Racism by Marginalizing White People
One of the biggest claims made by left-wing politics is the fight against racism. However, we have reached a point where the direction of this fight has completely changed.
In many universities across the US and Europe, courses on “white privilege” are being taught. These courses argue that white people are inherently privileged, that the system favors them, and that they should apologize. But isn’t labeling a white individual as guilty simply because of their skin color the very definition of racism?
Trans Activists Supporting Radical Islamists
One of the greatest paradoxes of leftist ideology is that certain members of the LGBTQ+ community defend radical Islamists.
Radical Islamists do not regard trans individuals as “oppressed minorities.” On the contrary, they do not even acknowledge their existence.
In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, LGBTQ+ individuals face the death penalty.
At pro-Palestinian rallies, trans flags are waved, yet no one mentions how LGBTQ+ people are persecuted in Palestine.
If the groups they support were to come to power, one of their first targets would be trans individuals and the LGBTQ+ community!
The Left’s Contradictions Are Undermining Its Credibility
These contradictions are not just ideological inconsistencies; they actively shape policy and societal dynamics. While progressives claim to stand for justice, fairness, and science, their selective application of these principles undermines their credibility.
As these contradictions become more evident, more people are beginning to question whether progressive politics are truly about equality and justice, or if they are simply tools for consolidating power. The growing divide in public trust is a sign that people are waking up to the inconsistencies and questioning the narratives that have long been accepted without scrutiny.
If progressives want to maintain credibility, they must address these contradictions honestly. Otherwise, they risk losing the very people they claim to represent.
Democracy or Globalist Oligarchy
Looking at these developments, the real question is whether the EU is truly defending democracy or simply preserving its own ideological dominance.
If democracy is the goal, then the EU must respect the will of the people—even when the results are unfavorable to their political agenda. Overturning elections, suppressing dissent through digital censorship, and framing right-wing movements as existential threats are the actions of authoritarian regimes, not democratic institutions.
Throughout history, regimes that prioritized ideological control over the will of the people have ultimately collapsed. European citizens are waking up to these contradictions, and they are poised to make their voices heard at the ballot box.
So, the real question remains: Are they protecting democracy, or are they merely protecting their own power?
The answer will be revealed in the upcoming elections across Europe.
Victoria Toumit
As Germany approaches its February 23 elections, statements from European Union officials have sparked serious concerns about whether “democracy” is truly being upheld or if an attempt at election engineering is underway. Thierry Breton’s remark that “even if the AfD wins, we will not accept it” has raised major questions about the neutrality of the democratic process in Europe.
Breton’s comments come in the wake of the annulment of Romania’s recent elections, where the victory of right-wing populist Călin Georgescu was overturned under the pretext of “Russian interference.” Was this a genuine move to protect democracy, or was it simply an excuse to nullify an undesirable election outcome?
Now, the same concerns are emerging in Germany. If the AfD secures a strong result, will Brussels attempt to intervene in a similar fashion?
“Protecting Democracy” or Enforcing Ideological Rule?
The European Union frequently presents itself as a champion of democracy, freedom, and the will of the people. Yet, when election results do not align with its ideological leanings, the EU appears all too willing to interfere.
In Romania, a right-wing candidate’s unexpected victory led to election annulment due to alleged “Russian disinformation.” However, there was no such concern when Hungary’s opposition received millions in U.S. and Swiss funding before its elections.
This double standard is not unique to Romania. The rising popularity of the AfD in Germany is now being framed as a “threat.” But is this really about election security, or is it simply an effort to prevent any political outcome that challenges the EU’s leftist establishment?
The Power of Unelected Bureaucrats
Breton’s statements, and the broader issue of EU election interventions, bring to light a deeper problem: Europe is increasingly governed by unelected officials with unchecked power.
Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF) dictate global policies, yet no citizen has ever voted for them.
The World Health Organization (WHO) imposed sweeping pandemic policies, yet its leaders were never elected.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was never directly elected by the people, yet she holds enormous influence over their lives.
Despite this, when figures like Elon Musk challenge the establishment, they are labeled as “dangerous” because they were “not elected.” The hypocrisy is glaring: unelected leaders are only a problem when they refuse to align with the globalist agenda.
The Digital Services Act: A Tool for Censorship
With the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in 2024, the EU has taken a major step toward controlling speech and suppressing dissent.
Under the DSA, the EU can:
- Decide what content is allowed on social media platforms.
- Pressure platforms like X (Twitter) to remove posts they don’t approve of.
- Filter out political views they deem “harmful” before elections.
Google and other tech companies have already resisted compliance, while Elon Musk has described the law as “an attempt to impose totalitarian control over Europe.”
Where does free speech fit into this? If leftists claim that information should be freely accessible, why are they so eager to censor opposing viewpoints?
The Contradictions of Modern Politics:
In today’s political landscape, contradictions have become more apparent than ever. While progressive and leftist movements advocate for equality, inclusivity, and justice, their policies and actions often contradict these very principles. From gender issues to race relations, from democracy to scientific discourse, a pattern of selective application of values emerges. These contradictions not only expose ideological inconsistencies but also create confusion, division, and growing distrust among the public.
Women’s Rights vs. Transgender Inclusion
For decades, feminists and progressives have fought for women’s rights, arguing for equality and opportunities for women in all aspects of life. However, the same groups now support the inclusion of transgender women—biological males—into female-exclusive spaces such as sports, shelters, and prisons. This has led to unfair advantages in women’s sports, safety concerns in women’s shelters, and cases of violence in female prison populations.
Women who question this policy or express concerns about biological differences are labeled “transphobic,” effectively silencing any discussion about the impact of these policies on real women. The contradiction here is clear: while advocating for women’s rights, these policies actively undermine them by prioritizing transgender inclusion at their expense.
Anti-Racism vs. White Exclusion
The progressive movement has long championed anti-racism and equality, yet modern anti-racist initiatives often promote racial exclusion. Universities and institutions are implementing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies that sometimes disadvantage white individuals, effectively reversing the discrimination they claim to oppose.
Examples include race-based admissions policies, corporate hiring quotas, and racialized training sessions that suggest all white people benefit from systemic privilege. In essence, fighting racism has, in many cases, turned into a form of racial exclusion and division, contradicting the very ideals of equality and fairness.
Trust the Science—But Only When It Supports Our Narrative
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the phrase “trust the science” was widely used to justify lockdowns, mandates, and policies. Yet, scientific dissent was often suppressed. Experts who questioned the origins of COVID-19, the effectiveness of lockdowns, or vaccine mandates faced censorship and professional consequences. The voices that challenged research narratives shaped by the institutions and funding sources that supported them were swiftly suppressed.
Similarly, the left advocates for science-based policymaking but disregards biological science when it comes to gender identity, arguing that gender is a social construct. This inconsistency raises questions about whether science is truly valued or merely used as a political tool.
Defending Democracy—Unless We Disagree With the Results
Democratic processes are considered sacred, but only when the outcomes align with progressive interests. When Donald Trump won in 2016, accusations of Russian interference were widespread, and his legitimacy was questioned. However, when conservatives raised concerns about the 2020 election, they were branded as conspiracy theorists and threats to democracy.
Similarly, Brexit—a decision made through a democratic referendum—was met with intense opposition from progressives, who tried to overturn or delay it. This selective approach to democracy—where elections are only valid when the left wins—undermines trust in democratic institutions.
Free Speech for All—Except for Those Who Disagree
Free speech is often touted as a fundamental right, yet progressive platforms have aggressively censored conservative views. Social media companies have deplatformed individuals who express opinions counter to leftist ideology, labeling them as misinformation or hate speech.
Universities, once centers for open discourse, now silence dissenting voices through speech codes and cancel culture. The contradiction is evident: while advocating for open dialogue and tolerance, progressives have embraced censorship as a tool to suppress opposition.
Protecting Children—Except When It Comes to Gender Ideology
Progressives claim to champion children’s rights, yet they support policies that encourage minors to undergo gender transitions, including hormone therapies and surgeries. In many places, parental consent is bypassed, and parents who oppose these interventions are labeled as abusive.
At the same time, progressives argue that minors are too young to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or even vote—acknowledging their lack of maturity in other areas of life. The contradiction is striking: if children cannot make major decisions about their bodies in one context, why are they allowed to make irreversible choices about gender identity?
Gun Control for the Public—But Armed Protection for the Elites
Progressives push for strict gun control measures, arguing that fewer guns lead to a safer society. However, many of the same politicians advocating for disarmament have armed security for themselves. Hollywood elites who promote gun bans star in action movies glorifying firearms.
This contradiction highlights the divide between the ruling class and ordinary citizens. If guns are dangerous for the public, why are they necessary for the elite?
We Oppose Police Violence, But Remain Silent When It Benefits Us
During the 2020 BLM protests, those who demanded to “defund the police” applauded officers who intervened against Trump supporters. For left-wing politics, the police should only exist when it serves their own agenda.
Opposing Racism by Marginalizing White People
One of the biggest claims made by left-wing politics is the fight against racism. However, we have reached a point where the direction of this fight has completely changed.
In many universities across the US and Europe, courses on “white privilege” are being taught. These courses argue that white people are inherently privileged, that the system favors them, and that they should apologize. But isn’t labeling a white individual as guilty simply because of their skin color the very definition of racism?
Trans Activists Supporting Radical Islamists
One of the greatest paradoxes of leftist ideology is that certain members of the LGBTQ+ community defend radical Islamists.
Radical Islamists do not regard trans individuals as “oppressed minorities.” On the contrary, they do not even acknowledge their existence.
In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, LGBTQ+ individuals face the death penalty.
At pro-Palestinian rallies, trans flags are waved, yet no one mentions how LGBTQ+ people are persecuted in Palestine.
If the groups they support were to come to power, one of their first targets would be trans individuals and the LGBTQ+ community!
The Left’s Contradictions Are Undermining Its Credibility
These contradictions are not just ideological inconsistencies; they actively shape policy and societal dynamics. While progressives claim to stand for justice, fairness, and science, their selective application of these principles undermines their credibility.
As these contradictions become more evident, more people are beginning to question whether progressive politics are truly about equality and justice, or if they are simply tools for consolidating power. The growing divide in public trust is a sign that people are waking up to the inconsistencies and questioning the narratives that have long been accepted without scrutiny.
If progressives want to maintain credibility, they must address these contradictions honestly. Otherwise, they risk losing the very people they claim to represent.
Democracy or Globalist Oligarchy
Looking at these developments, the real question is whether the EU is truly defending democracy or simply preserving its own ideological dominance.
If democracy is the goal, then the EU must respect the will of the people—even when the results are unfavorable to their political agenda. Overturning elections, suppressing dissent through digital censorship, and framing right-wing movements as existential threats are the actions of authoritarian regimes, not democratic institutions.
Throughout history, regimes that prioritized ideological control over the will of the people have ultimately collapsed. European citizens are waking up to these contradictions, and they are poised to make their voices heard at the ballot box.
So, the real question remains: Are they protecting democracy, or are they merely protecting their own power?
The answer will be revealed in the upcoming elections across Europe.
Victoria Toumit
