When the president of Slovakia called last week’s attempted assassination of Prime Minister Robert Fico “an attack on democracy,” every other EU leader nodded along. Yet behind the formal expressions of sympathy for Fico, the ambivalent reaction from Europe’s political and media elites to the attack on an elected national leader suggests that the EU establishment is not such a staunch defender of democracy after all.
Of course, nobody in high places expressed support for the would-be assassin or openly said that Slovakia’s populist PM deserved to get shot. But the implicit message was that such a ‘divisive’ and ‘polarising’ figure as Fico might have been asking for it. Summing up the mainstream news coverage, right-wing Italian media commentator Mario Giordano concluded that, “Basically, even if it isn’t specifically written in the newspapers, he was almost right to shoot him and he deserved it a little.”
For the Brussels oligarchy and their allies, Fico represents the ‘wrong’ sort of democracy. His Smer-Social Democracy party won last year’s elections on a platform which opposed mass migration, defended national sovereignty against centralised EU control, criticised NATO’s arming of Ukraine, and vowed to send “Not One Round” to Slovakia’s neighbour in its war against Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
These positions, popular with the people of nations such as Slovakia yet anathema to the Brussels’ elites, saw Fico branded as ‘Putin’s poodle’ and condemned as a politically incorrect demagogue, alongside Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. The liberal media could not keep these populist-bashing prejudices out of its coverage of the shooting.
As the finger-wagging BBC said in its analysis last week, the fear in the EU had long been that Fico was “cosying up” to Orbán and “might be trying to steal a page from the regime of a leader described by the European Parliament as running a ‘hybrid regime of electoral autocracy.’”
In other words, the bigger threat to the elites’ version of democracy in Europe came not from the attempted assassination of a prime minister, but from those democratically-elected national leaders who refuse to toe the EU line on migration or war. In which case, wouldn’t official Europe be better off without them?
There is some debate now about whether the shooter was a ‘lone wolf’ or had helpers. But either way, the responses to the shooting of Fico revealed that there is an entire pack of political and media elitists who would love to see such populist leaders cancelled, even if they draw the line at assassinations. The most dangerous enemies of democracy in Europe do not carry guns.
Many of the post-shooting media reports described Fico as “divisive” and “polarising”—code words for effectively saying that he has reaped what he sowed. Headlines branded him as “Slovakia’s Russia-friendly prime minister,” which seemed to imply that the West should be perhaps at war with him.
One guest commentator on Sky News (as reported by Brendan O’Neill for The Spectator) came close to spelling out what the media code really meant. Fico’s views, they declared, are “very divisive in Slovakia” and “very divisive in the EU.” In which case, obviously, “It’s not surprising that this sort of event might take place.” So, there you have it. If you dare to win an election in Europe by espousing sovereigntist and anti-war views, you shouldn’t be surprised if “this sort of event might take place” and you end up fighting for your life in hospital.
We are not just talking about the odd crank pundit. Close to the very top of EU politics, German Green MP Robert Habeck—vice chancellor in Olaf Schulz’s coalition government—tweeted the obligatory “get well soon” message to Fico. Then the leading German government minister quickly got to his real point, warning the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland that Fico’s shooting showed “words lead to actions.” Which presumably means that, if your words on, say, migration don’t stick to the script written in Brussels, you’d have only yourself to blame if you find yourself looking down the wrong end of a gun.
Contrast all of this with the outraged reaction to a few recent, far less serious, attacks on pro-Brussels left-wing politicians in Germany. Nobody in the media would dare to have implied that they were ‘asking for it’ by expressing unpopular opinions. Yet when a populist PM gets shot, one might almost think from the reactions that his wounds were self-inflicted. Such double standards are now the norm in EU elitist circles.
The fear and loathing they express towards populist politicians such as Fico are a thin disguise for the fear and loathing they really feel for the populace—the people who put the demos in democracy. The elites see the people as a deplorable, ignorant mass, too open to being manipulated by the vulgar rhetoric of the populists and the ‘disinformation’ spread by their alleged Russian friends. After all, why else would polls suggest many are planning to vote for right-wing and sovereigntist insurgents in June’s elections to the EU Parliament? It couldn’t be because of the failings of the Brussels centre, could it?
The Brussels’ oligarchy’s only solution is to try to control the debate and stop the people being exposed to the populists’ message. As a new MCC Brussels report by Norman Lewis, ‘Controlling the Narrative,’ spells out, the EU Commission is waging a war on free speech online, under the guise of combating ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation.’ And it is only going to get worse.
That is why the response to the Fico shooting quickly turned into yet another warning about the supposed dangers of ‘divisive’ hate speech, and the need for everybody to watch what they say. We cannot allow the actions of one gunman to be used as a weapon against the fundamental freedoms of the rest of us. We need to defend unfettered free speech for all sides—and uphold the right of voters to hear it all and then decide for themselves.
To judge by the past week’s reports, anybody might think that ‘divisive’ and ‘divisions’ were dirty words. In fact divisions of opinion are what real democracy is about; the clash of competing visions of the future, with the people deciding what they believe to be true or false at the ballot box. The alternative, of people only being allowed to say or vote for those views that Brussels deems safe, would offer the demos no democratic choice at all.
No, the EU elites did not want Robert Fico to get shot. But they are happy to have him out of the EU election campaign, and would like to see other populist critics of Brussels centralism similarly silenced, albeit by less violent means. We cannot let them win. Whoever you plan to vote for in June, be sure to cast your vote for national sovereignty, democracy, and the freedom to defy the control freaks.
The Most Dangerous Enemies of European Democracy Don’t Carry Guns
Picture taken on May 15, 2024 shows Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico being transported from a helicopter by medics and his security detail to the hospital in Banska Bystrica, Slovakia where he was to be treated after he had been shot multiple times.
Photo by AFP
When the president of Slovakia called last week’s attempted assassination of Prime Minister Robert Fico “an attack on democracy,” every other EU leader nodded along. Yet behind the formal expressions of sympathy for Fico, the ambivalent reaction from Europe’s political and media elites to the attack on an elected national leader suggests that the EU establishment is not such a staunch defender of democracy after all.
Of course, nobody in high places expressed support for the would-be assassin or openly said that Slovakia’s populist PM deserved to get shot. But the implicit message was that such a ‘divisive’ and ‘polarising’ figure as Fico might have been asking for it. Summing up the mainstream news coverage, right-wing Italian media commentator Mario Giordano concluded that, “Basically, even if it isn’t specifically written in the newspapers, he was almost right to shoot him and he deserved it a little.”
For the Brussels oligarchy and their allies, Fico represents the ‘wrong’ sort of democracy. His Smer-Social Democracy party won last year’s elections on a platform which opposed mass migration, defended national sovereignty against centralised EU control, criticised NATO’s arming of Ukraine, and vowed to send “Not One Round” to Slovakia’s neighbour in its war against Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
These positions, popular with the people of nations such as Slovakia yet anathema to the Brussels’ elites, saw Fico branded as ‘Putin’s poodle’ and condemned as a politically incorrect demagogue, alongside Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. The liberal media could not keep these populist-bashing prejudices out of its coverage of the shooting.
As the finger-wagging BBC said in its analysis last week, the fear in the EU had long been that Fico was “cosying up” to Orbán and “might be trying to steal a page from the regime of a leader described by the European Parliament as running a ‘hybrid regime of electoral autocracy.’”
In other words, the bigger threat to the elites’ version of democracy in Europe came not from the attempted assassination of a prime minister, but from those democratically-elected national leaders who refuse to toe the EU line on migration or war. In which case, wouldn’t official Europe be better off without them?
There is some debate now about whether the shooter was a ‘lone wolf’ or had helpers. But either way, the responses to the shooting of Fico revealed that there is an entire pack of political and media elitists who would love to see such populist leaders cancelled, even if they draw the line at assassinations. The most dangerous enemies of democracy in Europe do not carry guns.
Many of the post-shooting media reports described Fico as “divisive” and “polarising”—code words for effectively saying that he has reaped what he sowed. Headlines branded him as “Slovakia’s Russia-friendly prime minister,” which seemed to imply that the West should be perhaps at war with him.
One guest commentator on Sky News (as reported by Brendan O’Neill for The Spectator) came close to spelling out what the media code really meant. Fico’s views, they declared, are “very divisive in Slovakia” and “very divisive in the EU.” In which case, obviously, “It’s not surprising that this sort of event might take place.” So, there you have it. If you dare to win an election in Europe by espousing sovereigntist and anti-war views, you shouldn’t be surprised if “this sort of event might take place” and you end up fighting for your life in hospital.
We are not just talking about the odd crank pundit. Close to the very top of EU politics, German Green MP Robert Habeck—vice chancellor in Olaf Schulz’s coalition government—tweeted the obligatory “get well soon” message to Fico. Then the leading German government minister quickly got to his real point, warning the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland that Fico’s shooting showed “words lead to actions.” Which presumably means that, if your words on, say, migration don’t stick to the script written in Brussels, you’d have only yourself to blame if you find yourself looking down the wrong end of a gun.
Contrast all of this with the outraged reaction to a few recent, far less serious, attacks on pro-Brussels left-wing politicians in Germany. Nobody in the media would dare to have implied that they were ‘asking for it’ by expressing unpopular opinions. Yet when a populist PM gets shot, one might almost think from the reactions that his wounds were self-inflicted. Such double standards are now the norm in EU elitist circles.
The fear and loathing they express towards populist politicians such as Fico are a thin disguise for the fear and loathing they really feel for the populace—the people who put the demos in democracy. The elites see the people as a deplorable, ignorant mass, too open to being manipulated by the vulgar rhetoric of the populists and the ‘disinformation’ spread by their alleged Russian friends. After all, why else would polls suggest many are planning to vote for right-wing and sovereigntist insurgents in June’s elections to the EU Parliament? It couldn’t be because of the failings of the Brussels centre, could it?
The Brussels’ oligarchy’s only solution is to try to control the debate and stop the people being exposed to the populists’ message. As a new MCC Brussels report by Norman Lewis, ‘Controlling the Narrative,’ spells out, the EU Commission is waging a war on free speech online, under the guise of combating ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation.’ And it is only going to get worse.
That is why the response to the Fico shooting quickly turned into yet another warning about the supposed dangers of ‘divisive’ hate speech, and the need for everybody to watch what they say. We cannot allow the actions of one gunman to be used as a weapon against the fundamental freedoms of the rest of us. We need to defend unfettered free speech for all sides—and uphold the right of voters to hear it all and then decide for themselves.
To judge by the past week’s reports, anybody might think that ‘divisive’ and ‘divisions’ were dirty words. In fact divisions of opinion are what real democracy is about; the clash of competing visions of the future, with the people deciding what they believe to be true or false at the ballot box. The alternative, of people only being allowed to say or vote for those views that Brussels deems safe, would offer the demos no democratic choice at all.
No, the EU elites did not want Robert Fico to get shot. But they are happy to have him out of the EU election campaign, and would like to see other populist critics of Brussels centralism similarly silenced, albeit by less violent means. We cannot let them win. Whoever you plan to vote for in June, be sure to cast your vote for national sovereignty, democracy, and the freedom to defy the control freaks.
READ NEXT
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics
Unprincipled Liberals & the Principle of Cause and Effect
End Scene