0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
3,048 $

The Triumph Of Deceit: How Thinking In Labels — Mere Words — (Not In Reality) Has Killed Democracy

Support SouthFront

The Triumph Of Deceit: How Thinking In Labels — Mere Words — (Not In Reality) Has Killed Democracy

Protests in France

Written by

On April 19th, Glenn Greenwald, who is not only a great lawyer but one of the world’s most brilliant investigative and analytical journalists, headlined “The WashPost’s Doxxing of @LibsOfTikTok Reveals Who Corporate Journalists See as Their Targets”, and he exposed how the billionaires (the controlling owners of those mega-corporations) have used their ownership and control of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media in order to blackball and blacklist, from their liberal media, anyone or anything that would constitute a real threat against their own control over the media, over the government, and over their profit and nonprofit corporations. In short: he exposed that the money-power people won’t allow their control to be effectively challenged or weakened. He explained how fascism, and even nazism (racist fascism), can be liberal, and not ONLY conservative — can be leftist, and not ONLY rightist; can be far left, and not ONLY far right. (His presentation there includes also a brief summary of how he had switched from being a lawyer, to his becoming an investigative journalist — a profession that he describes as, and was attracted to on account of its being aimed at — “exposing the secrets and crimes and improprieties of the most powerful actors in society.”)

Greenwald, being the genius that he is, was able there quickly to expose — rip off the mask of — nazism, and to reveal it so deeply as to penetrate beyond and beneath the superficial level of the standard ideological labels, so that the public might ultimately become able to be freed from the lies by which the billionaire-class has captured and mentally enslaved the public — enslaved them into neoconservative-neoliberal beliefs and commitments that benefit ONLY the super-wealthy, such as are those billionaires themselves.

That masking is the phenomenon which has caused the publics in all of the U.S.-and-allied nations to think in terms of “us” versus “them” as being inter-ethnic, or inter-‘racial’, or inter-religious, INSTEAD OF as being inter-economic-class: the owners of mega-corporations, versus the employees and customers of mega-corporations — the super-wealthy versus all of the “ethnicities,” and all of the ‘races’, and all of the “religions.” (While the other partisan distinctions do play a role, that role is, in reality, vastly less powerful than that of the one distinction which is the same in ALL countries, and which actually controls almost all countries’ governments — the distinction between the rich versus the poor.)

Labor unions become crushed in this way (by the public’s having the wrong targets — targets that aren’t the billionaires). Consumers’ rights to safe products become crushed in this way. All protections of the weak against the strong become crushed in this way. All accountability (obligations that the owners have toward their employees and other agents, and toward their corporations’ customers) become crushed in this way. And “this way” can be liberal, and not ONLY conservative. Fascism and even nazism can be liberal, and not only conservative. (The only difference there, is the difference between liberal billionaires versus conservative billionaires, but rule by ANY billionaires is an aristocracy not a democracy. It doesn’t represent the public; it represents the super-rich.)

A good example of this phenomenon is the French election for that nation’s Presidency, on April 24th, between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron: On April 24th occurred the second and final round of voting for the next French President. Macron beat Le Pen by 58% to 42% — a 16% lead above Le Pen — and the reason why that happened was this engineered-by-the-super-rich confusion of ideological labels.

The Triumph Of Deceit: How Thinking In Labels — Mere Words — (Not In Reality) Has Killed Democracy

French President Emmanuel Macron

On the night prior to the April 24th election, Politico’s French “Poll of Polls” showed very clearly that immediately after the first-round voting on April 10th, Le Pen rose and Macron fell in the voter preferences, so that at the time of the April 20th lone Presidential candidates’ debate between the two top finishers in the first round (Le Pen and Macron), the voters’ preference of Macron over Le Pen was at its lowest point ever, around 6%, but that between the 20th and the 23rd, it had grown back to around 10% — which it had previously been. This had happened despite the major polling organization Elabe having found that whereas only 16% of viewers of the debate said that Le Pen came across as “arrogant,” 50% of its viewers said that Macron came across that way. Yet in that same poll, 59% said Macron won the debate, while only 39% said Le Pen did. So: very clearly, the French public viewed Le Pen’s “non-arrogant” performance in that debate to have attracted them less than Macron’s “arrogant” performance in it did. What could explain this? It was purely the labeling thing. Not only did the report of that poll refer to Le Pen as being “la candidate d’extrême droite” (the candidate of the extreme right), but all of France’s ‘news’-media did.

And yet, Le Pen, on issue after issue during that debate, was advocating a more progressive, or more social-democratic, a more leftist, position than the moderate conservative (pro-corporate-dictatorship) Macron did, and she stated very clearly what she would do differently than what Macron had done as President, virtually all of which was to Macron’s left — she was consistently favoring the rights of the poor over the rights of the rich, workers over stockholders, small businesses over the mega-corporations, economic competition over concentrated economic power and monopolies, and consumers over the big corporations. While Macron praised the former French Empire, Le Pen did not: she was anti-imperialistic. Though those were all views that were closer to the polled policy-preferences of French voters than were the positions that Macron espoused and had been practicing as France’s President, her expressed views appealed to the voters less than did the more right-wing views that Macron expressed and had done. What seems to have been absolutely decisive is that all of the French media, and all of France’s leading politicians — prominently including the leading leftist candidate in the first round, the socialist Jean-Luc Melenchon, who had come in third with 22% of the vote in the first round, and who, as Wikipedia accurately summarized, “advised his voters not to vote for Le Pen in the second round, but did not endorse Macron” — even Melenchon and other “leftists” were referring to Le Pen as being “far-right.” (In fact, Melenchon’s Party, when they had met to decide on their recommendation to voters, “The option of voting for Le Pen was not given to respondents.” They said: no Melenchon follower should even consider voting for her.) In other words: Melenchon and other self-declared “leftists” were advising their followers to prefer actually the (by far) more conservative candidate. Those ‘leftists’ were saying: if you’re going to vote for a candidate in the second round (but please do not), then vote for Macron. Melenchon and all of the self-alleged “leftist” parties said that Le Pen is “far-right” (and thus ideologically beyond the pale). That label was believed by “leftist” voters. Those voters followed the labelings that were being applied by the leading people who had been describing themselves as “leftists.” It’s like, in a sense, a mob mentality, but not against a minority ethnic group; it was instead against an ideological label, no matter how fraudulently that ideological label was actually being applied. Furthermore, in France, which had been so brutalized by Hitler’s Nazis, no political label is even nearly as toxic to a candidate as is the label “far right.” That label, alone, prevented the Presidential candidate who had the (by far) most progressive platform and political commitments, from defeating France’s incumbent, very unpopular, moderate conservative President Macron. That is how France’s billionaires won — yet again. As their Reuters ‘news’ report said, “One notable winner has been the hard-left Jean-Luc Melenchon, who scored 22% in the first round and has already staked a claim to become Macron’s prime minister in an awkward ‘cohabitation’ if his group does well in the June vote.” Another report on the outcome said “Leftist voters — unable to identify with either the centrist president or Ms Le Pen’s fiercely nationalist platform — were agonising with the choice on Sunday. Some trooped reluctantly to polling stations solely to stop Ms Le Pen, casting joyless votes for Mr Macron.”

On the morning of the April 24th vote, the American ZeroHedge financial news site bannered “As France Votes For President, Wall Street Warns Le Pen Upset Would Be Bigger Shock Than Brexit”. France’s ‘leftists’ and ‘news’-media had been campaigning actually for the same candidate (Macron) that the billionaires had been backing in this contest. Whereas many of those ‘leftists’ might have been doing it because they were sincerely suckered, few if any of the billionaires had been like that — they instead had been financing that suckering.

The same thing had happened during the 2017 contest, which likewise had been between Le Pen and Macron. (The only difference then was Le Pen’s greater emphasis then on “protecting our borders” against an unlimited influx of Muslims and possibly even jihadist ones into France. In 2022, that was no longer a big issue for her, and the Party that Le Pen had inherited — which once had been conservative — became even more progressive than it was in 2017.)

The 2022 result, in other words, was basically history repeating itself. And this is the way that billionaires continue effectively to rule a country, by getting the public to vote for labels instead of for policies. The public fall for it time after time; they don’t turn against the people who were lying to them before. They vote for them yet again. There is thus no accountability. It’s easy for people to do if they pay more attention to labels than to policies. And no democracy can actually function in that way. And none does. Only an aristocracy can. And it does.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

France will soon be nothing more than Africa north.


Nonsense. Did you know that French “Muslims” (by family background) are even more atheist than French “Christians” (by family background again). And France is the most atheist country of all Europe, at least in terms of sovereign states.


You don’t understand Democracy was always just a method used to deceive the people whilst dividing them from within to conquer from without. It was a tool used to overthrow France first and then using Napoleon to overthrow other established monarchies culminating with Austria Germany Russia China and Japan. it was a weapon that served the Church and Crown.


You don’t understand democracy yourself. Democracy is not something the USA created, it’s as old as Humanity. What we get is mere ersatz downgraded “democracy” that is not real democracy. Only Switzerland has something resembling real democracy among recognized sovereign states.

fed up with plutocracy masquerading as democracy

Parliamentarian democracy, where ever it is (be this Switzerland, the UK, France, Singapore, Australia, Argentina…), is democracy limited to chosing a few names from time to time. Even countries like Switzerland which allow for referenda (Latin plural of referendum) are not real democracies in that the elected representatives (acting on the behalf of the pressure groups, organisations or people behind the scenes who really control the ‘game’) usually manipulate the opinion of the public to get voters to vote in certain ways, tinker with the results (as was probably the case in France) or even do not take into account the result of a vote that goes counter to their agenda. So sorry, ‘lex populi, lex dei’ does not exist in Switzerland either. PS I live in Switzerland, in many ways the home country of the beastS (BIS, WEF, WHO, etc.).

Nobody cares about formal liberal pseudo-democracy, which is very far from democracy as such. Democracy means “people’s power” or “rule by the people” is what it means. Attacking “democracy” without further considerations is right away monarchism, oligarchism or whatever other Platonist attack against the people and our right to self-rule collectively. Switzerland is close to the definition of democracy but the USA is very far and is all the time undermining its own limited concesions to popular participation in power.

I won’t argue that the Swiss system is perfect but it’s as close as it gets in terms of reality, a starting point at least, Rojava/NSF is also a good reference (more so as they are socialists and thus the economic and media power are also largely in democratic hands, what is not the case in Switzerland).

I concur that the issue of economic and thus media power is a central issue in the progress to real democracy, the public plaza, the public debate, the public information… cannot be controlled by a handful of privileged hands, it must also be democratic and participative. I’d go further: every single organization, such as companies or sects, that is not internally democratic must be illegal.


The trolls are absolutely hysterical on the comment of this article.


Le Pen is far right but Macron is too, and that’s what we’re not being told.

Zuesse is onto something but his scope of understanding, as he seems focused only on the far right, is very limited. I recently expressed again that I don’t care about “the left” (as usually definied) because they are all too far to the right, I’m only interested on revolutionary socialism, all the rest is nothing but a bourgeois charade.


Ditto. Hard to do but it’s the only way forward that does not lead us to just hittling a wall again.

Anti-NATO European

The Left-Right axis is the problem. It’s too limited. That’s why crazy people say a Fascist like Le Pen is not so Right-Wing as Macron. What an idiot this to say…

To solve this problem, there’s a Political Compass, with 2 axes: the economical (Left-Right), and the social (Libertarian-Conservative).

In Political compass, Macron is far-Right in economical (aka NeoLiberal), but moderate in social (with slight tendency to Libertarian). And Le Pen is “far-up” in social, meaning she is so Conservative that it becomes Authoritarian (aka Fascist), while shes not so right-wing as Macron in econony (actually Fascism and Nazism, because they have sush powerful state economies, might be mistaken with some “left”, but that’s just a mistake).

In Political Conpass, it’s easier, and more correct, to define parties, candidates, and ideologies. I’m a Social Democrat (center-left in economy, moderate libertarian in society), so I’m in the green quadrant, EQUALY as far away from NeoLiberals like Macron and Fascists like Le Pen. And also far away from Communists.

To understand this even better, think of the extremes: think of Stalin as the red corner (upper left), Pinochet as the blue corner (upper right), a 60s hyppie as the green corner (lower left), and an anti-state Cryptocurrency speculator as the purple corner (lower right).

Back to France, Le Pen is almost as authoritarian as Pinochet, while Macron is almost as right-wing in economy as Pinochet. Yet, they are in very different places.

On the other hand, USA’s Republicans are near the blue corner (they’re actual Fascists is Society and NeoLiberals in economy, so NeoConservatives is an euphemism), while “Democrats” are almost at the same economical place (also NeoLiberals), but are called “left” because they’re not Conservatives. That being said, they’re both in the blue quadrant (upper right).

That’s not a bi-partisan regime. That’s a farce. An oligarchy with two colors (depending on how you see some symbolic social issues like legalizing weed or at which month and for what causes is abortion is legal). But in the end, both electores vote in the same party: the NeoLiberal (far right in economy) pro-oligarchy party.

From that point of view, of USA being a de facto single party regime, there’s no difference between them and regimes like Cuba or China, except in this one: Cuba and China are not dominated by the pro-war party, corrupted by the oligarchy of the military industrial complex. The so called “land of the free and brave” is just a land where poor are “free” to enlist in the army and die in wars/invasions, while the rich are “brave” to sponsor those wars, like Victoria Nuland did in Ukraine since ate least 2013…

Back to Europe, the vassals of NATO, the americanization process is taking place. In all the worst parts, both NeoLiberal economy reforms, anti-democratic integration/federalism, and now belicism with histerical russofobia and the end of pluralism in Main Stream Media. The fact that French people had to choose, for the 2nd time in 5 years, between a NeoLiberal (Biden like) and a Fascist (Trump like) says it all: the western empire of “liberal democracy” is taking its last breath, and Europe, instead of fighting to replace (or at least surpass) USA, is volunteering the shoot itself in the foot with these sanctions, austerity, and total submission to Washington’s demands.

As an European, I’m ashamed of this. I apologize to the rest of the World in general (to Bolivia, Palestine, etc), and to Russia in particular. Я прошу прощения I hope you defeat all the nazis, again! спасибо


I just saw the voting record of the commune of Alzi (Corsica), where either fascist candidate got exactly zero votes. Loved it.

Macron is fascist (police state authoritarian capitalist) because he has amputated many workers’ eyes and hands with his brutal repression, Le Pen would do exactly the same (and she’s manual fascist). There may be difference in terms of “cultural politics” but that’s almost totally irrelevant, what matters is who’s going to collectivize the economy, the banks, the energy companies, the latifundia, the homes… so we the people can have it collectively.

Left has become pseudonym of right, right of far right… people like me are out of that altogether: it’s at best left of extremist capitalism and right of extremist capitalism. We just don’t want any more capitalism, we know it’s not just exploitative of people, it’s exploitative of Earth itself and thus has become extremely dangerous for the very survival of Humanity.

I understand your “quadrants”, I believe: defined by the axes: (1) socialism vs capitalism (traditional left to right axis) and (2) democracy vs authoritarianism (which for leninists is unimportant but IMO it’s as important as the other: there’s no worker power without real participative democracy, that’s the failure of the USSR and copycats). I’d add a third axis of truth (or science or transparency) vs lies (or propaganda or dogmatism) but it’s importance for our analysis is less obvious.

My stand is radically socialist and democratic (and I would say Rojava is a model for that or at least used to be) and everything else is right wing, even Lenin, at least by comparison.


Yes, absolutely. Her party (her former security chief to be precise) was involved in the Charlie Hebdo false flag attacks and is almost certainly deeply involved with all the French deep state, which is NATO’s deep state too (Gladio).

She’s claimed demagogically that she wold have France out of the military structure of NATO (a Gaullist move) but not out of NATO as such, she may have suffered for her Putin photos but I just saw her photos with the Spanish fascists of Vox, which are much worse… but still the same NATO scam as she is.


WTF?! I applauded another comment of you but you’re going way too far. You’re nazi scum quite apparently yourself. You lie, lie, lie.


many forms of democracy—the most fake in USA democracy in its many forms has little to commend it—alway will it result in oligarchy examined by Simmel, Michels, Mannheim, etc Kojeve, Durkheim etc have shown that culture informs notions of justice, morality, thinking etc—the individualistic angloshere where individuality is absent cannot produce a civilized society


As a, well known here, french comic of the eighties (Coluche, dead by « accident ») used to say « if the elections were to change anything, they would have been suppressed long time ago ».


Ye I don’t know what to think anymore

Left is right, up is down, Nazis are good guys, greed is good, war is for peace, the poor have to be impoverished to help the rich, lies are truth, it’s like 1984

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x