By: Jože Biščak
Anyone with their eyes at least partly open can see that the political and ideological activity of the postmodern left is defined not only by street-level rituals or vocal woke opinion leaders, but also by a mindset that is the result of long-term indoctrination through the education system and the media: an absence of doubt that leads to unwavering devotion to a particular ideology, and the radical belief that there are only “us” and “them.” Between the two lies an empty space that functions as a sharp dividing line, a kind of minefield protecting awakened groups from reality; for only those living in a parallel world are granted the privilege of shaping the narrative that explains the facts of the real world.
The thinking of such a cult follows a recurring pattern: if “they” are in favour, then “we” must be against it. And vice versa. Because they, the right-wingers, are never, absolutely never, right. If anyone dares question this, the left comes knocking at their door, and the dissenter is punished. As a result, they build the identity of their followers more on opposition to ideological rivals than on any positive content of their own. A good example is their referendum campaign. It lacks concrete substance, let alone arguments, and is based on sweeping accusations that the centre-right government is adopting regulations that will lead to dictatorship. Therefore, they will vote “against.” Any reasonable person can quickly spot the contradictions and falsehoods in which they become entangled. And when these are pointed out, they simply ignore them and reinterpret the entire matter from a position of supposed moral superiority.
Consider the referendum on the amendment to the Parliamentary Inquiry Act. Left-wing activists claim that Slovenia will get a “political police force,” but the truth is the exact opposite: the amendment would prevent abuses and protect private individuals (witnesses) whose financial records were allegedly examined unlawfully by the previous parliamentary inquiry commission led by Freedom Movement politician Tamara Vonta. This is also why the Institute for the Protection of Victims of Parliamentary Inquiries was established. A vote “for” therefore means support for parliamentary inquiries focusing exclusively on determining the political responsibility of public office holders.
The next three referendums are consultative, meaning they are non-binding. The first concerns tying social assistance benefits to community work for people who are capable of working. The current legislation is hypocritical. People who are able to work but live on social transfers are portrayed not as victims of the system, but as products of a system that rewards inactivity. A vote “for” is a vote against rewarding idleness. The second referendum concerns voting rights in local elections. Under the current legislation, foreign citizens may vote in local elections, whereas the proposed change would limit this right to Slovenian citizens and citizens of other EU member states. Left-wing critics argue that this would violate the rights of foreigners, but voting rights are not a human right. Permanent residence and payment of taxes do not automatically make someone a political co-governor. This is not xenophobia but the establishment of a clear boundary between members and non-members of a political community. Therefore, a vote “for” is a vote for the sovereignty of Slovenian citizens within their local communities.
Finally, there is the proposal to abolish compulsory funding of RTV Slovenia through the mandatory licence fee. The issue is very simple: compulsory financing of a media outlet amounts to daylight robbery. Today’s media market is more competitive than ever, and those who wish to watch or listen to RTV Slovenia’s content should pay for it voluntarily rather than through legal compulsion. Abolishing the mandatory contribution does not necessarily mean the end of the national broadcaster; rather, it would require RTV Slovenia to adapt to actual demand instead of relying on guaranteed funding. A vote “for” is a vote for individual freedom to choose what media content to consume.
The difference between a vote “for” and a vote “against” is not ideological, as the left allegedly portrays it. Rather it is about establishing conditions that should be self-evident: limiting the power of the state and politicians while increasing individual freedom.
