…the denial of Truth coexists with the claim to possess absolute truth,
indeed, to be on the side of reason by a priori right, without any possibility of refutation.
M. Veneziani, La Cappa, Marsilio 2022
For years, there has been ongoing debate about the nature of the left’s famous cultural hegemony and how it has evolved over time. Much has been written and commented upon in conservative circles regarding Gramsci’s teachings, which advocated for the gradual control of centers of editorial and cultural production (the press, universities, publishing houses) as a prerequisite for effectively and pervasively spreading the Marxist message—a strategy that would ultimately pave the way for the Communist Party’s political triumph in our country. There is no doubt that the analysis was essentially correct, and the facts have shown that, at least in its initial phase, this strategy was successful. Certain major events—first and foremost the collapse of the communist system in Europe—prevented the conquest of power from unfolding as Gramsci had hypothesized, but they did not prevent the heirs of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) from being the primary political beneficiaries of these historical turning points. This occurred precisely because of the quasi-monopolistic positions they had acquired in accordance with the teachings of the author of the Prison Notebooks.
The Power of the “Gramsci-style Parastate”
And so we witness the paradox of center-right governments—backed by a solid majority in the country, from those led by Berlusconi in the early 2000s to the current one that took office in 2022—that are unable to make a dent in the left’s dominance of the media and cultural system. Consequently, an observer unfamiliar with Italian history who spent a few weeks watching television talk shows, reading the major newspapers, and attending a few conferences of university professors or magistrates would be left with the utterly peculiar impression of a country almost entirely aligned against the government in office. In reality, if not a “counter-government,” we are undoubtedly facing a cross-cutting, powerful, pervasive structure—supported by substantial public and private funding—which La Verità columnist Boni Castellane has astutely defined as the “Gramsci-style parastate.”
One of the most strategically important functions of this progressive Moloch lies in the world of communication and media, where it exercises its influence openly and almost unchallenged—not so much, as is commonly thought, by filling newspapers and talk shows with left-wing hosts and commentators (though it certainly does that as well)—but rather by firmly controlling the levers of language and, therefore, of public debate.
This simply means that any dialectical debate on the most politically significant issues inevitably finds the right-wing and conservative world starting from a defensive position. The key terms, the timing, and the terms of the debate are dictated by the left, and the right has, in fact, always accepted this arrangement without ever adopting concrete strategies to change it.
Post-Communism and Woke Ideology
Starting in the 2010s, the Gramscian framework—with its post-communist roots—has become increasingly intertwined with elements of that Anglo-American-derived “woke” ideology, which has introduced new and even more lethal tools of control into the hands of the progressive movement.
In particular, to stay on the topic of communication, the “masters of discourse” no longer limit themselves to dictating the agenda of the debate, but use every form of manipulation of words and rhetoric to assert their own demands. The opponent’s arguments are not to be refuted or debated; instead, one must seek to delegitimize those who put them forward—and, if necessary, eliminate them (in the United States, this approach has been taken to its extreme consequences, as seen in the various attacks on Trump). On the most high-stakes political issues (immigration, freedom of speech, security), the preferred technique is to literally twist concepts—to the point of reversing their meaning—in order to establish the worldview endorsed by globalists and progressives as the only acceptable one.
The statistics on crimes committed by non-EU citizens in our country are a textbook example of the application of this “methodology.” For years, the total number of crimes attributed to individuals residing illegally in Italy has been rising sharply, and all official data bear irrefutable witness to this: the Ministry of the Interior reports that in 2024, with immigrants (both legal and undocumented) accounting for 9% of Italy’s population, 34% of those reported, detained, or arrested were foreign nationals, with percentages exceeding 60% for predatory crimes. There wouldn’t be much to discuss—if anything, we should be debating and perhaps disagreeing on how to address the problem. But those who control the narrative won’t allow it, since even merely referring to these figures is considered xenophobic propaganda that incites hatred. Any guest on a talk show who were to mention this situation would thus immediately be placed in an uncomfortable position, accused of holding views tainted by racism and hatred, and would inevitably (with rare exceptions) be forced to adopt a defensive stance, thus shifting the debate from a mere analysis of objective facts to a sort of media trial against whoever dared to bring up those statistics. All of this is obviously facilitated by the fact that these televised debates typically feature a preponderance of pundits firmly aligned with the progressive and pro-immigration camp, as well as hosts who are on the same side.
After all, the arrogance with which the progressive world disregards real facts to support its own narrative applies to a wide range of topics—from climate change to relations with the EU, from economic policies to family policies—but on the issue of immigration, it undoubtedly finds its favorite battleground by far.
The Paradox of Ethnic Replacement: It Exists but Cannot Be Named
Emblematic—and highly topical—is the manipulation of the concept of “ethnic replacement.” One need only consult the headlines of mainstream newspapers or, better yet, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (the bible of young progressives) to grasp the enormity of the falsification currently underway.
“The Great Replacement—also known as the replacement theory or, improperly, ethnic replacement—is a conspiracy theory according to which ethnically white Western populations with a culture of Christian and pan-European origin are being deliberately and systematically replaced by non-white populations through large-scale mass migration. This term, already present in Nazi mythology in the 1930s and ideologically close to far-right, white supremacist nationalist circles, was coined and popularized in the 21st century by the French author Renaud Camus.”
Thus, “ethnic replacement” is supposedly a conspiracy theory—one attributed, moreover, to neo-Nazi and white supremacist circles. Consequently, anyone who dares to use this expression to describe what has been observed for several years in nearly all European countries will automatically be silenced and branded a follower of Nazi theories. It goes without saying, however, that even if, in any given discussion, one attempts to describe that phenomenon using circumlocutions and strictly avoiding the offending term, this will not prevent the person on the other side of the conversation from evoking the same concept anyway and proceeding to verbally stone and subsequently oust the unfortunate individual from the debate.
In the upside-down world constructed by woke culture, words replace facts and often completely reverse their meaning. The steady demographic decline in the birth rate among European citizens and the simultaneous influx of millions of immigrants from Africa and Asia is an objective and indisputable fact; after all, left-wing activists and commentators themselves repeat at every opportunity that “we need migrants; they do the jobs that Europeans no longer want to do.” If, therefore, we accept this assertion—which has been obsessively repeated for years to counter any policy aimed at curbing illegal immigration— the next step would be to admit that, within a few decades, we will have a continent where European citizens will be in a clear minority, and we will also have countries dominated by cultures and religious faiths different from those that are Western and Christian—the very ones our ancestors lived and fought to defend. Well, pointing out this logical conclusion—which anyone could easily outline—is essentially forbidden. To say that what is actually happening right before our eyes is “a Nazi-style conspiracy theory.” And this is not according to extremists at some community center, but according to the most reputable mainstream media and cultural circles, according to the writings of influential columnists, and according to the analyses of esteemed university professors. All of them are steadfastly committed to denying the evidence of the facts.
The recent case of the second-generation “Italian”—of North African origin—who attempted a mass killing with his car in Modena, causing several serious injuries and, only by chance, leaving no fatalities on the sidewalk, provided a striking and almost surreal demonstration of this complete distortion of factual truth. Within minutes of the tragic event, Modena’s PD mayor immediately emphasized that the top priority was to prevent political exploitation; within 24 hours, the local PD, backed by the national party, brought 5,000 people into the streets to demonstrate “against the racist vultures who are exploiting the incident and spreading xenophobic hatred.” Not a word of condemnation for the perpetrator of the criminal act, no reflection on the state of decay and insecurity in our country, where assaults, stabbings, and violence are now a daily occurrence, and the perpetrators are, in 90% of cases, always the same groups of people. So: the incident is swept under the rug, and all political and media attention is immediately shifted to alleged political exploitation—even before such exploitation has had time to manifest itself. This is the tried-and-true method by which the progressive parastate manages events—and obviously not just in our country, since the mechanisms of the “woke” establishment are exactly the same in all Western nations, starting with the United Kingdom, which represents the main Western outpost of the oikophobic/pro-immigration drift and its perverse effects.
And yet the UN…
But the left’s manipulation of language is not limited to refuting and overturning facts in order to replace them with its own narrative; it now goes so far as to deny or ignore the existence of official documents whenever they do not align with the worldview advocated by the progressive ruling class. It may seem incredible, but even texts approved by organizations in which the left has always been the dominant political force can, if necessary, become “conspiracy theories.”
Such is the case with a UN document from March 2000, with a fairly self-explanatory title: “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?” As becomes clear upon reading the text, that question mark is purely rhetorical.
Indeed, the document’s 177 pages present a meticulous study and analysis of data and statistics related to these issues (demographics and immigration from African and Asian countries), and outline the various projected scenarios for eight countries: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All of these countries share the common characteristics of a declining and aging native population and an influx of young people from the Global South.
The document is presented as a tool for reflection and analysis, in the sense that it presents data and trends in a descriptive manner and hypothesizes possible scenarios without delving into the merits of government decisions. However, the overall message is clear: according to the UN, the process of “replacing” the populations of these countries through the increasingly massive influx of migrants is to be considered irreversible and implicitly desirable. After all, the final lines of the text fully confirm this. In a brief list of measures that the countries concerned should ideally adopt, the document explicitly mentions the formulation of “policies and programs concerning international immigration, and in particular replacement immigration, and the integration of a large number of recent immigrants and their descendants.”
Thus, the replacement of populations through the growing influx of immigrants and their descendants has been officially sanctioned and advocated by the UN,per se, for a full 26 years. But in public debate, all of this disappears; Wikipedia, Repubblica, Avvenire, and all the establishment media outlets agree in defining the phenomenon as a “conspiracy theory concocted by the racist right,” thereby precluding any meaningful discussion of the matter from the outset. Just as photos of disgraced communist leaders were erased in the days of the USSR, today the Gramscian parastate goes even further: the UN document is on record, easily found online, yet it effectively does not exist, since it has been decided that any reference to replacement must be nipped in the bud.
Awaiting a strong response to the left’s propaganda machine
Faced with such a powerful machine for controlling and steering public debate—firmly entrenched in the centers of media and cultural power—is there any form of counteroffensive that the world of conservatives and defenders of national sovereignty is actually capable of mounting? The answer, for the moment, can only be negative, given the disproportionate balance of power. In the March referendum on the proposal to separate judicial careers, the defeat of the “Yes” vote was largely determined by the blatant falsehood that “No” supporters insisted on for weeks—namely, that the reform would subject judges to the power of the government. This claim was completely false, but unfortunately it gained traction among the public precisely because the media machine of manipulation operated at full capacity and essentially silenced dissenting voices that sought to restore the truth by explaining the actual contents of the reform.
The “Yes” camp, consisting mainly of center-right parties, demonstrated insufficient awareness of the issue and, in any case, a limited ability to counter the false and misleading messages being circulated by “No” supporters—led by the organized and politicized judiciary (which presented an image of partisanship and intolerance that is, frankly, beyond comment).
More generally, the issue of controlling public debate continues to receive little attention from the conservative camp, which often focuses on specific, short-term issues but seems to lack a clear understanding of the bigger picture. Of course, there are notable exceptions, especially within the small but distinguished niche of right-wing journalists and intellectuals, some of whom—Marcello Veneziani, Francesco Borgonovo, and the aforementioned Boni Castellane—have been able to delve deeply into and shed light on these issues, making them accessible to their readers. But this is a very small circle of intellectuals, who in turn speak to a minority of citizens. And in any case, the impression remains that we are, unfortunately, still very far from establishing the methods and content of public debate capable of lending dignity and influence to the popular support enjoyed by the center-right’s causes and the vision of society it represents.
