I return to the debate I opened on the Deep State to elaborate further. For those who haven’t read my earlier reflection, I recommend doing so at the link; https://noreporter.org/the-deep-states-obsession/
Otherwise, what follows may be less clear.
My argument is that nothing can truly be corrected without stepping into the field—and that field, inevitably, is the so-called Deep State, which must be engaged with directly.
But what does this mean?
It does not mean “entryism,” nor is it about trying to take over existing lobbies. On the contrary, it means creating new forms of power and engaging with society itself.
The populist narrative reduces the Deep State to something artificial and almost illegitimate, when in reality it represents the web of substantial forces that have always shaped every society and every state. It only partially overlaps with formal institutions, since it is—by nature and necessity—not determined by elections, or at least not by elections alone.
This “deep state” includes
lodges, lobbies, bureaucrats, associations, the military, police officers, journalists, judges, teachers, charities, NGOs, parishes, and much more.
If all of this constitutes the galaxy of real power—more stable and less contingent than parliaments and governments—then clearly we are dealing with structures that are highly diverse.
You cannot “reform” a lodge or a lobby outright, but with patience, it is possible to influence the internal dynamics of open categories—civil servants, teachers, soldiers, magistrates—and even build popular lobbies at the local level, or create new associations, from charities to NGOs.
The fear that dominant oligarchies, united by a subversive logic, might act as a solid wall of resistance is only partly justified.
It is true because—here populism is correct—the ruling class is in deep crisis.
But this does not mean the system of power itself is collapsing. On the contrary: it is evolving, and the progressive elite can no longer manage the process or control the narrative.
What has weakened it are utopian, pacifist, fragile, and “woke” ideologies.
I am not a Marxist
but some insights from that tradition are sound. Among them is the idea that the dominant ideology is dictated by the ruling class. Yet the ruling class must articulate an ideology that not only serves its interests but also addresses the material needs of society.
Today, as war once again becomes a familiar concept (it matters less against whom than the very idea of war itself), weak ideologies must be corrected. The same subversive logic that fueled globalization must now give way, at least in part, to a constructive logic—necessarily different from the one that still dominates.
This should not, however, inspire false optimism, because all of this is unfolding in a period of severe demographic decline—the greatest challenge facing our peoples.
Nor do favorable conditions automatically lead to positive outcomes unless someone steps in and acts effectively.
This is the crux of the matter
Until now, populism—whether right, left, or even centrist—has relied on the certainty that the oligarchy would collapse, to the point of inventing the absurd formula “the people versus the elites,” as if history were not shaped by struggles and conflicts between elites.
It has wagered on the downfall, even the impossible disappearance, of the Deep State.
It has relied on denunciation and protest votes, ignoring or dismissing the real structures of power.
To borrow a phrase once used by the brilliant Italian Socialist minister De Michelis, populism has focused only on what lies “on the table,” not on what lies “under the table.”
And since material needs outweigh ideological dogmas, when populists have governed cities or regions (the Lega and the Five Star Movement in Italy, the Rassemblement National in France), they have been forced to act far more pragmatically than their propaganda allowed—so much so that they were accused of betrayal.
The real problem lies upstream
The dualistic, antagonistic logic built on dogmas is paralyzing. Even when it appears to attract consensus, it offers no solutions other than compromises.
But these compromises lack firm foundations, since everything is driven by opposition for its own sake. Inevitably, they are losing compromises.
What has consistently been missing is serious reflection on the adversary, who has instead been systematically demonized or ridiculed.
This applies to the green economy, which is far more complex and contested than many assume. It also applied to vaccines. Personally, I have always been skeptical about the efficacy of RNA technology against COVID. But the dominant populist anti-vax narrative was conspiratorial, portraying vaccines as an attempt to massacre, sterilize, or control us (as if we had not been living under constant surveillance for years already).
Yet Israel—whose healthcare system is world-class—vaccinated massively; the United States recently announced a universal RNA-based anti-cancer vaccine; and in Russia, the RNA vaccine has been mandatory for two weeks.
This does not prove that the decision was right. I am not an expert and remain doubtful. But attributing everything to satanic conspiracies or the sheer stupidity of the ruling class does nothing to help us understand events—much less to intervene effectively, beyond impotent outrage.
To have any real impact
one needs a clear and well-founded worldview, embraced with calm, steady conviction, and the creation of an organized, active minority.
Without this, no real breakthrough is possible.
Even if all dissent were united, it would still not be able to drive change, because it would know only what it is against, not where it wants to go. And that is not the same thing.
Moreover, the populist certainty of being a majority is largely unfounded: rarely does its leading party secure more than a third of voters (less than a fifth of eligible citizens).
Nor can it truly claim to represent “the people,” since on most fundamental issues society is split into two equal halves—leading to stalemate.
To move from protest to action
requires a profound awakening, followed by concrete operational steps: building from the local level, organizing new spaces of power, rebuilding social structures—in short, reconstruction from the ground up, enabling transformation all the way to the top of the institutional “palace.”
Understanding this necessity means moving beyond the false dichotomy between electoralism and extra-parliamentary gestures. What matters is recognizing the diverse realities that compose society and therefore power, and creating complementarity between them.
Those who act concretely may or may not also act institutionally, depending on temperament and circumstances.
If they are not sterile, these actions balance each other out and bring forth new operational minorities—hopefully suited to the challenges of the near future.
It is not true that this path has never been attempted: in several countries and localities, it has begun, though still instinctively rather than strategically. Until it becomes a strategy, one cannot truly speak of alternatives to the dominant subversive oligarchies.
