• RODRIGO TERRASA

    @rterrasa

    Madrid

  • PHOTOGRAPHS: JAVIER BARBANCHO

    @javierbarbancho

Updated Friday,5May2023-00:12

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Send by email

See 7 comments

Jano García is one of those who believe that every year that passes we are less free. That the 20-year-old Janus was much freer than the Janus of now, who is already 33. "But much more," he says. And that in these politically correct times – or whatever – one can no longer even open one's mouth calmly.

And he says it, he is not silent. Jano García (Valencia, 1989) has a podcast, hundreds of thousands of followers on his social networks and several best-selling books. The last one, Contra la mayoría (The Sphere of Books), sneaked into the bestseller list even before its publication.

It also has a trail of headlines that it drops like cluster bombs. That he prefers a good dictator to a bad democrat, that not paying taxes is a patriotic act and that, when the time comes, a good tyrannicide can never be ruled out.

Well, thank goodness that today nothing can be said... I've had pages deleted, posts deleted, and videos removed. Try uploading a video to YouTube talking about any politically incorrect issue and you'll see what happens. I cannot say what I want because aberrant concepts such as hate crime have been created. What is that? Why can the ruler of the day determine what can or cannot be said? Do you censor yourself a lot? No, no, no. Never. I never censor myself. Freedom of speech is sacred and involves hearing things we don't like to hear.

Jano García is also a graduate in Economics and International Trade. He has lived in London, Santiago de Chile and New Zealand. A few years ago he began to publish his opinions on Facebook and, given the reaction of the audience, he decided to distribute himself in several social networks and self-publish two first books, two installments on the "century of criminal socialism". Both were a success. The Sphere of Books recruited his signature and the coronavirus pandemic did the rest. His bluster on the net against the management of the Government during the state of alarm multiplied his followers like spores and was translated into two more books: The Great Manipulation and The Herd.

Find out more

Jano Garcia.

"The world is full of mediocre people who crush the one who excels"

  • Writing: QUICO ALSEDO Madrid

"The world is full of mediocre people who crush the one who excels"

David Mamet.

"I was hooked on progressive ideas, they are as addictive as alcohol or drugs"

  • Writing: GONZALO SUÁREZ Madrid

"I was hooked on progressive ideas, they are as addictive as alcohol or drugs"Explain to me the trick to sell so many books calling people "herd". The key is to have an audience that, oddly enough, still leaves room to think about certain dogmas that sell us as absolutes, that still wants to cultivate the mind and read things that, although they do not share, lead them to reflect on the world in which we live. I have read that he left school to devote himself to professional poker. How much bluff is there in his speech? Do you really believe everything you say or is there a point of provocation? Anyone who knows me knows that what I say is what I think. If that provokes, it's no longer my problem. The problem lies with those who listen to you.Have you always been against it? I start from a premise and that is that most do not have to be right. This shocks many, but throughout history you can see how the majority endorses all kinds of barbarities. Legitimizing actions that are harmful to the freedom and natural rights of the human being simply because they have the support of the majority seems to me such an absurd argument that I find it hard to believe that it has so much support.

And here comes the novelty. On this aversion to the mass García has written his latest essay. Against the majority. How democracy generates the tyranny of the mass is a furious plea against democracy. Why beat around the bush.

Are you an anti-democrat? Democracy doesn't tell me anything. To say 'I am a democrat' is completely absurd. It's kind of nihilistic. There are people who do not care about the results as long as they are achieved through free voting and as long as there is a majority that decides what is fair or not. Well, I say no. If everything that happens under a democratic regime seems good to you, you cannot be against Nazism, for example. That is why the important thing is not the how, but the what.And how do we get to that what? What is the alternative to democracy then? What I propose is a mixed system, but, beyond that, I do not care exactly about the form of government. What I show in the book is that it is false that democracy is synonymous with freedom, progress and justice. It is false. Democracy has become a kind of dogma, a new god, a new religion that we all have to follow blindly. What matters to me is what that ruler generates. Could it be that this ruler has not been chosen by anyone and, even so, is generating good for his country? The answer is yes. What if the answer is no? Because if he does it wrong, we can change the democrat for another, but the dictator may not. Ask Ceausescu if dictators are eternal, because he was shot. Man, better to be able to remove a ruler in elections than to have to shoot him. No? It's that I defend tyrannicide. This idea of putting up with a bad ruler for the duration of a legislature... Let's see, it is not necessary to shoot him, but why should we endure evil? Because the idea that a bad democrat will eventually lose power is also false. Argentina is a very clear example. There are countries that insist and persist in the error of self-destruction. Anyone who watches an election campaign knows that it is a regrettable thing, with messages aimed at people with an intellectual level that one cannot imagine. I give you a house. No, I promise you that I will give you the house plus 20,000 euros. No, I go further: I give you the house 20,000 euros and then also set aside a minimum vital income. These are obviously harmful promises but they have the support of the majority. That is the rotten morality of a people that is capable of self-destruction and can do so democratically.

I defend tyrannicide. This idea of putting up with a bad ruler for the duration of a legislature...

Is the morale of the Spaniards rotten? The morality of the Spaniards, like the morality of most of the West, is a nihilistic morality. Things are no longer perceived as good or bad, but we have even reached the point where we believe that we can put the truth to a vote. A very clear example is the Trans Law. We've gotten to the point of voting for people who say you feel like you. You are not what you feel. This is something very simple to understand, but democracy legitimizes all these types of practices. It is the endorsement of the majority. There are the votes that prove it. The constant democratization of all things leads us to the fact that everything can be voted on and everything is subordinated to the majority, which is tremendously harmful. That is why the problem is not of the form of government, but of the population. Are people dumb? Oh, no. But I start from the premise that the people can be the worst enemy of the people. Hitler doesn't come to Germany one day in the afternoon and say, 'Hey, now I'm in charge.' No, no, he wins through the ballot box. And we must not forget that eugenics, racial segregation, chemical castration of homosexuals... All this had the support of the majority. Jason Brennan says in 'Against Democracy' that the problem of democracy is the voters, but your 'epistocracy', in which only the most prepared vote, does not apply to you either. It is that if you accept modern democracy, you have to accept that obviously the vote is equal for everyone. We are all equal when it comes to voting and even when it comes to being chosen, something that is sold as enormously positive but that I find frightening. In addition, Brennan is tremendously elitist and does not explain who these wise men who could vote are. Because to me it seems much wiser the semi-illiterate common man who is in the rural world, but who allows himself to be guided by logic, reason and common sense, than the urban academic, greatly distorted by the readings of his library. You write that democracy is capable of giving vulgarity unlimited power. What then is vulgarity? I mean having no sense of duty, no sense of discipline, no sense of who it is that we are, and that we have come into this life. How many times do we hear praise for a politician because he is "one of the street". It doesn't have to be one from the street! It is that governing a nation has to be done by the most prepared, the most valid. Democracy loads all that because the extraordinary are the few and the mediocre are the many. No, because I am not saying that only those who are very smart should vote. I, if I believe in democracy, I believe with all its consequences. That's why I don't think so. To define oneself as a democrat is ridiculous. Sorry for the vulgarity of quoting Churchill, but perhaps he was right when he said that democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others... Aristotle said that democracy could be wonderful or it could be the worst imaginable system when it allowed evil to be done with the endorsement of many. Everyone is because everyone needs quantity and degrades quality. Everyone needs voters, customers. And nobody is going to make a speech that only 0.5% of the population understands, because it is absurd. Have you considered standing for election? No, no, because I know no one would vote for me. The first thing he would promise would be to reform the pensions and 11 million pensioners would not vote for me no matter how much I told them that it is a good thing for them and that the current system is a pyramid scheme and is unsustainable. They don't care, whoever comes behind will manage. Are our politicians or their voters more mediocre? They are exactly a reflection. If what you reward is mediocrity, everything is infected with it. A brilliant person would never get into a political party. Were the politicians of old better? No, but they did have a sense of duty and a sense of the common good. Now we have replaced it with the general interest, which is not the same thing. Today all policies are approved based on their popularity. Parties are just companies that want to sell their product.

Going out of Spain to avoid paying taxes seems phenomenal to me, even if here the plundering is legalized

In his book he criticizes democracy, but declares himself a fan of the monarchy. Yes, I defend the monarchy. But didn't we agree that the system was not important? I prefer a monarch, first, because he is not subject to a vote, that is, his vision is not short-term, it is not based on messages and cheap soflamas to capture the vote of the masses. Second, that monarch serves as a counterweight to whatever the population wants to dictate. The mixed system, which I think is phenomenal, is that if you want to vote, phenomenal, okay, there you have your Chamber, your democratic Parliament and there you legislate and do what you want. But then there is above the King's Council, which rules whether that is good or bad. In addition, the monarch will have to make numerous efforts so that we tolerate that someone, by the mere fact of being born and by the fortune of chance, is our head of state. Suppose that tomorrow it was known that King Felipe VI has stolen 50 million euros. How long do you think he could stay in his position? Show me... His father has not fared badly. What has his father stolen? You point out as virtues of the monarchy sophistication, elegance, good work, sense of duty ... I don't know if everything fits today in the figure of Don Juan Carlos. Of course not, and that's why he is criticized and why he abdicates. He eroded the institution and left. Point. He lost his power for aesthetic and moral reasons, when he began to be a bad monarch. I'm not saying you have to accept everything a monarch does. There is the path of tyrannicide of which, of course, I am a supporter. That we take charge of the King? If necessary, of course.As if it were an elephant in Botswana? That was the most dignified thing he can remember. The King of Spain is not going to go camping in Benidorm. The King of Spain goes hunting elephants in Botswana or wherever. It's what you have to do. And not to do like the politicians who are going to till the land in electoral campaign when they do not even know how to start a tractor. Is it moral to leave Spain as Ferrovial has done? Of course. Ferrovial is leaving for a matter of legal certainty, but if it were to leave to avoid paying taxes it would also seem phenomenal. Those youtubers who go to Andorra I think it's great. As much as plundering is legalized in Spain, it seems perfect to me that they do not want to be robbed. You are taking away more than half of a money that is yours.Do you mind being called a facha? I don't care. If I cared, I wouldn't be writing what I write. Actually, because I am very Christian, I feel sorry. Poor this one, who does not give more of himself. It amazes me that he is such a believer being so seemingly rational. Backwards. Less rational seems to me to have spent two years on the street with a mask doing the clown. Less rational seems to me to believe that by carrying a paper bag and not plastic you will save the planet. Now that is not very rational. Are you a practitioner? I don't go to Mass, but I pray every night without exception. I don't ask God for anything. On the contrary, I thank you.

Against the majority. How Democracy Generates the Tyranny of the Mass, by Jano García (La Esfera de los Libros) is now on sale. You can buy it here.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Learn more

  • Ferrovial
  • Juan Carlos I
  • Pedro Sanchez
  • YouTube
  • Adolf Hitler
  • Facebook
  • Coronavirus
  • Trans Law
  • Politics
  • practice
  • Articles Rodrigo Terrasa