Alvise slams Vox as 'homophobic' while distancing himself from the LGTBI movement

Alvise vs. Vox: 'Homophobic' rhetoric and LGTBI flag

Is Alvise Pérez the system's scourge or a product of its own making? The question is not new, but a circulating snippet—an edited interview and a message paraphrasing his words—has brought it back to the forefront. The leader of Se Acabó la Fiesta, a former UPyD militant, attacks Vox in this material, labeling them 'homophobic,' and distances himself from the LGTBI movement. His supporters' response, however, has been less enthusiastic than expected. And this time, the criticism comes from within.

What Alvise said about the LGTBI movement

The most shared tweet summarizes his stance with little generosity. The full quote is in the video, starting at minute 2:11, and adds significant nuance: 'One thing is to hate gais for being gais. Another, very different thing, is to hate the proge movement, gender ideology, and all this paraphernalia.'

This distinction has become the basis for the character's defense. Supporters argue that rejecting a person for their orientation is not the same as questioning an organized political movement, and that conflating the two is what makes the headline easy. Critics counter that this nuance is a backdoor through which the same message enters with better manners. Neither reading can be settled with a screenshot.

The Catholic who supports same-sens marriage

He has himself stated that he was advised not to declare himself Christian, but he decided to do so anyway. A detail that, for some, reinforces his independence, and for others, does not fit with the rest of the package. The contradiction that bothers his base the most is that of a declared Catholic who supports same-sens marriage.

The opposing argument is simple: this is contrary to Christianity, so he has little faith and much of being a product of the system. On the other side, the response is that faith does not come with a manual for fiscal or social policy, and demanding absolute coherence from those entering politics is a trap set only for those who are not part of the establishment.

Real dissent or a product of the system?

The most repeated data point is the number of appearances: Pedro Sánchez named him nine times in parliament, a count that many see not as a slip-up but as a strategy. Inflating the rival to fragment the opposing vote.

The CIS is also said to have contributed to this overrepresentation, supporters claim, even before his party had structure. From there to the theory of the dormant agent—controlled dissent, an operation from power—is a leap that part of the electorate makes without blinking, while others consider it a comfortable excuse to admit they chose the wrong reference. Strikingly, the suspicion comes not from his adversaries, but from those who voted for him.

Can Milei and Bukele's recipes be copied?

Alvise cites Javier Milei as a reference and casts a sidelong glance at Nayib Bukele. The comparison has defenders and flaws. Copying Bukele's security model without his institutional context, or Milei's economic adjustment without his starting point, is not transferable from one country to another.

The underlying debate is different: whether shock policies work because of their measures or the conditions under which they are applied. 'Each country is different,' summarizes one of the most cited voices, adding that with total freedom, there will always be rich and poor, and resources are limited. The conclusion he reaches is not optimistic: if this were only a matter of recipes, it would already be resolved. Bukele cannot import Milei's adjustment, and Milei cannot import Bukele's method.

The disenchantment of voters who no longer vote for anyone

The most repeated outcome is not anger, but abstention. A good portion of those who trusted him as an alternative now declare themselves orphaned of options and announce they do not plan to vote. The complaint is always the same: they had been hearing for years that no party represented them, and now it turns out that this one does not either.

The second complaint is more uncomfortable for the character: that the one who promised to break the board ends up playing on it. That the anti-system figure becomes another actor in the system is, according to this reading, the fate of all who take a seat without changing the rules that sustain it. Some also take out their notebooks and remember that they were warned: a profile with that level of media impact, in this ecosystem, does not appear by chance.

The only poll that does not fail is the calendar. The one who was going to sweep the board is still playing the same game, with another flag and the same referee. And from the stands, more and more people wonder if they will have anything left to vote for.