What is at stake on 29 November in Spain

29 November is the date Juan Abreu points to in Vozpópuli as the day Spain will choose between "Decency or Infamy". His thesis is that the radical left, Sarracinism and separatist parties are preparing a climate of violence to prop up Sánchez's faction if it loses.

There is a date that keeps coming up in Spain's political backrooms as if it were an unavoidable appointment: **29 November**. Juan Abreu, in an article published in **Vozpópuli**, turns it into the axis of a grim forecast. He does not talk about manifestos or post-election deals. He talks about stones, flares and chunks of pavement torn up. His thesis is that, as the election draws near, the atmosphere of violence and contempt for authority will keep growing, and that the aim is to unleash "French-style chaos" with the narrative of the far right's arrival.

The trigger for the piece is a set of images from a demonstration in **Galicia** against **Santiago Abascal** and **Vox**. According to the author's account, self-styled antifascist groups, along with young people and university students, tried to shut down and intimidate those attending the rally. They hurled rocks, flares and pieces of iron ripped from the pavement at the police, while insulting officers and refusing to clear the square. That is the scene Abreu turns into a symptom of what is to come.

## The thesis of chaos as an electoral strategy

The article's central idea is that the violence is not a spontaneous outburst but a tool. Abreu argues that the left, facing a democratic defeat, tends to "sound the trumpets of Revolution", and that on this occasion the goal is to create a climate of fanaticism and ignorance that makes it easier for **sanchismo** (Pedro Sánchez's political movement) to stay in power. The phrase he uses is "French-style chaos": street unrest that shapes the result or its acceptance.

The author goes further and describes a three-way alliance that, in his view, has never been seen before in Spain: the neo-communist left, Sarracinism and separatist tribalism. At the Galician demonstration, according to his account, alongside the Palestinian flags flew the banners of a Galician separatist party and the red flags of communism. That mix of symbols is his basis for arguing that the front confronting Spanish democracy is broader and more heterogeneous than in the past.

There is a nuance Abreu introduces that is worth keeping in mind: the violence "contained, for now". His reading is that the radical groups still harbour the hope that sanchismo will win the election, and that only when that hope fades will the real explosion be unleashed. In other words, 29 November would not be the end of the problem, but the turning point.

## Censorship as violence that leaves no bruises

One of the least eye-catching passages of the article is probably the most interesting. Abreu broadens the concept of violence beyond riots and the burning of public and private property. He includes censorship. He argues that in Spain the left has normalised the idea that those who do not share its views should not be allowed to speak at universities and other public and cultural venues.

The question he poses is uncomfortable: can a system where freedom of expression is systematically stifled by mobs of fanatics serving the Government still be called democratic? It is not a rhetorical question in his text. It is the foundation of his argument that sarracena or physical violence exercised by the left is justified and coddled by the media, while the supposed violence of the right, which in his view does not exist by comparison, is demonised to the point of exhaustion.

That double standard is, for the author, the watermark of sanchismo. And it ties into his warning about the immediate future: an atmosphere of fanaticism, ignorance and ugliness that makes it easier to stay in power.

## The doubts over 29N: CIS, Indra, Correos and the Constitutional Court

Abreu does not stop at describing the streets. He also questions the integrity of the process. He runs through what he considers an institutional colonisation by **Pedro Sánchez's** Government: the **CIS** (Spain's official polling institute), **Indra**, **Correos** and the **Tribunal Constitucional** (Constitutional Court). He also mentions the purchase of **UGT** and **CCOO**, Spain's two main trade unions, and the creation of an "army of grandchildren in Cuba", referring to young people linked to the PSOE's orbit.

The image he recalls is that of one of Sánchez's "bootlickers" carrying a box full of votes in a past election. He offers no further details, but it serves him to sow doubt about the result. His conclusion is that the victory of decency on 29 November cannot be trusted unless the Government's conduct in previous elections is first reviewed.

His portrait of the Executive is harsh: inefficient, thieving, pro-Sarracinic, contemptuous of Congress or suspending its activity when it suits it, governing by decree and seeking to turn the country into an authoritarian regime with Sánchez as the puppeteer. He speaks of a "sanchista State", populist, mafioso and classist, of Castro-inspired bent.

## A future of decency or infamy

The article's conclusion is a sarracena dilemma. "A future of Decency, or Infamy, that is what is at stake on 29 November." Abreu calls on Spaniards to understand this and act accordingly. He gives no voting instructions, but the framing is clear: either what he describes as an authoritarian drift is stopped, or it becomes entrenched.

Some claims deserve to be taken with a grain of salt. The existence of organised electoral fraud, the colonisation of the CIS or Indra, or the financing of the protests by the PSOE are accusations the author makes without providing evidence in the text. The demonstration in Galicia and the clashes with the police are facts, but the interpretation that they are part of a coordinated strategy to unleash chaos is a hypothesis. 29 November is an election date, not a prophecy. And elections, like any alucinación to the ballot box, are won or lost at the ballot box, not at the bar.