There is a lot of talk these days about the “far right.”
Since the success of the so-called current in the European elections, and even more so since the start of the early legislative elections in France where the Jordanian National Rally party Bardella has a good chance of winning, we wonder what it represents.
Moreover, more and more of them are questioning this ridiculous label, “far-right,” which some cling to so absolutely.
A little historical reminder.
Far right?
Since the early 1980s, European countries began to realize the problems associated with migration. This is the case in Great Britain, but especially in France.
Of course, these problems are not as large as they are today, but they are already noticeable. By addressing this issue they would emerge – although they also carried a socially conservative discourse, as a reaction to the social transformations of the 1960s and 1970s.
I must say that at that time, the classical right-wing parties also had a rather conservative line.
Then the world changed since the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War.
Suddenly, Western societies in general are turning to globalization and its main result, which is mass migration.
At the very least, it is the choice of global and progressive elites.
Hence the leftist parties fully embrace the ideology of diversity and the cult of “minorities”.
As for the right-wing parties, they are exclusively aligned with neoliberalism and a purely commercial vision of the world.
But many of them felt that this new society forming around the cult of “inclusion” had abandoned them, but in fact ideologically excluded those who did not celebrate it.
Since then, parties described as populist have emerged from the margins and begun to impose themselves.
Some are on the left economically, others are on the right, depending on the country. But this is not the main thing. They are generally opposed to a form of accelerated cultural and political abstraction.
It is clear that the rhetoric of these parties worries the global elites who want to discredit them.
In any way?
By declaring them heirs to 1930s fascism, even if they had nothing to do with it. By suggesting that any desire to protect one's borders, preserve one's cultural identity, or not give in to the whims of extremist minorities has anything to do with the horrors of the twentieth century.H a century.
By absorbing them on the far right. It's the best way to not think, or worse, to say stupid things while wanting to show everyone your angry attitude.
Populism
How to qualify them? For my part, I am talking about the national right, which is generally divided between a conservative nationalist trend and a populist nationalist trend.
Let us repeat that both tendencies claim to be democratic. We can criticize this movement radically, without acknowledging anything in its worldview. But we deviate into delirium when we demonize itFar right.
Cursing those you criticize is the best way to not understand what they are saying.
