There’s a lot of talk these days about the “extreme right.”
Since the success of the so-called trend in the European elections, and even more so since the start of the early legislative elections in France where the National Rally of Jordan Bardella has a good chance of winning, we wonder what it represented.
Moreover, more and more of them are questioning this absurd label, “extreme right”, to which some absolutely adhere.
A little historical reminder.
Far right?
From the early 1980s, European countries began to become aware of the problems linked to immigration. This was the case in Great Britain, but especially in France.
Of course, these problems are not on the scale they are today, but they are already noticeable. It is by tackling this question that they will emerge – although then, they also carried a socially conservative discourse, in reaction to the social transformations of the 1960s and 1970s.
It must be said that at the time, the classic right-wing parties also had a fairly conservative line.
Then the world changed from the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War.
Suddenly, Western societies are generally converting to globalization and its main consequence, massive immigration.
It is at the very least the choice of the globalist and progressive elites.
The left-wing parties then fully embrace the diversity ideology and the cult of “minorities”.
As for the right-wing parties, they align exclusively with neoliberalism and a strictly commercial vision of the world.
But many of them felt abandoned by this new society taking shape around the cult of “inclusion”, but which, in fact, ideologically excluded those who did not celebrate it.
From then on, the parties labeled populist came out of the margins and began to impose themselves.
Some are on the left economically, others on the right, depending on the country. But that is not the main thing. They are opposed, overall, to a form of accelerated cultural and political dispossession.
The speech of these parties obviously worries the globalist elites, who want to discredit them.
In what way?
By declaring them heirs of the fascism of the 1930s, even if they had nothing to do with it. By suggesting that any desire to protect one’s borders, to preserve one’s cultural identity or not to give in to all the whims of radical minorities had something to do with the horrors of the 20th century.e century.
By assimilating them to the extreme right. Which is the best way to not think and, even worse, to say stupid things while wanting to show everyone your outraged position.
Populism
How can we describe them? I am talking about the national right, broadly divided between a national-conservative tendency and a national-populist tendency.
Both trends, let us repeat, claim to be democracy. We can radically criticize this movement, not recognizing anything in its vision of the world. But we veer into delirium when we demonize it byfar-right.
Cursing those you criticize is the best way to not understand what they are saying.
