by Umberto Bianchi
I am among those who, without hesitation whatsoever, consider that of the Minister of the Interior Salvini, during his last trip to the Near East, visiting our troops included in the local Unifil mission, on the border between Israel and Lebanon, certainly an unhappy exit. Saying that Hizbollah is a terrorist group, It seems like a stretch and a gross inaccuracy to us, not comforted, among other things, by any fact that can guide us in that direction.
On the contrary. In very recent times, Hizbullah has been actively committed to countering Al-Qaedist terrorist terrorism, sponsored and supported on and off, precisely from that ambiguous "Western Front" (Usa, Great Britain, France, Israel… sic!) so quick to point out which terrorists in the eyes of the world, those who do not align with their strategic desires, just as quick to abandon certain etiquette, to impose its strategic choices "by military means"., with all the disastrous political-military annexes, as in the case of the "Arab Spring" and the Syrian conflict.
Not only that. In that intricate puzzle of religious and political confessions that Lebanon is and has always been, Hizbullah has managed to attract around itself a series of political actors and consensus from the most disparate political and religious sectors, including the Christian one. This, thanks to a solid political-military structure that, as well as being able to hold their own and inflict sound lessons on the field to what, until recently, it seemed like an invincible army, i.e. the Israeli Tsahal, it became with time, a guarantee of order and stability even in the Lebanese crawl space. And this probably annoyed those who wanted to leave Lebanon, in a state of semi-perpetual chaos and therefore easily maneuverable and addressable, depending on the circumstances of the moment.
Without going further into analyzes that would take us very far, the fact remains of an exit that certainly paid little attention to the local geopolitical context and which seems to have been made, with the specific intent of giving a media sop to the "usual suspects". Whatever the motivation behind this and other similar statements, by environments and characters attributable to antagonistic areas, a lot of controversy has broken out over Salvini's character, more or less accused, in various capacities, to be like this, rather than wire that, or of not having been consistent with certain canons of identity thought and so on and someone is already talking about "disappointment" and so on...
Arrived at this point, but, should be clarified exhaustively and without reservations, the one that represents the crux of the entire "vexata quaestio". To think that a character like Matteo Salvini can be associated with any ideological parameter, in the name of one of those classic copy-paste operations, with which, until recently, we tried to pigeonhole and delimit situations and characters, it's pure madness and only proves that, little or nothing has been understood about the true essence of Populism.
As we have already had the opportunity to illustrate, the term “Populism” is not indicative of a specific ideological construction, but rather a state of mind, of a mode of political action, which only leverages the discontent of the masses towards the economic and political elites of a given country.
Representing all and no particular ideology, Populism can be right-wing or left-wing, of a liberal or socialist nature, or all things together. It is liquid, like today's Post Modern society. To interpret, adapt and bend the blind resentment of the masses to what may be the opportunities of that moment and, as "liquid", exceed and nullify any guideline, without fear of receiving accusations of revisionist inconsistency from anyone.
Look for, therefore, to place a Salvini or a Di Maio in an ideological context of "right" or "left" is an operation that has no political-ideological sense. No ha, Instead, when in the aftermath of certain choices, consequences could be revealed that could affect the internal balance of a country, without being able to adequately compensate, what was provoked shortly before. Populism can then reveal all its unexpected fragility, nullifying his political action, until it disappears. And this is a bit what happened with the history of all Populisms...
Risk is always there, the story of Giannini's Everyman or French Poujadism should be a warning. And then, the task of the present and future for all men "of good will", animated by a complete and organic vision of the world, is to try to penetrate, contaminate oneself and one's ideas, with painstaking patience, the new political contexts that are now emerging. Without forgetting, but, the limits and risks that such an operation may entail, determined by the constitutive political-ideological fragility of certain contexts and by the still unsurpassed reaction capacity of Globalism and its various emissaries.
On the other hand, this time, the challenge is gradually growing, ever clearer and clearer. Globalism on the one hand, with all its infinite and treacherous tentacles, the Front of Identity and Sovereignist consciences on the other, which is taking its first confused steps, in the direction of a more complete and comprehensive awareness and structuring...an unavoidable challenge for anyone animated by a sense of justice and a desire for rebellion. A challenge that, like all challenges, given the stakes this time, presents its own inevitable risks, which we must be aware of from the beginning, precisely to avoid confusion and oversights, they do nothing but distance us from the primary purpose of our political action, represented by the struggle and definitive defeat of the Globalist monster.
source: http://www.ereticamente.net/2018/12/unanalisi-strategica-sul-populismo-umberto-bianchi.html