What human nature has to do with the rise of the “far right”

Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s new prime minister, said she believes in the Christian God, that there are only two sexes, that the family is the source of society’s well-being, that abortion is contrary to ethics and that she more than implied that poor immigrants are a nuisance. When Italy went to the polls in September, it got away with it thanks to its opinions and not out of spite. In Sweden, a political party that displays contempt for Muslim migrants has achieved such good electoral results that it has influence over the formation of the government.

In many countries in Europe, people are drawn to political parties that see generosity to poor immigrants as a grand virtue that destroys the ethnic character of their nation.

Why does this happen? We know the phenomenon in India. We have seen it in the United States. It is not a sudden change, even in Europe. Intellectuals call it “the rise of the ‘extreme right'”, by which they imply that a great evil is rising. They are, as usual, wrong. Not on the rise, but on the wrong.

More reasonable intellectuals attribute the success of the “extreme right”, reluctantly, to “saying what people think”. It’s an unwitting admission that “the left” doesn’t say what people think. In this case, what is she doing politically? And in literature and the humanities, which are supposed to be studies of human nature? What “the left” is doing in these areas is preaching about what people should be. This character emerges from religion. “The left” has replaced religion. as a way of speaking and took over this territory which is why he had a great run. But now, because it does not say what is on people’s minds, and instead what untrustworthy clergy preaches, it has become obsolete in many parts of the world. world.

The charge of saying “what’s on people’s minds” carries with it a complaint that what’s on people’s minds isn’t very decent. It’s probably true. And that brings us to the weird nature of public articulation. There is a distinction between public In public articulation, most of human nature is not represented.

Let’s say you have one of these views: you don’t like the visual appearance of Muslims; you don’t like the housekeeper sharing your cutlery; you believe that some races are intellectually inferior to others; you think trans people have a mental health problem. You can spread these views if you have meaningful connections. As comedian Ali Wong said of the fortunes of a good marriage, “…you can go home and be racist together.”

Most people who share any or all of these views may still be honest people. Like you, or your parents. Sometimes decency is simply hiding your own indecent opinions. When such opinions are expressed in public, the speaker looks very bad. The public articulation puts the glorified emphasis not only on a moral compass, but also uses an academic trick called vindication. In fact, there is a broad perception that what cannot be proven is not worthy of respect. Yet many of the opinions most people hold dear are unfounded. This is why I say that in public articulation there is no place for the greater part of human nature.

Unable to bear the suffocation, some people begin to speak their minds, and a vast population then feels the shock of recognition; they adore him. Speaking your mind is a risk; there could be either disaster or great rewards for the risk taker. Moralizers then attack them, perhaps to look good to their peers or to compensate for their own moral limitations. They defame popular figures by calling them “fascists, far-right, neo-Nazis” and “new Trumps”. If you don’t follow their theology, you are a “fanatic.”

Of the liberals, Meloni said, “They attack national identity, they attack religious identity. They attack gender identity, they attack family identity… I cannot define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother. No. I must be citizen X, gender X, parent 1, parent 2.” After her success, a section of the Western press called her the new Benito Mussolini, in part because at age 19 she had professed admiration for the Italian. The idea is to portray her as a “fascist”.

Labels are important to intellectuals, who are primarily in the business of articulation. Labels are memes that contain whole ideas. I tried to write this column without using the term “far right” or any political labels, such as “the left” or “liberals,” and it was a struggle. The other reason intellectuals take labels seriously is that they emerge from a tradition of confused thought experiments as material realities. Typically, a philosopher would think of an extreme scenario to clarify his own understanding of society, but over time his peers would misinterpret the extreme scenario as a way of the world and then begin to lament about human nature.

The intellectual aristocracy is openly and secretly of the opinion that a majority of humans are “stupid”. As a result, one of the worst analyzes of contemporary intellectuals is the myth of “fake news”, the idea that disinformation has altered Western politics. In fact, the reverse is true. It is a changed population that has started to make fake news successful. People believe what they want to believe. Moralizers are articulate because they just need to say the right things. They are praised on their own but are usually so annoying that they cause most people to deepen their pacts with private indecency. Consequently, the worst ambassadors of any idea are the Sermonese intellectuals. In fact, this has created a backlash against vaccination and climate change. Never has the world known a situation where humans hate meaning because a group of scholars share this point of view.

Manu Joseph is a journalist, novelist and creator of the Netflix series “Decoupled”

Catch all the trade news, market news, breaking news and latest updates on Live Mint. Download the Mint News app to get daily market updates.

More less

To subscribe to Mint Bulletins

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Comments are closed.