The quoted statement reveals the author’s basic misunderstanding of the populist movement. The populist movement is not a traditional political movement at all, but a reaction to globalist overreach and a resistance of people being reduced to powerless pawns in the hands of the super rich and multinational corporations, who are increasingly making the important decisions that used to fall to elected governments. Being a reactionary movement, populism does not follow the established behavior of ‘normal’ political parties, which are tied to particular issues or platforms and can be easily categorized in the existing political spectrum. Normal parties build from a small group with a similar set of ideals. They start locally, win elections, then expand, branch out, bring in like minded groups through their success, gradually expand their tent, reaching compromises with other groups, building coalitions of power, etc., and maybe eventually becoming a dominant party such as the author describes. Populists, on the other hand, are an inherently local movement pushing for more local, decentralized control, so of course they look wildly different in different countries with different histories, cultures, and issues of concern. So far, they have found most success in the right leaning parties, and so are perceived as being a right wing movement, but there is no guarantee this state of affairs will continue. Left leaning parties will eventually feel the populist push as well, because there is no populist agenda, no populist platform, no political hill where they plant their flag and declare themselves. Defeat one and another pops up two hills over, because they appear wherever there is an undercurrent of anti-elite sentiment and where trust in the existing parties and existing power structures is low, and where isn’t that that the case? They are more properly viewed as a nascent revolutionary movement finding outlet within established political systems. No amount of politicking will defeat populism, nor will it be assimilated easily into existing party systems. It is very much an out of context problem for today’s elites, who seem incapable of comprehending that this political monster is just a mirror of themselves, a perfect foil that opposes whatever move they make. It will continue to exist as long as they do. It will only cease to be a political force when they cease to be a political force.

The quoted statement reveals the author’s basic misunderstanding of the populist movement. The populist movement is not a traditional political movement at all, but a reaction to globalist overreach and a resistance of people being reduced to powerless pawns in the hands of the super rich and multinational corporations, who are increasingly making the important decisions that used to fall to elected governments. Being a reactionary movement, populism does not follow the established behavior of ‘normal’ political parties, which are tied to particular issues or platforms and can be easily categorized in the existing political spectrum. Normal parties build from a small group with a similar set of ideals. They start locally, win elections, then expand, branch out, bring in like minded groups through their success, gradually expand their tent, reaching compromises with other groups, building coalitions of power, etc., and maybe eventually becoming a dominant party such as the author describes. Populists, on the other hand, are an inherently local movement pushing for more local, decentralized control, so of course they look wildly different in different countries with different histories, cultures, and issues of concern. So far, they have found most success in the right leaning parties, and so are perceived as being a right wing movement, but there is no guarantee this state of affairs will continue. Left leaning parties will eventually feel the populist push as well, because there is no populist agenda, no populist platform, no political hill where they plant their flag and declare themselves. Defeat one and another pops up two hills over, because they appear wherever there is an undercurrent of anti-elite sentiment and where trust in the existing parties and existing power structures is low, and where isn’t that that the case? They are more properly viewed as a nascent revolutionary movement finding outlet within established political systems. No amount of politicking will defeat populism, nor will it be assimilated easily into existing party systems. It is very much an out of context problem for today’s elites, who seem incapable of comprehending that this political monster is just a mirror of themselves, a perfect foil that opposes whatever move they make. It will continue to exist as long as they do. It will only cease to be a political force when they cease to be a political force.

I’d have thought if you were pro-Moscow, you would also be pro-war?