The bars of the prison of dualism must be shattered, or else one is lost. This is the greatness, centrality, and synthesis of the Third Position or Third Way. Outside of this logic, one is subservient.
All current logics, whether international or internal, are distorted, ensuring that two presumed poles (progressive and reactionary; Westernist or ragtag-third worldist; welfare-oriented or efficiency-oriented; secular or religious) clash in words, insults, and reciprocal sabotage without achieving any remarkable results. Thus, on the ‘left,’ a series of preconceptions exist, and on the ‘right,’ there are others. Except for individuals capable of bringing some synthesis, both sides share two common characteristics: being wrong at least fifty percent of the time in their choices and rarely being truly right on those on which they don’t err.
In foreign policy, with some exceptions, the right in Europe is entirely servile and anti-national, despite defining itself as patriotic or sovereigntist, indeed precisely because of this. The left, or rather the center-left, is much better. However, only in attitude, because their choices of an ancient anti-imperialist matrix are fundamentally globalist and servile towards supranational entities exalted as regulators of ethics and progress. Thus, both the right and the left converge in the supine acceptance of servitude, with the exception of a few prominent personalities and, paradoxically, some capitalist interests that go against the current.
In internal, or rather societal, politics, the left tends to be abhorrent, carrying every impulse to subvert forms and identities, attacking nature and common sense. But the right, which would tend to be right in this context, offers no proposal or solution suitable for the times and society. It insists on imposing backward returns in time—exaggerating some stifling and boring models—without even considering how it could be done.
These are the two extremes in which, opposing with alternating wrongs, whoever is not wrong proves never to be right and shows that, by choosing one or the other, one is greatly mistaken on at least one level. It was not so in the past. The ‘national revolutions’ were driven by men who had a leftist past and who knew how to offer the right a concrete, operational approach. Mediation and synthesis operated between ‘right values’ and ‘left vitalism.’ And that is what is missing and needs to be achieved. Otherwise, Europe—and every European nation—will be condemned to witness the swing between a left and a right that will accompany, with words and vulgar disputes, th
