Calling someone “extreme” is saying nothing anymore. Misuse has made the term obsolete. It doesn’t even have meaning-making power. Not worth denying.
<img class="alignleft glightbox lazy" alt="Aphrodite Latinopoulou: Af-defined-1″ width=”250″ height=”248″ data-index=”1″ src=”https://www.kathimerini.gr/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/doc-20241017-77872853.jpg?1729249547198″/>Overridden by the automatisms of those who seek moral superiority as an anti-right, the word means everything and anything. It becomes a slogan of anger that is not interested in focusing and analyzing the new political subjects, which may have the xenophobic characteristics of the traditional far right, but they also incorporate concerns, with an oversimplified discourse like the parties of the Left.
Precisely because the “real right” is spoken as a spell, and less as a political definition, it lost the disparaging weight it had in post-war Europe, until the beginning of the 21st century. He who resorts to insanity shows political shame in the face of the threat.
What is Aphrodite Latinopoulou? If one believes the government, which decided to recognize her as a political opponent through her representative, Latinopoulou is “far right”. The same characterization was repeated on television by a member of the ND – Thanos Plevris –, who was often able to reach the sprite when it was aimed at him.
Aphrodites and Hephaestians in the trade of phobias.
What happens to Latinopoulou when the government tries to classify her, even citing Orban’s Euro Group, which she chose to join? What does this classification mean to the ears of her potential voters, who may be putting her at risk, because they hire her with an image that is not sympathetic to the “far right” stereotype?
And if Latinopoulou is “far right”, then what should the representative of the government call the former prime minister, who makes the European parliament look moderate;
A general complaint is not enough. Those who politicize by focusing on shallow phobias need to be debunked, not just targeted. The indefinite aphorism flatters them. It allows them to personify themselves in front of their audience as the alleged victims of the system. The person who intercepts them must respond to what they say. It’s not like it is.
This exposure is easier for a veteran prime minister – who in his day did nothing about the “thousands” of national rights he says are now shrinking – and much more difficult for new TV results, with no past, without any identity. The space of the opposition, which is now empty, is not empty. It misses the big shapes. But it begins to fill with fruit.
