SaveEuropeAct and Reconquista: pro-Zionists and separatists

SaveEuropeAct and Reconquista: the nationalism flirting with separatism

How does one go from preaching the unity of Spain to looking kindly on self-determination for Catalonia and the Basque Country? The question is running through political analysis of the radical right these days, where a denunciation has taken hold against two movements, SaveEuropeAct and Reconquista, accused of not being exactly what they seem. The accusation has two fronts: an alleged pro-Zionist drift and a furtive backing of secession.

The first charge rests on the internal logic of these groups themselves. Their critics argue that their idea of Hispanidad is shaped by an exclusionary, racial vision that would regard Catalans and Basques as categories distinct from the rest of Spaniards. From there to legitimizing their right to decide is but one step, and some analyses do not hesitate to take it. The paradox is striking: movements that demand the unity of Spain would, on this reading, be sowing the seeds of its dismemberment.

The second pillar, pro-Zionism, rests on the ties some of their figures maintain with campaigns supporting Israel. There is no conclusive proof, but the critical camp believes the ultimate goal would be to fragment the global Hispanic space to prevent a bloc hostile to Anglo-Saxon interests. The favorite analogy is the so-called "Ukrainian play," imported to Argentina with Milei, as a master plan to break nations from within.

This is where the theory of "controlled dissent" comes in, which holds that these movements serve a precise function: channeling discontent in a harmless direction. The idea, evoking the Rockefeller who boasted of winning every race by owning all the horses, is repeated among those who observe the phenomenon from a distance: if all real opposition is concentrated in a group branded as extreme, discrediting it is child's play. Or, as some point out, if the mainstream media put it on the front page as the great danger, something smells fishy.

In that sense, the presence of these groups on public television and in major outlets would only confirm the suspicions. The argument goes that "real opposition" would never appear in prime time playing the role of official villains. The conclusion, wrapped in irony, is that the real danger is not these movements but the machinery that feeds them.

At the close, the doubt remains: are we looking at a deliberate infiltration, a genuine resistance, or the product of a paranoid mind? The recent history of the far right suggests that appearances deceive. Or perhaps it is the conspiracy itself that wants us to believe appearances deceive. It comes to the same thing.