Populist movements often focus on defending the cultural and anthropological identity of a society, perceiving threats from both internal changes—like shifts in religious practices, lifestyle trends, and social norms—and external influences, such as immigration from different cultural backgrounds, particularly from Islamic cultures. Populists differ in how they see the relationship between these two threats. Traditionalists believe that internal changes make society more vulnerable to external influences, while more liberal populists see external influences as the main cause of internal shifts. When populists talk about defending culture, they are not necessarily referring to cultural figures like Plato or Shakespeare, but rather to the anthropological culture of a society—the unspoken structure of social relationships, values, and norms that people are expected to share. This culture is seen as rooted in a long history and tradition, which the society should preserve in its memory and identity. According to populists, this anthropological culture is the foundation that allows a society to exist and function in a particular way. Political liberalism has largely overlooked this anthropological foundation, focusing instead on individuals as separate entities. Populists, however, emphasize the importance of the real country, common sense, identity, history, and religion, particularly Christianity. The challenge for populists is that they can no longer rely on an existing traditional society, which was more or less Christian. This has forced them to create their own anthropology based on a romanticized past. In other words, tradition has become a new kind of utopia. The main goal for populists is to reclaim cultural influence, starting with the cultural field and building a new symbolic culture rooted in Christianity. This includes investing in entertainment, creating spaces for intellectual development, and using think tanks. This grassroots effort aims to prepare for electoral victories that could lead to the transformation or dismantling of "progressive" institutions such as media, universities, and the cultural world. However, the success of this approach is uncertain. For example, Hungary's experience suggests that as long as democracy functions, such efforts remain unrealistic. Two possible paths exist: moving directly to dictatorship, as in Russia, or attempting to deeply transform society to create a new, reactionary way of life. The challenge for populists is deciding which past they are referring to. Is it the time before mass migration, in which case the priority would be to reduce immigration? Or is it the traditional society that has been eroded by liberalism and progressivism? Populist programs often combine two conflicting anthropological foundations: one promoting an individualistic and hedonistic lifestyle and the other based on a traditional Christian anthropology centered around family and gender roles. This contradiction is becoming more apparent, especially with the rise of radical populist governance in the United States. Internally, the goal is to carry out constitutional reforms that would free new regimes from the control of republican institutions and international bodies like the European Union. To avoid reliance on repression or a coup, populists aim to change the social fabric by returning to the anthropological foundations of society. This involves making their norms and values "desirable," presenting them as the lifestyle of a majority of the population. The "Catholic anthropology," seen as the only valid hard anthropological model, is central to traditionalist and fundamentalist movements. It is also regularly invoked by the entire right and conservative far-right, who view it as the opposite of wokism, which they see as the final stage of liberal Enlightenment thought. The core idea is that there is an anthropological model inscribed in human nature, whether through divine creation or evolution. The strength of this model fascinates not only believers but also others, explaining the influence of Catholic intellectuals in movements like the MAGA movement in the United States. In Europe, the approach is more Maurrasian, with agnostic intellectuals like Zemmour praising the Catholic anthropological model. For neo-reactionary thinkers, natural law is secularized into "common sense" or "nature," drawing on sociobiology and evolutionary theory. The challenge lies in implementing this return to a secularized "Catholic anthropology" in a society that is increasingly moving away from Christianity. This issue goes beyond the loss of faith: it involves the loss of Christian culture itself. Two options remain: enforcing norms through the law or building a new Christian habitus through the development of a Christian symbolic culture. This symbolic culture includes elements such as street names, amusement parks, pilgrimages, and religious symbols. These are seen in places like the Puy du Fou, a French entertainment complex, and in television programs that broadcast Mass in Latin with priests in traditional robes. However, these symbols do not correspond to any real anthropological structure. They are ostentatious rituals, disconnected from the sociological contexts in which they originated. This strategy lacks a key element: the Church. Although it has no objection to popular religion or identity, the Church prioritizes the value and norm of religious teachings. A recent incident highlights the tension between folkloric Christian symbolism and religious norms. During the "Wool Fair" in Châteaudun, the mayor turned Sunday mass into a "medieval mass," with officials dressed as medieval knights. The priest gave a sermon against the euthanasia law, which conflicted with the deputy mayor's role in proposing a law on assisted dying. The bishop supported the priest and refused to make excuses. This incident shows the conflict between symbolic culture and religious requirements, emphasizing the need to move beyond mere symbolism and into the realm of authentic anthropology.