
Which I find confusing. How can the expressed will of the ordinary people be anti-democratic? According to Bliar populism draws a “sharp distinction between friend and enemy, with supporters portrayed as legitimate and opponents illegitimate. Populists claim to represent the people against elites, immigrants, or some other minority – and have a fondness for referendums."
And that's bad? Hey, even (((Wiki))) has - at least for now - a positive take on it, describing it as 'a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite'.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. Let me translate this academic sleight-of-hand for you. Populism is bad because it implements the will of the people untrammelled by anti-democratic institutions (gamed political systems, laws that criminalise unapproved speech and courts that ruthlessly enforce them against ordinary (read White) citizens, Cultural Marxist academia and the controlled media and 'entertainment' industries that endlessly parrot the Approved Narrative). As for undermining the civility of the relations among citizens, well, that 'civility' is a euphemism for Stalinist enforcement of political correctness.
The very reasons populism is attacked by our globohomo overlords and their academic and media whores are the very reasons why it's very much a Good Thing. It disintermediates the control mechanisms they've devised to dilute, divert and ultimately frustrate the will of the ordinary people, the White working-class 'losers' whom they hold in so much contempt. It gave us, inter alia, Brexit, Trump and Orban. It's growing in almost every White country. Ultimately it might lead to retributive justice against the West's traitorous leaders. No wonder they're worried.