The ‘Far Left’ Finally Gets Its Comeuppance
In articles for the Daily Sceptic I have written a lot about the far Right but have never written about the far Left. Why? Because I am polite. Also I want to use words to make sense of politics, not to condemn your politics. I am not a politician, or not much of one. And the phrase ‘far Right’ is political in the sense of being-in-politics. So are the words ‘far Left’. Anyhow, fortunately, politicians are not as polite, or as philosophical, as I am. And so they have now realised – in what is the discursive master-stroke of the year – that the only way to raise the consciousness of the fools on the other side is to call them ‘far Left’.
Here is the story, in two acts.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A rather long-winded way of saying that Diversity is bad. But we all knew that already.
Superb.
I couldn’t agree more. If I am to be labelled Far Right for expressing opinions that any sane person would recognise as plain old common sense then those who disagree with me must be Far Left – actually i have always considered them so. Furthermore, I have come to the conclusion that debate with the Far Left is impossible so by and large I no longer bother.
75 years of socialist-marxist programming.
Slippery slopes (a mountain range of them).
Easily predicted that reality would be declared optional.
Koranimals now replacing Christianity.
TR is a ‘fascist’ but not the Rona Fascists, or green fascists, or the queer/trans fascists etc.
Fake Science everywhere.
Ridiculous interpretations of history.
Penis is now a vagina.
Morals are now immoral.
Up is down.
Rona Medical Nazism was to ‘save granny’ even as they murdered 50K grannies with midazolam and lockdowns. 20 mn dead globally from the quackcines.
Yeah. Actions and Consequences. We are in a war. Lock and Load. I don’t ‘discuss compromise’ with intolerant Fascists. Shoot first, never bother to ask questions.
As always you make some good points in an inimitable style
Regarding your last sentence, see my point in response to JDee – maybe you regard the “moderates” I refer to as “intolerant fascists” – maybe you are right and I am deluded
Terrific.
I was thinking much the same thing. If I am considered to be Far Right (I don’t read the Guardian) then the Lb Dems are Far Left, Labour is Further Left.
Cheers
Isn’t the issue the failure to recognise the distinction between basic common humanity, and individual diverse freedom and differences. A conflation of these two different things is a category error from either the right or the left . So yes there should be no division at the basic Human level, and yes there should be difference and debate at the individual freedom level. If you pick apart the usual conflation there is no contradiction in these two yeses. The thing is identity politics is the formalisation of the conflation, it says my diverse beliefs is one and the same as my basic humanity. This is an extreme illiberal view because it makes diversity uniting under one flag Impossible, and so by default imposes a conformity. This is why the rainbow flag is so intimidating for so many. It is the exact opposite of what it pretends to be.
Indeed
The trick is to persuade moderates of this – those well meaning moderates who sort of go along with “far left” positions without having thought it through, because they want to be or be seen to be “kind”.
Moderates don’t exist. You don’t have moderate Muslims, or Rona fascists, or greentards, or leftards, or mentally Trans-tards.
The most overused word in the bloody language other than ‘health and safety’.
Ah – you beat me to it
I think there are people who have slipped into an illiberal mindset without really understanding the consequences, and those people may be persuadable (though I did not have much success during “Covid”)
This subject once again brings up the validity of the Horseshoe theory. When I observe the behaviours of the so-called ‘far left’ and the ‘far right’ ( the legit ‘right wing extremists’ in this context ) all I’m seeing is that they’re a mirror image of each other rather than two extreme opposites, either end of a straight line. For instance: the hard Leftards/socialists/oikophobes, whatever you want to call them, are predominantly white but they demonstrate racism towards fellow white people. These self-loathing traitors hate their country, are triggered by patriots demonstrating patriotic behaviour and are huge enablers and supporters of mass immigration and appeasers of domineering, incompatible cultures such as Islam. How many articles have been shared on here now of organizations headed by white people ( usually men ) who actively discriminate against their own race ( and often their own sex ), showing preference to people of colour, no matter if these candidates are sub-standard? The legit far right extremists/white supremacists are also racist, just towards anyone who doesn’t look like them. It doesn’t matter if you were born in the UK and are fully integrated and loyal to England, contributing more than many white natives (… Read more »
your comment is too long..
my reply is short – why is there away ‘another side’?
and there is no mirror.
Tommy Robinson, I assume you put him to the right hand side of your line, has never promoted violence or murder of people he disagrees with. His supporters (actually likeminded people) have never called for the annihilation of Muslims or gays….
Your comment is rude. Mine is courteous. Basic manners, or lack thereof, say a lot about a person.
That better for you?🤷♀️
It does seem odd that all the people who are such politically avid gun control advocates took such pleasure in a man’s shooting.
Sort of like how so many of those determined to persuade us that Israel is committing genocide think it’s punishment should be annihilation.
The aim of Marxism is the perfect society. However, there are so many contradictions that you can never have a perfect society. It is unattainable. There has to be compromise, there has to be winners and losers. This is what they can’t stand, or can’t understand. The state cannot fix this conundrum by throwing money in turn at each oppressed group, until it becomes the oppressor. None of it makes any sense.
A perfect society for the political commissars maybe but not for the w ergrau citizen
If I’m honest I am not really sure what he is on about.
But, I have been calling those leftist, communist (for that is what is they are) bstards far left communist bstards for years.
They are communists and communism is and always has been one of the worst ideologies in known history. Killer of millions. Imprisoner of minds. Creator of shortages and hunger. As evil as the other socialist brand, nazism.
The reason why I personally lean towards the political right is simply because I accept their values. I accept that, for example:
1.) A stable family is absolutely essential as a bedrock of a healthy society.
2.) Christian culture is better – yes, better – than the alternatives. There are absolute values: certain things are bad and certain things are good.
3.) The nation state is important for a cohesive society. Diversity beyond s certain level creates division and causes societies to fall apart.
4.) Private property should be protected; the state has no right to confiscate people’s property just to create some false sense of social justice.
By the way, all of these ideas were considered self-evident until about five minutes ago.
In contrast, what do I see on the left?
A hotchpotch of insane, self-contradictory ideas, permanent agitation and grievance, aggression. But mostly just anger and resentment.
Let me ask leftists a simple question: what are your values?
How do you think we should live?
What alternatives do you propose to family, the nation state, private property?
North Korea? Stalinist Russia? Islamic totalitarianism?
Good post , my Dad ( born 1922 ) used to quote certain phrases- There is no such thing as Human Rights , You have to earn them , was one , Another was Stupid lot of Bstards, I now know what he meant ! he was an Electrician who voted Conservative when all the Dads around us were Labour , I asked him why as I got older & his answer, “once true”was, The Tory’s leave you alone to get on with it , not any more I’m afraid ! 😔
Perhaps we can also refer to the illiberal elite.
Good idea.
Leftism is Life’s miserable face of envy and destruction. The Left is an industry of discontent led by losers. The Far Left is all of the above intent on creating Hell here on Earth.
And this is where it’s important to focus on nuance and not look at everything through the over-simplistic, highly generalized lens of Left vs Right. There are good and bad on both sides. In fact, I’d say a better description would be good vs bad people, because that’s what it boils down to. Not who you vote for. And remember, many people don’t even vote to start with. So this is why this whole ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ divisive thing is more about others placing labels on you, as opposed to people pidgeon-holing themselves. Far easier to discredit people, lump them altogether and not see them as individuals if you can just shove them in one of two categories. For instance: the lefties jumping ship as the scales fall from their eyes following Charlie Kirk’s murder; ”Black people are turning away from the Democrat party after researching Charlie Kirk for themselves.” https://x.com/1antondaniels/status/1968906896959590851 ”As a lifelong Democrat, I didn’t know what to make of Charlie Kirk. I’ve since spent several lunch breaks watching his debates (FULL videos) and have come away with the impression that we got him all wrong. The reaction from those on my side of the aisle have really… Read more »
“There are good and bad on both sides.” Really Mog? Equivocating? At this stage? Really? Sounds more like Hope than Fact.
The normie 80%’s ‘appeasing adult’ style of tolerant patience is precisely what the radical Left exploited to get us here. (RTSC has it exactly right, below.) And now,
After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, these shameless, Leftist fckwts have revealed their inner selves. They’ve started saying out loud that which is usually kept hidden in their darkest souls. Openly, and literally, they want an end to all of us who disagree with their narrow, screeching narcissist beliefs.
This is something else – well beyond Lucy Connolly, tweets and the ‘Hate speech’ so easily defined as, ‘any speech that the Left hates to hear.’
If I’m wrong, show me just one example of an equivalent venom – beyond rhetoric – launched in the other direction.
Well I don’t think making observations based on the evidence that I’m witnessing is “equivocating”. And I’m not on about the hard-core vile Lefties that you’re referring to. I’m acknowledging the fact that people, due to our innate complexities, are capable of change, therefore simply making it all about Left vs Right is so over-simplistic now as to be completely inaccurate a lot of the time. It’s more decent people vs nasty b’stards, I think. These people exist all over the political spectrum. Hence why now ex-lefties are ditching the Democrats. Does this not demonstrate in and of itself that people are more than just the party they vote for at the ballot box? People are made up of their own personal traits and attributes, we’re not some pre-programmed automatons, destined to always perform within rigid parameters, never deviating and incapable of free and independent thought, like some Borg-type collective conscience. We are fluid, we change over the course of time, based on viewpoints which evolve as we age, personal life experiences and the things that are happening around us which have a direct/indirect impact on our lives. Why on earth would a person not be able to move from… Read more »
Indeed. On the horseshoe model you referred to above, the second axis is authoritarian/liberal. I don’t mind the liberal left wanting a fairer society because they’d not try to compel people. But their voices are drowned out right now. They need to speak out and denounce the divisive ideologies that have attached to their side.
Yes, agreed. I don’t know if you’re on Twitter but I follow a guy calling himself: ‘The Heretical Liberal’, and he’s in Canada. I agree with everything he says. He’s anti-woke, anti-mass uncontrolled immigration, for example. He identifies as ‘Alt Left’. This is why in my above posts I’m saying you can’t just conveniently stick a ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ label on someone and expect this to represent the entirety of their views and what defines them as individuals. The extremes of both, perhaps, but most people aren’t in those extreme/activist camps and are a jumble of views somewhere in the middle, and these people make up the majority, I think. In fact, the more I think about just how nonsensical this whole right vs left is the more I’m against it, so from this day forth I’m not even going to mention those terms any more because I’d argue they’re neither relevant nor accurate. In my opinion it’s using the language of ‘the enemy’ because it sows and fosters division, like constantly referencing or comparing black vs white people. We are individual people before we are our personal characteristics, including political stances. Here’s an excerpt from a piece he wrote… Read more »
The tendency of politicians and especially the left, and especially billionaire-funded professional activists is to sow division.
Division is good for these people.
It distracts from any requirement to do anything intelligent courageous or useful.
A masterful analysis. Are there two ‘logics’? I suspect there are at least two. The Nationalist parties have their own logics, as do the Greens. Goodness knows if the Lib Dems have a ‘logic’.
You could reasonably argue that modern politics is a ‘battle’ between the Progressive Archetype and the Resistant Archetype. These are not ‘real’ except as useful fictions residing in peoples’ minds, and the Archetypes increase their grip or relax as the numbers of people behaving as if their Archetype is ‘true’ waxes and wanes.
So are there two logics? Yes, but they are the logics of different useful fictions. In the time of John Gower the Resistant Archetype (and its logic) were dominant. Since World War II the ascendance of the Progressive Archetype has tried to sweep all before it.
As a Young Conservative ( a long time ago) I was labeled “Right of Genghis Khan ” at one conference because I was arguing for free trade, no price controls and monetarism. Fortunately Thatcher became leader of the party and things changed. Surely far right and far left are basically the same, namely authoritarian, statist/corporatist, anti free speech, anti individualism. I prefer to be labeled libertarian rather than far right even though I believe strongly that immigration needs to be controlled and immigrants need to be guided ( forced?) into some assimilation.
I tend to think that libertarianism is only practically possible in a stable high trust society and I tend to think that such a society is only possible within the framework of nation states
Agreed. Importing low-trust people into a high-trust society is a recipe for destruction. Our ‘niceness’ is easily turned against us.
The Right failed because:
Finally it pursued the same policies which the left wanted.
It therefore stands to reason that the fight-back has to start with rejecting the language of the left. And if that means playing them at their own game for a while, so be it.
We are all either Faaah Rite, or Faaah Left now.
Better Faah Write than Fahr Wrong.
Once again, an academic confuses “far left” with “liberalism”. I recently explained the difference, so I won’t repeat it again. However, perhaps the reason for the polar opposites of “far left” and “far right” in the UK and US are their voting systems. Both have a form of first past the post. In the last UK General Election in July 2024 only 20% of people on the electoral register voted for Labour. There are also approximately 8 million people who are not on the electoral register. Consequently, Labour came to power with a lot less than 20% of the adult vote in the UK. The First Past the Post system is not democratic or fit for purpose. A form of Proportional Representation would encourage more people to vote and would be more democratic. The 80%+ in 2024 who were disenfranchised can only use dissent to make their feelings known. With PR everyone who voted for a political party that received more than say 5% of the vote would be represented. Elected politicians would have to negotiate with each other to form a government. This sets a good example to the electorate that discussion and debate is better than violent dissent.… Read more »
In Australia, the Liberal Party is supposed to represent conservatives, but it has become worm-eaten by pink and green self-styled “moderates.” The party is in crisis after an epic defeat this year and all good men, women and others should come to the aid of the party. I have suggested five pillars of peace, freedom, and prosperity, and a name to rebadge the Liberal party to avoid the far-right label. https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/rebadging-the-liberals First, critical rationalism, expounded by Karl Popper, that is the spirit of imaginative criticism which has driven science at its best and it can be applied in all aspects of life and public policy. Second, in politics, the principles of classical or non-collectivist liberalism. Third, good economics involves free trade tempered by sensible regulations that don’t reward rent-seeking by special interests. Fourth, a robust moral framework including honesty, compassion, civility, personal responsibility, community service, and enterprise. In the west this is the priceless legacy of Christianity, although many of us are secular humanists these day. Fifth, abundant, reliable, and cheap energy. These principles would underpin a vigorous commercial civilisation with an equally healthy civic culture, supporting human rights without legalism and bureaucracy. Health, education, and welfare could be provided… Read more »
Just ignore the word ‘far’in the conversation, it’s just an provocative insult. Then we are simply left with the debate itself, good old left v right. Amusingly, my brother was in the Unite the Country March on Sunday and a very good friend was in the Stand up to Fascism opposing one. Personally I’d like to lock them in room together until they agree they are simply the necessary opposites of a normal democratic debate. At the moment they’d simple want to annihilate each other and that is not healthy in a democracy.
Very astute
I notice though that the ‘right’ tend to depend more on the sense of proportionality, while the ‘left’ don’t have that sense because they are further along the progressive path. Sense is of course immediate and complete, not a process. Because logic is representational it is also self-referential and happily contradicts itself
Victor Davis Hanson has been saying for some time that Critical Race Theory and other bugbears have been coming from the Left.