How We All Became “Far Right”
And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.
— Judges 12:5–6
We, as a species, like to organize things, to group like with like. This may seem like a broad generalization, but open the utensil drawer in most peoples’ homes and you’ll likely see utensils grouped together. It’s neater this way and makes it easier to find things so why would we do things differently?
There is however a fine line between categorizing and generalizing. Categorizing assists with understanding, and generalizing frequently does the opposite. The press and politicians love to generalize, and muddy the waters to advance an agenda. Most recently, left-wing politicians and the liberal media, have been attempting to portray conservative politicians as “Far-Right.”
To many “far-right” recalls images of World War II and goose stepping nazis. This is the point. The far-right exists, but it is typically associated with ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-immigration, and may also include racism, homophobia, etc.
The association of “far-right” with fascism means that if the left can successfully associate conservatives with the far-right, they can equate them with the nazis. This is why so many on the left have begun to use the term so liberally, including against Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the official opposition in Canada, and Javier Milei, the recently elected President of Argentina.
In the last few months, Poilievre has been accused by several prominent Liberals of engaging in “far-right rhetoric” and of undergoing a far-right radicalization. While the Conservatives differ from the Liberals, accusing Poilievre of being far right is dishonest. An examination of the party’s Policy Declaration, reveals:
A statement regarding the importance of long-term partnership with Indigenous peoples
Promotion of freedom of expression legislation
A desire to promote “the universal right of religious freedom.”
These hardly seem the policies and aspirations of a far-right party. If Poilievre is guilty of anything it is in disagreeing with the desires of the Liberals to prioritize ideology over merit and criminals over law-abiding citizens. That, and wielding slogans more effectively than the Liberals (ex. “Axe the Tax” and “Trudeau, he’s not worth the cost”). Some may see the slogans as crass, but sloganeering is hardly new nor exclusive to the far-right.
President Milei is another example. Milei defeated Sergio Massa in the run-off election in November of 2023, winning 56% of the 77% of the electorate who voted. His proposals include cutting public spending and lowering taxes, charging people for using the public health care system, and closing/privatizing state-owned enterprises. He is also opposed to abortion and euthanasia. While these are in-line with common conservative positions, the BBC, New York Times, and Reuters have all labeled him as far-right.
Taken together, Poilievre’s and Milei’s positions represent those held by many center-right conservatives, not far-right radicals. You likely know many people who would support these positions, and it’s possible you are one yourself. Did we all become far-right extremists when we weren’t paying attention or is there something else going on?
One simple explanation is that those on the left are simply doing what has always been done in politics, branding the other side as “untrustworthy” or “evil” to win an election. Were this simply an election between Center-Left vs. Center-Right the stakes would be low enough for the answer not to matter much. However, as progressives and others on the far left have shown with their support of Hamas, the elevation of equity over merit, and failure to prioritize common citizens over criminals, more is at stake, and we must consider the possibility that something else is going on.
Postmodernism, a belief that many of the Far-Left subscribe to, rejects concepts of rationality, objectivity, and universal truth and allows adherents to dismiss what appears to be a lie (that all conservatives are “Far-Right”) as simply a difference of opinion. If there is no “objective truth,” how can labeling conservatives as “Far-Right” be a lie?
Of course, it is not a simple disagreement of opinion for the obvious reason that most of us understand there is a clear definition of “Far-Right” and associate it with Nazis, White Supremacy, etc., not our conservative neighbors. Branding conservatives as “far-right” is only possible when the term is used without an explanation of what makes the individual in question “far-right.” This is done in the hope that readers will just take the word of the politician or “reporter.”
Why do this at all? Why not just present the facts and let the reader decide?
Like every “movement,” Progressives have an agenda and as adherents of postmodernism, everything comes down to power. By labeling everyone to the right of the center-right – and frequently even to the right of the center-left – as “far-right,” progressives hope to attract the votes of those on the center-left by framing elections as a choice between a progressive and a “nazi.” It is also hoped that the ploy will convince those on the center-right to stay away in disgust.
Identity is also a factor, as dishonest use of “far-right” signals one as a member of the group, it is a “shibboleth” of the progressive movement to be included alongside the use of “systematic racism,” “patriarchy,” and “settler colonialism.” Failure to use these terms identifies one as an “enemy” while the dishonest use of “Far-Right” identifies one as a member of the in-group, what the Bolsheviks called a “fellow-traveler.”
Unlike the Gileadites, Progressives are not intent on slaying those who fail their “shibboleth” test but are instead content to banish us from “polite” society and from the community of people whose ideas are worthy of debate.
Their intent is to muddy, to confuse, to deceive, and ultimately to convince you that those who are slightly right of you are in fact no better than Nazis. They rely on your inattention and your belief that they have our best interests at heart. Those wishing to deceive are clever, they rarely lie outright, preferring to weave some truth into their web of lies. They claim to represent the best in humanity but are quick to villainize their adversaries and judge people based on skin color. I am not a particularly religious person, but I am reminded of Matthew 7:15:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.”
In some ways, we are fortunate that the left has taken this approach, as the “shibboleth” test works both ways. It enables them to identify who they wish to vilify and ostracize but it enables us to identify them as well…and if you pay attention, if listen carefully to their words, they will tell you who they are.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
Thanks for the comment, Dave. I'm sure some of it is the natural tendency to become more conservative over time, but much (if not all) of the media and institutions of higher education have been captured by the progressive left. They push their beliefs on everyone and indoctrinate our kids. Time "cures" some of them but with media and entertainment incessantly pushing the work narrative its hard.
TLDR; I didn't leave the left, it left me.
I am 67 and have wondered how I became SO far right. My beliefs which developed in the late 60’s and early 70’s while in HS and college were anything but “right” at the time. (At least according to my father) Has my step slowed so much that I cannot keep up with the shifting sands of moral and cultural change? I doubt it. I am very comfortable with my center to right-of-center ethos; fiscally conservative and more socially liberal. I do believe that Politicians and Corporate Media (formerly MSM) know there are votes, power and profits to be had by continually pushing to the left and maintaining disruption and division within their countries.