Those Who Describe Reasonable and Widely Held Opinions as "Far Right" Are Gaslighting the Public

Leading journalists and politicians across the West frequently describe reasonable and widely held political opinions as "far right." This is a gaslighting campaign, designed to sow doubt in citizens’ minds about the reasonableness and moral acceptability of their own political opinions.

According to one definition, gaslighting is “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

---

Click here to see this article as a Twitter/X thread you can share (this thread already has over 75,000 views).

Click here to support my work by upgrading to a paid subscription.

---

This definition perfectly describes what ordinary citizens are subjected to when their widely held and often seriously pondered political opinions are dismissed by journalists and politicians as dangerous “far right” propaganda or ideology.

For example, a parent who is worried about their child being confused by transgender ideology at her school sees her view labelled “far right” in the newspaper and may start to second-guess her own opinions. After all, who wants to have opinions that are associated with those intolerant, racist and xenophobic “far right” extremists?

Gaslighting the public about the sanity and reasonableness of their opinions can be highly effective, especially when most mainstream media and politicians get on board with the campaign. But how exactly does this gaslighting campaign work?

First, we need a simple, vivid label to make people feel embarrassed, alienated, abnormal, and morally compromised. The label "far right" is well chosen. It conjures up images of neo-Nazi hooligans or white supremacists roaming the streets in search of their next victim; or hysterical xenophobes full of hatred for foreigners; or Facebook groups devoted to the overthrow of the State.

Nobody wants to be associated with these sorts of groups. So obviously, nobody wants to be known as "far right" or as a friend of the "far right." Thus, one quite effective way to disqualify and discredit a political adversary is to persuade the public that his or her opinions are "far right."

The trick is that instead of applying the label “far right” to white supremacists or neo-Nazi gangs, we apply it to political opinions that are actually pretty commonplace and not intrinsically connected to hateful, odious, racist, or violent attitudes. If the label sticks, we render the target opinion or movement politically “toxic.” After all, nobody wants to be associated with an opinion or movement with the stigma of being “far right.”

So, when leftists and Establishment voices denounce their critics as "far right," who exactly are they denouncing? Neo-Nazi hooligans? Odious xenophobes who can't stand to see people of other races? Militias devoted to the overthrow of the State?

No. None of the above.

Leftists & government spokespersons will denounce as "far right":

• parents who do not want their children to be exposed to ideas that relativise their gender or encourage them to question their sexual identity

• 75% of Irish citizens, who believe their country is admitting too many refugees & "can appreciate some of the anger people feel about asylum seekers being moved into their local area" (Red C poll, May 2023)

  

• citizens who do not want biological males to have an unfair advantage over women in athletic contests

• citizens who defend the principle of informed consent to medication and believe in the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship

• citizens who defend freedom of speech, an ancient and hallowed principle of constitutional democracy, against draconian censorship laws

• citizens who insist that immigration, including the admission of asylum seekers, should be tailored to the limits of existing healthcare and housing capacity

• citizens who object to farmers having their property expropriated by the State to meet "emission targets," or crippling economic interventions premised on an "all or nothing" approach to climate policy

• citizens who worry about the collateral harms of lockdown policies, including their devastating impact on civil liberties and long-term population health.

So, next time you hear someone get up on a pedestal to denounce the "far right," bear in mind that there's a good chance they're trying to gaslight their political adversaries by equating citizens with reasonable concerns about immigration, welfare, law & order, or civil liberties, with violent, swastika-bearing thugs.

In the long run, this gaslighting tactic will not work, because citizens do not appreciate being mislabelled and patronised. It did not work in Italy. It did not work in the UK. It did not work in the Netherlands. It did not work in Argentina. Leftist politicians and journalists would do well to take note that when you gaslight citizens over many years, you are playing with fire.

---

Thanks for reading! Click here to support my work by upgrading to a paid subscription.