Help! I think I might be 'Far Right' adjacent!

What do people mean by 'far right'? And why is even physical proximity to any members of such groups enough to have you branded an 'ally'?

The fall out from the Standing For Women Brighton event on September 18th 2022 provoked a lot of comment from those angry and afraid that the Gender Critical movement is pandering to or being being hijacked by the ‘Far right’, and those equally angry that they continue to be dismissed in derogatory and alienating terms by women who are not perceived to have their boots on the ground.

I am really grateful to the group of women who took the time to talk directly to me over the weekend, to improve my understanding of the concerns. I set out below a summary of those discussions, which I found helpful and illuminating.

This is a more general attempt at discussion about what ‘Far Right’ means and what are the consequences of ‘associating’ with it. Not because I am trying to dictate to you how you set your own boundaries, but as an illustration of my developing thought process and how it might be helpful to others grappling with the same issues.

A simple definition of ‘Far Right’ is ‘the most conservative or reactionary part of a political or religious grouping’. As the women below discussed, such groups tend to share ideals of nationalism and ‘family values’ which often translate to women being defined exclusively by their role as gestators, and same sex relationships and abortion seen as abhorrent.

My initial view was that to call a group ‘Far Right’, it would have to have some predisposition to imposing its ideals by violence, but on reflection I am willing to accept that this definition is needlessly restrictive; we can call groups ‘Far Right’ which don’t actively call for suppression of opposing views by violence.

But that still means I treat casual reference to the ‘Far’ or ‘hard’ or ‘extreme’  Right’ as worthy of greater investigation; it’s clear why some do this. It’s meant as a pejorative label, to hint at some greater lawlessness than the public facing website of the group might suggest. But some of these groups – such as BNP offshoot ‘Britain First’ have elected councillors. You cannot simply dismiss parties with elected politicians as the emissaries of mouth breathers – well you can, but what you will get is Brexit and Trump.

You do not have to like someone to engage with them and attempt to narrow the disagreement or at least have a proper understanding of why they think as they do so you can challenge it. I worry however that the actions of such men as Daryl Davis, a black man who went directly to engage with the KKK are impossible now in our climate of purity spirals and we are all the poorer for it.

The next question, having identified a group as ‘Far Right’ is – so what? If a group operates within the law, it is entitled to have views on abortion and same sex relationships, it is entitled to dislike them and campaign for different laws. If you think this position is abhorrent, then argue against it, get yourself better campaigners and lawyers. Roe v Wade was always a precarious decision, there never was a ‘constitutional right’ to an abortion. There are considerable numbers of US citizens, male and female who are profoundly opposed to abortion and they are allowed to be. Using derogatory and dehumanising language about them and refusing to engage with them will achieve absolutely nothing but cement people in ever more extreme positions of polarisation.

What is worse, is that those who express abhorrence for the views of another do not seem content to stop there. Anyone who is even remotely adjacent to such a group is herself sullied by this association and must be seen as an active supporter.

I am speaking at the Battle of Ideas on October 15 2022. This event is run in partnership with ‘Alliance Defending Freedom’ (ADF) who seem to do some very good things. But who also have a campaigning brief to bring in laws against abortion and same sex relationships. Do I support this? I do not. Do I think attending the Battle of Ideas makes me a ‘supporter’ or an ‘ally’ of the ADF? It does not.

The fuss about the attendance of Hearts of Oak at the Brighton event on Sep 18th shows the absurdity of all this. I agree with Alf and conducted my own review of the social media output of this group.

Alf Up A Tree @AlfUpATree

Info on the 'Hearts of Oak streams' from Brighton SFW event on 18/09/22.

youtu.beThe ‘Hearts of Oak stream’ - The FactsThis is not intended as an answer to the entire conversation going on around this general point. I put it together in the hope that some decent information a...

Two people from a right wing group filming on their mobile phones in a public place is not a comment on the affiliations of SFW. Rather more disturbing however was the involvement of ‘Side Hustle’ films and Maxx Ginnane, who is clearly seeing things through a transpositive eye. That outfit was given special access and preferential treatment and it was wrong for KJK to do this without making it very clear to her attendees and giving them the option to participate or leave. But it is hardly an indication of her ‘Far Right’ affiliations, more a troubling comment on how women’s agency come second to the goal of ‘getting the message out’.

I suggest that some need a rather urgent re-appraisal of their priorities. Rather than focusing on KJK as ‘pandering’ to the far right, calling her ‘dogshit’ or a ‘thick feck’ maybe you want to have a closer look at those fully masked young men of the Left who turn up at every meeting to threaten women. At the Brighton meeting someone turned up with a bag of knives. I am willing to bet my house and all its contents that this was another Man of the Left. So no, I am afraid I don’t give a shit about ‘persuading’ the Left to like us; it was the ‘left’ who got us into this mess in the first place.

So let me try and break it down. I think we all have a moral obligation to examine who and what we are engaging with and make sure it’s on the right side of whatever line we have drawn for ourselves.

For me, that line is helpfully drawn by the list of proscribed organisations at Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. If you are on that list or declare your support for any group on the list, I won’t be engaging with you. If you are not, I will talk to or alongside you. I do not agree that participation at a conference, or you standing there at a public event, means I am your ‘ally’ or a ‘supporter’ or even your  ‘associate’.

 There is an interesting intersection between those women who say I cannot be a ‘feminist’ because sometimes I work directly with Families Need Fathers (that notorious extremist misogynist group who hold the frankly disgusting view that fathers are possibly quite important for a child’s development *) and women who say that by speaking at the Battle of Ideas I am a handmaiden for Steve Bannon.

[*Even a few years ago I wouldn’t have been worried that someone would mistake this sarcasm for genuine comment but as its 2022 I had better spell it out; this is sarcasm]

What excites these women is not the reality of my ‘far right’ affiliations but rather their outrage that anyone would seek to think differently to them, or challenge their views. Rather than engage with argument all they can offer are empty assertions about ‘fascism’ and the ‘far right’ and build false assumption on false assumption about people’s motivations and intentions.

I discard them. They are part of the problem. If you ever let that kind of attack determine with whom you speak and what you speak about, then you might as well resign yourself to perpetual silence than be such a puppet. Of course be mindful about who you grace with your time and attention. Be sceptical. Challenge. Read and think for yourself. Don’t let yourself be used as a shield. But also be wary of anyone keen to lump a great many different groups and viewpoints into a dumpster marked ‘Far Right’ and then deny them any legitimacy – because I am not convince that their vision of society is markedly better than that of any common or garden fascist.

I no longer care about ‘left’ or ‘right’. What I care about is whether you will allow me to speak or whether you try and silence me - and it doesn’t really matter whether you are doing that in a mask and with knives or on Twitter with your guilt by association. You are different sides of the same coin. You are both dangerous.

Summary of discussions about the ‘Far Right’ associations with the Gender Critical

The ‘Far Right’ is an umbrella term for those groups that share similar ideals – racism, nationalism, ‘family values’. Relies on ‘free speech’ to justify promulgation of ideals. Are in reality ‘anti trans’ and not ‘pro women’.

Free speech is an integral part of the far right message, so sexist racist men can say what they like - political correctness gone mad! Steve Bannon illustrates how the far right have changed their techniques, relying on social media commentators with common threads running through all groups; these are racism, our nation, family values, free speech, anti trans/pro women and girls. Important. These phrases are called dog whistles, if you say them it is code for being part of the Far Right.

Trans issue picked up the same way the Rotherham girls and grooming gangs was 3-4 years ago. Focuses on common sense, anger at the Left and family values, protecting the vulnerable.

Brexit shows how many were concerned by ‘the establishment lying to us’. The pandemic also provoked fear over lockdown, masking etc. Many different ‘threads’ join together.

Response from the establishment left has been to sneer and get caught up in identity politics. For example, telling working class white people who are struggling that they have ‘white privilege’ is seen as slap in the face.

So we are left with growing numbers of people who hate those in power but may not be able to articulate why; have no theoretical structures behind their opposition, no political understanding of what is going on.

So the ‘Far Right’ is not what it used to be. Many ‘anti establishment’ figures are ‘one trick ponies’ and therefore they need to continually up the ante and become more extreme in their messages to keep audiences engaged and growing.

The concern is not that KJK is ‘Far Right’ but rather a full on egoist whose messages are increasingly aggressive. The key is when KJK dropped “Posie Parker’ as a nod to her political ambitions. She doesn’t focus on issues but rather promotion of merchandise. A trend to populism, anti trans material. Playing into right wing tropes, possibly more for the US audience?

By using far right tropes in her videos this attracts a far right audience.

I have been looking at her earlier videos, she was obviously a passionate and focussed woman, and some of her videos were brilliant. Her publicity campaigns were fantastic.

However I noticed a change after she got back from America, more defensive of her free speech and increasing dislike of left wing women. I am very interested in looking at how she has got herself in this mess, and her transition from earnest authentic activist to a populist social media commentator who does pander to the far right.