The Hysteria of Labels

The Hysteria of Labels: How the Far-Left Redefines Dissent as Extremism

Much of what is now described as “far-right” is less a reflection of reality than the product of left-wing hysteria and state-sponsored media propaganda. The recent United Britain and Freedom of Speechmarch in London illustrates the point: the images and testimonies shared by participants on social media bore little resemblance to the accounts broadcast by the BBC and the mainstream press. Two incompatible versions of the same event were presented to the public.

The left has become far more extreme and far more aggressive than it admits. In the past month alone, I have been repeatedly attacked online, labelled “far-right” almost daily. Not because I hold far-right views - I do not - but because I have questioned the narrative pushed by the far-left and its media echo chamber.

My supposed crime has been simple: to call for critical thinking, to listen to what people actually say rather than what propaganda claims they said, and to argue that inclusivity should mean everyone. Not only those who share the prejudices of self-styled liberals. This enrages them. To disagree is to be instantly branded a fascist, a Nazi, or part of a “far-right racket.” And when I insist I am none of these things, they double down, claiming denial itself is proof of guilt. An echo of Orwell’s 1984 where accusation becomes evidence.

I have asked whether those who silence dissent can still call themselves liberal, or whether their tactics are closer to fascism. The aggression, however, comes not from the right but from the left. I follow people across the political spectrum (left, right, centrist, and non-partisan) and none emerge blameless. Yet it is the organised left that routinely mobilises online hate mobs against anyone who resists their orthodoxy. Increasingly, even apolitical centrists are branded “far-right.” What we are witnessing is not debate, but hysteria.

The right, for their part, remain narrowly focused on two themes: security and immigration. Their claim is that Britain’s borders have been left porous, allowing in not just economic migrants but also terrorists and organised grooming gangs. They point to government complicity and cover-ups, arguing that exposure of these scandals is being suppressed under the pretext of “combating fascism.” Whether one agrees or not, the left’s refusal even to discuss the issue lends these claims weight.

Here we return to an old principle: as Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.” The alleged far-right openly states its enemy is not immigrants per se, but a government that colludes in abuses while silencing dissent.

Historical Parallels

The danger is not unprecedented. Adolf Hitler rose to power not because he stormed the Reichstag, but because broad swathes of the left supported his early message of socialism. He called it National Socialism; not identical to social nationalism as seen in movements like the Scottish National Party, but close enough to attract disillusioned leftists in the 1930s.

Once in power, Hitler pivoted. He stabilised a shattered economy, pulling Germany out of depression by repudiating what he deemed unjust contracts imposed by international banks. These institutions, dominated at the time by Jewish financiers, had become a scapegoat. One he replaced with a tightly controlled national economic system. His method, as John Maynard Keynes noted in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, was to break free from a punitive system of foreign debt.

This struggle over financial control has not disappeared. Today, the Israeli, British, American, and European banking cartels dominate one axis of power; Islamic finance, Russia, and China form others. The new populist movements, such as YourParty, speak of overthrowing “the establishment,” which in practice means displacing this entrenched financial bloc. What they propose to replace it with is unclear: perhaps Islamic finance, perhaps Chinese credit systems, perhaps a domestic digital currency like Britcoin.

The parallel with Hitler is uncomfortable but real: both exploited anti-establishment rhetoric while refusing to say what would replace the existing order. That silence may signal ignorance, or it may conceal a plan too unpalatable to state openly before an election. Either way, it is deeply concerning.

Present Tensions

The contradictions are stark. Figures in YourParty openly boast of excluding “old white men” from politics, whether Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else. Such rhetoric is racist and sexist by definition, yet it is tolerated under the banner of “progressivism.” At the same time, the party dodges discussion of grooming gangs to avoid offending Labour, while condemning any attempt to raise the subject as “far-right propaganda.”

Meanwhile, ordinary people who highlight government complicity or demand secure borders are maligned as fascists. The tactic is classic: shift the Overton Window so that once-normal opinions - concern for safety, insistence on national sovereignty - are redefined as extremist. This is not debate, but a psy-op in which language itself is weaponised.

Intelligent people need facts, not slogans. Labelling them fascists for raising legitimate questions drives them away from discourse and into disillusionment. Populism without a stable plan, such as YourPartycurrently represents, is the last thing Britain needs in this volatile moment.

Index of Related Sources

• George Orwell, 1984

• John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace

• Sun Tzu, The Art of War

• Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

• Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich

• Ian Kershaw, Hitler: Hubris

• Joseph Overton, “The Overton Window” (conceptual model of political discourse)

• Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites

• Eric Hoffer, The True Believer